Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 lens question...

<p>The 7D is excellent, even up to ISO 6400, assuming that you don't underexpose. You'll get noise, even at ISO 400, if you underexpose.</p>

<p>I think that my 7D gives slightly better performance at the natural ISO settings, like 200, 400, 800, 1600, 3200 and 6400, rather than the "tweener" settings like 2000.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The 7D is excellent, even up to ISO 6400, assuming that you don't underexpose. </p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

I would have thought that too, but I have not used a 7D any more than for a few minutes and certainly not pushed it at all – and I don’t tend to read “reviews” all that much.<br>

<br>

Also, there are a couple of previous threads (about two years old) in the EOS forum which go into great detail about the “in between” ISO settings – I recall they address a 5D, but it is easy to assume the same applies to the 7D. <br>

<br>

The thrust of the argument is based upon the fact(?) that the “in between” ISO settings use a manipulation algorithm on the main ISO “settings”, different to how the camera addresses the “main” ISO settings. <br>

<br>

For example ISO 1000 is actually ISO800 with a bit more digital jiggery – but ISO 800 and ISO 1600 have their own discreet algorithm. Sorry I can’t explain the technical details more precisely but it was an area that did not interested me beyond the result – and even then I have not noticed it that much apropos my 5D: But I don’t tend to use the “’tweeners” that much . . . because if I am below ISO800 (by definition) there is usually enough light to choose 100, 200 or 400 and if I am beyond ISO800 I am usually at ISO3200 anyway. <br>

<br>

I cannot find the threads I to which I refer.<br>

<br>

Also I understand that the “extended” ISO’s (like” L” and “H”) are similarly not “true” ISO settings but a further manipulation of the lowest stated ISO and the highest stated ISO, respectively: but with accurate exposure I have not had that much trouble with “H” on my 20D 30D and 5D. <br>

<br>

Also, apropos noise, there are many more than adequate, noise reduction programs and also noise is more apparent to the eye on the monitor than what it appears in the print. <br>

<br>

And also there is often a lot of (un-necessary) pixel peeping which happens with no real purpose to addressing the final product . . . I think that many folk get too involved in what the reviewer said and don’t take enough photos and drive their equipment enough themselves to find out what it can really do to provide more than adequate “production line” 5x7 prints or great images which are just going to be viewed on a computer monitor or TV screen, usually neither of which are calibrated, anyway. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >WW</p>

<p>I think "tweeners" should be added to the lexicon.</p>

<p>That's good info. on the "in-between" ISO's. I never knew that. I believe this is correct. Here is an image I took yesterday at ISO 2000: <br>

<a href="http://keithplumstead.smugmug.com/Sports/FigureSkatingClubOfHunterdon/12648286_eVSFz#911700790_AtPA6">http://keithplumstead.smugmug.com/Sports/FigureSkatingClubOfHunterdon/12648286_eVSFz#911700790_AtPA6</a><a href="http://keithplumstead.smugmug.com/Sports/FigureSkatingClubOfHunterdon/12648286_eVSFz#911700790_AtPA6"></a><br>

Here is one I took a few days ago at ISO 3200:<br>

<a href="http://keithplumstead.smugmug.com/Sports/FigureSkatingClubOfHunterdon/12648286_eVSFz#909161560_NJ2mg">http://keithplumstead.smugmug.com/Sports/FigureSkatingClubOfHunterdon/12648286_eVSFz#909161560_NJ2mg</a><br>

The lighting was the same in the rink. Granted the ISO 2000 picture is underexposed, but when you zoom in on the picture; there seems to be alot more noise than the ISO 3200 picture. I think I am going to try to use ISO 3200 (as I believe you suggested once before) in the next shoot. William, I printed our conversation out to try your suggestions, but left the printout at home. I tried to remember some of the things you suggested for yesterday's shoot. I tried a spot metering off of the face of the subject instead of the evaluative reading. It's tough to get a facial reading when they are far away and moving so fast. The 400/s does an OK job for freezing motion evn for the bigger/faster skaters, but I would like to try an 800-1000/s next time. I am thinking that I can achieve this with the higher ISO setting? I also over-exposed by 2/3 stop for most of the pictures I shot yesterday. The histogram showed spikes on both ends and flat in the middle, but the pictures are still underexposed. Looking forward to trying more things in the next skating shoot. Slow, but sure...I'll figure it out eventually! <br>

