Beginner Am I expecting too much from my camera? Or still making beginner mistakes .

[Phil V]

Unfortunately I have to work around the horse's schedule for the moment, so my available shooting time is 4pm onwards at the moment .

I'm not willing to use flash on this paticular subject , though may do so with others in the future , a big shiny reflector disc is definetly a no-no for most horses ... whom can decide that a crisp packet is a life threatening predator that they must run away from .

If you really want to improve your results, you have to improve your shooting conditions, you can't 'game' the physics.

The light is flat and horrible, without the noise the image would still have no definition, that's how photography works.

That exact shot taken on a 6d or 1dxII would have no noise, but would be no better for that fact.

Frankly it's a complete noob's view of that image to be irritated by the noise.

Now if you can't add your own light, and you can't change the time of day, you'll have to wait for a day with better light.

Photographers arrange shoots around the light all the time, you can't fight physics.

 

[gothgirl]

That's not a problem , if its all the setting and lack of lighting thats the issue then ( ignoring the lack of composition and staging) thats good , it means I'm more or less using what I have to the best of my ability.

I guess what i meant before is when I'm just snapping practice shots of a horse , or of my own then the noise doesn't bother me ...

However if I were for example at an evening dressage or showjumping clinic , with very similar lighting and conditions to this then I'd rather go in knowing if there was anything else in camera that I could have done to improve the noise etc in the shot , as the camera is something that I can control , the event, venue and lighting is something i can't.

i'd rather practice with my own horse in the same conditions than practice at an event , I cant exactly go , sorry guys my shots didn't come out the way I want , would you mind coming back tomorrow and doing it all again for Me?

So I'll practice with my own horses at a slower shutter speed and some exposure comp , and see what gives me the best results in these conditions , then I'm more prepared for when I'm shooting for other people and not for myself

 

[Phil V]

At an event with moving horses you're not going to get away with less than 1/100 sec, in fact you'll need faster than that.

 

[Gremlin]

@Teflon-Mike , you sound so much like the guy I bought my first film SLR camera from, I learned so much from him, I will forever be grateful, sadly no longer with us

 

[odd jim]

If you want to shoot at ISO3200 I'd get a camera that's known for low noise at high ISO's.

Nikon D750 should do the trick.

I don't know of any Canons that can match that at high ISO's.

Canon shooters feel free to correct me if I'm wrong there.

Canon 6d, Canon 5d4, Canon 1DX...

 

[odd jim]

I would imagine the 60D would do better than that at 3200. It looks like it was a bit underexposed and pushed exposure in post processing. Even more modern sensors will show noise in those circumstances. I'd suggest getting the exposure correct in camera by dropping the shutter speed, trusting the horse not to move and trusting the IS. But you'll never get the detail you're looking for if the light is crap and you've probably got the crappiest light possible there.

TBH the 60d is right at its limit at iso 3200 without having to use damaging noise reduction.

 

[odd jim]

That's not a problem , if its all the setting and lack of lighting thats the issue then ( ignoring the lack of composition and staging) thats good , it means I'm more or less using what I have to the best of my ability.

I guess what i meant before is when I'm just snapping practice shots of a horse , or of my own then the noise doesn't bother me ...

However if I were for example at an evening dressage or showjumping clinic , with very similar lighting and conditions to this then I'd rather go in knowing if there was anything else in camera that I could have done to improve the noise etc in the shot , as the camera is something that I can control , the event, venue and lighting is something i can't.

i'd rather practice with my own horse in the same conditions than practice at an event , I cant exactly go , sorry guys my shots didn't come out the way I want , would you mind coming back tomorrow and doing it all again for Me?

So I'll practice with my own horses at a slower shutter speed and some exposure comp , and see what gives me the best results in these conditions , then I'm more prepared for when I'm shooting for other people and not for myself

For a lot of equine stuff, a good high ISO performing body is a huge advantage. Anyone shooting any indoor showjumping and dressage, even in the middle of the day will attest to the fact that the lighting is terrible, in large enclosed arenas (and why don't they EVER seem to switch on the floodlights?!). It was one of the reasons I went full frame.

