Need advice on bad G2 Shot

[stowheliman]

The picture at the following website was taken with a Canon G2 in aperture priority mode. I chose aperture priority because all of the pictures in automatic mode were blurry and I wanted the fastest shutter with the best exposure and I didn't need great depth of field. The aperture was set to f2.5 and shutter speed was 1/15sec. The girl with uniform #22 was the focal point.

http://home.neo.rr.com/thestings/images/VBall.JPG

The histogram looks OK, but as you can tell, I still experienced a lot of blur due to the slow shutter speed. I was also at my maximum zoom (digital zoom turned off) and no flash was used.

Despite a well lit auditorium, this picture still looks lousy, although it could be that I'm a lousy photographer. I have 2 questions.
1. Have I done something wrong?
2. Would the Canon 10D been able to correct these blur problems (without using a flash)?

[Belmondo]

This is not a bad picture at all, especially considering it was shot hand-held with available light. In reality, you captured your subject very well, and much of the 'blur' you're concerned about is from movement. Besides, with everything around your subject slightly blurred or out of focus, it draws the viewer's eye to what you were trying to capture. That ain't always easy.

The 10D might have done a slightly better job in just two areas that I can think of right away:
1. they have lenses available that are faster, such as the 50mm f/1.4 so you could have used a faster shutter speed, and
2. you could have corrected the white balance in the camera, although there's no particular reason to. You can do that after the fact with Photoshop or any other image editing software.

Don't be so hard on yourself. That's a really good picture on ANY camera, especially under those circumstances.

[Vegas Poboy]

I reviewed your pic and even tweaked it in Elements 2. From what I can see & you already know the shutter speed was to slow most recommends no hand holding under 1/60 of a sec. 1/30 if your good so next time try using you flash if the event permits. Sync it or it will automatically @ 1/60 and try to set the camera to f/4 to f/8.
Another thing that can help is the ISO set to 400 -800 and adjust the settings for the lights. I was going to purchase the G2 sometime ago but backed off due to other toys, its a good camera just have to learn the adjustments. Hopefully these tips will work for you.
Good Luck

[stowheliman]

The fastest ISO for the G2 is 400, which is exactly where it was set. If I had used a 10D, I assume I could've gotten a better picture by changing the ISO to 1600, increasing the shutter speed, closing down the aperture and keeping the exposure consistent with the picture referenced above.

Is that a good assumption?

[dmalek]

well yes this is not a bad picture, from a digital and technical point of view. but i'm wondering ... the girls do not look like playing

where is the ball ? i'm not trying to criticize, but maybe the G2 is not the problem in this pic i think it's about the moment.

[stowheliman]

Good point. But if the ball had been in motion and the girls had been moving, everything would've been blurred and the picture would have been totally worthless.

You have accurately described the problem. Believe me, I wanted to take action shots, but the Canon G2 had its settings at its "extremes" and yet it still failed to capture a decent picture.

Again ISO was at its fastest setting of 400. Aperture was wide open at f2.8 and I let the camera choose the best shutter speed for the proper exposure.

Since I think I'm pushing the boundries of the Canon G2, I was wondering if my problem could be remedied by using the 10D. I don't want to buy the 10D if it can't take a better picture in this type of settingwith no flash.

[Vegas Poboy]

The 10D is a much better camera and with the right lens I'm sure you'll be able to take better pictures. As you know the G2 is a point & shoot camera the 10D is a SLR with many adjustable options. Just make sure you have the credit line open.... A basic set up for the 10D thats including a lens could run you @ least $2000.00.
Camera Body $1499.00
Lens 28-135 $ 400.00
You can use your exsisting compact Flash
But the moments you catch is priceless
Good Luck

[CyberDyneSystems]

Yes of course the 10D is a better camera but it was the shutter speed that blurred things. At 1/15 a second the 10D image would have been just as blurred.

Now the issue is could the G3 have givien you a better picture?

A tripod may have helped (actually it almost allways helps) but it would not have solved the shutter speed blur as our subjects were moving.

What you neded was either of three things that would have given you the shutter speed you needed.

1. A larger aperture - The g3 can't you any larger
2. A higher ISO setting - The G3 is limited to 400ISO
3. More available light - other than a flash or strobes,. NO camera can offer that :)

A 10D would be able to offer you the first two,. and thus solve your problem.

[Dave I]

You would've had a couple of options with the 10D.

You could have used a faster lens. Maybe an f1.8 prime. You would've had a pretty narrow DOF, but would've frozen out the motion blur. A prime might not have been all that well suited to shooting from the sidelines, though.