Got my new lens and am looking forward to my first theater shoot tonight...talk about one extreme to another! Thanks </p>

<p>Keith, the links that you provided require a password. Why not post them here or at some free access place like Flickr?</p>

<p>In that rink, I'd shoot in RAW at +1EV. Expose to the right. A jpeg will look over exposed, but on RAW conversion you can bring the exposure level down to "just right." Under exposing adds noise, where over exposing preserves detail, so long as you don't blow out highlights. (Enable the highlight warnings in your camera).</p>

<p>Sorry about that. The password is: aspenfscoh<br>

its no secret or anything. i thought the link would work if i sent you directly to the page. thanks for the info</p>

<p>Ok, I see part of the problem. You need to get away from Evaluative Metering because of the white boards and ice are tricking your meter into thinking there's more light. Take a couple of manual readings and stick with those because the artificial light will stay consistant. Everything in there will need to be at ISO 3200 and above, at close to wide open aperture to get enough shutter speed. For jumpers and spinners you'll need to go to ISO 6400. The jumper needs another +1 or 2EV and the little girl needs +1. They're both under exposed.<br>

As I said, I'd use a manual setting in there. Decide what shutter speed you need and then take a face reading at 0EV or +2/3EV to get the aperture and set manually. You need a fast motion setting over 1/1000th second and a slow setting around 1/250th second to bounce between depending on the subject.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>"You need to get away from Evaluative Metering . . . <strong>Take a couple of manual readings</strong> and stick with those because the artificial light will stay consistant."</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>What does <strong><em>“manual readings”</em></strong> mean?</p>

<p>Let’s not confuse the METERING MODE and the CAMERA MODE</p>

<p>It is more the fact that the camera is in an AUTOMATIC CAMERA MODE (such as Tv - Shutter Priority) and therefore in an automatic camera mode the camera is CHANGING the exposure whilst Keith is shooting</p>

<p>If Keith gets close to the centre of the Rink and uses his Grey card to take a meter reading and THEN STICKS with THAT exposure in using his camera in MANUAL MODE, it does not matter what METER MODE he is using – because after setting the exposure he does not change it NOR does he allow the CAMERA to change it, because he is USING MANUAL CAMERA MODE ("M" on the Main Dial) </p>

<p>And he can use EVALUATIVE METER MODE, to take the Grey Card reading.</p>

<p>I have been suggesting this all along, perhaps I did not make it clear enough.</p>

<p>WW</p>

<p>When I take "manual reading" it's simply taking a couple of test meterings off a face, or in your case a Grey Card, and not the resulting aperture at a couple of different shutter speeds at the same ISO. Many (most?) people don't carry around a grey card, but if you do, then that's a sure fire way to go.</p>

<p>Yes, however he gets his readings, he needs to go into the Manual Mode and use the resulting settings.</p>

<p>David,<br>

<br>

Thanks for the clarification - I anticipated that was what you meant I was asking for you to make it clearer, that's all.<br>

<br>

Many (most) people do not carry a grey card. <br>

<br>

I mentioned a Grey Card (and supplied the example image), simply because Keith (the OP) is using one to get his manual white balance. <br>

<br>

He mentioned this fact and it was the topic of another question, in the EOS forum - I referenced that thread in my previous post.<br>

<br>

WW</p>

<p > </p>

 

