Blurry or soft full body photos when using canon 50mm f1.8 stm

Hello,

I am a beginner wedding photographer, its only been couple of months since I started doing wedding as a second shooter with a friend of mine. The kit I am using includes:

Canon M50 Mark II + 15-45kit5

Canon EF 50mm f1.8 stm with viltrox ef-efm adapter

Godox TT560 II Flash.

I know this is very basic setup and I shouldn't expect top notch quality but it should b good enough right?

Now here is my problem if I have to take a full body shot with my 50mm which on m50 becomes 80mm I need to stand away at least 10ft to more from the subject.

where I live most wedding are arranged at night time inside wedding venue where light is not always ideal so i use my flash to bounce off the ceiling (which is always 30ft or more high) the settings I use are:

Aperture f2-f2.8

Shutter Speed 1/125

ISO 500

Flash Power 1/2

Now with all of this combined when I try to take full body shots thay come out blurry or soft, why is that? is my flash not properly balanced with ambient light? is the 50mm lens not good enough? is 24Mp resolution not enough? am I crossing the limit of how far the camera can focus? and will replacing the canon 50mm with sigma 30 f1.4 dc dn for efm will make any difference.

Any help is appreciated.

Thank you.

Best to post a sample image. It could be subject movement, DOF too shallow, miss focus or a number of other things.

scrup wrote:

Best to post a sample image. It could be subject movement, DOF too shallow, miss focus or a number of other things.

50mm f2 ISO500 Flash 1/2

here if you zoom on his face you wil see that is soft focused.

muhdhumamkhan wrote:

scrup wrote:

Best to post a sample image. It could be subject movement, DOF too shallow, miss focus or a number of other things.

50mm f2 ISO500 Flash 1/2

here if you zoom on his face you wil see that is soft focused.

That is the sharpness, I would expect at F2 for that lens. What I see is noise/grain. You need more light to reduce the noise. Get a stronger flash, go FF or lower the ceilings.

scrup wrote:

muhdhumamkhan wrote:

scrup wrote:

Best to post a sample image. It could be subject movement, DOF too shallow, miss focus or a number of other things.

50mm f2 ISO500 Flash 1/2

here if you zoom on his face you wil see that is soft focused.

That is the sharpness, I would expect at F2 for that lens. What I see is noise/grain. You need more light to reduce the noise. Get a stronger flash, go FF or lower the ceilings.

I see Thank you.

muhdhumamkhan wrote:

scrup wrote:

muhdhumamkhan wrote:

scrup wrote:

Best to post a sample image. It could be subject movement, DOF too shallow, miss focus or a number of other things.

50mm f2 ISO500 Flash 1/2

here if you zoom on his face you wil see that is soft focused.

That is the sharpness, I would expect at F2 for that lens. What I see is noise/grain. You need more light to reduce the noise. Get a stronger flash, go FF or lower the ceilings.

I see Thank you.

I would actually expect a bit better sharpness than this. I sold my 50 STM when I got the Sigma 56 F1.4, which gives much better sharpness than this, even at F1.4. But my 50 STM still performed better than this, I think. Have you tried the lens in other conditions?

Thinking about what you said about the conditions, this could be a combination of hand shake and subject movement. If the ceiling is really 30 feet high, I'm pretty sure you're not getting much, if any, benefit from the flash (that's much too high for an effective bounce). What color is the ceiling? If what we're really seeing is the exposure from available light, 1/100 is just not fast enough to freeze even slight subject movements or hand shake. Take a shot with the lens in bright light at a fast shutter speed (at least 1/250) of a flat detailed surface at the same distance as this shot, and check how sharp it is at 100%.

Alastair Norcross wrote:

muhdhumamkhan wrote:

scrup wrote:

muhdhumamkhan wrote:

scrup wrote:

Best to post a sample image. It could be subject movement, DOF too shallow, miss focus or a number of other things.

50mm f2 ISO500 Flash 1/2

here if you zoom on his face you wil see that is soft focused.

That is the sharpness, I would expect at F2 for that lens. What I see is noise/grain. You need more light to reduce the noise. Get a stronger flash, go FF or lower the ceilings.

I see Thank you.

I would actually expect a bit better sharpness than this. I sold my 50 STM when I got the Sigma 56 F1.4, which gives much better sharpness than this, even at F1.4. But my 50 STM still performed better than this, I think. Have you tried the lens in other conditions?

Thinking about what you said about the conditions, this could be a combination of hand shake and subject movement. If the ceiling is really 30 feet high, I'm pretty sure you're not getting much, if any, benefit from the flash (that's much too high for an effective bounce). What color is the ceiling? If what we're really seeing is the exposure from available light, 1/100 is just not fast enough to freeze even slight subject movements or hand shake. Take a shot with the lens in bright light at a fast shutter speed (at least 1/250) of a flat detailed surface at the same distance as this shot, and check how sharp it is at 100%.

Yes when I take medium or closeup shots the sharpness is excellent but not when trying to take full body shots.

I some time wonder because the 50mm is a FF lens and because of that their is a distance limit for its focus to work accurately and if i am using it on crop frame i am exceeding that limit.

nnowak wrote:

muhdhumamkhan wrote:

scrup wrote:

Best to post a sample image. It could be subject movement, DOF too shallow, miss focus or a number of other things.

