Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Canon EF 70-200 F4

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
June 11, 2005 3:22:34 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Greetings,

I recently took around 50 shots at my nieces graduation with a 300D and
70-200 F4. Unfortunately, there wasn't one usable shot. Every single shot is
blurred to some degree. I realize this particular lens is a bit slow for
indoor action shots, but I didn't think posed indoor shots would be a
problem.
I suspect the lens was back focusing, but I'm not sure how to verify this for
sure. I've experienced the same problem shooting deer in the backyard on
overcast days. Anyone have any advise. TIA

Robert

More about : canon 200

Anonymous
June 11, 2005 3:22:35 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"RWM" <MichiganMan59@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1118460213.02de06555305e908f1f683b36ef7cd35@teranews...
> Greetings,
>
> I recently took around 50 shots at my nieces graduation with a 300D and
> 70-200 F4. Unfortunately, there wasn't one usable shot. Every single shot
> is
> blurred to some degree. I realize this particular lens is a bit slow for
> indoor action shots, but I didn't think posed indoor shots would be a
> problem.
> I suspect the lens was back focusing, but I'm not sure how to verify this
> for
> sure. I've experienced the same problem shooting deer in the backyard on
> overcast days. Anyone have any advise. TIA
>
> Robert
>
Hand holding or on a tripod? If it's backfocusing, then something will be
in focus, just not what you wanted.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Anonymous
June 11, 2005 11:53:16 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

RWM wrote:

> Greetings,
>
> I recently took around 50 shots at my nieces graduation with a 300D and
> 70-200 F4. Unfortunately, there wasn't one usable shot. Every single shot is
> blurred to some degree. I realize this particular lens is a bit slow for
> indoor action shots, but I didn't think posed indoor shots would be a
> problem.
> I suspect the lens was back focusing, but I'm not sure how to verify this for
> sure. I've experienced the same problem shooting deer in the backyard on
> overcast days. Anyone have any advise. TIA

What's the shutter speed on these shots ?

If it's under 1/100, then you're probably looking at motion
blur.. Either from your subject's movement, or yours.

I hope you're not using one of the automatic modes.. If you
always want a fast shutter, then you have to use shutter
priority (Tv) in the creative modes.

You'll probably find you have to bump the ISO up to 800 or
1600 to avoid underexposed images with your f/4 lens.
You'll start seeing grain in the images, but that can be
cleaned up somewhat with a software utility like 'NeatImage'.

Someone else mentioned flash.. A 420 or 550EX will definitely
help.

I've been shooting indoor gymnastics where a flash isn't allowed.
I can get close enough to the action to use my 50mm f/1.4 lens.
It's JUST fast enough :) 
Related resources
Anonymous
June 11, 2005 4:21:57 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

This is an excellent lens however if you are trying to shoot indoors on
full zoon and just hand held you are only asking for problems. Using it
outdoors in hand held mode is tricky enough without the low light situation
indoors. Use at least a monopod but preferably a tripod for that sort of
work.

I have taken probably a couple of hundred shots with this lens indoor with
flash using a monopod and achieve a 85% success rate for in focus shots.


You might like to provide your shot settings and as someone else requested,
a copy of the shots on the web somewhere.

RWM <MichiganMan59@comcast.net> wrote in
news:1118460213.02de06555305e908f1f683b36ef7cd35@teranews:

> Greetings,
>
> I recently took around 50 shots at my nieces graduation with a 300D
> and 70-200 F4. Unfortunately, there wasn't one usable shot. Every
> single shot is blurred to some degree. I realize this particular lens
> is a bit slow for indoor action shots, but I didn't think posed indoor
> shots would be a problem.
> I suspect the lens was back focusing, but I'm not sure how to verify
> this for sure. I've experienced the same problem shooting deer in the
> backyard on overcast days. Anyone have any advise. TIA
>
> Robert
>
Anonymous
June 11, 2005 6:06:34 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

What speed were you able to get ?
My suggestion for a posed graduation shot, just use Tv set it at 1/125" [or
1/200" if you are not that healthy like me :) ] ,
slot in a 580EX speedlight with diffuser and off you go.