<p>Thanks for the clarification David and William...William, you have been saying this all along, but I was alittle confused. Your post: What does <strong><em>“manual readings”</em></strong> mean? Let’s not confuse the METERING MODE and the CAMERA MODE clarified things for me. I did not realize that the meter reading did not matter in manual mode. So once I take a grey card shot in the center of the ice using evaluative metering mode with my camera set to "M", and set my custom white balance to that grey card shot, it no longer matters what the meter reads because it is "locked down" based on the custom WB reading as long as I do not switch to AV,TV,P, or FA. Correct? Once I set the custom white balance; am I correct in assuming that it does not matter whether the metering mode is in evaluative, spot metering, or center-weighted average? So, in theory...I can store that grey card shot on my memory card and use it for future shoots in the same rink as long as the lighting does not change. Once I get all of the settings correct for the rink, I will store the settings in one of the custom C1,C2,C3 settings (which I believe is the same as full Manual-just recalls previous settings). The only thing that I will have to do is revert back to that picture of my grey card and reset the custom white balance since the camera only stores the last custom white balance setting used. I understand that I may also need to change the shutter speed (250ish to 100ish) and the ISO and exposure accordingly as David mentioned.<br>

I guess my biggest question in this post is: Once I set the custom white balance in MANUAL mode; Does the metering style (evaluative, spot, center-weighted) matter?<br>

Thanks</p>

<p>Once you've got your Manual setting, you'll ignore the meter.</p>

<p>For spinners and jumpers you'll want something closer to 1/1000th second.</p>

<p>Also, if you shoot in RAW you can correct WB in RAW conversion without losing anything. Use your card for getting aperture/ISO/SS settings but don't worry too much about WB if you're shooting in RAW, which you should for the best flexibility. Err on the side of slight over exposure ("Expose Right") and bring the level down in RAW conversion.</p>

<p>Thanks David. Now I know to ignore the meter. Wasn't sure if I had to worry about meter readings for each shot.</p>

<p>In that kind of steady lighting, you should be able to stick with one or two manual settings without refreshing your meter readings. Outdoors will be another matter.</p>

<p>Check the Preview occasionally to make certain that your settings aren't in never-never land. Remember, so long as you don't blow out highlights, exposing to the right (of the historgram) will give you the most details and margin for error. You can always pull down the exposure brightness in RAW conversion, but pushing it up will lead to more noise. So long as you don't underexpose, WB and most other detail issues can be fixed in conversion.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"William, you have been saying this all along, but I was a little confused. Your post: What does <em><strong>“manual readings”</strong></em> mean? Let’s not confuse the METERING MODE and the CAMERA MODE clarified things for me. <br>

<em><strong>I did not realize that the meter reading did not matter in manual mode."</strong></em><br>

<em> </em></p>

</blockquote>

<p><em>OK. Now you get it. That’s good :)</em><br>

<em> </em><br>

<em>I shoot at the same Olympic Pool nearly every second weekend. I know the lighting banks and the usual setting used. But each time I get there I still do a White Balance and new Exposure Meter Readings – and I sometimes re do the both, throughout the day.</em><br>

<em> </em><br>

<em>The two main reasons I have this procedure are;</em><br>

<em> </em></p>

<p ><em>a) </em><em>It is a procedure – like a “check list” so therefore it is good for it to be habitual</em><em></em></p>

<p ><em>b) </em><em>Lighting does change even if the SAME lighting banks are used – for example are there any windows which let in sunlight at the Ice Rink?</em><em></em></p>

<p ><em> </em><br>

<em>WW</em></p>

<p > </p>

 

<p>Hello, I'm so so new and so noob. :D. My name is David. I'm from Singapore. My job is <a href="http://softwareoutsourcing.biz/">Dedicated PHP Developers</a>. I want to buy a semi pro camera which I can use to travel around. I love traveling :X. But my ex- cam is very old and I don't like it's color. Can you give me some advices? It would be very nice. Thank you.</p>

<p><a href="http://softwareoutsourcing.biz/"></a></p>

<p>David, it'd be best if you start a new thread. You're OT (off topic) in this thread about a specific Canon lens.</p>

<p>Noobs are welcome here, you just need to start your own thread so that your question and the responses don't get lost.</p>