50mm f2 ISO500 Flash 1/2

here if you zoom on his face you wil see that is soft focused.

Thank you for the sample, it is very helpful. Is this a JPEG image right out of the camera, or is it a processed RAW?

The focus plane appears to be in the right place, and with sufficient depth of field. If we look at your subject's right side, around mid thigh on their coat, there is a loose thread. Looking at that thread, there are no telltale signs of motion blur. My first impression is that we are just seeing the effects of aggressive noise reduction.

Yes it is a JPEG straight out of camera.

That actually a very good point...because the subject is so small in frame it might be that noise reduction processing is messing up the pixels.

muhdhumamkhan wrote:

Alastair Norcross wrote:

muhdhumamkhan wrote:

scrup wrote:

muhdhumamkhan wrote:

scrup wrote:

Best to post a sample image. It could be subject movement, DOF too shallow, miss focus or a number of other things.

50mm f2 ISO500 Flash 1/2

here if you zoom on his face you wil see that is soft focused.

That is the sharpness, I would expect at F2 for that lens. What I see is noise/grain. You need more light to reduce the noise. Get a stronger flash, go FF or lower the ceilings.

I see Thank you.

I would actually expect a bit better sharpness than this. I sold my 50 STM when I got the Sigma 56 F1.4, which gives much better sharpness than this, even at F1.4. But my 50 STM still performed better than this, I think. Have you tried the lens in other conditions?

Thinking about what you said about the conditions, this could be a combination of hand shake and subject movement. If the ceiling is really 30 feet high, I'm pretty sure you're not getting much, if any, benefit from the flash (that's much too high for an effective bounce). What color is the ceiling? If what we're really seeing is the exposure from available light, 1/100 is just not fast enough to freeze even slight subject movements or hand shake. Take a shot with the lens in bright light at a fast shutter speed (at least 1/250) of a flat detailed surface at the same distance as this shot, and check how sharp it is at 100%.

Yes when I take medium or closeup shots the sharpness is excellent but not when trying to take full body shots.

I some time wonder because the 50mm is a FF lens and because of that their is a distance limit for its focus to work accurately and if i am using it on crop frame i am exceeding that limit.

The focus should work accurately all the way out to infinity on crop or full frame. I've never heard of a focus limit for accurate focusing with full frame lenses on crop cameras. I've mostly shot with crop cameras for the past 18 years (only adding the R a couple of years ago), and mostly with full frame lenses on those cameras.

I looked up your flash, and it just isn't anywhere near powerful enough to bounce of a 30 foot high (or more) ceiling (even a white one) and freeze movement. So, both subject movement and camera shake will be determined by your shutter speed. Your shutter speed of 1/100 is definitely too slow for handholding an unstabilized 50 on a crop camera. That gives you a FF equivalent field of view of 80mm. The old rule of thumb for handholding was 1/focal length for full frame, but that was based on acceptable looking sharpness from a 35mm film negative printed no larger than 10" X 8" (or 12" X 8" without cropping). If you view a 24MP image (6000 pixels X 4000 pixels) at 100% on a modern monitor, you're probably looking at an image that is anywhere from 27 inches wide to about 80 inches wide, depending on your monitor resolution (my iMac uses about 220ppi, but older monitors were more like 72ppi). For sharp looking shots from a 24MP sensor at 100% view, you need much faster than 1/FF-equivalent focal length. At a minimum, I'd say 1/2*full frame equivalent focal length, which would be 1/160 with the M50 II, and preferably a bit faster. Of course, this is just a rule of thumb, and some people have much steadier hands than others. Also, you didn't say whether this was shot on a tripod (I'm assuming it wasn't).

Alastair Norcross wrote:

muhdhumamkhan wrote:

Alastair Norcross wrote:

muhdhumamkhan wrote:

scrup wrote:

muhdhumamkhan wrote:

scrup wrote:

Best to post a sample image. It could be subject movement, DOF too shallow, miss focus or a number of other things.

50mm f2 ISO500 Flash 1/2

here if you zoom on his face you wil see that is soft focused.

That is the sharpness, I would expect at F2 for that lens. What I see is noise/grain. You need more light to reduce the noise. Get a stronger flash, go FF or lower the ceilings.

I see Thank you.

I would actually expect a bit better sharpness than this. I sold my 50 STM when I got the Sigma 56 F1.4, which gives much better sharpness than this, even at F1.4. But my 50 STM still performed better than this, I think. Have you tried the lens in other conditions?

Thinking about what you said about the conditions, this could be a combination of hand shake and subject movement. If the ceiling is really 30 feet high, I'm pretty sure you're not getting much, if any, benefit from the flash (that's much too high for an effective bounce). What color is the ceiling? If what we're really seeing is the exposure from available light, 1/100 is just not fast enough to freeze even slight subject movements or hand shake. Take a shot with the lens in bright light at a fast shutter speed (at least 1/250) of a flat detailed surface at the same distance as this shot, and check how sharp it is at 100%.

Yes when I take medium or closeup shots the sharpness is excellent but not when trying to take full body shots.

I some time wonder because the 50mm is a FF lens and because of that their is a distance limit for its focus to work accurately and if i am using it on crop frame i am exceeding that limit.

