When shooting in low light, I would set to the widest aperture, shutter to 1/30. I know there might be ghosting in motion. but in weddings, it works just fine. Then for ISO, it's either 800 or 1600. 3200 is just too noisy. what are your thoughts?

Hi Taky,

I'm very happy with 800, not so with 1600. I'll use the neatvideo plugin on 1600 occasionally and if I have to shoot at 3200 it definitely gets used.

Thanks Joel! I think 800 is very acceptable.. and 1600 is marginal.. I did use 3200 the other night at the church rehearsal.. they don't turn on the light much at the rehearsal...

I would test for "noise" at 1600, 3200, and 6400 viewing results on a reference monitor/TV that was typical of how the finished product would be viewed. I found that the Dell monitor on my primary editing workstation was set to too high a degree of sharpening, video reviewed on my older setup (Samsung monitor) showed very little noise while the same video viewed on the primary workstation looked visibly noisy at 1600 and worsened at higher ISOs.

I just replaced an LCD 42" JVC TV that had the LCD panel going bad with a Sony Bravia 40" with a refresh rate of 240 and viewed all of my high ISO test footage on that using a media player connected with HDMI with results matching what I see on the Samsung monitor. So I brought the sharpness down quite a bit on the Dell monitor to match the TV and Samsung monitor. Sharpness on that Dell monitor was set to about 95% max and how I missed that when setting up that workstation, I don't know.

But it definitely seemed to accentuate and emphasize even very minor noise levels.

It doesn't matter how the noise level display in your TV/monitor. I have no control of which device my clients will be viewing the wedding DVD. will need to find a common ground that view the best at most display units.

I find that ISO 400 is as far as I am willing to go without noise reduction. ISO 800 is my preferred limit. I would (and have done) do 1600 if absolutely necessary. I would not shoot above that for a paying client. ISO 400 at F1.4 in a dark environment seems congruent with my eyes. ISO 800 is actually brighter than I can see with my eyes. I just recorded some stuff tonight in a skate rink with light levels around 3-5 footcandles. Recording at ISO 800 and running through a good mp4 codec cleaned things up VERY nicely.

For weddings i use iso 1600 all the time when it gets real dark and here that's about with every wedding :) My images don't show more noise then my xh-a1 at 6db gain with those setting. When transfered to dvd you hardly notice the noise. Only at 3200 iso I use a noise removal plugin.

I still have my Xh-A1 but I never use +6db gain. It's too noisy. I hardly use +3 db since I started to use the Comer 1800 light. But it's true, noise are not as noticeable when exporting DVD.. but I do need to output BluRay also.

Looks like I'll be getting the Canon 70-200mm F2.8L IS.. ouch!

Hey,


Looks like I'll be getting the Canon 70-200mm F2.8L IS.. ouch!

Ouch is right - not only the initial cost but its a beast. With a monopod attached to the lens bracket its very nicely balanced though. If you buy new you can look at this lens as a safe investment in terms of resale value if you take care of it - it holds 80% of its value. Unfortunately if you don't mind buying used that fact plays against you.

Joe.. thanks for your msg. it's comforting actually. I really think IS is needed for telephoto lens.

Found some on ebay selling it brand new at $1800. Not sure should I get from them or get from BH/Amazon. your thought?

ISO 400. I've had noise problems at ISO 200, light levels where about F4 @ 45th, background was redish hand painted canvas. I had to grain remove the entire area, with a loose roto mask around the subject.

I've shot street stuff @ 800 if there is some light there and its been ok, but if you don't have lit areas, forget it it. if its all very low even light levels, the noise will be pretty bad.

Canon T2i, ISO 800, Nikkor 50mm F1.4 (mid-1960s) wide open...
Lighting on the floor is 2.5 - 4.5 foot candles

There is NO NOISE REDUCTION in this video. Obviously, Youtube's compression is causing major artifacting. Nothing I can do about that.


YouTube - Chase1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_b9sebExyM4)

Taky, there are two versions of the Canon 70-200mm 2.8 IS lens now, the $2300 is the latest version, the old version is $1900 at B&H. The latest version may be worth the money to a photographer.

400 ISO is the max I use with f1.4 lenses. Going to 800 ISO is acceptable for web. I would never go 3200 ISO, as the sharpness is cut in half, plus all the noise.

Forget the 70-200 f2.8 if you're shooting low-light receptions. For my kit, I turn to my 35mm f1.4, 50mm f1.4 and 85mm f1.4 when the sun sets. I will not use any other lens f2.8 or higher.