<p>Well, I tried some of the things that David and William suggested. Here's a picture using the higher ISO setting. I don't think there's very much noise at all: <a href="http://keithplumstead.smugmug.com/Sports/Figure-Skating/12622257_nEKYY#915508423_hbiiR-A-LB">http://keithplumstead.smugmug.com/Sports/Figure-Skating/12622257_nEKYY#915508423_hbiiR-A-LB</a><br>

Here's an ISO 6400 (more noise and slightly underexposed): <a href="http://keithplumstead.smugmug.com/Sports/Figure-Skating/12622257_nEKYY#915506173_cdd92-A-LB">http://keithplumstead.smugmug.com/Sports/Figure-Skating/12622257_nEKYY#915506173_cdd92-A-LB</a><br>

And here is an ISO 400 with the 50mm lens and +1 on the exposure. As William suggested; I went higher (f/2.2) and it dodes seem to take a nice picture-sharper: <a href="http://keithplumstead.smugmug.com/Sports/Figure-Skating/12622257_nEKYY#915508984_TzTXi-A-LB">http://keithplumstead.smugmug.com/Sports/Figure-Skating/12622257_nEKYY#915508984_TzTXi-A-LB</a><br>

I learned more about my camera in Manual mode. I couldn't figure out why, when I set my apreture, ISO, and shutter speed, I could not change the exposure compensation. Now I realize that in Manual mode; the camera will show me the level of exposure I will have at the settings I selected. So after I set my custom white balance, I need to fine-tune my settings until I get the exposure that I desire. From what you have taght me: It is better to over-expose (especially for jpegs and higher ISO's). I play with the setting until I get about a +1 exposure.<br>

William, there are no windows at the rink, but I understand your point about changes in lighting. It's funny you mention this because for the first time, I looked up at the lights in the rink. I noticed that they had every-other row of lights turned off. I asked the workers and they said they always have every-other row off unless there is a competition or a hockey game. Guess I can't store that grey card shot for future reference after all. For the little time it takes to take a grey card shot; I'll just do it every time. By the way... the camera seems to do an excellent job of applying the custom white balance. I put some pictures in Photoshop and tried to adjust the white balance with the grey card shot. I didn't notice any change whether I clicked on the grey card or a known pure white (skate or clothing) object.<br>

Thanks again.</p>

<p>Try over exposing by +1 in RAW and then pulling the level down in RAW conversion. That'll reduce noise and preserve shadow detail. Under exposure will seriously add to noise. (Enable your highlight blinkers and if you've blown out any highlight, then reduce the +1 to +2/3 and so on, until the blinkers go off. I don't think you'll have that issue at this rink).</p>

<p>I can use RAW now and then, but I might shoot between 100-150 pictures mostly in high speed continuous drive. I think it would really chew up a lot of space wouldn't it? I ususally shoot in jpeg since I delete about 75% of them. IF I knew that I needed to take "good" pictures that would be edited for print, I would definately use RAW for all.<br>

Thanks, and I'll give the same a shot with the jpegs</p>

<p>Keith, get a 32GB card and shoot in jpeg plus RAW. You should be deleting 75% (or more) of your shots. You can review the jpeg's out of the camera in any viewer and then note the ones that you want to process from RAW, then run them through your favorite batch processor. If you've purposely over exposed, as I've suggested, when you pull down the exposure levels and adjust the RGB curves, your images will have much more "pop" than you're showing now. There's a little bit to learn, but it's not that hard and your image quality will leap ahead. This is within your grasp and will only take a little effort.</p>

<p>The grey card is an artifact from the film days, when you HAD TO get your exposure correct in the camera. Digital sensors behave entirely differently from film and should be exposed differently for the very best results. You can still use a grey card, but for digital you need to "expose right" (expose to the right side of the histogram). Do some research on the digital imaging forums about "expose right".</p>

<p>Thanks Dave, I'll give this a shot. I'll read the forums and try to improve on this.</p>