Shocked!

adrian26 said:

PS I hate Nikon!

Click to expand...

Why do you hate Nikon? Isn't that a little childish? I chose Canon and it fits me, but I'm sure I'd do just as well with Nikon cameras.

Unless he was shooting a wedding in the catacombs in Rome ;-)

400 ISO is pretty low for handheld no flash shots. I would have jumped to 160 to start and move up from there. I have never used the 40D but the 1DsII is great at 1600 and if the exposure is on the money, 3200 is 100% useable. I won't hesitate to go to 3200 if the lighting conditions warrant it.

Yes, thank you this clarify the situation.

So you are using ISO400 and still get complaints of the noise - I wonder how picky some people may be.

adrian26 said:

Usually the clients chose from digital data only. This is probably
why I had complains about noise, because the way they chose to watch
the pictures. From those @2000 pics, the final selection will contain
120-150 photos that are going to be printed big size, the rest of
them remaining only in digital format on DVD's. Usually I give them
only processed files, with color correction and whatever I think is
necessary.
One reason that I have to much files is that usually there are up to
5 photo session, other then the wedding (I am talking about the
engagement pictures, prewedding, trash the dress, bride glamor, etc).
For those files I usually make further more correction, including
here some minor correction on face. It takes a lot of time. I hope
now I understood better your question

Click to expand...

--

1600 may be barely useable but it's better than darkness. When I only had the 30D and a 300D I thought the 1600 on the 30D was a lifesaver.

I can't wait to get my hands on a new 5DMK and see what it will do at high iso.

CM_laptop said:

....rawshooter Premium?

—> The main shooting conditions I'm talking about are both with
flash & standard zoom lenses; in a typically dim Baroque
Mediterranean church.

Disastrous canon flash exposure aside,
(I can sort of live with that....with constant workarounds or plain
old manual),

the Canon 20D exhibits shadows that are way, way murkier than the D50
(the D40 is supposed to be even better). Blotchy chroma noise, not to
mention amazingly little difference in rez in real world prints.

Go beyond ISO800 & the Canon 20D loses it out big time.

For the life of me I can't believe it when people affirm that the 20D
is so much superior to its contemporary Nikon counterparts.

It isn't, unless in this part of the EU all Canon cameras are
defective: my experiences are mirrored by most pros in the
Mediterranean area.
(As an aside: which is why many pros here sprang for a 5D; or an S3
pro for great o-o-c JPEGs)

Click to expand...

D40, D50, 20D , 5D , S3

what is this?

nikons before the D3 are not as good as the canons (all) past 400ISO

tell the pros that you say to know to invest a little more on cameras and get better ones if they need to shoot at over 400ISO .

ISO1600 f3.5 1/15th gives EV4 which is closer to floodlit buildings. I don't think the pcitures where closeups.

In a church we're closer to EV0 if not -1. Looks more like ISO 24800 to me
--
I wanted a better viewfinder and now I need more money

Probably you are right, but 50 D was not an option at the time of buying 30D, not even the 40D , since that camera become available AFTER my purchase.

Those are probably better lighted compared to Orthodox churches @ 7 PM...The walls are painted with dark smoked colors, no light come from windows and only a few light are set in only 2 places in the huge church. So go figure...

to Mommy.

What are you doing following me around like a lost child?

Oh wait....you ARE a child......

you can't just come up here and tell stories. There are photographers in here, listening, ya know?

LOL

and every time you tell stories and invent stuff (like I said before) I'll be there and immediately correct you.

but I'd rather do something else than to keep correcting you but ehy.. I have to do what I have to do..

cityphotographer said:

and every time you tell stories and invent stuff (like I said before)
I'll be there and immediately correct you.

Click to expand...

The little boy is out for more....

cityphotographer said:

but I'd rather do something else than to keep correcting you but
ehy.. I have to do what I have to do..

Click to expand...

That's a fine example of contradiction n terms! Congrats.

It seems you have this uncanny ability to present arguments that work •against• you & your point of view. Priceless!

PerL said:

PerL wrote:

Is the 20D much better than the 350D/Xt? Because I could not see any
advantage of the 350D/Xt in low light when I tried it side by side
with a D40 for a week.

Click to expand...

PerL,

I have seen the comparison you had posted long ago [I guess it was coffee cup & then a staircase].

-- While D40 had less noise, the 300D had sharp details, which the D40 lacked --
Nothing wrong, some prefer less noisy images, while others prefer image details

Cheers,
-Mike.

which, BTW, I generally don't care for where IQ is concerned. Never used Rawshooter.

CM_laptop said:

....rawshooter Premium?

—> The main shooting conditions I'm talking about are both with
flash & standard zoom lenses; in a typically dim Baroque
Mediterranean church.

Click to expand...

Can't imagine trying to light up a church with an on-camera flash. Not my style. I'd go with a long exposure and base ISO + tripod, if allowed, or ISO cranked + handheld if not. And I know Canon's flash exposures generally blow, so I'd have determined flash exposure manually, if I were to have used it. Ditto white balance. I'd have shot RAW and processed with either Aperture or C14(.5) and the results at every ISO would have been far better with the 30D than with the D40, D70, D50 or any other Nikon using that Sony 6MP sensor.

