Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
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 Photography Talk by Genre General Photography Talk 
Thread started 17 May 2014 (Saturday) 07:24
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Frustrated - EOS 7D

 
Luckless
Goldmember
3,064 posts
Likes: 187
Joined Mar 2012
Location: PEI, Canada
     
May 17, 2014 11:08 as a reply to  @ post 16910752 |  #16

Of course rules and 'minimums' are guidelines. There are ways get perfectly usable photos out of less than ideal conditions. However they can become constrained based on situation, be far less reliable, and demand both an eye for the motion and exceptionally steady hands with a disciplined control.

Not every photo needs perfectly static sharp perfection. Study other photos and look how they use they use the physical mechanics of photography. I don't have any circus photos, but elements of a derby photo I took at practice Thursday night can be used.

IMAGE: https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2936/14225988383_1d01ee21a1_b.jpg
IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/nF6U​HM  (external link) Derby-5256 (external link) by RealLuckless (external link), on Flickr

This photo is taken at 1/25th of a second, f/6.3, and ISO 3200. Lighting in that arena is very ugly and hard to work with, and this image has minimal editing (It was a test shot with a brand new lens). You've probably seen panning shots before, but the core concept of how they work can be applied in other ways. (Panning is just by far the easiest method of this.)

So while her face and shoulders aren't perfectly sharp, and I would love to be able to get them sharper, they are arguably acceptable sharp. This is in part due to just how blurry the rest of the image is, and I think that if the rest of the image was only as sharp as her face then it would not be acceptable to my standards now.

But what is actually going on here? Photography is collecting light information over relative space and time. I can avoid everything being affected by motion blur by keeping part of the main subject nearly stationary relative to my camera lens. This is done by panning with them, following their motion (And in this case taking photos as I go. This is the 4th of 6 photos I think. The others were unusable as she was shifting too much during the turn.)

And remember that it is time and space we're recording. If you look in the background you can see that there are three groups of five vertical bars behind her. Well, apparently there are five in each group, but light changes over time and in this case rather drastically. The lighting in this arena pulses up and down by over a stop, and those 'five' bars are each merely the same bar at five different points in time where the light was at its peak as the bar moved through the space relative to the camera lens.

You can play with this concept, learn to use it, and to judge relative motion. Once you better understand what is going on with it then you have a new tool you can use to create interesting photos by deliberately abusing this property of light and time.

Canon EOS 7D | EF 28 f/1.8 | EF 85 f/1.8 | EF 70-200 f/4L | EF-S 17-55 | Sigma 150-500
Flickr: Real-Luckless (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
D ­ Thompson
Goldmember
Avatar
3,855 posts
Likes: 74
Joined Feb 2008
Location: Georgetown, Ky
     
May 17, 2014 11:44 |  #17

nekrosoft13 wrote in post #16910797 (external link)
everything that everyone said is true, i would also add that 7D is rather old old camera.....

I don't even want to know what you think of my old 20D & 5D. :rolleyes:;)


Dennis
Canon 5D 20D
I have not yet begun to procrastinate!

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
pwm2
"Sorry for being a noob"
Avatar
8,626 posts
Likes: 3
Joined May 2007
Location: Sweden
     
May 17, 2014 12:00 |  #18

D Thompson wrote in post #16910955 (external link)
I don't even want to know what you think of my old 20D & 5D. :rolleyes:;)

He just thinks that cameras gets worse with ever year since they were released so a five year old camera must be **** and anyone who thought it was good when released and still as good today must be deluded.

Camera gear is only bad when the camera gear is the distinct limiting factor to getting specific shots. Which means that 5 year old cameras are just as meaningful to use today as they were when originally released.

Our museums and galleries aren't hurriedly throwing away prints taken with five or ten year old cameras because they suddenly woke up one night and realized that the images are bad. A great photo taken 10 years ago is still a great photo.