The focus should work accurately all the way out to infinity on crop or full frame. I've never heard of a focus limit for accurate focusing with full frame lenses on crop cameras. I've mostly shot with crop cameras for the past 18 years (only adding the R a couple of years ago), and mostly with full frame lenses on those cameras.

I looked up your flash, and it just isn't anywhere near powerful enough to bounce of a 30 foot high (or more) ceiling (even a white one) and freeze movement. So, both subject movement and camera shake will be determined by your shutter speed. Your shutter speed of 1/100 is definitely too slow for handholding an unstabilized 50 on a crop camera. That gives you a FF equivalent field of view of 80mm. The old rule of thumb for handholding was 1/focal length for full frame, but that was based on acceptable looking sharpness from a 35mm film negative printed no larger than 10" X 8" (or 12" X 8" without cropping). If you view a 24MP image (6000 pixels X 4000 pixels) at 100% on a modern monitor, you're probably looking at an image that is anywhere from 27 inches wide to about 80 inches wide, depending on your monitor resolution (my iMac uses about 220ppi, but older monitors were more like 72ppi). For sharp looking shots from a 24MP sensor at 100% view, you need much faster than 1/FF-equivalent focal length. At a minimum, I'd say 1/2*full frame equivalent focal length, which would be 1/160 with the M50 II, and preferably a bit faster. Of course, this is just a rule of thumb, and some people have much steadier hands than others. Also, you didn't say whether this was shot on a tripod (I'm assuming it wasn't).

I see. Yes I agree with you and yes I agree that my flash is not powerful enough and this is what I think maybe because my subject is not receiving proper flash light that's why its getting blurred just like you mentioned above in thats the case I have 2 options one get a softbox or umbrella or two to get a powerful flash even though I want get at least an AD200 but my budget only allows to get a v860ii or anything below it.

What are your thoughts?

and yes no tripod was used.

and as to mentioned above that you've been using apcs for a long time can you recommend me any good fast 50mm equivalent lens for apcs under $200 the or are their aren't any in this price?

muhdhumamkhan wrote:

Alastair Norcross wrote:

muhdhumamkhan wrote:

Alastair Norcross wrote:

muhdhumamkhan wrote:

scrup wrote:

muhdhumamkhan wrote:

scrup wrote:

Best to post a sample image. It could be subject movement, DOF too shallow, miss focus or a number of other things.

50mm f2 ISO500 Flash 1/2

here if you zoom on his face you wil see that is soft focused.

That is the sharpness, I would expect at F2 for that lens. What I see is noise/grain. You need more light to reduce the noise. Get a stronger flash, go FF or lower the ceilings.

I see Thank you.

I would actually expect a bit better sharpness than this. I sold my 50 STM when I got the Sigma 56 F1.4, which gives much better sharpness than this, even at F1.4. But my 50 STM still performed better than this, I think. Have you tried the lens in other conditions?

Thinking about what you said about the conditions, this could be a combination of hand shake and subject movement. If the ceiling is really 30 feet high, I'm pretty sure you're not getting much, if any, benefit from the flash (that's much too high for an effective bounce). What color is the ceiling? If what we're really seeing is the exposure from available light, 1/100 is just not fast enough to freeze even slight subject movements or hand shake. Take a shot with the lens in bright light at a fast shutter speed (at least 1/250) of a flat detailed surface at the same distance as this shot, and check how sharp it is at 100%.

Yes when I take medium or closeup shots the sharpness is excellent but not when trying to take full body shots.

I some time wonder because the 50mm is a FF lens and because of that their is a distance limit for its focus to work accurately and if i am using it on crop frame i am exceeding that limit.

The focus should work accurately all the way out to infinity on crop or full frame. I've never heard of a focus limit for accurate focusing with full frame lenses on crop cameras. I've mostly shot with crop cameras for the past 18 years (only adding the R a couple of years ago), and mostly with full frame lenses on those cameras.

I looked up your flash, and it just isn't anywhere near powerful enough to bounce of a 30 foot high (or more) ceiling (even a white one) and freeze movement. So, both subject movement and camera shake will be determined by your shutter speed. Your shutter speed of 1/100 is definitely too slow for handholding an unstabilized 50 on a crop camera. That gives you a FF equivalent field of view of 80mm. The old rule of thumb for handholding was 1/focal length for full frame, but that was based on acceptable looking sharpness from a 35mm film negative printed no larger than 10" X 8" (or 12" X 8" without cropping). If you view a 24MP image (6000 pixels X 4000 pixels) at 100% on a modern monitor, you're probably looking at an image that is anywhere from 27 inches wide to about 80 inches wide, depending on your monitor resolution (my iMac uses about 220ppi, but older monitors were more like 72ppi). For sharp looking shots from a 24MP sensor at 100% view, you need much faster than 1/FF-equivalent focal length. At a minimum, I'd say 1/2*full frame equivalent focal length, which would be 1/160 with the M50 II, and preferably a bit faster. Of course, this is just a rule of thumb, and some people have much steadier hands than others. Also, you didn't say whether this was shot on a tripod (I'm assuming it wasn't).