=bob=

"RWM" <MichiganMan59@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1118460213.02de06555305e908f1f683b36ef7cd35@teranews...
> Greetings,
>
> I recently took around 50 shots at my nieces graduation with a 300D and
> 70-200 F4. Unfortunately, there wasn't one usable shot. Every single shot
> is
> blurred to some degree. I realize this particular lens is a bit slow for
> indoor action shots, but I didn't think posed indoor shots would be a
> problem.
> I suspect the lens was back focusing, but I'm not sure how to verify this
> for
> sure. I've experienced the same problem shooting deer in the backyard on
> overcast days. Anyone have any advise. TIA
>
> Robert
>
Anonymous
June 11, 2005 8:26:39 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

RWM wrote:
>
> Greetings,
>
> I recently took around 50 shots at my nieces graduation with a 300D and
> 70-200 F4. Unfortunately, there wasn't one usable shot. Every single shot is
> blurred to some degree. I realize this particular lens is a bit slow for
> indoor action shots, but I didn't think posed indoor shots would be a
> problem.
> I suspect the lens was back focusing, but I'm not sure how to verify this for
> sure. I've experienced the same problem shooting deer in the backyard on
> overcast days. Anyone have any advise. TIA
>
> Robert

There are several possibilities here; the problem could be back-focus,
but is unlikely, it could be misfocusing by having the focus point not
on the subject, or camera shake with a too-low shutter speed - likely
with an f/4 lens, or the AF may be maladjusted due to damage from a
drop, or the lens could be switched to manual focus and simply not
focusing.

If you could post some shots somewhere you may get a more specific
answer.

Colin.
Anonymous
June 12, 2005 2:22:21 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 23:22:34 -0400, RWM wrote
(in message <1118460213.02de06555305e908f1f683b36ef7cd35@teranews>):


First, let me thank everyone who responded. Here's a link to three pics.

http://michiganman59.myphotoalbum.com/albums.php

IMG 0324
File size: 1984084 bytes
Camera model: Canon EOS DIGITAL REBEL
Date/Time: 2005:06:03 18:45:07
Resolution: 3072 x 2048
Flash used: No
Focal length: 70.0mm (35mm equivalent: 111mm)
CCD width: 22.66mm
Exposure time: 0.125 s (1/8)
Aperture: f/4.0
ISO equiv.: 100
Metering Mode: matrix

IMG 0346
File size: 2120338 bytes
Camera make: Canon
Camera model: Canon EOS DIGITAL REBEL
Date/Time: 2005:06:03 20:10:49
Resolution: 3072 x 2048
Flash used: No
Focal length: 200.0mm (35mm equivalent: 318mm)
CCD width: 22.66mm
Exposure time: 0.167 s (1/6)
Aperture: f/4.0
ISO equiv.: 100
Metering Mode: matrix

IMG 0356
File size: 1705473 bytes
Camera model: Canon EOS DIGITAL REBEL
Date/Time: 2005:06:03 20:48:00
Resolution: 2048 x 3072
Flash used: No
Focal length: 70.0mm (35mm equivalent: 111mm)
CCD width: 22.66mm
Exposure time: 0.500 s (1/2)
Aperture: f/4.0
ISO equiv.: 100
Metering Mode: matrix
Anonymous
June 12, 2005 2:22:22 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"RWM" <MichiganMan59@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1118543000.f0a6192360751a89a9a9921e1035ed53@teranews...
> On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 23:22:34 -0400, RWM wrote
> (in message <1118460213.02de06555305e908f1f683b36ef7cd35@teranews>):
>
>
> First, let me thank everyone who responded. Here's a link to three pics.
>

That's all motion blur, 1/250 sec or faster for the lens at 200mm, 1/100 or
so at 70mm might take care of it, if you are somewhat steady. A tripod
would do the trick, or even a monopod would help, so would a flash.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Anonymous
June 12, 2005 2:22:35 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sat, 11 Jun 2005 0:06:34 -0400, BnH] wrote
(in message <42aa6345$0$25987$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>):

> What speed were you able to get ?
> My suggestion for a posed graduation shot, just use Tv set it at 1/125" [or
> 1/200" if you are not that healthy like me :) ] ,
> slot in a 580EX speedlight with diffuser and off you go.
>
> =bob=


After reading all the responses I believe it's an amateur mistake. I've only
taken 358 shots to date.