You could have used a higher ISO, as already mentioned.

You could've used a stabilized lens. The ever-popular 28-135 IS would have given you a good zoom range (since I assume you were 'trapped' at the sidelines and couldn't adjust framing my moving), and it's pretty easy to get a very sharp shot at 1/15th. I've gotten sharp shots as slow as 1/6th, but not consistently. Of course, the moving subjects would have been blurred and only the primary subject (standing still) would have been sharp.

Naturally, as with most SLR issues, more cash makes for better solutions. An ideal lens for the situation might be the 70-200mm f2.8 IS L. Fast and stabilized, combined with the 10D's high ISO capability, you could 'mix and match' all the above solutions. The lens is normally more expensive than the camera, though.

[dmalek]

If you look at the pic it's obvious that you are in difficult light conditions. Shooting action pics indoors is usually like this. With the best hardware possible (but with 100ISO or 400ISO maximum) you might anyway not be able to freeze the action.

Therefore in such conditions i would try to :

1. shoot lots of pictures, because most of them will have a blurry part due to movement
2. use the highest nr of frames per sec possible (i dont know the G2)
3. try to shoot when the ball is at the top of its curve (when it starts to go down, volleyball players often hit the ball when it's at the top of the curve when it's higher than the net and when it's speed is very low)
4. tries two types of framing for your pics : follow the ball and place it in the viewfinder or follow a single player and frame the player
5. shooting a pic of defense players after the serve when the ball is on his hands has low speed as well
6. know time taken by the camera between pressing the shutter button and the actual camera shoot
7. keep your both eyes opened so that you can follow what is happening outside the viewfinder

but maybe there was no solution when you took the pictures :) then only an outdoor game with a cloudy sky to avoid hight contrast might give you great shots.

Volleyball is such an amazing sport for photography, and women games are better, because there is a lot of defense usually, they are a little slower than men games.

[dmalek]

maybe the flash would be another option, but it can be considered agressive by the players ;)

[mwinog2777]

I'm a former G1 user. Went over to 10D, gave the G2 to my 12 yo daughter, and have never mlooked back.

You simply need a larger aperture and higher ISO. This isn't rocket science, and isn't even neurology.

I use a 1.8 prime, and go up to 3200 ISO for these kind of shots.

A G2 is a point-shoot camera. We're serious photographers here on this forum. Join us.

[Carbon]

mwinog2777 wrote:
I'm a former G1 user. Went over to 10D, gave the G2 to my 12 yo daughter, and have never mlooked back.

You simply need a larger aperture and higher ISO. This isn't rocket science, and isn't even neurology.

I use a 1.8 prime, and go up to 3200 ISO for these kind of shots.


I'm curious, mwinog2777 ... how were you planning on getting a larger aperture on the 10D? Do you have one of those mythical f/1.8 EF zoom lenses? (there aren't any) Your f/1.8 isn't even half a stop faster than the built-in f/2.0 zoom on the G2. And that's a fixed focal length prime versus a zoom lens. ISO sensitivity is a different story on the D10 vs. G2, but don't think that the 50 f/1.8 is such a fast lens compared to the built-in f/2.0 zoom on the G2.

A G2 is a point-shoot camera. We're serious photographers here on this forum. Join us.

Pekka's taken a lot more impressive photos with his G1 and 550EX than I've seen from a lot of gear collectors toting around $3,000+ worth of photo equipment. A person's gear certainly doesn't define how serious of a photographer he or she is.

stowheliman, I love my DSLR and L lenses, but I think it would be a good idea to do some reading or take a few classes before jumping into some very expensive gear to try to compensate for bad pictures. Your G2 has aperture, shutter speed and (limited) ISO control, plus it has a flash hot-shoe. In other words, it has enough to get you on the right path. I'm confident you can take it a lot further. In this picture, I would:

1. Follow dmalek's advice and try to express an idea with your photograph. Unless you're just trying to document events (if so, DEFINITELY don't waste money on a 10D) injecting some meaning will add a lot more to the photo than just throwing more technology at it. At least follow the basic recommendations for composition.

2. Use a tripod or at least a monopod! Get a basic $50 one for now. Forget about the idea of IS lenses for now... IS is amazing stuff, but a tripod is drastically cheaper and more effective (though more cumbersome) and IS won't help with moving subjects at all. Plus, most IS lenses are slow (small max apertures) unless you shell out the big bucks and get something like the 70-200mm 2.8L IS ($1300-1700). A lot of the blur in your picture is actually your movement (camera shake), and a tripod would have prevented that.