Taky, there are two versions of the Canon 70-200mm 2.8 IS lens now, the $2300 is the latest version, the old version is $1900 at B&H. The latest version may be worth the money to a photographer.

Galen, how can I tell which version is it? So you are saying I can stick with the old version with IS for $1900 ?

Taky, the latest version has a II or a Mark II in the description.

Joe.. thanks for your msg. it's comforting actually. I really think IS is needed for telephoto lens.

Found some on ebay selling it brand new at $1800. Not sure should I get from them or get from BH/Amazon. your thought?


I've only bought new lenses when I couldn't find used ones. For me the only new ones I own are the Tokina 11-16/2.8 and the Rokinon 85/1.4. (Its not even easy to find the Tokina new.) All my other lenses have come from Adorama's reconditioned/used selection, eBay or KEH.com. If I needed another 70-200/2.8 IS right now I'd feel completely comfortable with this:

Canon EOS 70-200 F2.8 L IMAGE STABILIZATION ULTRASONIC (77) 35MM SLR AUTO FOCUS ZOOM TELEPHOTO LENS - KEH.com (http://www.keh.com/camera/Canon-EOS-Zoom-Lenses/1/sku-CE079990529590?r=FE)

"Bargain" at KEH is a very dependable lens with perfect glass.

just bite the bullet and order it at Amazon with Amex card. It's $2300. yeah, ouch! But it's a business investment as Joel said. I could have used Amazon credit card that gives me 3% cash back.. Purchased with Amex gives me some peace of mind for the additional 1 year warranty and purchase protection if breaks or stolen in 3 months.

Too bad there isn't a 24-70mm with IS...

Oh is the UV filter all that necessary? The one amazon recommended is $88... little ouch.

It depends on the light. ISO 6400 in magenta light has the same noise level as ISO 800 in tungsten light. It also depends on the settings and post processing. A low contrast (AKA high dynamic range) look will show a lot more noise than a high contrast (AKA low dynamic range) style.

Daniel, does that mean, if I use Neutral and increase the contrast, the ISO noise is less noticeable?

Oh is the UV filter all that necessary? The one amazon recommended is $88... little ouch.

In low light situations with strong light sources in the frame, I would avoid _any_ filters. Otherwise, ghosting would easily be a problem.

In low light situations with strong light sources in the frame, I would avoid _any_ filters. Otherwise, ghosting would easily be a problem.

VERY dependent on the filter. Cheap filters, absolutely. Something like a Hoya S-HMC, not really.

Daniel, does that mean, if I use Neutral and increase the contrast, the ISO noise is less noticeable?

Yes, but to me it's not really a practical solution because to me, deciding the look of the shot is a higher priority than avoiding noise. If I want a low contrast look, I'll sooner use detali-smearing noise reduction than crank up the contrast.

VERY dependent on the filter. Cheap filters, absolutely. Something like a Hoya S-HMC, not really.

I use expensive filters including the Hoya S-HMC, and to me they still cause major flare and ghosting problems in scenes with bright speculars. Personally, I only use protection filters when it's rainy, really dusty, etc.

I use expensive filters including the Hoya S-HMC, and to me they still cause major flare and ghosting problems in scenes with bright speculars. Personally, I only use protection filters when it's rainy, really dusty, etc.

Wow... with what lens? Been a while since I've done shooting into the sun, but that is going to change this month...

I bought the Canon UV haze filter for $30.

I don't use any clear/UV filters. They are unnecessary overpriced voodoo junk preying on your fears. The coating on modern lenses are super tough and super scratch resistant.

I don't use any clear/UV filters. They are unnecessary overpriced voodoo junk preying on your fears. The coating on modern lenses are super tough and super scratch resistant.

That's cool.. but only one of my primes is coated at all. I'll stick with protecting them.

It's an expensive investment. I'd rather protect it with a UV filter. :)

400 ISO is the max I use with f1.4 lenses. Going to 800 ISO is acceptable for web. I would never go 3200 ISO, as the sharpness is cut in half, plus all the noise.

Forget the 70-200 f2.8 if you're shooting low-light receptions. For my kit, I turn to my 35mm f1.4, 50mm f1.4 and 85mm f1.4 when the sun sets. I will not use any other lens f2.8 or higher.

Your DOF is terrible with those lenses opened up. Personally I'd rather have my image in focus over not using high iso. The neatvideo plugin works wonders all the way up to 6400. You either need to add lighting (on camera or off) or make sure your client is aware that a dark venue means dark footage.