But as others have said, exploit what light there is and try and shoot facing the direction of the best light source if you can (in your example posted though, this would be impossible due to the almost near lack of ambient light).

 

[Gremlin]

For a lot of equine stuff, a good high ISO performing body is a huge advantage. Anyone shooting any indoor showjumping and dressage, even in the middle of the day will attest to the fact that the lighting is terrible, in large enclosed arenas (and why don't they EVER seem to switch on the floodlights?!). I was one of the reasons I went full frame.

But as others have said, exploit what light there is and try and shoot facing the direction of the best light source if you can (in your example posted though, this would be impossible due to the almost near lack of ambient light).

As someone who regularly shoots indoor event for a local club, a camera that deals with high ISO is an absolute necessity, but not always full frame, I shoot with the D7100 & & D7200 with good results, but it does require a good shutter speed, 500 being an absolute minimum.

One year a guy that pays to be there insisted on installing wireless flash units, not only myself but several on the competitors complained, night for me, many blown shots, told them
as a so called pro photographer, if he couldn't work with his camera then I would no longer cover the events for them !
Horses don't seem to have a problem with flash but I worry more about the drivers, especially when the are galloping at full pelt at me,

 

[Dale.]

I've read this one with interest and I agree with some of the points but not all. I would add and hopefully you will find this reassuring, I have a 7d (mk1) and a lot of people here will know how much I hate it for it's noise performance. Anything above 400 iso and you start to see it and I've even got noisy/grainy images at iso 100 with it, even in good light. I would rarely go above 1600iso with it and it was once upon a time, Canon's flagship crop sensor body. Some of it has been error on my part but I wouldn't beat yourself up too much, I think it's a fairly common trait of Canon crop sensors. The newer ones in the 80D and 7Dmk2 are suppossed to be a lot better.

As has been said, the light didn't do your image any favours and on a good day, it would be much easier to get a clean image.

 

[Ulfric M Douglas]

So arrange shoots around making good images, rather than taking pictures in crap light in ill conceived situations.

To be fair, it's a rookie mistake to think you should shoot around your clients schedule (assumption), but if you don't have light to add, you have to schedule for light and shoot somewhere attractive. .

Too right!

But also : why go for an F2.8 zoom when F1.8 primes are available?

Also : it is a horrible photo. Pose, background.
A much better pose and a much better background could make a nice photo, even if using an F2.8 zoom at dusk, without tripod. (Any why no tripod in these conditions? It beggars belief.)

 

[Nostromo]

Too right!

But also : why go for an F2.8 zoom when F1.8 primes are available?

Also : it is a horrible photo. Pose, background.
A much better pose and a much better background could make a nice photo, even if using an F2.8 zoom at dusk, without tripod. (Any why no tripod in these conditions? It beggars belief.)

Maybe @gothgirl doesn't have much spare money (i certainly don't), a 2.8 zoom may well be her most economic opion (one lens, many focal lengths). A 1.8 prime could be (and probably is) to shallow a depth of field for such a large subject. Fine for just a head or side on shot, not so good if the horse were to be standing at an angle. I know you don't have to use the lens at 1.8 but if you are going to up the aperture for more depth of field, then there's not a lot of point in investing limited funds in a one trick pony.
As for the tripod, i dont see how this would have helped here as has been already stated, the shutter speed was set to be sufficiently fast to allow for any movement by the horse and was well above the minimum for the focal length being used. Although as has been said the shutter speed could have been lowered and short bursts used to capture the moment. I still don't think that the shutter speed would have been slow enough not to be hand held.

 

[odd jim]

Maybe @gothgirl doesn't have much spare money (i certainly don't), a 2.8 zoom may well be her most economic opion (one lens, many focal lengths). A 1.8 prime could be (and probably is) to shallow a depth of field for such a large subject. Fine for just a head or side on shot, not so good if the horse were to be standing at an angle. I know you don't have to use the lens at 1.8 but if you are going to up the aperture for more depth of field, then there's not a lot of point in investing limited funds in a one trick pony.
As for the tripod, i dont see how this would have helped here as has been already stated, the shutter speed was set to be sufficiently fast to allow for any movement by the horse and was well above the minimum for the focal length being used. Although as has been said the shutter speed could have been lowered and short bursts used to capture the moment. I still don't think that the shutter speed would have been slow enough not to be hand held.

