Canon 20d in low light

C

cpw

Messages
89
Name
Chris
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi guys

I have 2 20d bodies and I believe they are still capable of producing amazing pictures.

I think I tested them to the limit though when I tried photographing a wedding reception in low light with dj lights flashing randomly.
I found myself shooting in 'H' mode which is 3200 ISO for those who don't use this type of camera.

It resulted in bad grainy shots which were not overly sharp due to the shutter speed I had to use 1/30 and below.

The fastest lens I had was the canon 1.8 50mm lens but I still found myself shooting at the maximum ISO available for this camera.

Does anyone have any techniques to combat using such a high ISO?
I have been thinking of hiring a 1.2 lens for a wedding I have in July in the hope it lets enough light in to shoot at 1600 (or ideally 800) ISO.

Failing that I may have to admit that the 20d does have enough of a flaw when it comes to low light and i'll have to save and upgrade to a newer model.

Any response will be helpful guys
thanks for reading
 
Unfortunately like you have found, the 20d downside is its low light performance. 1600 was usable with a pass of noise reduction but 3200 was often unusable.

That said in the situation of a wedding disco a bit of fill flash would be ideal anyway.
 
I personally would be looking to upgrade if you are wanting to do alot of low light work.

I have a 30d so pretty much the same really and however much I love the thing it suffers with high Iso

With the 5d mkiii coming out you can pick up mki/ii bodies cheap, else things like the 40d for cheap have much better iso
 
fastworldimages said:
I personally would be looking to upgrade if you are wanting to do alot of low light work.
Click to expand...

Agreed!
I still have my 20D in the cupboard just in case. This time last year I tried using it as a second body covering festivals and it didn't cut the low light mustard.
Borrowed a 40D and it didn't meet my needs either!
Ended up getting a 60D as my second body and retiring the 20D.
FYI - 60D will produce A3 prints with no noise reduction at ISO 2500.

Do the math...
From a 20D you get a WAY bigger gain in low light performance upgrading the body compared to the lens.
Go for it!
 
Have u thought about the 60D or 7D or even any of the cheaper models like the 550D and 600D all have the same sensor and ISO is at a maximum of 12800 so 3200 is more than usable even at 6400. It does get the grain when u hit the 12800 tho. I have the 550D with 15-85 is usm and I love it I was at a wedding last Saturday and I was using auto ISO 3200 with the pop-up flash and once I downloaded the pics on my laptop and into light room I found that none of the photos even made it up to iso 3200, they were all different but much lower than 3200.
 
Just in case you have deep pockets (as suggested in an earlier post)....
The 5DII is my main body and is awesome, even compared to the 60D (same sensor as the highly regarded 7D).

Here's a case in point.
5DII + 70-200 f4 IS L with 1.4TC
ISO 3200, 280mm (max zoom), f5.6 (widest aperture), 1/100s (whoops), shot under red/amber lighting (ouch!).
Post processing in LR4 - exposure upped by over 2 stops, white balance off the end of the scale towards the blues, black point moved to bring contrast back in the shadows.
Even the 5DIII would be struggling with this one!
20120507-115456-IMG3855-L.jpg
 
I too find that the 20D is noisy at high ISO. I actually found the 30D better than the 40D at high ISO. However, if you want clean results at ISO 1600, the 5D classic can't be beaten for price. 3200 is usable with care. BUT...a faster and shorter lens will make the world of difference on any body. Try a 30/1.4 or 24/1.4 and you'll see what I mean...you will be able to shoot at ISO1600 in the same situation and get a faster shutter speed as well :)
 
manualfocus-g said:
I too find that the 20D is noisy at high ISO. I actually found the 30D better than the 40D at high ISO. However, if you want clean results at ISO 1600, the 5D classic can't be beaten for price. 3200 is usable with care. BUT...a faster and shorter lens will make the world of difference on any body. Try a 30/1.4 or 24/1.4 and you'll see what I mean...you will be able to shoot at ISO1600 in the same situation and get a faster shutter speed as well :)
Click to expand...