5DMk2 + BG-E6 | 40D + BG-E2N | 350D + BG-E3 + RC-1 | Elan 7E | Minolta Dimage 7U | (Gear thread)
10-22 | 16-35/2.8 L II | 20-35 | 24-105 L IS | 28-135 IS | 40/2.8 | 50/1.8 II | 70-200/2.8 L IS | 100/2.8 L IS | 100-400 L IS | Sigma 18-200DC
Speedlite 420EZ | Speedlite 580EX | EF 1.4x II | EF 2x II

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
flashpoint99
Senior Member
411 posts
Likes: 8
Joined Dec 2012
     
May 17, 2014 12:04 |  #19

It not the camera. I use a 7d indoors ,poorly lite stage with moving subject all the time and get very sharp images.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Brain ­ Mechanic
Goldmember
Avatar
3,526 posts
Likes: 15
Joined Apr 2010
     
May 17, 2014 12:07 |  #20
bannedPermanent ban

pwm2 wrote in post #16910975 (external link)
He just thinks that cameras gets worse with ever year since they were released so a five year old camera must be **** and anyone who thought it was good when released and still as good today must be deluded.

Camera gear is only bad when the camera gear is the distinct limiting factor to getting specific shots. Which means that 5 year old cameras are just as meaningful to use today as they were when originally released.

Our museums and galleries aren't hurriedly throwing away prints taken with five or ten year old cameras because they suddenly woke up one night and realized that the images are bad. A great photo taken 10 years ago is still a great photo.


Agree. I imagine that the most significant pictures ever taken were by way of film but since film is "old" they are now officially crap....guess I didnt got the memo.


Gear: a toothed wheel :p
"To be of good quality, you have to excuse yourself from the presence of shallow and callow minded individuals" Michael Bassey Johnson
--Oscar--
flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
nwa2
Goldmember
Avatar
1,131 posts
Joined Oct 2006
Location: Manitoba
     
May 17, 2014 12:51 as a reply to  @ flashpoint99's post |  #21

Modern cameras are very sophisticated and capable tools and I think that we sometimes have unreasonable expectations of the technology. As a result we get disappointed.

Here are a couple of low light images, the first, a Circus, was taken with my 40D, much older than the 7D, and an 18-55 kit lens, non-IS that I got with a 350D ten years ago. Is it tack sharp - No. Does it matter - you can decide but in my opinion sharpness is often over rated. I did try to get it as sharp as I could, in the end you have to balance noise (through high ISO) against shutter speed. A circus is reeeeallllly dark. 1/160; ISO1600; f4.0.

The second is taken with my 7D, again it is not super sharp, and I still do not think that matters as much as other aspects of the image such as composition and story telling.

The image by the fire light does benefit from a better lens, Sigma 17-50 IS. As a result I could afford the lower shutter speed of 1/30 but the ISO had to be cranked up to 12800. I do find that the 7D does not perform well in low light situations, however its focus system is fantastic in good light. A tip at high ISO is to convert to B&W and get rid of the colour noise.


HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.



HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.


Canon 6D; 7D; 40D:
There are many tomorrows', but only one today!!
[SIZE=1][COLOR=Black]http://www.Abercrombie​.me.Uk (external link)
http://imagesix.wordpr​ess.com/ (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
chikkad
THREAD ­ STARTER
Mostly Lurking
12 posts
Joined May 2014
     
May 17, 2014 21:05 |  #22

Whoa. .. So many posts and comments..Thank you everyone. Thank you for your comments, suggestions, pointers and opinion. I get that I should have used faster shutter speed. But I guess I was restricted by the f3.6 kit lens. Seems like I should practice more and read up more. Thanks again everyone.

Regards chikkad




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Snafoo
Goldmember
Avatar
1,431 posts
Gallery: 92 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 712
Joined Feb 2011
Location: Peculiar
     
May 17, 2014 22:28 |  #23

Shot with a 7D and 50L all above 1/100 sec (some way above). I agree that your ss was too low.

IMAGE: http://jonstot.zenfolio.com/img/s9/v92/p1898555498-5.jpg
IMAGE LINK: http://jonstot.zenfoli​o.com/p268089651/e7129​a86a  (external link)

IMAGE: http://jonstot.zenfolio.com/img/s1/v22/p1886750393-4.jpg
IMAGE LINK: http://jonstot.zenfoli​o.com/p268089651/e7075​86b9  (external link)

http://www.jonstot.com​/ (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
skilsaw
Senior Member
302 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Aug 2013
     
May 18, 2014 02:05 |  #24

Don't sweat it. I had similar results with my 7D at a folkdance a couple months ago. Ditto for some indoor dog agility training. I'm looking forward to my next opportunity to apply what I have learned from the experience.
I'm making the jump to M mode in situations where I have time to fiddle with the settings for each shot.
Journey onward.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Sirrith
Cream of the Crop
10,545 posts
Gallery: 50 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 36
Joined Nov 2010
Location: Hong Kong
     
May 18, 2014 06:21 |  #25

The good news is that your camera isn't bad. The bad news is that you're going to have to put some effort into learning how to use it well! Or that could be good news too if you enjoy learning more about photography.

