Yes it's another full frame quest. Help decide.

Here is 7-8yr old 1dmk2 where I wouldn't use ISO3200 at all. But with flash it works fine for football. I would like to have newer cameras but too expensive.

If the football shots are 100% crops, then you just need to improve your PP

If they are scaled down photos, then we can't see the noise.

I agree that the photos are underexposed, but nothing that can't be corrected with PP. I wouldn't have a problem going to ISO 6400 for better exposure (ETTR)...

Your photos are underexposed. An underexposed photo from a full frame camera will have high noise as well. I recommend reading teamspeeds thread about getting the best high ISO shots from the 7d. The same principles will apply to your current body.

Kellym7 wrote in post #15061331
thanks patric. I understand low light and High ISO creates noise.

No, low light and high ISo doesn't create noise. You can shoot in great lighting and low ISO and still have horrible noise. Shooting the left on the histogram will give you noise. The lower ISOs give you more headroom shooting left, but at higher ISOs, you really don't want to go past maybe -2/3 stop to the left if possible.

There will be times where you just won't have enough light for whatever lenses you have to produce the shutter speeds you need, and some of your shots approach that. If you shoot at ISO 6400, shutter of 1/200th and aperture of f2.8, and you are still underexposed, you don't have too much you can do at that point except to get really good at noise reduction or have a blurry photo.

Here is a low light ISO 6400 shot that gets close to what you shoot on the 7D.

I absolutely agree these images are underexposed. I have others I will post that I was able to get better light (brighter stadium). If I am missing something in LR 4.1 please fill me in. The noise slider is all the way left. If I move it to the right the images get even worse. I appreciate all the feedback and constructive criticism. I post here to try to get advise to get better. I am by far a pro. so hammer away. I will post pics in better lighting. with histogram being closer to center but still lots of noise.

ok these pics are not so under exposed but still noisy.

HTTP response: 504 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | PHOTOBUCKET ERROR IMAGE

Kellym7 wrote in post #15062104
If I am missing something in LR 4.1 please fill me in. The noise slider is all the way left. If I move it to the right the images get even worse.

which slider are you talking about? try moving the luminance slider to the RIGHT.

Kellym7 wrote in post #15062136
ok these pics are not so under exposed but still noisy.

Honestly... And I know these are not high resolution images. But given the circumstances, I think these are very acceptable images.

Are you pixel peeping at 100%... What is your final output going to be to showcase your photos? Are the images being printed, posted on social media, commercial use? I think in most cases where you will printing or posting onto social media, the noise that you speak of will not be hardly noticeable.

pxchoi wrote in post #15062170
Honestly... And I know these are not high resolution images. But given the circumstances, I think these are very acceptable images.

Are you pixel peeping at 100%... What is your final output going to be to showcase your photos? Are the images being printed, posted on social media, commercial use? I think in most cases where you will printing or posting onto social media, the noise that you speak of will not be hardly noticeable.

I will be doing a photo book for the pom squad. AS I have stated Im no pro. I feel I understand how to get the best photos I can with the equipment I have. I just don't feel its good enough for me and the one of these other cameras would be much better.

My research seems to be down to issues of focus. The 5d mk2 seems to be the better choice for faster phase detection auto focus as the 6d will be a contrast auto focus

Kellym7 wrote in post #15062194
I will be doing a photo book for the pom squad. AS I have stated Im no pro. I feel I understand how to get the best photos I can with the equipment I have. I just don't feel its good enough for me and the one of these other cameras would be much better.

My research seems to be down to issues of focus. The 5d mk2 seems to be the better choice for faster phase detection auto focus as the 6d will be a contrast auto focus

With the smaller sized prints that go into most photo books, noise wouldn't be a big deal, you'll probably hardly notice it as long as your exposure is good.

Try renting a 5DII for yourself and see what kind of results you get.

pxchoi wrote in post #15062217
With the smaller sized prints that go into most photo books, noise wouldn't be a big deal, you'll probably hardly notice it.

Try renting a 5DII for yourself and see what kind of results you get.

found a local store that has a 5d for rent but not the mkii. I think I will rent it so see how it compares

Kellym7 wrote in post #15062223
found a local store that has a 5d for rent but not the mkii. I think I will rent it so see how it compares

I think max ISO on the 5D classic is 1600 - I don't think that will be good for you. And the Enhanced H (3200) will probably be noisier than what your camera can pull off at 3200.

I don't know what lenses you are currently using, but some of them may not be compatible with the 5D. Also the 5D uses CF cards so make sure to have one on hand. But you might already know this.

You can rent one here - LensRentals

Try taking one of your noisier images and printing it to the size that would go into a photo book. I think you'd be surprised.

Kellym7 wrote in post #15060762
Ok I'm tired of the noisy images with my t3i. So I'm I've reasearched and still can't decide between the not yet released 6D or the less expensive 5DII. I'm happy with everything about the t3i except the noise in low light photos. I've seen comparisons but can't decide. So I'm hoping I can get help here to decide. I've been shooting sports but daughter is a Pom so that's really where I need to take photos. The sidelines are not as well lit as center field. I do a lot of cropping which enhances the noise in the photos. I'm shooting with a 70-200 f2.8 lens. My budget limits me to these 2 choices. And I want full frame. I also shoot photos of dance in a dark theater. Have got some great shots but can't stand the noise. Please help me make this decision.

