Is this okay?

Is the noise level in the following picture acceptable for Canon 24-105mm f4L IS on Canon 5D II - hand held in a hall under available light: JPEG f/4 1/15 105mm at ISO 1600: 496x610 crop out of 5616x3744 capture!<div></div>

Sorry 1143x960 crop and then sized to 496x610!

<p>As that image stands yes. Give us a 100% crop from the bottom left of the image to tell you if the sensor performance is on par.</p>

<p>Having said that, this is the kind of situation where an f2.8 zoom, or even a faster prime, would have helped. If it is a function then I find the 2.8 zooms the right tool for the job, if I am in control of the situation then I could control the lighting better. Many function shooters would be using fill flash to boost the contrast and fill the shadows in the eyes a little.</p>

<p>The noise level is perfectly fine. For me, the issue with the image is its lack of sharpness, likely due to camera shake. (Sorry, Husain, I missed the fact that it's a crop when I first read your post. Your technique is probably fine.)</p>

<p>By the way, I have never found the 24-105/4 to be very good in lower light. It's a very good lens for outdoor use when the light is good. But indoors I use primes, which have larger maximum apertures and are sharper closer to wide open. (Oh, I just see that Scott has made much the same point while I've been typing!).</p>

<p>1/15 sec. is a long enough exposure that your subject may move enough to blur the image. IS can't help with that.</p>

<p>With a 5D Mark II, I probably would have shot this at ISO 3200, f/2.8 to get the shutter speed up to 1/60 or so. I would not have gone into a situation like this with an f/4 lens unless I had no choice.</p>

<p>The noise level looks fine, though.</p>

<p>Your photo is fine. </p>

<p>Asking what noise level is "acceptable" is like asking how tall your spouse should be. Some heights would be acceptable to most people, but there will always be personal and general factors that would accept taller or shorter, depending. In the end, it's something only you can answer.</p>

<p>There are more specific answers that depend on the purpose to which a picture will be put. Because of the history of grainy film photography in the past, some sports publishers might be willing to accept very "noisy" images, if that's the only image there is, for example.</p>

<p>For some of us who grew up with old, grainy films like GAF 500, your image has no noise worth worrying about. For others, from more recent backgrounds, any even remotely detectable 'noise' is unacceptable.</p><div></div>

<p>Noise is not noticeable so don't worry about that. Instead worry about where you put the focus point. Personally I would put it on the face rather than the dress.</p>

Thanks, folks! Following is another indoors capture in a different setting - hand-held under available light, using Canon 24-105mm on 5DII !<div></div>

<p>Thanks for posting a follow up snap.</p>

<p>I would have shot those shots at ISO 3200 or 6400.</p>

<p>I wouldn't, not saying you shouldn't, just saying I wouldn't. I think the second shot is absolutely fine, The first just suffered from too slow a shutterspeed, 1/15 @ 105mm handheld is a push, even with IS, unless you have a steady hand and good technique. Generally, if I couldn't use a flash, I'd rather use a monopod or brace against a wall or chair than go over 800/1600. Sure you can remove the noise, but you end up with much less detail too. Of course it is a playoff to achieve what you need and personal preferences.</p>

<p>Arbitrarily restricting oneself to ISO 800/1600 with cameras as capable as the 5D MkII seems foolish to me. IMHO, it's much better to have a bit of noise rather than lack of sharpness due to camera shake or subject movement. The following image was taken with my 7D at ISO 6400 (my 5D2 is probably 1-stop better, but I didn't have it on hand). Let the user decide.:<br>

<a title="Michelle checks for text message... by dcstep, on Flickr" href=" src="http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7170/6582141799_dc9f11e821_b.jpg" alt="Michelle checks for text message..." width="800" height="533" /></a>;</p>

<p>On the question of Noise – my opinion is both pictures are OK.</p>

<p>On the question of contrast – the first lacks mid tone contrast and would be a tad better if slightly more exposed. I concur that generally using a slow zoom lens for available light is often a poor choice – I have not used the 24 to 105 very often, but for these types of lighting situations, a fast prime’s intrinsic contrast has benefit.<br /> <br /> On the (general) question of “Is this OK?” – both OP’s Photographs could be improved by using a faster Tv (Shutter Speed) to arrest / address the Subject Movement in the shot.</p>

<p>I would bet a Mars Bars that in Frame 1 the woman’s face is moving and that is why she appears soft (i.e. she is NOT OoF and the dress in focus – it is just her head is moving)<br /> I would also bet a Mars Bar that in frame two, the Woman’s head is moving – but her foot is not.</p>

<p>***</p>

<p>On the other hand and as a comparison / contrast taking DS’s Photo – the Girl’s hand is not moving but simply OoF, beyond the DoF – I would like to know what Tv was used for that image. . .</p>

<p>The lighting of the shot of the girl is entirely different to the lighting of the first image of the woman and as such this is a poor comparison to argue for using high ISO in that regard - but apropos making a suitable Tv to arrest the Subject Movement of the particular situation . . . I agree that for both the OP’s shots, <strong>because I would have been restricted to F/4</strong> I would have used an higher ISO to address Subject Movement.</p>

<p>***</p>

<p>For both of the OP's shots, I would have liked to be around 1/125s - and I would warn caution using both Program Mode and also Shutter Priority Mode in that you should be always aware of the Shutter Speed and the possibilities of capturing Subject Movement - I would be more concerned about this aspect rather than the noise.</p>

<p>WW</p>

<p>William asked:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"I would like to know what Tv was used for that image. . ."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>1/125-sec at f/4 with a 24-105mm f/4L IS at 65mm.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"<strong>1/125-sec</strong> at f/4 with a 24-105mm f/4L IS at 65mm."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Thank you for answering.<br>

i.e. 1/125s was suitable to address (the movement of) her hand fiddling with her hair. . . and also<strong><em> any slight movements of her head.</em></strong><br>

