Canon Xti Owner that wants to upgrade

Need to learn how to do the stop down to achieve the better iso shot in low light. Will look into battery grips as well. I knew this hobby was going to be expensive.

[QUOTE=KCmike;13082323​]Thanks for the comments thus far. It is gear envy for sure. Here are some responses I have to some of the comments.

1. I don't feel comfortable with the hack for the higher ISO although I would love that feature and it would probably save me from me spending the $$$ on a new body.
[endequote];


I've been following the hack for a couple of years and the latest versions (400Dplus) are very solid.

And it has WAAAAY more features added in addition to spot metering and Auto-ISO and extended ISO and extended AEB and .......

KCmike wrote in post #13085673
Need to learn how to do the stop down to achieve the better iso shot in low light. Will look into battery grips as well. I knew this hobby was going to be expensive.

To get more light to the camera, you need to open the aperture up. "Stopping down" means to close the aperture, to let less light in. The primary reason to do that is to increase the depth of field, to get more in focus around the subject. With your 18-55 and 55-250, you generally don't need to do that much in the way of stopping down.

If you're already wide open on the aperture in low light with your 50 f/1.8, then there's really only one more stop wider you could go even if you were to get the widest aperture 50mm autofocus lens on the market today (the Canon 50 f/1.2L).

The bottom line is that if you're in low light, the 18-55 and 55-250 are not the best lenses for the job, but because of their image stabilization they're still quite good as long as you're not trying to capture moving subjects. The relatively narrow wide-open apertures on those lenses are really their only major drawback. They are great in daylight, as long as you don't need a terribly shallow depth of field, and they are good in low light as long as your subject isn't moving.


If you find yourself shooting a lot in relatively low light, an f/2.8 lens in the 17-50 or 17-55 focal length range would suit your needs quite well, assuming that's the focal length range you tend to use there. The question is whether or not you'll also need image stabilization. My conclusion is that you will.

You know from experience that your 18-55 IS already has image stabilization. With it, you can take shots with a much slower shutter speed than you could otherwise. If you're using IS in your low light shots with your 18-55 lens, then you're probably already beyond the low light capabilities of an f/2.8 lens that lacks image stabilization: f/2.8 is only two stops wider than f/5.6, but the IS on your 18-55 is capable of three (or a little more) stops of stabilization, making it possible to get shots with your 18-55 that would otherwise require an f/2.0 or faster lens to get. That pretty much rules out the Tamron 17-50 non-VC lens, and that really leaves two suitable lenses on the playing field: the Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 OS, and the Canon 17-55 f/2.8 IS. Of the two, the Sigma is significantly less expensive (around $670) and is actually slightly sharper in the center (though not quite as sharp at the edges). If you're thinking of upgrading one of your lenses, it sounds like the Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 OS is one you should seriously consider.

Otherwise, you'll need some f/1.4 primes to do better than you can with the gear you've already got.

[QUOTE=WaltA;13085825]

KCmike wrote in post #13082323
Thanks for the comments thus far. It is gear envy for sure. Here are some responses I have to some of the comments.

1. I don't feel comfortable with the hack for the higher ISO although I would love that feature and it would probably save me from me spending the $$$ on a new body.
[endequote];


I've been following the hack for a couple of years and the latest versions (400Dplus) are very solid.

And it has WAAAAY more features added in addition to spot metering and Auto-ISO and extended ISO and extended AEB and .......

I always seem to struggle with things like this. I tried reading the first set of instructions and seriously thought about doing it but didn't want to risk hurting my camera. I have a desktop that has a CF card slot but I feel like I will screw up something as I try to write the info to the card and then put it in the camera. How hard is it really for a novice to do? Let me stress novice. What page does the 400Dplus instructions start?

kcbrown wrote in post #13085915
To get more light to the camera, you need to open the aperture up. "Stopping down" means to close the aperture, to let less light in. The primary reason to do that is to increase the depth of field, to get more in focus around the subject. With your 18-55 and 55-250, you generally don't need to do that much in the way of stopping down.

If you're already wide open on the aperture in low light with your 50 f/1.8, then there's really only one more stop wider you could go even if you were to get the widest aperture 50mm autofocus lens on the market today (the Canon 50 f/1.2L).