I see. Yes I agree with you and yes I agree that my flash is not powerful enough and this is what I think maybe because my subject is not receiving proper flash light that's why its getting blurred just like you mentioned above in thats the case I have 2 options one get a softbox or umbrella or two to get a powerful flash even though I want get at least an AD200 but my budget only allows to get a v860ii or anything below it.

What are your thoughts?

and yes no tripod was used.

and as to mentioned above that you've been using apcs for a long time can you recommend me any good fast 50mm equivalent lens for apcs under $200 the or are their aren't any in this price?

I would think a good starting point would be to aim to use ISO 100, maybe 200, but anything higher will present noise like this. 1/125th would be the bare minimum for a very still subject, and with your current flash using full power (instead of ½ power) would be a start. I would also not go below f2.8 with that lens.

As regards a flash, does it have to be a lithium battery model ? The Godox TT-685 C (I think there is a Mk ii out now) is a full powered flash and considerably cheaper than a V860ii. It has a guide number of 60 compared with 38 for the 560.

Have you tried using some kind of diffuser or bounce aid on the flash rather than a very high ceiling ? You can get a white/silver (double-sided) card that attaches to the flash head and you can angle the head up (but not as much as you would with ceiling bounce) and (with the white side) it will bounce a somewhat diffused light directly at your subject. There are also opaque plastic diffusers that fit over the flash lens to do the same thing.

Another option might be a more direct flash but using the flash off-camera - Godox make a great flash wireless controller.

muhdhumamkhan wrote:

Hello,

I am a beginner wedding photographer, its only been couple of months since I started doing wedding as a second shooter with a friend of mine. The kit I am using includes:

Canon M50 Mark II + 15-45kit5

Canon EF 50mm f1.8 stm with viltrox ef-efm adapter

Welcome to the Forum! Weddings are manic alright!

I've owned a handful of the various "Thrifty Fifties," and two of the 15-45 kit lenses. They've all been fairly decent and quite useful.

Godox TT560 II Flash.

I have the (larger) V860 III. Nice flash.

The 560 is pretty marginal as far as power is concerned (but balances on the M50ii better than a larger flash). OK for the reception, but underpowered for large spaces.

I know this is very basic setup and I shouldn't expect top notch quality but it should b good enough right?

I would consider it serviceable at least.

Now here is my problem if I have to take a full body shot with my 50mm which on m50 becomes 80mm I need to stand away at least 10ft to more from the subject.

Yup. Typical wedding shots range from 10 - 20 feet or more.

where I live most wedding are arranged at night time inside wedding venue where light is not always ideal so i use my flash to bounce off the ceiling (which is always 30ft or more high) the settings I use are:

Ouch! That's asking a lot of any on-camera flash!

Aperture f2-f2.8

Shutter Speed 1/125

ISO 500

Flash Power 1/2

I'd suggest practicing a LOT with your flash in various situations.

Now with all of this combined when I try to take full body shots thay come out blurry or soft, why is that?

In the shot you posted, the flash contributed next to nothing. Therefore you need to treat this shot like any other (low) ambient light shot.

There is subject movement evident in your example (maybe a little camera shake too?). The focal plane is also slightly behind the subject (his face and hands look OOF). What were your autofocus settings? Did he perhaps walk through your depth of field by the time the shot was taken?

is my flash not properly balanced with ambient light?

Right. However even a properly balanced exposure will exhibit issues if you don't take into consideration the effects of the low ambient light level. My first suggestion would be to increase your shutter speed to max sync. Bring the ambient light level up with your ISO setting.

Speaking of ISO, the blur you are getting isn't due to over-zealous noise reduction.

However, going forward you will need to be raising your ISO's above what you're currently using, and therefore will need better noise reduction than what either the camera or Adobe can provide. I highly recommend investing in DxO's Photolab 6 for processing your RAWs. DxO Deep Prime and Deep Prime XD are the best out there.

is the 50mm lens not good enough?

How does it do with the same aperture in good light? Is the IQ high enough?

is 24Mp resolution not enough?

The MP isn't your problem.

am I crossing the limit of how far the camera can focus?

You haven't included any details of your AF settings or technique.

and will replacing the canon 50mm with sigma 30 f1.4 dc dn for efm will make any difference.

It'll change your perspective. Do you want a wider angle lens? The Sigma is recommended. The Canon 32 is more popular.

If you can deal with a little longer focal length, then the Sigma 56 is excellent.

Any help is appreciated.

50mm f2 ISO500 Flash 1/2

Nice shot. You could also crop this into a square (IMHO).

here if you zoom on his face you wil see that is soft focused.

Yup, focus is off, and shutter speed is too low. Flash is ineffective.

Your equipment is likely fine. But your settings need a lot of work.

A different camera or a different lens will not address what's fundamentally at fault.

Holler back with questions! 

R2

Thank you for taking time and addressing  each part of my question.

R2D2 wrote:

muhdhumamkhan wrote:

Hello,

I am a beginner wedding photographer, its only been couple of months since I started doing wedding as a second shooter with a friend of mine. The kit I am using includes:

Canon M50 Mark II + 15-45kit5

Canon EF 50mm f1.8 stm with viltrox ef-efm adapter

Welcome to the Forum! Weddings are manic alright!

I've owned a handful of the various "Thrifty Fifties," and two of the 15-45 kit lenses. They've all been fairly decent and quite useful.