One thing you can keep in mind in situations like the circus is: it is almost always better to have a noisy shot than an unintentionally blurred shot. So shoot at the maximum ISO you can to avoid motion blur. I only checked the exif for 1 or 2 of the shots, and they show ISO 3200. Your 7D can double that, and that would have gotten you shutter speeds of up to or over 1/125 which could have produced far better results even if they were grainy.


-Tom
Flickr (external link)
F-Stop Guru review | RRS BH-40 review

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
CMfromIL
Senior Member
Avatar
623 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Joined Oct 2011
Location: Folsom CA
     
May 18, 2014 21:50 |  #26

You need a 'faster' lens, and to up your ISO. It's best (IMHO) to deal with a little grain, than very OOF images.

The 5.6 is much too slow for this type of shooting. The f/4 would have struggled as well, although I'm not sure why you left the better lens at home.

The 7D is a good camera. I've taken many shots in low light, mostly sports in jr/high school gyms where they typically use candlelight it seems.

Keep working at it, and take your best glass when you go. You paid for it, use it!


Like me on facebook! http://www.facebook.co​m/CollinMcKahinPhotogr​aphy (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Naturalist
Adrift on a lonely vast sea
Avatar
5,372 posts
Gallery: 93 photos
Likes: 755
Joined May 2007
Location: Tallgrass prairies of northwest Minnesota
     
May 18, 2014 21:56 |  #27

My suggestion to the OP is to read the manual, purchase and read "Understanding Exposure" and practice, practice, practice.

The Canon EOS 7D is a very capable camera but it is not a point and shoot. You have to know what you are doing and the advice I just gave will lead you there if you take the steps.

Enjoy!


Doug
My Gear List
http://www.douglasbrow​nsr.com (external link)
Entered: 2-16-84 Passed: 5-22-84 Raised: 6-19-84

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
IShootThings
I thought I was special.......
Avatar
2,032 posts
Likes: 26
Joined May 2009
Location: North Cali
     
May 18, 2014 22:19 |  #28

Naturalist wrote in post #16913875 (external link)
purchase and read "Understanding Exposure" and practice, practice, practice.

I completely agree. Here's the most update version: http://www.amazon.com …TF8&qid=1400469​493&sr=1-1 (external link)

I would also recommend http://www.amazon.com …TF8&qid=1400469​493&sr=1-4 (external link)


Canon 5D3, Canon XTI (IR converted), 24-70 f2.8L, 16-35 f4L, 50 1.4, 70-200 f2.8L, 100 2.8 macro, 430 ex & 580 exII speedlights.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
CMfromIL
Senior Member
Avatar
623 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Joined Oct 2011
Location: Folsom CA
     
May 19, 2014 08:31 |  #29

chikkad wrote in post #16911791 (external link)
Whoa. .. So many posts and comments..Thank you everyone. Thank you for your comments, suggestions, pointers and opinion. I get that I should have used faster shutter speed. But I guess I was restricted by the f3.6 kit lens. Seems like I should practice more and read up more. Thanks again everyone.

Regards chikkad

Just an FYI that's f/3.5 @ about 18-40mm then it changes as you zoom. At full zoom your lens is f/5.6. That is part of the problem, as you need more light/higher ISO at f/5.6.

Watch in your viewfinder as you zoom in and out. You will see where it changes during the zoom process.


Like me on facebook! http://www.facebook.co​m/CollinMcKahinPhotogr​aphy (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
kfreels
Goldmember
Avatar
4,297 posts
Likes: 6
Joined Aug 2010
Location: Princeton, IN
     
May 19, 2014 08:47 |  #30

Yeah. Not enough light for the ISO you're shooting at resulting in shutter speeds that are too slow. White balance seems to be off too.
Also, check this out when it comes to the AF system.
http://blogs.stonestep​s.ca/showpost.aspx?pid​=54 (external link)


I am serious....and don't call me Shirley.
Canon 7D and a bunch of other stuff

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

7,327 views & 0 likes for this thread
Frustrated - EOS 7D
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre General Photography Talk 
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?
Register to forums
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 LaurensW
652 guests, 301 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

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.