:agree: if budget is tight then the 5D a very good option especially over the 40D or 500/550D models, if money no object, then the 5D MKIII, why waste money on 7D or 60D which would still give you problems.
 
I agree with MF & Pete, if you can afford to go full frame your low light performance with take a huge leap forwards.

I myself cant afford that option, but I find I get reasonably good results at ISO 1600 & passable results at ISO 3200 on my 500D.
 
Guys these types of replies are exactly what I wanted. Really appreciate your time although it has confirmed my fear that my 20d might just need to be replaced to compete with the competition.

I'll be doing more and more low light work from now on so I'll need to take your advice and upgrade to full frame camera and couple that with a fast lens.

This takes away from the worry of 'am I going to get a usable shot' so I can really just concentrate on getting creative.

Thanks
 
manualfocus-g said:
Remember also that shooting on full frame automatically allows you to safely shoot at slower speeds, handheld, as the lack of crop factor means you can shoot a 50mm lens at 1/50th second rather than 1/80th without camera shake :)
Click to expand...

That depends on one's ability to be still, shutter force and the subject movement.
 
There's more than one way to skin a cat.

I'd have started with; why are you not using flash? DJ lights are hideously unpredictable and vary between acceptable and awful as a light source, that's in quality rather quantity.

So mixing flash with the DJ lights will bring you back to a shot which will be crisp and well exposed and carry some of the atmosphere from the lights, add drama with a remote flash and your options and quality increase some more. Gels? Snoot?

The 20d probably is a little long in the tooth, and you should probably upgrade* but you don't need a 5d mkiii to get dancefloor shots at weddings, if you did - how would we have managed for the last 10 years.:thinking:

* you need to work out whether going FF is the best option, on a business basis, presumably there'd be at least 2 new lenses required as well as 2 bodies? Whereas 1 body upgrade will do in the short term, 7d? Followed by another later? Poss FF with 1 lens, then incrementally from there.:thumbs:
 
manualfocus-g said:
Remember also that shooting on full frame automatically allows you to safely shoot at slower speeds, handheld, as the lack of crop factor means you can shoot a 50mm lens at 1/50th second rather than 1/80th without camera shake :)
Click to expand...

That makes no sense... the reason you need 1/80th is because you have a different effective field of view. to get the same field of view on FF you need an 80mm lens so 1/8th again ;)
 
iced_jacob said:
That makes no sense... the reason you need 1/80th is because you have a different effective field of view. to get the same field of view on FF you need an 80mm lens so 1/8th again ;)
Click to expand...

It makes sense if you only use a 50/1.8 in low light, which is what the OP is doing ;)
 
This is a picture I shot last year with my 550D at ISO 6400, a small amount of noise reduction was applied in DPP. I think the results speak for themselves, you should gain at least a couple of stops of usable ISO by getting a more recent body.

iso%206400%20IMG_9063%20copy.jpg
 
I liked the Canon 20D it was the first DSLR I owed,but as people say above 800 :thumbsdown:,you could keep one body,then add another better iso performing body,for low light stuff :)
 
I think I found my 20d to be slightly better than the 40d at higher iso but it was a while ago. For me the 40d was better than the 50d and 7d at higher iso's for IQ but the 5d2 was soo much better (5dc much better than 40d also)

I'd rather have better noise iq than have to shoot at f1.2 with virtually no DOF to get the shutter speed
 
POAH said:
I think I found my 20d to be slightly better than the 40d at higher iso but it was a while ago. For me the 40d was better than the 50d and 7d at higher iso's for IQ but the 5d2 was soo much better (5dc much better than 40d also)

I'd rather have better noise iq than have to shoot at f1.2 with virtually no DOF to get the shutter speed
Click to expand...

Noise IQ is very important, and particularly with smooth gradients, which is what f/1.2 does. The look of f/1.2 can be very pleasing, so even if it makes it harder to get the focus there are obvious benefits
 
daugirdas said:
Noise IQ is very important, and particularly with smooth gradients, which is what f/1.2 does. The look of f/1.2 can be very pleasing, so even if it makes it harder to get the focus there are obvious benefits
Click to expand...

DOF very thin though which is not what you want for all shots
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top