Reading mode: Light Dark

Canon XSi Low light no flash action shots

Go to last post
chrsnrow said:
So can I get good results with the 50 or if I'm not going to be in
the front row should I start saving for the 85? I just read a lot on
another thread about people loving their 50 and using it for other
things too, but I want to put my money to good use. Luckily I have 8
months to prepare and you guys are really helping me out a lot.
Thanks.
Click to expand...
I know you do realize the 50 1.8 is a fast prime and can be used at F1.8. You sure have to watch the DOF when using 1.8. But, some of the comments you are making suggests to me that you may not realize that it can be used at any F stop from 1.8 all the way up to F22.

Here is a example of daytime shooting. Note the very shallow DOF.

F2.5 ISO 100 1/1600



Here is 2.8 ISO 800 1/80. Camp fire light only.

 
sparkey2 said:
Love your print gallery and am wondering if you are getting many
print sales from the site. I think they have great potential to sell.
You may want to consider printing and placing some in store front art
galleries too.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the encouragement. ;) I set that up to quiet my friends and family who kept insisting I should sell prints. (I haven't sold one print yet.)

Now they insist that I host a booth an art fair next spring!

It is all in good fun.

--
CityLights
http://www.pbase.com/citylights
.
 
sparkey2 said:
I know you do realize the 50 1.8 is a fast prime and can be used at
F1.8. You sure have to watch the DOF when using 1.8. But, some of the
comments you are making suggests to me that you may not realize that
it can be used at any F stop from 1.8 all the way up to F22.
Click to expand...
Kind of . . . it's been a long time since I used anything other than a point and shoot and I'm still trying to wrap my mind around it all. It's hard to remember details from 20 years ago.

Those pictures and labels helped make it much clearer in my mind. Thanks a lot, maybe I'll win the lottery and then I can buy all the great lenses. I really like the value of the 50, it's so much cheaper than the 85. Just trying to figure out which one is going to work best for me and your information helped a lot.

I'm glad I have a lot of time before her dance recital to figure this all out. Thanks again.
 
Yes quality lenses are expensive but once you have one you realize why they are expensive and desirable. But don't think you have to have get them all at once. Save up and pick them up one at a time. I have 2 L's that I bought on ebay.

You must have seen it said here before, a camera body is only great until the next upgrade but a quality lens is forever....... or until you loose your balance and drop it in the sea.
 
chrsnrow said:
So can I get good results with the 50 or if I'm not going to be in
the front row should I start saving for the 85? I just read a lot on
another thread about people loving their 50 and using it for other
things too, but I want to put my money to good use. Luckily I have 8
months to prepare and you guys are really helping me out a lot.
Thanks.
Click to expand...
The answer is - it depends on what type of shot you want. The reality of shooting low light action with these primes is you CANNOT crop heavily and get good results. For instance, if you want to end up with a portrait orientation photo and your daughter filling the majority of the frame you need to be within 10 feet. After 15 feet you will not get sharp enough focus and enough detail to crop down. The limit of the 85mm is about 20-25 feet. Now, if you want several people in the frame and sharpness isn't a big issue then yes you can move back a little. I've shot thousands of action shots with the 85 and 50 (and thousands more with other lenses). And you don't have to like it but there is more to the equation than fast shutter speeds. These lenses just aren't going to give you critical focus beyond a certain range. And, in low light you're not going to be able to heavily crop and retain detail anyway.

In reality for many recital type shots you don't need the 1/500 shutter speeds you do for sports. You can get by with 1/200 or so. A 70-200 2.8 works great. But if the price of the 85 is scaring you off I don't think the 70-200 2.8 is in the buget.

Just realize, the 85 doesn't give you an extra 50 feet to work with - it gives you an extra 10 feet or so.
 
Following up - Here are some photos from the rehearsal of my daughter's Nutcracker performance rehearsal. All were shot with the 85mm f/1.8, mostly using 800iso, 1/250 shutter. I couldn't have taken any of these photos with my kit or the 55-250. The 50mm f1.8 would have worked, but differently (wider, more missed focuses likely, less ability to highlight one individual). Shots were taken 5 to 7 rows back from the stage (good seats but not front row). I'm glad I was able to take these at the rehearsal, some other parents took photos during the show, which I thought was obtrusive particularly during quieter passages.

http://picasaweb.google.com/Andrew.H.West/Nutcracker2008#
 
Great photos. Thanks for closing the loop on the post. A couple of questions, though.

1) how did you get a camera in to take pictures? My daughters school says no cameras -- you have to buy the "official" photos and video!

2) I just ordered the 55-250 for this type of event. Why do you think yours wouldn't have been able to take these. For example, looking at this photo http://picasaweb.google.com/Andrew.H.West/Nutcracker2008#5276924568588402850 it's ISO 800 1/250 second at f 2.0. I understand the 55-250 to be at f/4.5 at 85mm, so that would still be about 1/100 second, then if you stepped up to ISO 1600, you could get 1/200 thereabouts. And, you could zoom in more when needed, and still be at 1/125 (at 1600 ISO). Not trying to be argumentative. I'd just like to hear your thinking, and to see if I made the right decision for the 55-250!
 