I've posted a link to the pics and the camera settings are in the body of
that message.
Anonymous
June 12, 2005 2:22:52 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sat, 11 Jun 2005 0:01:15 -0400, Skip M wrote
(in message <dmtqe.2573$Cr.758@fed1read07>):

> "RWM" <MichiganMan59@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:1118460213.02de06555305e908f1f683b36ef7cd35@teranews...
>> Greetings,
>>
>> I recently took around 50 shots at my nieces graduation with a 300D and
>> 70-200 F4. Unfortunately, there wasn't one usable shot. Every single shot
>> is
>> blurred to some degree. I realize this particular lens is a bit slow for
>> indoor action shots, but I didn't think posed indoor shots would be a
>> problem.
>> I suspect the lens was back focusing, but I'm not sure how to verify this
>> for
>> sure. I've experienced the same problem shooting deer in the backyard on
>> overcast days. Anyone have any advise. TIA
>>
>> Robert
>>
> Hand holding or on a tripod? If it's backfocusing, then something will be
> in focus, just not what you wanted.
>
>

Hand held, Skip... See the link I've posted to the pics, the camera settings
are in the body of that message.
Anonymous
June 12, 2005 2:22:53 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"RWM" <MichiganMan59@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1118543030.b562680c93ce478f194cc5e68e4b1f9f@teranews...
> On Sat, 11 Jun 2005 0:01:15 -0400, Skip M wrote
> (in message <dmtqe.2573$Cr.758@fed1read07>):
>

>>>
>> Hand holding or on a tripod? If it's backfocusing, then something will
>> be
>> in focus, just not what you wanted.
>>
>>
>
> Hand held, Skip... See the link I've posted to the pics, the camera
> settings
> are in the body of that message.
>

Don't see a link, but handheld f4 long lenses are seldom sharp. The surest
sign of back, or front, focus is that something in the image is in sharp
focus, just not what you planned to have in focus...

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Anonymous
June 12, 2005 2:23:10 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sat, 11 Jun 2005 0:26:39 -0400, Colin D wrote
(in message <42AA67FF.E425F54C@killspam.127.0.0.1>):

>
>
> RWM wrote:
>>
>> Greetings,
>>
>> I recently took around 50 shots at my nieces graduation with a 300D and
>> 70-200 F4. Unfortunately, there wasn't one usable shot. Every single shot
>> is
>> blurred to some degree. I realize this particular lens is a bit slow for
>> indoor action shots, but I didn't think posed indoor shots would be a
>> problem.
>> I suspect the lens was back focusing, but I'm not sure how to verify this
>> for
>> sure. I've experienced the same problem shooting deer in the backyard on
>> overcast days. Anyone have any advise. TIA
>>
>> Robert
>
> There are several possibilities here; the problem could be back-focus,
> but is unlikely, it could be misfocusing by having the focus point not
> on the subject, or camera shake with a too-low shutter speed - likely
> with an f/4 lens, or the AF may be maladjusted due to damage from a
> drop, or the lens could be switched to manual focus and simply not
> focusing.
>
> If you could post some shots somewhere you may get a more specific
> answer.
>
> Colin.

After reading all the responses, I believe it's prolly to slow shutter speed
and low ISO. See the link I've posted to the pics, the camera settings are in
the body of that message.
Anonymous
June 12, 2005 2:25:07 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sat, 11 Jun 2005 8:21:57 -0400, comfort wrote
(in message <Xns9672E42EBF735comfortr@203.59.27.131>):

> This is an excellent lens however if you are trying to shoot indoors on
> full zoon and just hand held you are only asking for problems. Using it
> outdoors in hand held mode is tricky enough without the low light situation
> indoors. Use at least a monopod but preferably a tripod for that sort of
> work.

That's what happened. Big problems. :) 
>
> I have taken probably a couple of hundred shots with this lens indoor with
> flash using a monopod and achieve a 85% success rate for in focus shots.
>
>
> You might like to provide your shot settings and as someone else requested,
> a copy of the shots on the web somewhere.