I see.

Godox TT560 II Flash.

I have the (larger) V860 III. Nice flash.

The 560 is pretty marginal as far as power is concerned (but balances on the M50ii better than a larger flash). OK for the reception, but underpowered for large spaces.

Yes I am thinking of upgrading it.

I know this is very basic setup and I shouldn't expect top notch quality but it should b good enough right?

I would consider it serviceable at least.

Really? thank you. It actually makes me feel kinda good cuz most people around me are telling me that its a bad investment and I should have gone for canon 5D M III or  sony a6500.

Now here is my problem if I have to take a full body shot with my 50mm which on m50 becomes 80mm I need to stand away at least 10ft to more from the subject.

Yup. Typical wedding shots range from 10 - 20 feet or more.

where I live most wedding are arranged at night time inside wedding venue where light is not always ideal so i use my flash to bounce off the ceiling (which is always 30ft or more high) the settings I use are:

Ouch! That's asking a lot of any on-camera flash!

Aperture f2-f2.8

Shutter Speed 1/125

ISO 500

Flash Power 1/2

I'd suggest practicing a LOT with your flash in various situations.

Now with all of this combined when I try to take full body shots thay come out blurry or soft, why is that?

In the shot you posted, the flash contributed next to nothing. Therefore you need to treat this shot like any other (low) ambient light shot.

Thats what I thought too maybe my flash is blending with the ambient light and is unable to do what its supposed to be (freezing movement)

There is subject movement evident in your example (maybe a little camera shake too?). The focal plane is also slightly behind the subject (his face and hands look OOF). What were your autofocus settings? Did he perhaps walk through your depth of field by the time the shot was taken?

for long shot my autofocus setting is set to 1-point (the smallest point) autofocus with AI SERVO enabled.

is my flash not properly balanced with ambient light?

Right. However even a properly balanced exposure will exhibit issues if you don't take into consideration the effects of the low ambient light level. My first suggestion would be to increase your shutter speed to max sync. Bring the ambient light level up with your ISO setting.

Speaking of ISO, the blur you are getting isn't due to over-zealous noise reduction.

However, going forward you will need to be raising your ISO's above what you're currently using, and therefore will need better noise reduction than what either the camera or Adobe can provide. I highly recommend investing in DxO's Photolab 6 for processing your RAWs. DxO Deep Prime and Deep Prime XD are the best out there.

yes I have PhotoLab and I am also considering instead of bouncing flash I should use Octabox or an umbrella to direct all of flash at my subject.

is the 50mm lens not good enough?

How does it do with the same aperture in good light? Is the IQ high enough?

When I taking half body shots with Eye AF enabled and the subject is lit well either with ambient light or flash the images are tack sharp.

is 24Mp resolution not enough?

The MP isn't your problem.

am I crossing the limit of how far the camera can focus?

You haven't included any details of your AF settings or technique.

I think this was a silly question I asked. I am using Eye AF for closeups and 1-point for long shots.

and will replacing the canon 50mm with sigma 30 f1.4 dc dn for efm will make any difference.

It'll change your perspective. Do you want a wider angle lens? The Sigma is recommended. The Canon 32 is more popular.

I am struggling if I should invest in it or not cuz the sigma lens costs me around Rs.60,000 (USD to PAK Rupees) and the canon one is even more expensive even in USD, it would cost me around Rs.90,000.

If you can deal with a little longer focal length, then the Sigma 56 is excellent.

Any help is appreciated.

50mm f2 ISO500 Flash 1/2

Nice shot. You could also crop this into a square (IMHO).

Hhaha Thank you I really appreciate it.

here if you zoom on his face you wil see that is soft focused.

Yup, focus is off, and shutter speed is too low. Flash is ineffective.

Your equipment is likely fine. But your settings need a lot of work.

A different camera or a different lens will not address what's fundamentally at fault.

Holler back with questions!

R2

Thanks you for your help I'll try experimenting again and see what happens.

muhdhumamkhan wrote:

will replacing the canon 50mm with sigma 30 f1.4 dc dn for efm will make any difference.

It would improve a lot for full body shot. Really.

1) F/1. 4 is faster than F/2.

2) Sigma 30 is sharper at F/1.4 than 50 at F/2

3) You will be closer (at 30mm) when taking full body picture, which means your flash will help a lot more.

There is the inverse square law of light, so the intensity of light of your flash will fade as a square function. A lot.

So, if you are closer, there will be a lot more light from your flash at your subject.

So, yes, Sigma 30mm F/1.4 would really make a huge difference.

Advi wrote:

muhdhumamkhan wrote:

will replacing the canon 50mm with sigma 30 f1.4 dc dn for efm will make any difference.

It would improve a lot for full body shot. Really.

1) F/1. 4 is faster than F/2.

2) Sigma 30 is sharper at F/1.4 than 50 at F/2

3) You will be closer (at 30mm) when taking full body picture, which means your flash will help a lot more.

There is the inverse square law of light, so the intensity of light of your flash will fade as a square function. A lot.

So, if you are closer, there will be a lot more light from your flash at your subject.

So, yes, Sigma 30mm F/1.4 would really make a huge difference.