WT21 said:
2) I just ordered the 55-250 for this type of event. Why do you think
yours wouldn't have been able to take these. For example, looking at
this photo
WT21 said:
http://picasaweb.google.com/Andrew.H.West/Nutcracker2008#5276924568588 > 402850 it's ISO 800 1/250 second at f 2.0. I understand the 55-250 to be at > f/4.5 at 85mm, so that would still be about 1/100 second, then if you stepped > up to ISO 1600, you could get 1/200 thereabouts. And, you could zoom in more > when needed, and still be at 1/125 (at 1600 ISO). Not trying to be > argumentative. I'd just like to hear your thinking, and to see if I made the right > decision for the 55-250!
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Actually, f2 vs f4.5 is more than 2 stops. using a calculator, I get a shutter speed of 1/50 at f4.5 in the same lighting. You could bump it up to 1/100 at 1600, but that is pushing it for action. And with that logic, the f2 lens could be at 1/500 at 1600! Guaranteed to stop action.

I have the 55-250, and I really like that lens. But if you sole purpose in buying it was for low light action, you probably have the wrong lens. It only get slower as you zoom in, too. It hits f5 at 100mm and f5.6 at 200mm. That almost halves the shutter speed yet again. This is why sports and action photographers always have those big wallet-draining white zooms :)
 
WT21 said:
... it's ISO 800 1/250 second at f 2.0. I understand the 55-250 to be at f/4.5 at 85mm, so that would still be about 1/100 second...
Click to expand...
ISO 800
1/250th
f/2.0

is not equivalent to

ISO 800
1/100th
f/4.5

In going from f/2.0 to f/4.5 one LOSES about 2 1/3 stops

2 -> 2.8 -> 4 -> 4.5 (-1-1-1/3) = -2 1/3

In going from 1/250th to 1/100 one GAINS about 1 1/3 stops

1/250 -> 1/125 -> 1/100 (+1+1/3) = +1 1/3

So still in the hole (ie. underexposed) by 1 stop.
WT21 said:
... then if you stepped up to ISO 1600, you could get 1/200 thereabouts.
Click to expand...
No - would need to increase the ISO to 1600 in the first scenario for the exposures to balance out. Shutter speed is at 1/100th, not 1/200th for equivalent exposure.

To get shutter speed to 1/200th, would have to go to 3200 ISO (or shoot at 1600 ISO and set EC to -1 then "push" exposure during post-processing to simulate ISO 3200).
WT21 said:
And, you could zoom in more when needed, and still be at 1/125
(at 1600 ISO).
Click to expand...
Nope.
WT21 said:
... to see if I made the right decision for the 55-250!
Click to expand...
Well...generally speaking one should have a "fast lens" and the 55-250 is not a fast lens.

But going to depend on the stage lighting. Sometimes performances can have fairly bright stage lighting or a bright spotlight lighting the main dancer/performer.

Or could use IS when the performers are standing still and shoot at say 1/60th to compensate for the slow max aperture of the lens.

--
Good Day,
Roonal

'Money doesn't buy happiness, but it makes for an extravagant depression' by golf tournament sportscaster
 
These photos were at the rehearsal, and nobody cared if we took photos as long as we didn't use flash. There was an announced prohibition against cameras, but I heard a guy with a huge L lens shooting throughout - I don't know why they let him continue. Most of my daughters' dance competitions, they sell dvds, so they prohibit videorecording, and they prohibit flash photography. But they do allow non-flash photography, so far.

I haven't tried using the 55-250 in these situations, because I don't think it would work very well. Going from f2.0 to f4.5 is over 2 stops. To freeze moving dancers, you need 1/250 or higher. (And 1/320 would be better yet). That suggests 3200 ISO (1600 w/ -1 EV) is needed just to get close to the 2.0 equivalent, and that's not going to look good. I suspect focus hunting could also be a problem on the 55-250 lens.

On the other hand, the 55-250 could do OK if you take your shots when the dancers are at rest, with the IS helping out. A long time ago, I tried taking shots with the kit lens (roughly similar zoomed out to the 55-250 on the wide end), and I didn't like what I saw. That's why I bought the 50mm f/1.8 initially, but am liking the 85mm f/1.8 better, because it gets me closer and focuses a bit more reliably.

I recommend the 85mm f 1.8 camera for those interested in this sort of indoor, lowish light photography, that don't want to spend > $1000 for a huge L lens that still doesn't collect quite as much light (2.8 vs 1.8). The side benefit is that it's an excellent portrait lens (I just took my family's Xmas card photos with this lens last night by setting the tripod back about 15 feet).
 
Obviously I brain-cramped on 2.0 - 4.5, missing a stop in between. The rest of the math falls apart after that. I should have double-checked my math, because it sounded too good even to me as I wrote it -- lol.
 
