Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Read More.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Photo Sharing & Visual Enjoyment Sports 
Thread started 12 Oct 2008 (Sunday) 02:03
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

50D and Division 1 Volleyball

 
mizouse
Senior Member
888 posts
Gallery: 16 photos
Likes: 228
Joined Jan 2007
Location: Bay area, CA
     
Oct 12, 2008 02:03 |  #1

So i rented out a 50D to use on friday at a Volleyball game, im pretty impressed with iso3200 and 6400.

although both of these shots are straight out of the camera but reduced 50% in CS3 also with high iso noise reduction set to standard, forgot to disable it in camera :(

(im going to post a link since its too big for forum rules, just so you guys get a better idea on the noise)

http://www.pbase.com …ge/104396599/or​iginal.jpg (external link)
iso3200 f2.8 1/500th

http://www.pbase.com …ge/104396740/or​iginal.jpg (external link)
iso6400 f2.8 1/1000th


Canon EOS-1D Mark II N | Sony Alpha NEX-6 | Canon EOS 5D | Canon EOS 6D | Canon EOS 6D Mark II | EF 70-200mm 1:2.8 L USM | EF 24-70mm 1:2.8 L USM | EF 17-40mm 1:4 L USM | EF 50mm 1:1.8 STM | EF 40mm 1:2.8 STM | EF 35mm 1:2 IS USM | EF 24-105mm 1:4 L IS USM | 580EX II

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Croasdail
Cream of the Crop
6,612 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 5
Joined Apr 2005
Location: North Carolina
     
Oct 12, 2008 11:24 |  #2

Why do you want to disable in camera noise reduction? Do you want noise?


Mark
Its by knowing and mastering all the rules that you learn which ones you can break.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
AdamLewis
Goldmember
Avatar
4,120 posts
Likes: 52
Joined Oct 2005
Location: San Francisco, CA
     
Oct 12, 2008 12:00 |  #3

I know Id want to to disable it because in camera NR is awful (just like all other "in camera" features for the most part). If you want to run NR, a dedicated NR program will do a better job. I think he wanted to disable it so that we could see what the 50D actually does though.


flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
AdamLewis
Goldmember
Avatar
4,120 posts
Likes: 52
Joined Oct 2005
Location: San Francisco, CA
     
Oct 12, 2008 12:03 |  #4

That being said, those pictures look pretty good for a dark 3200 and ok for a 6400.


flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Croasdail
Cream of the Crop
6,612 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 5
Joined Apr 2005
Location: North Carolina
     
Oct 12, 2008 12:12 |  #5

I almost never shot sports raw because I don't have time to mess with it. I rely on stuff to come out of the camera pretty much fully baked. If I were shooting studio or other stuff like that - sure I use RAW. But deadlines and all - not worth the fraction of an improvement unless the environment is particularly harsh. Different strokes for different folks.


Mark
Its by knowing and mastering all the rules that you learn which ones you can break.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
AdamLewis
Goldmember
Avatar
4,120 posts
Likes: 52
Joined Oct 2005
Location: San Francisco, CA
     
Oct 12, 2008 12:40 |  #6

Croasdail wrote in post #6482060 (external link)
I almost never shot sports raw because I don't have time to mess with it. I rely on stuff to come out of the camera pretty much fully baked. If I were shooting studio or other stuff like that - sure I use RAW. But deadlines and all - not worth the fraction of an improvement unless the environment is particularly harsh. Different strokes for different folks.

"Your mileage may vary"

I find that the difference between RAW and JPG is appreciable enough that I shoot everything in RAW. Unless I have a deadline 5 minutes after a buzzer goes off, I can always find the time to sort through some pictures and let my PC batch convert them all.


flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Dan-o
Goldmember
Avatar
3,537 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Apr 2006
Location: So. Cal.
     
Oct 12, 2008 12:58 |  #7

I almost never shot sports raw because I don't have time to mess with it.

In Lightroom there isn't any difference in speed between RAW and JPGs.


Danny.
DMunsonPhoto (external link)
Cycling Illustrated (external link)
FaceBook Page (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
convergent
Goldmember
Avatar
2,211 posts
Gallery: 34 photos
Likes: 8
Joined Jan 2006
Location: Raleigh, NC
     
Oct 12, 2008 20:42 |  #8

Croasdail wrote in post #6482060 (external link)
I almost never shot sports raw because I don't have time to mess with it. I rely on stuff to come out of the camera pretty much fully baked. If I were shooting studio or other stuff like that - sure I use RAW. But deadlines and all - not worth the fraction of an improvement unless the environment is particularly harsh. Different strokes for different folks.

I'm with you... I shoot just about everything JPEG for sports. I have just recently started shooting a little more RAW, but don't see the benefit yet.

Dan-o wrote in post #6482228 (external link)
In Lightroom there isn't any difference in speed between RAW and JPGs.

I would have to disagree with you on this one. The file size difference between a JPEG and RAW file, at least from a Mark III, is pretty big. That slows my Mac down quite a bit. In addition, the JPEG processed images look closer to the way I want them than Lightroom's RAW conversion. I am sure its probably possible to get to the point eventually where I could get similar speeds, but it would take me quite a bit of fiddling to match the JPEG processing that the camera does (or run them through the Canon software first which would obviously take a lot longer), and a pricey upgrade to my hardware.