+1 This would be the next lens purchase I would make (in the OP’s shoes), followed by the Sigma 16.

However a more appropriate flash (and modifiers) should sit at the very top of the list IMHO. The OP won’t be able to use large apertures all the time (due to DOF requirements), and adding modifiers and perhaps a color-balancing gel will cut down the light even further.

R2

muhdhumamkhan wrote:

Thank you for taking time and addressing each part of my question.

I just thank my lucky stars that I don’t have to shoot weddings any more! They’re HARD!!! I do still shoot a lot of events tho.

There is a member here (Alexis) who does shoot weddings with the M50 (Mark I), and does very well. Maybe reach out to him…

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4644739#forum-post-66128223

R2D2 wrote:

muhdhumamkhan wrote:

Hello,

I am a beginner wedding photographer, its only been couple of months since I started doing wedding as a second shooter with a friend of mine. The kit I am using includes:

Canon M50 Mark II + 15-45kit5

Canon EF 50mm f1.8 stm with viltrox ef-efm adapter

Welcome to the Forum! Weddings are manic alright!

I've owned a handful of the various "Thrifty Fifties," and two of the 15-45 kit lenses. They've all been fairly decent and quite useful.

I see.

Godox TT560 II Flash.

I have the (larger) V860 III. Nice flash.

The 560 is pretty marginal as far as power is concerned (but balances on the M50ii better than a larger flash). OK for the reception, but underpowered for large spaces.

Yes I am thinking of upgrading it.

The Godox AD200 Pro that you mentioned before is a very handy unit (I use one). I have a handle for it so that I can walk around with it (plus an X2T-C transmitter on the camera), but it is quite large and is more at home on a light stand. You can buy a “Bowens mount” adapter for it (it simply clamps on) so you can use any standard studio modifiers (reflectors, beauty dishes, umbrellas, softboxes, etc) with it. Plus it has a handy light stand mount on the bottom.

I actually always keep a 33 inch parabolic (umbrella style) softbox and a light stand in the back of my vehicle for location shoots, plus a big folding reflector. The AD200 and transmitter go in a cooler (with a bunch of thermal mass, and silica gel) to help keep the lithium batteries dry and at a fairly normal temperature during the day. Beats the heck out of a gas generator!

In the church the AD200 is much more suited to taking the formal posed pictures though, and not so much the ceremony/candids/casual portraits. A standard shoe-mount flash is needed here (mount it on a large flash bracket to get it up away from the lens). The more power the better (you’ll need modifiers). Godox is the value leader IMHO. I also have Canon flashes (more expensive), and Yongnuo (built cheaper). I also like that the majority of the Godox flashes/strobes have a built-in receiver, and they all work with the same transmitter(s).

I know this is very basic setup and I shouldn't expect top notch quality but it should b good enough right?

I would consider it serviceable at least.

Really? thank you. It actually makes me feel kinda good cuz most people around me are telling me that its a bad investment and I should have gone for canon 5D M III or sony a6500.

Full frame would be the next step up. If your upgrade roadmap includes FF, then take that into consideration when selecting lenses. Maybe a used Canon 35mm f2 IS would be your next lens then.

Now here is my problem if I have to take a full body shot with my 50mm which on m50 becomes 80mm I need to stand away at least 10ft to more from the subject.

Yup. Typical wedding shots range from 10 - 20 feet or more.

where I live most wedding are arranged at night time inside wedding venue where light is not always ideal so i use my flash to bounce off the ceiling (which is always 30ft or more high) the settings I use are:

Ouch! That's asking a lot of any on-camera flash!

Aperture f2-f2.8

Shutter Speed 1/125

ISO 500

Flash Power 1/2

I'd suggest practicing a LOT with your flash in various situations.

Now with all of this combined when I try to take full body shots thay come out blurry or soft, why is that?

In the shot you posted, the flash contributed next to nothing. Therefore you need to treat this shot like any other (low) ambient light shot.

Thats what I thought too maybe my flash is blending with the ambient light and is unable to do what its supposed to be (freezing movement)

A tall order. If you want to freeze movement (without ghosting), then your flash will need to provide the vast majority of the light. Consider what that’ll do to your backgrounds. Also keep in mind the different color temperatures.

There is subject movement evident in your example (maybe a little camera shake too?). The focal plane is also slightly behind the subject (his face and hands look OOF). What were your autofocus settings? Did he perhaps walk through your depth of field by the time the shot was taken?

for long shot my autofocus setting is set to 1-point (the smallest point) autofocus with AI SERVO enabled.

Sounds good!

is my flash not properly balanced with ambient light?

Right. However even a properly balanced exposure will exhibit issues if you don't take into consideration the effects of the low ambient light level. My first suggestion would be to increase your shutter speed to max sync. Bring the ambient light level up with your ISO setting.

Speaking of ISO, the blur you are getting isn't due to over-zealous noise reduction.

However, going forward you will need to be raising your ISO's above what you're currently using, and therefore will need better noise reduction than what either the camera or Adobe can provide. I highly recommend investing in DxO's Photolab 6 for processing your RAWs. DxO Deep Prime and Deep Prime XD are the best out there.

yes I have PhotoLab and I am also considering instead of bouncing flash I should use Octabox or an umbrella to direct all of flash at my subject.