AHWest said:
These photos were at the rehearsal, and nobody cared if we took
photos as long as we didn't use flash. There was an announced
prohibition against cameras, but I heard a guy with a huge L lens
shooting throughout - I don't know why they let him continue. Most of
my daughters' dance competitions, they sell dvds, so they prohibit
videorecording, and they prohibit flash photography. But they do
allow non-flash photography, so far.

I haven't tried using the 55-250 in these situations, because I don't
think it would work very well. Going from f2.0 to f4.5 is over 2
stops. To freeze moving dancers, you need 1/250 or higher. (And 1/320
would be better yet). That suggests 3200 ISO (1600 w/ -1 EV) is
needed just to get close to the 2.0 equivalent, and that's not going
to look good. I suspect focus hunting could also be a problem on the
55-250 lens.

On the other hand, the 55-250 could do OK if you take your shots when
the dancers are at rest, with the IS helping out. A long time ago, I
tried taking shots with the kit lens (roughly similar zoomed out to
the 55-250 on the wide end), and I didn't like what I saw. That's why
I bought the 50mm f/1.8 initially, but am liking the 85mm f/1.8
better, because it gets me closer and focuses a bit more reliably.

I recommend the 85mm f 1.8 camera for those interested in this sort
of indoor, lowish light photography, that don't want to spend > $1000
for a huge L lens that still doesn't collect quite as much light (2.8
vs 1.8). The side benefit is that it's an excellent portrait lens (I
just took my family's Xmas card photos with this lens last night by
setting the tripod back about 15 feet).
Click to expand...
Thanks. My math in my above reply fell apart. Brain-cramped and missed a full stop!

I think I'll still try the 55-250, based on yesterday's experience.

My daughter was singing in a Christmas play at church yesterday, and I took along my old 75-300 non-IS, because I didn't have anything else beyond my 50/1.8 (other than my point and shoot). I took a ton of pics during their morning rehearsal from mid way back (about where I usually end up for these sorts of things) and was able to get around 1/60-1/125 at full telephoto. Coming from point and shoot land, I was pretty much pleased, with the only issue being that lack of IS ruined most of the shots. So, I ordered the 55-250IS to see how that goes. I found that sometimes I wanted a wide shot of the choir and sometimes a close in on my daughter when in the choir and during her solo. I was looking at primes the last two weeks, but since Sunday, decided I needed something that zooms.

Thanks for relating your experiences.
 
tkbslc said:
tkbslc said:
2) I just ordered the 55-250 for this type of event. Why do you think
yours wouldn't have been able to take these. For example, looking at
this photo
tkbslc said:
http://picasaweb.google.com/Andrew.H.West/Nutcracker2008#5276924568588 > 402850 it's ISO 800 1/250 second at f 2.0. I understand the 55-250 to be at > f/4.5 at 85mm, so that would still be about 1/100 second, then if you stepped > up to ISO 1600, you could get 1/200 thereabouts. And, you could zoom in more > when needed, and still be at 1/125 (at 1600 ISO). Not trying to be > argumentative. I'd just like to hear your thinking, and to see if I made the right > decision for the 55-250!
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Actually, f2 vs f4.5 is more than 2 stops. using a calculator, I get
a shutter speed of 1/50 at f4.5 in the same lighting. You could bump
it up to 1/100 at 1600, but that is pushing it for action. And with
that logic, the f2 lens could be at 1/500 at 1600! Guaranteed to
stop action.

I have the 55-250, and I really like that lens. But if you sole
purpose in buying it was for low light action, you probably have the
wrong lens. It only get slower as you zoom in, too. It hits f5 at
100mm and f5.6 at 200mm. That almost halves the shutter speed yet
again. This is why sports and action photographers always have those
big wallet-draining white zooms :)
Click to expand...
Thanks. I missed a stop in my calc. I'm coming from point and shoot land (and point and shoot budgets!) so I don't need a ton to make me happy. Most of what I take indoors in dim light are more like stage productions. I don't for example, shoot hockey, but I do take pictures at gymnastics meets, but those tend to have better lighting. Also, I'll use it for outdoor soccer.

I got the 55-250 for $179 from B&H, so I'll try it out. If it really doesn't fit the need, I'll consider the 85/1.8, but I'm not yet ready for the 70-200 L 4.0 IS! Too big, white and expensive for me.
 
--

If your daughter's recital is important to record memories, and price a limiting factor, I suggest renting a 70-200 2.8 IS for that week. You'll get more keepers.

Otherwise you'll struggle with a 55-250 (unless she poses for miliseconds,) and you won't get to enjoy her recital from a spectator's point of view.

I recently shot my daughter's (4 year old) ballet recital with an 85 1.8 on an XTi, and I didn't like "not" having a zoom. Pictures were fine, but no variation. My brother actually was with me and shot with a d300 and a 55-200 VR, and he got decent picture qualities at 3200 ISO. I can't comment too much on the noise control on an XSi, but my other brother's XSi wasn't that much difference in noise compared to my Xti.

I have a 55-250, and while great outdoors, I struggle with it in dim light.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top