topic Re: Me or my camera? in EOS DSLR & Mirrorless Cameras

Me or my camera?

ambaranowski — Mon, 28 Dec 2020 18:28:11 GMT

New to portrait photography and having trouble getting crisp images in low light. Shooting on a Rebel T5i with the 18-55mm kit lens. AF and stabilier on. Is there something I'm missing or is it time for an upgrade to something with a better sensor or ISO?

f/5, 1/100, ISO-3200

Re: Me or my camera?

Waddizzle — Mon, 28 Dec 2020 18:50:57 GMT

The T5i is not a bad camera, but the kit lenses included in the Rebel camera kits are not Canon's best efforts. Shooting in low light is the bane of all photographers. Your images will never be better than the glass you put in front of the camera.

https://shop.usa.canon.com/shop/en/catalog/ef-50mm-speedlite-el-100-creative-photography-kit

That is a link to a 50mm prime lens kit, which is basically has a "portrait focal length" on you camera. There is also a genuine Canon Speedlite..

Re: Me or my camera?

ambaranowski — Mon, 28 Dec 2020 18:58:12 GMT

Thanks Waddizzle!! Quick follow up: I've thought about upgrading AND going mirrorless (I shoot residential real estate as my part time day job so an upgrade would actually be mainly for that). Would that move render any lens I buy now useless?? I'd like to buy for the long haul but it would be great to be able to make my Rebel last another year or so while I save for a beast.

Re: Me or my camera?

jrhoffman75 — Mon, 28 Dec 2020 20:12:04 GMT

You're image is being affected by the limited depth of field at an f/5 aperture.

The front of the sweater and your face are sharp. You can see how your ear and the shoulder area of the sweater is not sharp.

A lens is only correctly focused at one distance. Everything in the same plane of that distance will be correctly focused.

The eye-brain connection has the ability to determine sharpness over a limited distance in front of and behind the plane of accurate focus. That region is called depth of field. A smaller aperture creates a larger depth of field. A shorter focal length creates a larger depth of field. A farther subject distance creates a larger depth of field. All the opposites create a smaller depth of field.

All you would need to get a better shot with everything the same is more light. That would allow you to stop down to f/8 or f/11. Yiou would have a depth of field of over 2 1/2 feet at that point. (I was assuming you were about 5 feet from the camera for that shot.)

Re: Me or my camera?

jrhoffman75 — Mon, 28 Dec 2020 20:17:41 GMT

@ambaranowski wrote:
Thanks Waddizzle!! Quick follow up: I've thought about upgrading AND going mirrorless (I shoot residential real estate as my part time day job so an upgrade would actually be mainly for that). Would that move render any lens I buy now useless?? I'd like to buy for the long haul but it would be great to be able to make my Rebel last another year or so while I save for a beast.

The Canon mirrorless cameras have an adapter that will allow you to use EF-S and EF lenses, so you wouldn't be obsoleting your gear. There are some penalties regarding image stabilization capability, but there may be additional "R" bodies in the next year. Maybe the newer bodies wouldn't have those penalties. And if you are doing indoor real estate shoots you should be using a tripod anyway.

Re: Me or my camera?

rs-eos — Mon, 28 Dec 2020 20:31:45 GMT

Definitely second the usage of a tripod. After all, for indoor real-estate images, nothing is moving*. So you could pick the aperture you want (e.g. f/8), then set the shutter to 1-second or whatever makes sense to drop the ISO to 100 or as close to that as possible.

* Well, a running ceiling fan perhaps, or if windows are open, some blowing curtains/drapes. But I think for the vast majority of images, nothing would be moving.

Re: Me or my camera?

ambaranowski — Mon, 28 Dec 2020 22:04:16 GMT

Yes! I definitely use a tripod for listing photos--just got home from one where I shot the basement with a six second exposure. Ugh. I'm used to things that don't move, but I'm lost when it comes off the tripod!

Re: Me or my camera?

ambaranowski — Mon, 28 Dec 2020 22:06:34 GMT

As for aperture, from what I've been reading, portraits need a wide aperture. I've been setting my camera at it's widest (f4) and then focusing on the eye closest. Am I learning wrong? Do I need a smaller aperture for two people like the shot above or smaller in general??