See the link I've posted to the pics, the camera settings are in the body of
that message.
Anonymous
June 12, 2005 2:26:09 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sat, 11 Jun 2005 8:53:16 -0400, Jim Townsend wrote
(in message <11alnfmjv8doc6f@news.supernews.com>):

> RWM wrote:
>
>> Greetings,
>>
>> I recently took around 50 shots at my nieces graduation with a 300D and
>> 70-200 F4. Unfortunately, there wasn't one usable shot. Every single shot
>> is
>> blurred to some degree. I realize this particular lens is a bit slow for
>> indoor action shots, but I didn't think posed indoor shots would be a
>> problem.
>> I suspect the lens was back focusing, but I'm not sure how to verify this
>> for
>> sure. I've experienced the same problem shooting deer in the backyard on
>> overcast days. Anyone have any advise. TIA
>
> What's the shutter speed on these shots ?

They vary.
>
> If it's under 1/100, then you're probably looking at motion
> blur.. Either from your subject's movement, or yours.
>
> I hope you're not using one of the automatic modes.. If you
> always want a fast shutter, then you have to use shutter
> priority (Tv) in the creative modes.

Yes, being a rank amateur, I usually use full auto or the P mode.
>
> You'll probably find you have to bump the ISO up to 800 or
> 1600 to avoid underexposed images with your f/4 lens.
> You'll start seeing grain in the images, but that can be
> cleaned up somewhat with a software utility like 'NeatImage'.

I screwed up, I had the ISO set at 100. :( 
>
> Someone else mentioned flash.. A 420 or 550EX will definitely
> help.

I'm definitely going to have to pick up a good flash.
>
> I've been shooting indoor gymnastics where a flash isn't allowed.
> I can get close enough to the action to use my 50mm f/1.4 lens.
> It's JUST fast enough :) 
>
>
Anonymous
June 12, 2005 2:27:56 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 23:22:34 -0400, RWM wrote
(in message <1118460213.02de06555305e908f1f683b36ef7cd35@teranews>):

First, let me thank everyone who responded. Here's a link to three pics.

http://michiganman59.myphotoalbum.com/albums.php

IMG 0324
File size: 1984084 bytes
Camera model: Canon EOS DIGITAL REBEL
Date/Time: 2005:06:03 18:45:07
Resolution: 3072 x 2048
Flash used: No
Focal length: 70.0mm (35mm equivalent: 111mm)
CCD width: 22.66mm
Exposure time: 0.125 s (1/8)
Aperture: f/4.0
ISO equiv.: 100
Metering Mode: matrix

IMG 0346
File size: 2120338 bytes
Camera make: Canon
Camera model: Canon EOS DIGITAL REBEL
Date/Time: 2005:06:03 20:10:49
Resolution: 3072 x 2048
Flash used: No
Focal length: 200.0mm (35mm equivalent: 318mm)
CCD width: 22.66mm
Exposure time: 0.167 s (1/6)
Aperture: f/4.0
ISO equiv.: 100
Metering Mode: matrix

IMG 0356
File size: 1705473 bytes
Camera model: Canon EOS DIGITAL REBEL
Date/Time: 2005:06:03 20:48:00
Resolution: 2048 x 3072
Flash used: No
Focal length: 70.0mm (35mm equivalent: 111mm)
CCD width: 22.66mm
Exposure time: 0.500 s (1/2)
Aperture: f/4.0
ISO equiv.: 100
Metering Mode: matrix
June 12, 2005 7:09:55 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

RWM <MichiganMan59@comcast.net> wrote in
news:1118543000.f0a6192360751a89a9a9921e1035ed53@teranews:

> On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 23:22:34 -0400, RWM wrote
> (in message <1118460213.02de06555305e908f1f683b36ef7cd35@teranews>):
>
>
> First, let me thank everyone who responded. Here's a link to three
> pics.
>
> http://michiganman59.myphotoalbum.com/albums.php
>
> IMG 0324
> File size: 1984084 bytes
> Camera model: Canon EOS DIGITAL REBEL
> Date/Time: 2005:06:03 18:45:07
> Resolution: 3072 x 2048
> Flash used: No
> Focal length: 70.0mm (35mm equivalent: 111mm)
> CCD width: 22.66mm
> Exposure time: 0.125 s (1/8)
> Aperture: f/4.0
> ISO equiv.: 100
> Metering Mode: matrix

You did well considering the 1/8 second shutter speed, ideally you
should have been on about 1/100 sec or better.