The bottom line is that if you're in low light, the 18-55 and 55-250 are not the best lenses for the job, but because of their image stabilization they're still quite good as long as you're not trying to capture moving subjects. The relatively narrow wide-open apertures on those lenses are really their only major drawback. They are great in daylight, as long as you don't need a terribly shallow depth of field, and they are good in low light as long as your subject isn't moving.


If you find yourself shooting a lot in relatively low light, an f/2.8 lens in the 17-50 or 17-55 focal length range would suit your needs quite well, assuming that's the focal length range you tend to use there. The question is whether or not you'll also need image stabilization. My conclusion is that you will.

You know from experience that your 18-55 IS already has image stabilization. With it, you can take shots with a much slower shutter speed than you could otherwise. If you're using IS in your low light shots with your 18-55 lens, then you're probably already beyond the low light capabilities of an f/2.8 lens that lacks image stabilization: f/2.8 is only two stops wider than f/5.6, but the IS on your 18-55 is capable of three (or a little more) stops of stabilization, making it possible to get shots with your 18-55 that would otherwise require an f/2.0 or faster lens to get. That pretty much rules out the Tamron 17-50 non-VC lens, and that really leaves two suitable lenses on the playing field: the Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 OS, and the Canon 17-55 f/2.8 IS. Of the two, the Sigma is significantly less expensive (around $670) and is actually slightly sharper in the center (though not quite as sharp at the edges). If you're thinking of upgrading one of your lenses, it sounds like the Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 OS is one you should seriously consider.

Otherwise, you'll need some f/1.4 primes to do better than you can with the gear you've already got.

Alot to digest there. I appreciate it. My low light problems are in parks like Disneyland down mainstreet where there is enough light but the camera seems to take hazy shots. I can't seem to get a crisp shot there.

KCmike wrote in post #13085994
Alot to digest there. I appreciate it. My low light problems are in parks like Disneyland down mainstreet where there is enough light but the camera seems to take hazy shots. I can't seem to get a crisp shot there.

If the background remains crisp but the people are blurs, then the problem is that your shutter speed is fast enough to capture the background but too slow to capture the people. That generally happens when you're in the shutter speed range where IS comes into its own.

If the entire shot is blurry, then either it missed focus by a lot, or the shutter speed is too slow for even the IS to handle.


Can you post up or link to some examples?


Here's the basic lowdown on shutter speed...

Shutter speed determines how much time is captured in the shot. The slower the shutter speed, the more time is captured.

Many things in the world are moving around all the time. The more time is captured in the shot, the more of a blur you'll see in the shot of things which are moving. The less time is captured, the less of a blur you'll see.

The shutter speed isn't the only thing that matters to that: how fast something is moving also matters. The faster something moves, the faster a shutter speed you have to use to "freeze" the subject. If you try to take a picture of a flying bird, you have to use a shutter speed on the order of 1/1000 of a second or faster in order to freeze the action, because the bird's wings are moving so quickly. If you're taking a picture of someone walking, on the other hand, you can get away with a slower shutter speed, perhaps 1/100 of a second, because people who are walking are not moving their limbs very quickly.


And finally, you are moving as well! Unless you put your camera on a tripod, your natural movements will cause the camera to move around a bit. That's called "camera shake", and there is a rule of thumb that photographers use to figure out what shutter speed they need to use in order to deal with it: take the focal length you're using, and use a shutter speed of 1 divided by that focal length or faster. For instance, if you're shooting at 50mm, then use a shutter speed of 1/50 of a second or faster. Most modern DSLRs (except for full frame DSLRs like the 5D series) tend to capture a narrower angle of view than did the cameras for which that rule was crafted, so for the cameras most of us use, a good rule of thumb is to use a shutter speed of 1 divided by twice the shutter speed. That 1/50 of a second I mentioned before now becomes 1/100 of a second.


Now, image stabilization throws something of a complication into the mix. Image stabilization tries to gyroscopically stabilize the image coming through the lens by moving around an optical element in the lens. The degree to which it's able to stabilize the image depends on the lens, but in the case of your 18-55 you're going to get about 3 stops worth of stabilization. That means that you can get away with using a shutter speed that is 3 stops slower than what the rule of thumb I described above suggests you should use. But while it will stabilize the nonmoving objects in the frame, it clearly won't do anything for moving objects in the frame. For those, you have to select a shutter speed that's appropriate for those.