<strong><em></em></strong> <br>

WW</p>

 

Again, thanks all! Just on a second thought, would Canon 24mm f/1.4 have given better results despite the level of crop from a long distance shot which would have been needed for the same subject size?<div></div>

<p>Husain asked:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"Again, thanks all! Just on a second thought, would Canon 24mm f/1.4 have given better results despite the level of crop from a long distance shot which would have been needed for the same subject size?"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You could use the extra speed of that lens to hold the ISO down, but ISO 800 to 1600 is usually not a problem with the 5D2. The 5D2 files will stand up to a minor crop very well, but as you crop more and more the detail loss could be worse than the noise.</p>

<p>Your last shot is pretty well lit. I suppose that it's with the f/1.4, which would limit DOF. I don't know your EXIF here, but I would have shot that at around f/11 and pumped the ISO up to where I had around 1/125-sec. of SS.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>“would Canon 24mm f/1.4 have given better results [for the 1^st photo I posted of the woman in the dark dress and necklace] despite the level of crop from a long distance shot which would have been needed for the same subject size?”</p>

</blockquote>

<p>(My [square Brackets] to note my assumed meaning of the question)</p>

<p>No.</p>

<p>It would have been a worse result to use a 24mm Prime Lens at the same or similar shooting distance and crop in Post Production to frame it tighter.<br>

Firstly: the loss of detail when cropping would be too great – the first shot was taken a FL = 105mm, using a 24mm lens, you would need to crop way to much out of the frame.<br>

Secondly: the Lens Hood of the 24mm is almost useless in many circumstances and that fact and the tendency to Flare when shooting in situations where there are lots of direction lights (that first shot indoors with downward pointing ceiling lights?) you would likely lose any inherent contrast gained by using a Prime Lens as opposed to using the 24 to 105 zoom.<br>

<br /> The best (Canon) candidates for a Prime Lens to use for that first image you posted, would be: 85/1.2L MkII; 85/1.8 and the 135/2L - also in consideration would be the 100/2; the135/2.8 and either of the 100/2.8Macros.<br /> The 50/1.4 (1.2L; 1.0L and 1.8MkII) would make do, but you would still be losing a lot of image real-estate when you crop to make the equivalent framing of FL = 105mm.</p>

<p>In any case, if you were to use any of those Prime Lenses for that first shot – you should use the lenses with the lens hood on and without any filter, for that shooting / lighting scenario.</p>

<p>I believe that the 70 to 200/2.8 (any version) would make a better job of that first image you posted apropos the lens’s raw contrast, if the lens hood was used and there was no filter on the lens.</p>

<p>However, I do shoot a lot of available light and rarely use any zoom lens in similar lighting conditions, if I can avoid so doing – the main reasons are greater flexibility of lens speed and generally better IQ (particularly acutance and contrast and low CA) at, for example the F/2.8 to F/4 range, which is generally where I tend to use the aperture, for these Available Light conditions.</p>

<p>***</p>

<p><strong><em>In the last shot you posted using the 24L:</em></strong>,</p>

<p>I believe the shot is a tad underexposed (for correct skin tones for the man at the Lectern).<br>

<br />I mention this not as a critique of the image but rather because the fact is relevant to the discussion – there appears to be some Veiling Flare in that shot.<br>

<br />The 24mm lens was point straight towards that bright doorway - both models of the 24L are prone to Veiling Flare when shooting directly into the light – the First Version more-so.<br>

The result of this Veiling Flare is a lack of Mid Tone Contrast (mild) and if the effect is very strong you can get a milky translucent shimmer over the image.<br>

Main methods of addressing Veiling Flare are (assuming one has to shoot into the light):</p>

<ul>

<li>NOT to use a Filter</li>

<li>Shield the Light Source as much as possible such that there are fewer rays directly into the lens – an effective shield can be with Subject, lens hood, hand, piece of black cardboard (the man at the door is doing a reasonable job for you).</li>

<li>Use a smaller rather than a larger aperture.</li>

</ul>

<p>With respect to the last point – in my experience, F/8 is much nicer than F/4.5 for a shot like that, using the 24L.<br>

Also if you have the original version of the 24L, shooting at F/4.5 you will likely be getting a (noticeable) CA at the edges, for that shooting scenario – using F/8 would be better to arrest that, also.<br>

Considering all those factors and the factor of not wanting to go too high in the ISO for that shot – (with the relaxed facility of 20 / 20 hindsight and limitless time in the armchair considering what to do . . .) <br /> Something like F/6.3 @ 1/60s @ iso3200 ~ F/8 @ 1/60s @ ISO3200 would be where I would like to be at for that last shot.<br>

That range allows a tad more exposure at one end and smaller aperture without going beyond ISO3200.</p>

<p>Sure you could pump to ISO6400, and pull Tv= 1/125s - but that is not necessary for that shot and those conditions . . .<br /> The Tv at 1/60s (or 1/80s) is quite safe if the camera is steadied and the shutter release technique is good.<br>

The men seem to be quite still – I’d expect they would be reasonably still – it is a “stern / learned” setting.<br>

The W/A lens, used for a Wide Shot, means that any apparent Subject Movement will be much less obvious than when using a 105mm lens or 93mm lens, for a tighter shot.</p>

<p>WW</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Lots of good advice here, but I'd suggest that you explore higher ISOs. The 5D MkII is a remarkable performer at higher ISOs.</p>

Folks, thanks for your helpful comments! You were right and I have use ISO3200 last evening with much improved results - photos are under a separate thread 'Is this okay V2'