3. Use a powerful flash if allowed/within range. The 420 and 550EX are good choices, and you can bring those along if you eventually upgrade to an SLR.

4. Shoot it in RAW. Process it without sharpening in FileViewerUtility, if possible, and then use unsharp masking in Photoshop to sharpen it to the acceptable limit of noise and artifacts. That will also give you a second chance to compensate for under/over exposure and white balance. You could even intentionally underexpose the frame (set to Manual mode, use the max aperture (2.0) and a half-stop too fast of a shutter speed) to try to freeze your subjects. This is more risky, of course, and you'll get some extra noise when you compensate. However, there's quite a bit of exposure latitude when processing RAWs.

If you're set on a digital SLR, I'd suggest a used D30, D60 or Digital Rebel. For this particular photograph, a Digital Rebel at ISO 800 or 1600 would perform best.

[mwinog2777]

"I'm curious, mwinog2777 ... how were you planning on getting a larger aperture on the 10D? Do you have one of those mythical f/1.8 EF zoom lenses? (there aren't any) Your f/1.8 isn't even half a stop faster than the built-in f/2.0 zoom on the G2. And that's a fixed focal length prime versus a zoom lens. ISO sensitivity is a different story on the D10 vs. G2, but don't think that the 50 f/1.8 is such a fast lens compared to the built-in f/2.0 zoom on the G2."

Its a combo. Fast and sharp lens, with fast ISO; both, not one or the other.




"Pekka's taken a lot more impressive photos with his G1 and 550EX than I've seen from a lot of gear collectors toting around $3,000+ worth of photo equipment. A person's gear certainly doesn't define how serious of a photographer he or she is."

I've been a member of this forum for >2 years. Pekka piqued my interest in the G1. Based on his work, I bought one. As soon as I did, he eschewed point and shoot froever, calling it too limiting. Two years with a point & shoot, and I agree with him.



"stowheliman, I think it would be a good idea to do some reading or take a few classes before jumping into some very expensive gear to try to compensate for bad pictures. Your G2 has aperture, shutter speed and (limited) ISO control, plus it has a flash hot-shoe."

You're right and wrong: Stowheliman needs to study photography. But, a flash would have beeen inappropriate for that particular picture.



"If you're set on a digital SLR, I'd suggest a used D30, D60 or Digital Rebel. For this particular photograph, a Digital Rebel at ISO 800 or 1600 would perform best."

My thought: point & shoot cameras are ready to be relegated to the dustbin of history for anyone with enough interest to be on this forum.

[Andy_T]

mwinog2777 wrote:


I've been a member of this forum for >2 years. Pekka piqued my interest in the G1. Based on his work, I bought one. As soon as I did, he eschewed point and shoot froever, calling it too limiting. Two years with a point & shoot, and I agree with him.



Mwinog,

I'd really be interested in your definition of 'point and shoot' as opposed to DSLR!

(One way would be to show me a creative mode the Digital Rebel has that the G2 does not have - apart from the interchangeable lenses)

... My definition would be that the photographer just points it at the object and shoots without thinking about the creative possibilities he could use, but that would not be the fault of the camera. For a digital Ixus, yes, but not for the G2:)

Regards,
Andy

[Belmondo]

Andy:
Please forgive me for inserting myself into your dialog with mwingo2777, but it's 3:30am, and I don't have anything else to do right now.

The primary difference (in my opinion) between point-and-shoot and digital single lens reflexes is that you are looking through the actual lens of the camera when framing your picture on a DSLR. This allows you much better control over composition, depth of field, and other factors that you can't see but can only anticipiate on a point-and-shoot camera.

Incidentally, the term 'Point and Shoot' can really apply to a DSLR as well. There is certainly that level of automation possiible with a DSLR. The appropriate term to denote a camera that doesn't allow the user to actually look through the camera's lens is a 'Viewfinder Camera.' In other words, both viewfinder cameras and DSLRs have point and shoot capability, but the DSLR allows far greater creative control by allowing the operater to see exactly what the camera is seeing.

Interchangeable lenses are nothing to sneeze at, either. The built-in lenses on most viewfinder cameras are versatile enough for every day useage, but can't possibly give the range one enjoys when able to change from a 16-35 lens to a 600mm, then to a 100mm macros, and so on.

I love my G-2, and will probably have it (or its equivalent) as long as I'm involved in photogaphy. It's convenient, small, takes great pictures, and has a definite place in my camera lineup. It is not an SLR, however, and as such is somewhat limiting in many cases, and totally inadequate in others.

Just my opinion (rendered at a time when I really should be sleeping.)

Good luck.


Tom