CM_laptop said:

Disastrous canon flash exposure aside,
(I can sort of live with that....with constant workarounds or plain
old manual),

the Canon 20D exhibits shadows that are way, way murkier than the D50
(the D40 is supposed to be even better). Blotchy chroma noise, not to
mention amazingly little difference in rez in real world prints.

Click to expand...

With flash, neither camera should be having problems with murky shadows, since one would either allow enough ambient light to fill the shadows or use a 2nd flash for fill (not likely, but possible). Regardless, at high ISO and in RAW, the 30D has more shadow latitude than the D50/D40/D70, and more highlight headroom as well. And there may be splotchy chroma noise, but that's easily dealt with by any NR software, leaving abundant luminance detail intact. Not so with the Nikons, which obscure image detail with high amounts of luminance noise at high ISO. Whether or not it makes a difference in print depends on the size you print and whether or not those are true photographic prints or inkjets. The difference in noise handling and detail is pretty apparent from 8" x 12" onward with photographic prints.

CM_laptop said:

Go beyond ISO800 & the Canon 20D loses it out big time.

Click to expand...

If you say so. But my eyes tell me otherwise.

CM_laptop said:

For the life of me I can't believe it when people affirm that the 20D
is so much superior to its contemporary Nikon counterparts.

Click to expand...

It's affirmed by so many people because, in terms of image quality alone, it's true. Now, you may have to wrestle with inept AF and sloppy metering to achieve that higher image quality, but the potential is there and its greater than can be realized with contemporary Nikons.

CM_laptop said:

It isn't, unless in this part of the EU all Canon cameras are
defective: my experiences are mirrored by most pros in the
Mediterranean area.
(As an aside: which is why many pros here sprang for a 5D; or an S3
pro for great o-o-c JPEGs)

Click to expand...

--
- -
Kabe Luna

http://www.garlandcary.com

CM_laptop wrote:
you don't invent stuff anymore and I don't have to correct you all the time

mchahn said:

candleJack said:

if you are apt at
dragging the shutter then flash becomes a very powerful tool, as
I'm sure you know.

Click to expand...

Can you explain this to me, someone who doesn't know?

Click to expand...

Sure,

I will try to link you a better resource, but in short dragging the shutter allows you have both your subject and the background ( ) properly exposed and your subject ( ) sharp. It works best when the background is brighter than your intended subject and, in my opinion, when it is also relatively far from the subject. In principle is exactly what Canon flash system is trying to do when you use an automatic exposure mode (Av, Tv, P): meter & expose for the background and use the flash to balance the subject exposure. However, dragging the shutter allows for some great effects and using Manual exposure is better to take advantage of the various looks one can get.

A slow shutter speed with moving subjects or a shaky hand normally means a blurry image. When using flash (bellow the x-sync) this is only half true. The image created by the available light will make for a blurry image at 1/5" but the flash (which is a burst of light much faster than even your highest shutter speed - 1/8000 - will superimpose over the ambient light image another one (for moving subjects this is when second curtain sync comes into play) which will be the equivalent of a very fast exposure (meaning a very sharp subject). Since the subject will be exposed by the ambient ( available ) light and also by the flash how much blurry and how much sharp he will be will depend on the ratio between ambient light and flash.

I am not a native English speaker nor an expert on photography or flash techniques. I tried just to give you an idea of what dragging the shutter means and how it works. For a better and more complete understanding use google and "dragging the shutter". There will be many results to browse through.

This is where I learned about it: http://planetneil.com/tangents/flash-photography-techniques/3-dragging-the-shutter/

And last, an example:



--
I like them fast & silent, fast & shallow...
.......................................................USM Primes

stick to the facts; provide reasonable arguments; don't make up things then accuse others of doing so.

adrian26 said:

Those are probably better lighted compared to Orthodox churches @ 7
PM...The walls are painted with dark smoked colors, no light come
from windows and only a few light are set in only 2 places in the
huge church. So go figure...

Click to expand...

Those a few Orthodox churches and monasteries I have visited were not so very dark places. Not generally much daylight I admit, but surely not any "dark corners" as your post may give an impression. Lots and lots of candles, no difficulties to see and admire those hundreds of art objects everywhere. Some museums like Louvre in France are partly IMHO much darker places and thus more challenging for photography (and definitely no flash lights allowed).

And I have participated Orthodox weddings as well (my first cousin married a girl from an Orthodox family).

CM_laptop wrote:
not true.

you inventing things and I have to correct you

again

...read a few and mist the obvious, you stated you used the nikon on a group portrait with the photographer in it: 3.5 does not give enough DOF for a group portrait (or it must be a really flat and dull composition) AND 1/15s is too slow to freeze the motion of the people. IS nor VR will help you there.

Since you need at least 1.5 stops on the aperture and 2 stops on the shutterspeed upping the iso will be no option either (from 400 you'd go beyond 3200). So yes, flash was your only option.

Rob.
--
'Life is funny but not Ha Ha funny. Peculiar I guess'. (Mr. E.)