50D and Division 1 Volleyball

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
iso3200 f2.8 1/500th

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

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

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.

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

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.

Croasdail wrote in post #6482060
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.

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

Croasdail wrote in post #6482060
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
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.

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. I guess it just comes down to the work flow you are used to.

Dan-o wrote in post #6482228
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.

AdamLewis wrote in post #6482020
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.

Croasdail wrote in post #6484471
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.