If you're already doing a lot of cropping, then full frame is going to make things even worse, because you'll have to crop quite a lot more in order to get the same result with the same lens. That will magnify the noise even further.

You're already shooting with an f/2.8 lens wide open. A number of your shots are underexposed. If that's because you were already at the ISO limit and you couldn't reduce your shutter speed then you're basically at the limits of your gear and you would also be at the limits of a 5D2, precisely because it would force you to crop more aggressively.

The right answer here normally would be to invest in glass so that you don't have to crop as much. But it sounds like you'd need something like a 300 f/2.8 lens, and that is serious cash.

Because you're already at the focal length limits of your lens, you will not see any improvement whatsoever by going full frame unless you pick up a 1DX. A 5D3 would get you a marginal overall improvement (even after considering the additional cropping you would have to do) but it would be marginal, quite a bit less than a stop from what I've read, and would cost quite a lot as well. I wouldn't expect the 6D to be any better than the 5D3 in terms of high ISO performance, either.


No, it looks to me like you either need to start shooting at ISO 6400 and get really good exposures with that, or you need to get quite a lot better at postprocessing, or perhaps both. Either way, I don't think any gear other than lenses will improve your situation much, and proper lenses for your situation will be very expensive. Full frame will only exacerbate your need for longer lenses -- you'll need lenses with 1.5x the focal length of what you'd be using on a crop camera to achieve the same framing and you'd have to retain the same wide open aperture in order to see the improvement in noise that full frame would normally bring to the table.

kcbrown wrote in post #15063143
If you're already doing a lot of cropping, then full frame is going to make things even worse, because you'll have to crop quite a lot more in order to get the same result with the same lens. That will magnify the noise even further.

You're already shooting with an f/2.8 lens wide open. A number of your shots are underexposed. If that's because you were already at the ISO limit and you couldn't reduce your shutter speed then you're basically at the limits of your gear and you would also be at the limits of a 5D2, precisely because it would force you to crop more aggressively.

The right answer here normally would be to invest in glass so that you don't have to crop as much. But it sounds like you'd need something like a 300 f/2.8 lens, and that is serious cash.

Because you're already at the focal length limits of your lens, you will not see any improvement whatsoever by going full frame unless you pick up a 1DX. A 5D3 would get you a marginal overall improvement (even after considering the additional cropping you would have to do) but it would be marginal, quite a bit less than a stop from what I've read, and would cost quite a lot as well. I wouldn't expect the 6D to be any better than the 5D3 in terms of high ISO performance, either.


No, it looks to me like you either need to start shooting at ISO 6400 and get really good exposures with that, or you need to get quite a lot better at postprocessing, or perhaps both. Either way, I don't think any gear other than lenses will improve your situation much, and proper lenses for your situation will be very expensive. Full frame will only exacerbate your need for longer lenses -- you'll need lenses with 1.5x the focal length of what you'd be using on a crop camera to achieve the same framing and you'd have to retain the same wide open aperture in order to see the improvement in noise that full frame would normally bring to the table.

Great points. You are spot on about cropping. I loose the amount of zoom I have with my lens so I would be cropping even more. I did go print some of the photos and yes I was surprised they looked better than expected. I also played a bit more with Lightroom. I swear I played with the luminescent slider and moving it to the right made the noise worse. I went and played with it again and magically it's make the noise much better. I think I will save my money and continue working with what I have and get a bit more time playing with PP. Im also gonna try to get on the sideline so I can use less zoom or at least do less cropping in PP. thanks for all the good pointers.

Kellym7 wrote in post #15063571
Great points. You are spot on about cropping. I loose the amount of zoom I have with my lens so I would be cropping even more. I did go print some of the photos and yes I was surprised they looked better than expected. I also played a bit more with Lightroom. I swear I played with the luminescent slider and moving it to the right made the noise worse. I went and played with it again and magically it's make the noise much better. I think I will save my money and continue working with what I have and get a bit more time playing with PP. Im also gonna try to get on the sideline so I can use less zoom or at least do less cropping in PP. thanks for all the good pointers.

There's another slider you should play with: the masking slider in the sharpening section. What that does is cause the program to detect edges and to purposefully avoid sharpening anything that doesn't look like an edge. The slider tells it how "insensitive" to be when detecting edges to sharpen. All the way to the left and it'll sharpen everything (because it'll detect edges everywhere -- essentially, it turns the masking feature off entirely). All the way to the right and it'll sharpen nothing but the most obvious edges (because it won't be sensitive enough to detect any but the most obvious edges). You can actually see the mask if you hold the option key down (on a Mac. It'll be the alt key on a PC) while moving the slider. The idea here is to get it to not sharpen the noise while sharpening everything else. This will have the effect of reducing the apparent noise signature.