low-light bird

[ibrewster]

Canon T2i, 50mm IOS 3200 F/5 1/1000 Lens: Canon EFS 18-200 IS 3.5-5.6

I know this isn't a particularly good shot - it's just a quick snap I took to illustrate the issue I would like feedback on. I believe F/5 is wide-open for my lens at 50mm, and 1/1000 is about as slow a shutter speed as I would like to go to be able to capture birds like this - any slower and they start blurring. So, ignoring composition and focusing on quality, how could I improve this shot? Do I need a "better" lens? Or is there something else I could do with my current hardware?

[Tito87]

I don't know what to say. There's so much noise, that I can barely see any detail. I'm not familiar with your camera, but it seems to me that It can't handle high ISO values that well. So, if you want to be able to shoot at 1/1000 or faster in low-light situations, you need a different camera.

[ibrewster]

Originally Posted by Tito87

I don't know what to say. There's so much noise, that I can barely see any detail. I'm not familiar with your camera, but it seems to me that It can't handle high ISO values that well. So, if you want to be able to shoot at 1/1000 or faster in low-light situations, you need a different camera.

Exactly- way too much noise. It should probably also be noted that while I say low-light, I wouldn't exactly call it really low-light. This picture was taken during the day, on a fairly clear day, albeit with the sun still pretty low in the sky, and the area in question somewhat shaded. Unfortunately that describes most of the daylight hours around here (Fairbanks, AK) in the winter. So daylight, but not BRIGHT daylight.

The T2i, as I understand it, is essentially the top end of Canon's prosumer DSLR line (they have a T3i out now, but it is essentially the same hardware, just tweaked a bit). It retailed for about $850 when I got it a year ago. So to get a better camera, I would be looking at a professional level, $1200+ camera. In your opinion though, that is what I would need to be able to capture shots like this? I guess I have expensive tastes in photography Would a different lens with a larger aperture option (such as the 50mm f/1.8 or similar) help, or would that just limit my DOF too much, do you think?

[Tito87]

A larger aperture will help you to lower the ISO value, but will decrease your DOF. If this picture is an example of what you like to photograph, I think you need a focal length longer than 50mm. There's no question about it; high-end cameras handle noise a lot better.

[mrteacherdude]

For critique purposes, to improve your image quality I think you mostly need to be able to get more light to your sensor. Additionally, I think a longer focal length would be beneficial. Even though your current lens was a decent focal length, I suspect you didn't use it because it wouldn't allow enough light to get to your sensor to give you anything usable.

I haven't shot with the T2i, but from what I've read, noise suppression at high ISO is pretty good. My dad has a T2i and has been very happy with noise levels at high ISO. But 3200, in my experience, is getting up there a bit and is likely to be noisy as a result, especially if there isn't a lot of light there to work with. That may seem odd because that's why we choose high ISO's in the first place, because of lack of light.

Lenses make a huge difference in photo quality, and I'm pretty sure a better lens would make more of a difference to you right now than a better camera body. Better lenses for the purposes of shooting in low light conditions would be those that have much wider apertures. Prime lenses will let you go to f/2.0 or lower, depending on the lens, and high quality zooms will get you down to f/2.8. Do keep in mind that most lenses are generally not at their sharpest wide open, but that shouldn't stop you from using them wide open.

If you are trying to shoot things that are some distance from you, like birds usually are, than I think you will benefit a lot by having a longer focal length than the 50mm f/1.8 that you mentioned. Yes, it will let a lot more light hit your sensor, but that is one slow focusing lens and a relatively small bird in your field of view will be difficult to lock on and track. I have one of those lenses, and while I use if frequently for shooting indoors, I would not consider using it as a lens to try to get something moving fast in low light. I would bust out my kit lens and use that instead, it focuses faster and has IS. I recently rented and shot with a 70-200 f2.8L (non IS). It gave me great low light performance and focused incredibly fast and accurately, I found that 200mm wasn't enough reach for me at times when I was trying to get birds.