Bingo. If you have lower ceilings at some venues, then bouncing is great. In those cases, at the very least use an Omnibounce pointed straight up, or a Gary Fong Light Blade (these are your most compact options when you can’t do a larger modifier).

is the 50mm lens not good enough?

How does it do with the same aperture in good light? Is the IQ high enough?

When I taking half body shots with Eye AF enabled and the subject is lit well either with ambient light or flash the images are tack sharp.

Good. Then your lens is not the culprit. Concentrate on adding light.  No matter what, consider your shutter speeds!

is 24Mp resolution not enough?

The MP isn't your problem.

am I crossing the limit of how far the camera can focus?

You haven't included any details of your AF settings or technique.

I think this was a silly question I asked. I am using Eye AF for closeups and 1-point for long shots.

Great.

and will replacing the canon 50mm with sigma 30 f1.4 dc dn for efm will make any difference.

It'll change your perspective. Do you want a wider angle lens? The Sigma is recommended. The Canon 32 is more popular.

I am struggling if I should invest in it or not cuz the sigma lens costs me around Rs.60,000 (USD to PAK Rupees) and the canon one is even more expensive even in USD, it would cost me around Rs.90,000.

I have the Canon 32mm and it is spectacular. Others have the Sigma 30, and like the bokeh even more. Do consider that 35 IS that I mentioned earlier if you have FF in your future.

If you can deal with a little longer focal length, then the Sigma 56 is excellent.

Any help is appreciated.

50mm f2 ISO500 Flash 1/2

Nice shot. You could also crop this into a square (IMHO).

Hhaha Thank you I really appreciate it.

Two different compositions, two different things communicated.

here if you zoom on his face you wil see that is soft focused.

Yup, focus is off, and shutter speed is too low. Flash is ineffective.

Your equipment is likely fine. But your settings need a lot of work.

A different camera or a different lens will not address what's fundamentally at fault.

Holler back with questions!

R2

Thanks you for your help I'll try experimenting again and see what happens.

Best of luck. Get out there with someone and practice your butt off!

R2

R2D2 wrote:

muhdhumamkhan wrote:

Thank you for taking time and addressing each part of my question.

I just thank my lucky stars that I don’t have to shoot weddings any more! They’re HARD!!! I do still shoot a lot of events tho.

There is a member here (Alexis) who does shoot weddings with the M50 (Mark I), and does very well. Maybe reach out to him…

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4644739#forum-post-66128223

R2D2 wrote:

muhdhumamkhan wrote:

Hello,

I am a beginner wedding photographer, its only been couple of months since I started doing wedding as a second shooter with a friend of mine. The kit I am using includes:

Canon M50 Mark II + 15-45kit5

Canon EF 50mm f1.8 stm with viltrox ef-efm adapter

Welcome to the Forum! Weddings are manic alright!

I've owned a handful of the various "Thrifty Fifties," and two of the 15-45 kit lenses. They've all been fairly decent and quite useful.

I see.

Godox TT560 II Flash.

I have the (larger) V860 III. Nice flash.

The 560 is pretty marginal as far as power is concerned (but balances on the M50ii better than a larger flash). OK for the reception, but underpowered for large spaces.

Yes I am thinking of upgrading it.

The Godox AD200 Pro that you mentioned before is a very handy unit (I use one). I have a handle for it so that I can walk around with it (plus an X2T-C transmitter on the camera), but it is quite large and is more at home on a light stand. You can buy a “Bowens mount” adapter for it (it simply clamps on) so you can use any standard studio modifiers (reflectors, beauty dishes, umbrellas, softboxes, etc) with it. Plus it has a handy light stand mount on the bottom.

I actually always keep a 33 inch parabolic (umbrella style) softbox and a light stand in the back of my vehicle for location shoots, plus a big folding reflector. The AD200 and transmitter go in a cooler (with a bunch of thermal mass, and silica gel) to help keep the lithium batteries dry and at a fairly normal temperature during the day. Beats the heck out of a gas generator!

In the church the AD200 is much more suited to taking the formal posed pictures though, and not so much the ceremony/candids/casual portraits. A standard shoe-mount flash is needed here (mount it on a large flash bracket to get it up away from the lens). The more power the better (you’ll need modifiers). Godox is the value leader IMHO. I also have Canon flashes (more expensive), and Yongnuo (built cheaper). I also like that the majority of the Godox flashes/strobes have a built-in receiver, and they all work with the same transmitter(s).

Yes I actually bought a Godox S-Bracket couple of months ago and I am also considering getting a good light stand and Godox UB-130D, I wanted to go with UB-130W but its not available where I live and then save up some money and buy a good flash I have 4 flashes in mind TT685ii, V860ii, AD100 pro and AD200 pro.

you are absolutely right about godox value, for the price of one canon 600 ex rt one can get a full kit from godox with better recycle time.

I know this is very basic setup and I shouldn't expect top notch quality but it should b good enough right?

I would consider it serviceable at least.

Really? thank you. It actually makes me feel kinda good cuz most people around me are telling me that its a bad investment and I should have gone for canon 5D M III or sony a6500.

Full frame would be the next step up. If your upgrade roadmap includes FF, then take that into consideration when selecting lenses. Maybe a used Canon 35mm f2 IS would be your next lens then.