I guess it all depends on what you are planning to do with them. For me, I'm looking to process them all as quickly as possible and I don't print big enough to need the extra that RAW might bring. I'll keep playing with some non-critical images and eventually I might get RAW in Lightroom to look comparible to what JPEG does with a lot less effort.


Mike - Victory Photo (external link) | Full Gear List | Feedback
5D3 gripped - 7D2 gripped - 17-40L f/4 - 18-135 f/3.5-5.6 IS STM - 24-70L f/2.8 II - 70-200L f/2.8 IS II - 100-400 L f/4.6-5.6 IS II
135L f/2 - 300L f/2.8 IS - Siggy 15 f/2.8 Fisheye, 100 f/2.8 Macro - TC1.4 II - TC2 III - (2) 600EX-RT - ST-E3-RT

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Dan-o
Goldmember
Avatar
3,537 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Apr 2006
Location: So. Cal.
     
Oct 12, 2008 21:23 |  #9

Funny because I'm the exact opposite with my work flow. I've been using RAW since I first started shooting and been using Lightroom since its inception. I've set up Lightroom so on download the pictures are given a profile and settings basically the way the camera does. I do very little tweaking after the fact. I do have tons of presets though for certain looks that are just a click away.

Recently I've been shooting JPGs for Football and I'm struggling to get them tp look the way I like. None of my presets work on the JPGs so I end up messing with the pictures more then when they are RAW.:lol: I guess it just comes down to the work flow you are used to.


Danny.
DMunsonPhoto (external link)
Cycling Illustrated (external link)
FaceBook Page (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Croasdail
Cream of the Crop
6,612 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 5
Joined Apr 2005
Location: North Carolina
     
Oct 12, 2008 21:31 |  #10

Dan-o wrote in post #6482228 (external link)
In Lightroom there isn't any difference in speed between RAW and JPGs.

Try dumbing 15 mpx raw files versus jpeg... a few hundred of them. It slows every part of the process down. Sometimes it isn't a problem, sometimes when it's 10:30 pm and you want to go home, and you can't until to transmit... you notice it.

Amen to your last comments... its what ever makes you feel comfortable... raw, jpeg, mac, pc, nikon, canon... what ever. Once ripped, not many can tell the difference.


Mark
Its by knowing and mastering all the rules that you learn which ones you can break.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mizouse
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
888 posts
Gallery: 16 photos
Likes: 228
Joined Jan 2007
Location: Bay area, CA
     
Oct 12, 2008 23:16 |  #11

AdamLewis wrote in post #6482020 (external link)
I know Id want to to disable it because in camera NR is awful (just like all other "in camera" features for the most part). If you want to run NR, a dedicated NR program will do a better job. I think he wanted to disable it so that we could see what the 50D actually does though.

yea i wanted to disable it to see what the 50D actually does.


Canon EOS-1D Mark II N | Sony Alpha NEX-6 | Canon EOS 5D | Canon EOS 6D | Canon EOS 6D Mark II | EF 70-200mm 1:2.8 L USM | EF 24-70mm 1:2.8 L USM | EF 17-40mm 1:4 L USM | EF 50mm 1:1.8 STM | EF 40mm 1:2.8 STM | EF 35mm 1:2 IS USM | EF 24-105mm 1:4 L IS USM | 580EX II

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
convergent
Goldmember
Avatar
2,211 posts
Gallery: 34 photos
Likes: 8
Joined Jan 2006
Location: Raleigh, NC
     
Oct 13, 2008 07:02 |  #12

Croasdail wrote in post #6484471 (external link)
Amen to your last comments... its what ever makes you feel comfortable... raw, jpeg, mac, pc, nikon, canon... what ever. Once ripped, not many can tell the difference.

That's really the truth. Whatever you are used to is going to be the quickest and easiest. I am trying to get to the point where I CAN use RAW if I want and get similar results in similar time. Just no where near there yet. Lightroom does create an environment where that can be very possible. I just wish that the camera makers would enable you to cause the RAW default settings for an image to "match" the look of the JPEG the camera is shooting at the time, and then somehow allow us to import that into something other than the camera manufacturer's software. But I don't see that happening.


Mike - Victory Photo (external link) | Full Gear List | Feedback
5D3 gripped - 7D2 gripped - 17-40L f/4 - 18-135 f/3.5-5.6 IS STM - 24-70L f/2.8 II - 70-200L f/2.8 IS II - 100-400 L f/4.6-5.6 IS II
135L f/2 - 300L f/2.8 IS - Siggy 15 f/2.8 Fisheye, 100 f/2.8 Macro - TC1.4 II - TC2 III - (2) 600EX-RT - ST-E3-RT

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

1,940 views & 0 likes for this thread
50D and Division 1 Volleyball
FORUMS Photo Sharing & Visual Enjoyment Sports 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is gary gruber
481 guests, 393 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6430, that happened on Dec 03, 2017

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.