And that means that image stabilization is primarily useful for taking shots of still objects and scenery. An empty street, a cathedral interior, etc. Once you throw people or other moving objects into the mix, the situation changes.


Sometimes you want to capture a blur. You can follow a car with your camera and, if your shutter speed is slow enough and your panning technique good enough, the car will be nice and sharp but the background will look like a rushing blur, and that'll give the viewer the impression of speed. Of course, if you use too slow a shutter speed for that, the car is likely to be a blur as well. The better your panning technique, the slower you can go on the shutter speed while keeping the car sharp.


In any case, the main thing to take away from this is that the shutter speed controls how much time you're capturing, and how much you want to capture will depend on what the situation is and what effects you're trying to achieve.


Ben's Newbie Guide to Digital Photography is a good read for some of the basics, like shutter speed. Highly recommended.

KCmike wrote in post #13085969
I always seem to struggle with things like this. I tried reading the first set of instructions and seriously thought about doing it but didn't want to risk hurting my camera. I have a desktop that has a CF card slot but I feel like I will screw up something as I try to write the info to the card and then put it in the camera. How hard is it really for a novice to do? Let me stress novice. What page does the 400Dplus instructions start?

Don't bother with upgrading the firmware on your camera (especially to third party firmware) until you've got the fundamentals mastered. You can do an awful lot with the camera you've got as it is. Trust me on that.

KCmike wrote in post #13085994
Alot to digest there. I appreciate it. My low light problems are in parks like Disneyland down mainstreet where there is enough light but the camera seems to take hazy shots. I can't seem to get a crisp shot there.

I described shutter speed and its effects. I haven't yet described how you can change it.

There are a couple of ways to do that. The first is to use shutter priority mode. That's the mode on the dial that says "Tv" (for "Time value"). When you put the camera into that mode, the dial behind your shutter button will control how fast your shutter speed is. The camera will automatically adjust the aperture to get the right exposure (if it can). It's best to play with this mode in daylight so you can see the effects better.

The second is to use manual exposure mode (the mode on the dial that says "M"). In that mode, you control both the shutter speed and the aperture yourself, directly. You can change them independently of each other (you'll need to read the manual for how to change them. The controls on the Rebel are different than the cameras I've been using. I think the dial behind the shutter button will change the shutter speed by default, and you have to press and hold some other button while turning the dial to change the aperture). If you want to use that mode, you'll need to learn about exposure and metering. So for playing with the shutter speed, stick with Tv mode until you have exposure and metering figured out.


Anyway, try playing around with Tv mode a bit.


There's lots to learn about digital photography before you get to the point where you're coming close to making the most of the gear you have: exposure, metering, shutter speed, aperture, ISO, depth of field, composition, lighting, noise, etc. But trust me, the journey is worth it, and so will the end results be once you've got all those things figured out.

First of all I want to say thank you very much to WaltA and kcbrown. You two have taken some time to give me such valuable information. Alright kcbrown. Here is a picture from Disneyland last year as we were walking out of the park late one night.

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Byte size: ZERO | PHOTOBUCKET ERROR IMAGE

KCmike wrote in post #13086598
First of all I want to say thank you very much to WaltA and kcbrown. You two have taken some time to give me such valuable information. Alright kcbrown. Here is a picture from Disneyland last year as we were walking out of the park late one night.

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Byte size: ZERO

and here is one that turned out better (I know that its not straight)

Shutter speed on the first shot was one full second. Shutter speed on the second one was 1/4 of a second.

Both shots were taken at f/5.6. Both were of static subjects.

But the focal length on the first shot was 10mm, and that tells me you were using an ultra-wide lens like the Sigma 10-20. That lens does not have image stabilization, so you have to use the shutter speed rule of thumb, which in this case says you want a shutter speed of around 1/20 of a second (if you have very steady hands, you can probably get away with 1/10 of a second). And that's why the image is blurry: the shutter was open for a full second, and there's no way to hold the camera steady enough, even at such a short focal length. That shot needed to be on a tripod for that shutter speed.