Shooting stuff far away from you with a large aperture lens is not likely to be as much of a DOF issue as one might think. For instance, a subject 50 ft away shot with a 150mm focal length at f2.8 will give you a DOF of about 3.6 ft. Accurate focusing is a concern, but not as huge as one may think, unless the subject is relatively small and difficult to track. That same subject 100 feet away at f2.8 give you a DOF of about 14 ft. Again, not a huge problem unless the subject is small. This is one reason why longer focal length lenses come in handy.

I've read/heard that some people have good results with the 70-200mm f/4 L IS in low light conditions since it has a good IS system and will cost substantially less than even a 70-200mm f/2.8 L (non-IS).

If you are concerned about costs of lenses and not so worried about focal length at the moment, you might consider some of the other primes. The 85mm f/1.8 focuses very quickly and has very good image quality. I've read that the 100mm f/2.0 is essentially the same lens as the 85, but gives you another 15mm focal length. There is also a 135mm f/2.0 L, but since it is an L, the cost is higher than the others.

I don't know about 3rd party lenses, but these may be an option as well. Some of these have fixed f/2.8 apertures and cost less than Canon lenses, but I don't know about image quality or focusing speed of any of these lenses.

[RichardTaylor]

Shooting fast moving subjects in low light means fast lenses, unless you are very good at panning (and the subject cooperates), and quick accurate focussing lenses..

Depending on the reach you need. I would be looking at F2.8 & 200mm or 300mm, howevcer you may be able to get by with F4 lenses.

The other thing is have you tried to reduce noise (possibly selectively) when PPing your raw files?.

[ibrewster]

So larger aperture (which means better lens) at a longer focal length to keep the DOF from getting too small. That makes sense- and thank you VERY much for the in-depth discussion on lenses. It was most helpful. Actually, somewhat surprisingly, with these particular birds distance is rarely an issue (although certainly in general it often is). The other day I stood out on the porch not more than six feet from the feeder, snapping pictures as they came in to eat. I've even seen them come to the feeder with someone sitting directly below it. As such, the difficulty isn't in getting close enough for a good picture, it's in catching them as they dart around at high speeds in less-than-optimal lighting. Thanks for the tips!

[Tito87]

Originally Posted by ibrewster

So larger aperture (which means better lens) at a longer focal length to keep the DOF from getting too small.

Actually, it's the opposite: Larger aperture and longer focal length will result in shallower DOF.

[ibrewster]

Originally Posted by Tito87

Actually, it's the opposite: Larger aperture and longer focal length will result in shallower DOF.

Originally Posted by mrteacherdude

Shooting stuff far away from you with a large aperture lens is not likely to be as much of a DOF issue as one might think. For instance, a subject 50 ft away shot with a 150mm focal length at f2.8 will give you a DOF of about 3.6 ft. Accurate focusing is a concern, but not as huge as one may think, unless the subject is relatively small and difficult to track. That same subject 100 feet away at f2.8 give you a DOF of about 14 ft. Again, not a huge problem unless the subject is small. This is one reason why longer focal length lenses come in handy.

Now I know that larger aperture decreases DOF, but from what mrtecherdude said here, it would seem that longer focal lengths increase DOF, thereby canceling out the decrease from the larger aperture. As I know shooting at even f/5 at shorter focal lengths gives me a rather small DOF (less than a foot I would estimate), then if, as you say, Larger aperture and longer focal length result in shallower DOF, wouldn't f2.8 @ 150 mm give a minuscule DOF, not something in the range of 3.6ft? I'm now officially confused

[Tito87]

Originally Posted by ibrewster

Now I know that larger aperture decreases DOF, but from what mrtecherdude said here, it would seem that longer focal lengths increase DOF, thereby canceling out the decrease from the larger aperture. As I know shooting at even f/5 at shorter focal lengths gives me a rather small DOF (less than a foot I would estimate), then if, as you say, Larger aperture and longer focal length result in shallower DOF, wouldn't f2.8 @ 150 mm give a minuscule DOF, not something in the range of 3.6ft? I'm now officially confused

Longer focal length will give you shallower DOF. Take a look here.
Hyperfocal Distance and Depth of Field Calculator - DOFMaster