> IMG 0346
> File size: 2120338 bytes
> Camera make: Canon
> Camera model: Canon EOS DIGITAL REBEL
> Date/Time: 2005:06:03 20:10:49
> Resolution: 3072 x 2048
> Flash used: No
> Focal length: 200.0mm (35mm equivalent: 318mm)
> CCD width: 22.66mm
> Exposure time: 0.167 s (1/6)
> Aperture: f/4.0
> ISO equiv.: 100
> Metering Mode: matrix

Obviously 1/6 sec at 200mm is very very slow. I can see the blur from a
little up and down movement of the camera.

> IMG 0356
> File size: 1705473 bytes
> Camera model: Canon EOS DIGITAL REBEL
> Date/Time: 2005:06:03 20:48:00
> Resolution: 2048 x 3072
> Flash used: No
> Focal length: 70.0mm (35mm equivalent: 111mm)
> CCD width: 22.66mm
> Exposure time: 0.500 s (1/2)
> Aperture: f/4.0
> ISO equiv.: 100
> Metering Mode: matrix

Half a second? Even an image stabilised lens would not be able to pull
that off.


You could use a tripod, increase the ISO to at least 400 and ask the
subjects to stand very still for you.

Alternatively you could buy a flash.

You do have a pretty steady hand, maybe you could have got a reasonable
shot for the first one if you had used ISO 400, that would have allowed
a shutter speed of 4 x 1/8th sec = 1/32 sec which is enough for a good
shot if you are steady enough. For the second shot you would still have
had to get closer and zoomed back to 70mm, and probably gone to ISO 800.
On the 3rd shot you could have increased the ISO to 1600 and you would
still have needed to be very steady.


--
Mark Heyes (New Zealand)
See my pics at www.gigatech.co.nz (last updated 3-May-05)
"There are 10 types of people, those that
understand binary and those that don't"
Anonymous
June 12, 2005 11:54:37 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

RWM wrote:

> On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 23:22:34 -0400, RWM wrote
> (in message <1118460213.02de06555305e908f1f683b36ef7cd35@teranews>):
>
>
> First, let me thank everyone who responded. Here's a link to three pics.
>
> http://michiganman59.myphotoalbum.com/albums.php

> IMG 0324
> Focal length: 70.0mm (35mm equivalent: 111mm)
> Exposure time: 0.125 s (1/8)

> IMG 0346
> Focal length: 200.0mm (35mm equivalent: 318mm)
> Exposure time: 0.167 s (1/6)

> IMG 0356
> Focal length: 70.0mm (35mm equivalent: 111mm)
> CCD width: 22.66mm
> Exposure time: 0.500 s (1/2)

As you've noticed.. These shutter times are all
WAY too slow.. The last one was 1/2 second..
Nobody can hand hold a lens still enough for that
long. Even image stabilization wouldn't help.

A tripod would eliminate your shake, but the
subjects would certainly blur if they moved
even slightly.
Anonymous
June 14, 2005 3:05:08 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sat, 11 Jun 2005 22:44:02 -0400, Skip M wrote
(in message <PjNqe.2731$Cr.1509@fed1read07>):

>> First, let me thank everyone who responded. Here's a link to three pics.
>>
>
> That's all motion blur, 1/250 sec or faster for the lens at 200mm, 1/100 or
> so at 70mm might take care of it, if you are somewhat steady. A tripod
> would do the trick, or even a monopod would help, so would a flash.
>
>

It appears it was operator error. I assumed by shooting in the P mode that
the correct exposure would be obtained as long as the aperture and shutter
speed wasn't blinking.