Yes, once i recoup the money I used to buy M50 and save some more I am thinking of upgrading to FF and it will be  dream come true if I could get my hand on sony a7iv or canon R5 with 85 1.2 and 28-70 f2...🤤🤤🤤

Now here is my problem if I have to take a full body shot with my 50mm which on m50 becomes 80mm I need to stand away at least 10ft to more from the subject.

Yup. Typical wedding shots range from 10 - 20 feet or more.

where I live most wedding are arranged at night time inside wedding venue where light is not always ideal so i use my flash to bounce off the ceiling (which is always 30ft or more high) the settings I use are:

Ouch! That's asking a lot of any on-camera flash!

Aperture f2-f2.8

Shutter Speed 1/125

ISO 500

Flash Power 1/2

I'd suggest practicing a LOT with your flash in various situations.

Now with all of this combined when I try to take full body shots thay come out blurry or soft, why is that?

In the shot you posted, the flash contributed next to nothing. Therefore you need to treat this shot like any other (low) ambient light shot.

Thats what I thought too maybe my flash is blending with the ambient light and is unable to do what its supposed to be (freezing movement)

A tall order. If you want to freeze movement (without ghosting), then your flash will need to provide the vast majority of the light. Consider what that’ll do to your backgrounds. Also keep in mind the different color temperatures.

I tried it today I actually just got back from an event and the light their was utterly disgusting and was quit darkish but the good thing was that the ceiling were lower about 10 feet tall so what I did was set my SS to 1/160 aperture to f2.8 ISO 800 or 1600  (cuz I read somewhere that canon does a good job of handling ISO if you increase it by a full stops instead of 1/3 or 1/2 incriminates) and my flash power to full and then when I took a photo guess what they better then the sample in this thread. Now I have to just test it in bright venues with an umbrella pointing at the subject.

There is subject movement evident in your example (maybe a little camera shake too?). The focal plane is also slightly behind the subject (his face and hands look OOF). What were your autofocus settings? Did he perhaps walk through your depth of field by the time the shot was taken?

for long shot my autofocus setting is set to 1-point (the smallest point) autofocus with AI SERVO enabled.

Sounds good!

is my flash not properly balanced with ambient light?

Right. However even a properly balanced exposure will exhibit issues if you don't take into consideration the effects of the low ambient light level. My first suggestion would be to increase your shutter speed to max sync. Bring the ambient light level up with your ISO setting.

Speaking of ISO, the blur you are getting isn't due to over-zealous noise reduction.

However, going forward you will need to be raising your ISO's above what you're currently using, and therefore will need better noise reduction than what either the camera or Adobe can provide. I highly recommend investing in DxO's Photolab 6 for processing your RAWs. DxO Deep Prime and Deep Prime XD are the best out there.

yes I have PhotoLab and I am also considering instead of bouncing flash I should use Octabox or an umbrella to direct all of flash at my subject.

Bingo. If you have lower ceilings at some venues, then bouncing is great. In those cases, at the very least use an Omnibounce pointed straight up, or a Gary Fong Light Blade (these are your most compact options when you can’t do a larger modifier).

is the 50mm lens not good enough?

How does it do with the same aperture in good light? Is the IQ high enough?

When I taking half body shots with Eye AF enabled and the subject is lit well either with ambient light or flash the images are tack sharp.

Good. Then your lens is not the culprit. Concentrate on adding light. No matter what, consider your shutter speeds!

is 24Mp resolution not enough?

The MP isn't your problem.

am I crossing the limit of how far the camera can focus?

You haven't included any details of your AF settings or technique.

I think this was a silly question I asked. I am using Eye AF for closeups and 1-point for long shots.

Great.

and will replacing the canon 50mm with sigma 30 f1.4 dc dn for efm will make any difference.

It'll change your perspective. Do you want a wider angle lens? The Sigma is recommended. The Canon 32 is more popular.

I am struggling if I should invest in it or not cuz the sigma lens costs me around Rs.60,000 (USD to PAK Rupees) and the canon one is even more expensive even in USD, it would cost me around Rs.90,000.

I have the Canon 32mm and it is spectacular. Others have the Sigma 30, and like the bokeh even more. Do consider that 35 IS that I mentioned earlier if you have FF in your future.

If you can deal with a little longer focal length, then the Sigma 56 is excellent.

Any help is appreciated.

50mm f2 ISO500 Flash 1/2

Nice shot. You could also crop this into a square (IMHO).

Hhaha Thank you I really appreciate it.

Two different compositions, two different things communicated.

here if you zoom on his face you wil see that is soft focused.

Yup, focus is off, and shutter speed is too low. Flash is ineffective.

Your equipment is likely fine. But your settings need a lot of work.

A different camera or a different lens will not address what's fundamentally at fault.

Holler back with questions!

R2

Thanks you for your help I'll try experimenting again and see what happens.

Best of luck. Get out there with someone and practice your butt off!

R2

-- hide signature --

Good judgment comes from experience.
Experience comes from bad judgment.
http://www.pbase.com/jekyll_and_hyde/galleries

Thank You for the help man its was great talking you.

I sincerely Thank each and every one who tried to help me I really appreciate it.

Thank You everyone.