Now, the ISO on the first shot is 400. You have 2 more stops of ISO latitude before you hit the limit of the ISO setting on your camera. So you could have gotten a shutter speed as fast as 1/4 of a second if you had cranked the ISO up. That would be better, but you'd have to be braced against something for the shot to not show any camera shake. An alternative would be to go to 1/8 of a second (close enough to 1/10 of a second that if you have very steady hands, you could get a clean shot), thus underexposing the shot by a stop at ISO 1600, and then push the shot by a stop in postprocessing. You'd need to shoot in RAW and use something like Canon's Digital Photo Professional software for that, though (or Photoshop or Lightroom or something). You're also at 10mm. Even on the Sigma 10-20, you can go as wide as f/4 on the aperture at that focal length. That would get you an additional stop of light through the lens. So now we're talking about 10mm, f/4, and 1/8 of a second at ISO 1600. Bottom line is that your equipment can get that shot, and you don't even have to underexpose.


On to the second shot. Why does it look good?

Well, for that shot, you're at 23mm. That tells me you were using your 18-55 IS lens. You were also at ISO 1600, at f/5.6. And your shutter speed was 1/4 of a second. Sounds like the lighting was roughly the same as in your first shot, because that set of parameters would have gotten you the same tonal result as you got from the first shot. But the crucial difference here is that your 18-55 lens has image stabilization. Without it, you'd have to be at 1/50 of a second to properly handhold it, but the IS on your lens is good for somewhere between 3 and 4 stops worth of handholding capability, which puts the shutter speed capability at that focal length somewhere between 1/3 and 1/6 of a second. Your 1/4 of a second is right in between those two, so the end result is that you got a nice, stable shot.


And that is why the first image is blurry and the second isn't.

Thanks kcbrown. I have looked into a local class but they are all for beginners and I mean beginners. I guess I should look at some of the local camera shops. Appreciate the feedback.

KCmike wrote in post #13092277
Thanks kcbrown. I have looked into a local class but they are all for beginners and I mean beginners. I guess I should look at some of the local camera shops. Appreciate the feedback.

The community college classes, while they may be for "beginners", are not "dumbed down" in the way you might expect, at least if they're the full-semester classes that I'm thinking of. They thoroughly cover the fundamentals: shutter speed, aperture, depth of field, exposure, ISO, composition basics, and more (including, of course, developing film and exposing and developing prints if it's a film class, and postprocessing and printing if it's a digital class).

You really want to take a full-semester "basic photography" course if you can.

My first camera was the XTi. I still have it and use it often, although The Wife had it converted to IR for me as an anniversary gift back in June. You might consider the 50D as a more substantial upgrade than the 40D. The Wife uses one as her backup body, and until recently I normally shot with that when I assisted her with weddings. It's a nice camera, and a huge improvement over the Rebel line if you want to shoot sports (plus, it takes CF cards rather than SD--a plus in my book). Otherwise, late-model Rebels will give you upgrades across the board plus the ability to shoot video. I'm not entirely sold on the 60D, but that's coming from using a 50D quite a bit, so I'm biased.

[QUOTE=KCmike;13085969​]

WaltA wrote in post #13085825
I always seem to struggle with things like this. I tried reading the first set of instructions and seriously thought about doing it but didn't want to risk hurting my camera. I have a desktop that has a CF card slot but I feel like I will screw up something as I try to write the info to the card and then put it in the camera. How hard is it really for a novice to do? Let me stress novice. What page does the 400Dplus instructions start?

Novice on Camera or novice on PC? Most of the stuff you have to do is with your PC on the card reader.

Instructions Here http://code.google.com …/FirmwareHackIn​stallation
Just 4 steps for the camera (1 time) and 4 steps for each card (1 time)

I'm considering an upgrade in the next few months. I've had my XTi for 3 or 4 years now and it's not that I don't like it, but I sometimes wish I could shoot some video and had less noise at higher ISOs. I would only require a body and would sell my XTi body to recoup some of the expense and perhaps put some Xmas money towards it as well. I'm debating between the 60D and the T3i right now.