It wasn't a total loss, my better half got some good shots with a point &
shoot. It'll be some time before I can convince her I need a more expensive
lens. :) 
Anonymous
June 14, 2005 3:06:15 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sat, 11 Jun 2005 23:09:55 -0400, MarkH wrote
(in message <6INqe.173663$Wv.168497@fe08.news.easynews.com>):

>
> You did well considering the 1/8 second shutter speed, ideally you
> should have been on about 1/100 sec or better.
>
> Obviously 1/6 sec at 200mm is very very slow. I can see the blur from a
> little up and down movement of the camera.
>
> Half a second? Even an image stabilised lens would not be able to pull
> that off.
>
> You could use a tripod, increase the ISO to at least 400 and ask the
> subjects to stand very still for you.
>
> Alternatively you could buy a flash.
>
> You do have a pretty steady hand, maybe you could have got a reasonable
> shot for the first one if you had used ISO 400, that would have allowed
> a shutter speed of 4 x 1/8th sec = 1/32 sec which is enough for a good
> shot if you are steady enough. For the second shot you would still have
> had to get closer and zoomed back to 70mm, and probably gone to ISO 800.
> On the 3rd shot you could have increased the ISO to 1600 and you would
> still have needed to be very steady.

I've come to realize from all the responses that it was my error. I assumed
by shooting in the P mode that the correct exposure would be obtained as long
as the aperture and shutter speed wasn't blinking. I guess the low ISO
setting didn't help matters either.

I wonder if I should be using the TV mode as BnH has suggested? Although, I'm
not sure how one decides the correct shutter speed. lol

I'm definitely looking to purchase a good flash. It seems there is much to
learn. It wasn't a total loss, my better half got some good shots with a
point & shoot. It'll be some time before I can convince her I need a more
expensive lens. :) 
Anonymous
June 14, 2005 3:07:05 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sun, 12 Jun 2005 8:54:37 -0400, Jim Townsend wrote
(in message <11aobu14isf7i47@news.supernews.com>):

>
> As you've noticed.. These shutter times are all
> WAY too slow.. The last one was 1/2 second..
> Nobody can hand hold a lens still enough for that
> long. Even image stabilization wouldn't help.
>
> A tripod would eliminate your shake, but the
> subjects would certainly blur if they moved
> even slightly.
>
>

Yes, I realize from the responses that the shutter speed was 'WAY' to slow. I
assumed by shooting in the P mode that the correct exposure would be obtained
as long as the aperture and shutter speed display wasn't blinking.

That's what I get for assuming. It wasn't a total loss, my better half got
some good shots with a point & shoot. It'll be some time before I can
convince her I need a more expensive lens. :) 
June 14, 2005 9:29:54 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

RWM <MichiganMan59@comcast.net> wrote in
news:1118718436.d540b0a79e9b7a55c1fff5205a83aa96@teranews:

> On Sat, 11 Jun 2005 23:09:55 -0400, MarkH wrote
> (in message <6INqe.173663$Wv.168497@fe08.news.easynews.com>):
>
>>
>> You did well considering the 1/8 second shutter speed, ideally you
>> should have been on about 1/100 sec or better.
>>
>> Obviously 1/6 sec at 200mm is very very slow. I can see the blur
>> from a little up and down movement of the camera.
>>
>> Half a second? Even an image stabilised lens would not be able to
>> pull that off.
>>
>> You could use a tripod, increase the ISO to at least 400 and ask the
>> subjects to stand very still for you.
>>
>> Alternatively you could buy a flash.
>>
>> You do have a pretty steady hand, maybe you could have got a
>> reasonable shot for the first one if you had used ISO 400, that would
>> have allowed a shutter speed of 4 x 1/8th sec = 1/32 sec which is
>> enough for a good shot if you are steady enough. For the second shot
>> you would still have had to get closer and zoomed back to 70mm, and
>> probably gone to ISO 800.
>> On the 3rd shot you could have increased the ISO to 1600 and you
>> would
>> still have needed to be very steady.
>
> I've come to realize from all the responses that it was my error. I
> assumed by shooting in the P mode that the correct exposure would be
> obtained as long as the aperture and shutter speed wasn't blinking. I
> guess the low ISO setting didn't help matters either.