An f/1.8 lens shot wide open will be fine if shot from the correct distance and plane of focus. I was shooting night street photos in NY with a 35mm f/2 wide open recently and you'd be surprised how much was within the focal depth of field at f/2. Of course, close subjects are different but with the image posted by the OP an f/1.8 shot wide would actually work (in terms of DOF).

I agree about the tripod though, it wouldn't really have helped. You might have been able to lower the ISO and reduce noise but you'd still need a decent shutter speed to compensate for any subject movement.

 

[Ulfric M Douglas]

Maybe @gothgirl doesn't have much spare money (i certainly don't), a 2.8 zoom may well be her most economic opion....

Away with your b*****ks, that lens costs more than five hundred quid!

 

[Nostromo]

Away with your b*****ks, that lens costs more than five hundred quid!

I don't know if you have misunderstood me, what i'm trying to say is that one zoom lens covers a lot of focal lengths, ok so they are all at 2.8, but to do the same in 1.8 primes (although you can't, you can only cover some of the focal range) would cost a great deal more.

50mm £97
35mm (although only in f2.0) £399
28mm £345
24mm (doesn't come in a 1.8 so would need 1.4) £1099
Total £1,940
Even if you take the 24mm out that still comes to £844

So i would buy the 17-50 first then when the funds become available buy a prime.

 

[odd jim]

I don't know if you have misunderstood me, what i'm trying to say is that one zoom lens covers a lot of focal lengths, ok so they are all at 2.8, but to do the same in 1.8 primes (although you can't, you can only cover some of the focal range) would cost a great deal more.

50mm £97
35mm (although only in f2.0) £399
28mm £345
24mm (doesn't come in a 1.8 so would need 1.4) £1099
Total £1,940
Even if you take the 24mm out that still comes to £844

So i would buy the 17-50 first then when the funds become available buy a prime.

Hmmm, I see what you're saying but you can get them for less than that;

Canon 35mm f/2 mk1 used £150
Sigma 20mm f/1.4 (new) £600
And the 50mm doesn't cost much at all, not worth worrying about!

You don't need to match the focal range though as you'll always compensate with primes.

 

[pete 1]

Quit now and sell your gear while you can, it only gets worse, next'll be a better body, then well you will need even more expensive lenses to get the most from the better body, then you will need a full-frame body to get the most from the lenses, then filters, tripods, lighting; by the end you will have sold the horse to feed the Gear Aquision Syndrome.

How true, IMO if the op wants to be a pro then has a lot to learn, if not enjoy what you have and learn how to get the best out of it or you'll end spending more than a horse will cost.

 

[davholla]

If you have a tripod or can rest the camera on something that you could use a lower shutter speed which would help.

 

[Phil V]

If you have a tripod or can rest the camera on something that you could use a lower shutter speed which would help.

To shoot a live subject?

The lens has stabilisation which by itself will allow a shutter speed low enough that an animals movement will create blur.

A stationary creature breathing and twitching naturally generally requires a shutter speed over 1/50 and preferably over 1/250 for the absolute best results.

 

[davholla]

To shoot a live subject?

The lens has stabilisation which by itself will allow a shutter speed low enough that an animals movement will create blur.

A stationary creature breathing and twitching naturally generally requires a shutter speed over 1/50 and preferably over 1/250 for the absolute best results.

She had 100, so I thought that maybe she could go to 60 to get a little more light. However I haven't tried so I was just making a suggestion.

 

[steve_lyt]

There's no such things as mistakes in photography they are learning experiences. You find out what doesn't work

 

[frod]

This is why a lot of us carry a prime or two, ultimately.

 

[woof woof]

This is why a lot of us carry a prime or two, ultimately.

A prime may overcome too long a shutter speed and / or keep the ISO down but the gains can come at the expense of a depth of field that may not suit the shot.