Oh, the exposure was definitely correct. Unfortunately when you use the
P mode the camera uses what it thinks is the best combination of shutter
speed and aperture to get the exposure right. In this case it used the
widest aperture that the lens could do, to allow the fastest shutter
speed possible with the correct exposure, but the speed was too slow for
handheld shots.

What you should have done (isn't hindsight wonderfully accurate) is paid
attention to the shutter speed that the camera was using (it shows up in
the viewfinder across the bottom) and when you noticed that the shutter
speed was very slow you should have increased the ISO setting to 800 or
1600. This would have given you a chance of getting reasonable photos.

> I wonder if I should be using the TV mode as BnH has suggested?
> Although, I'm not sure how one decides the correct shutter speed. lol

In Tv mode you would have had the same thing except the aperture would
have been flashing. In either P or Tv mode you need to make a habit of
paying attention to the numbers across the bottom of the viewfinder
(they are there because they are important)

> I'm definitely looking to purchase a good flash. It seems there is
> much to learn. It wasn't a total loss, my better half got some good
> shots with a point & shoot. It'll be some time before I can convince
> her I need a more expensive lens. :) 

A good flash would have made it a lot easier to get the desired shutter
speed in the shots that you took. I have walked around at an Expo last
year with a Canon 550EX flash, it was mostly indoors with enough light
for my eyes, but the camera speed would have been in the range of 1/8 to
1/32 sec, it was much easier to use the flash and take the shots at
1/200 sec. I definitely didn't want to walk around carrying a nice
solid (heavy) tripod, especially for quick candid shots.



--
Mark Heyes (New Zealand)
See my pics at www.gigatech.co.nz (last updated 3-May-05)
"There are 10 types of people, those that
understand binary and those that don't"
Anonymous
June 20, 2005 4:19:31 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 1:29:54 -0400, MarkH wrote
(in message <lXtre.397287$Yr4.271496@fe07.news.easynews.com>):

>> I've come to realize from all the responses that it was my error. I
>> assumed by shooting in the P mode that the correct exposure would be
>> obtained as long as the aperture and shutter speed wasn't blinking. I
>> guess the low ISO setting didn't help matters either.
>
> Oh, the exposure was definitely correct. Unfortunately when you use the
> P mode the camera uses what it thinks is the best combination of shutter
> speed and aperture to get the exposure right. In this case it used the
> widest aperture that the lens could do, to allow the fastest shutter
> speed possible with the correct exposure, but the speed was too slow for
> handheld shots.

I see.

> What you should have done (isn't hindsight wonderfully accurate) is paid
> attention to the shutter speed that the camera was using (it shows up in
> the viewfinder across the bottom) and when you noticed that the shutter
> speed was very slow you should have increased the ISO setting to 800 or
> 1600. This would have given you a chance of getting reasonable photos.

That it is. :)  I'll remember that.

>> I wonder if I should be using the TV mode as BnH has suggested?
>> Although, I'm not sure how one decides the correct shutter speed. lol
>
> In Tv mode you would have had the same thing except the aperture would
> have been flashing. In either P or Tv mode you need to make a habit of
> paying attention to the numbers across the bottom of the viewfinder
> (they are there because they are important)

I don't recall seeing the numbers flashing. I was probably to intent on
composing the shots to notice.

>> I'm definitely looking to purchase a good flash. It seems there is
>> much to learn. It wasn't a total loss, my better half got some good
>> shots with a point & shoot. It'll be some time before I can convince
>> her I need a more expensive lens. :) 
>
> A good flash would have made it a lot easier to get the desired shutter
> speed in the shots that you took. I have walked around at an Expo last
> year with a Canon 550EX flash, it was mostly indoors with enough light
> for my eyes, but the camera speed would have been in the range of 1/8 to
> 1/32 sec, it was much easier to use the flash and take the shots at
> 1/200 sec. I definitely didn't want to walk around carrying a nice
> solid (heavy) tripod, especially for quick candid shots.

I picked up a Canon EX 550 on FM last week. Hopefully this will help in those
low light situations. Thanks for taking the time to respond.

BTW, I like your site, especially the zoo shots.
!