Re: Me or my camera?

MikeSowsun — Mon, 28 Dec 2020 22:23:21 GMT

Here is my opinion.....

Professional photographers don't usually use wide open apertures for portrait photography. This is because wide apertures cause very narrow depth of field, and the customers might not like their portraits being mostly soft with only very narrow areas in focus.

Pros often use apertures like f/5.6 or f/8 and lots of studio lights to get nice sharp photos with acceptable depth of field.

There is a time for using wide apertures, like f/1.2 or f/1.4, but they are usually used for more artistic portraits.

Re: Me or my camera?

ambaranowski — Mon, 28 Dec 2020 22:38:01 GMT

Good to know, Mike! Do you have any recommendations for where to learn more?? Seems like I've been looking at the wrong info!

Re: Me or my camera?

jrhoffman75 — Mon, 28 Dec 2020 23:31:27 GMT

@ambaranowski wrote:
As for aperture, from what I've been reading, portraits need a wide aperture. I've been setting my camera at it's widest (f4) and then focusing on the eye closest. Am I learning wrong? Do I need a smaller aperture for two people like the shot above or smaller in general??

I'm working with a 3MB JPEG and a cropped section, but you got a decent portrait of the adult at f/5. Nose to ears is sharp enough not to be distracting.

But yes, the baby is not sharp and you would need greater depth of field to get both subjects sharp.

A portrait you would take of a person for that person would have different criteria than a photo you were taking for yourself as a creative art. A customer expects the image to be "real". They want it to be sharp.

Re: Me or my camera?

stevet1 — Tue, 29 Dec 2020 11:22:45 GMT

@ambaranowski wrote:
New to portrait photography and having trouble getting crisp images in low light. Shooting on a Rebel T5i with the 18-55mm kit lens. AF and stabilier on. Is there something I'm missing or is it time for an upgrade to something with a better sensor or ISO?

f/5, 1/100, ISO-3200

I found this article to be pretty helpful:

https://www.techradar.com/how-to/best-aperture-and-focal-length-for-portraits

Here's one example they give:

Steve Thomas

Re: Me or my camera?

ebiggs1 — Tue, 29 Dec 2020 15:26:31 GMT

Here are some considerations. If you intend to go mirrorless don't buy any more ef or ef-s lenses. If you are into real estate photography don't buy a 50 mm prime. Could be one of the worse FL for real estate photos. BTW, you have 50mm already in your kit zoom lens. If you want or think you need 50mm just set it there.

DOF is probably not the problem shown in your example. At f5 and 37mm the DOF is almost 4 feet. DOF relies greatly on focal length. Even wide open apertures benefit in DOF when FL is decrease. DOF is also affected by distance from subject.

As to open aperture or small, it depends on your goal. Both are good and correct.

You do need more light for the conditions in your sample. You can add a flash but a flash brings along all its little quirks too. Your WB is off and if it was better that would make the shot better. A mirrorless camera in itself will not make a shot like that better. More light will. Another is post editing.

Re: Me or my camera?

ebiggs1 — Tue, 29 Dec 2020 15:31:55 GMT

Nice shot!

Re: Me or my camera?

ambaranowski — Tue, 05 Jan 2021 12:31:40 GMT

So one more question and then I'll put this thread to bed: how much light is more light? This shot was taken indoors but the subjects were facing a wall with two windows about six feet from them. Not a sunny day, but still plenty of natural light. There were also four bright recessed lights above them, four in each of the adjoining rooms, and two windows behind them (15' or so away). What makes indoor photography "well lit"? Even my outdoor shots on cloudy days seem grainy. Does well lit have to be full sun?

Re: Me or my camera?

kvbarkley — Tue, 05 Jan 2021 14:40:20 GMT

There is enough light if you don't need a flash, and/or your shutter speed is fast enough with a relatively low ISO.

Now, you might also have an issue with mixed lighting throwing the white balance/flicker detection off.

Re: Me or my camera?

Waddizzle — Tue, 05 Jan 2021 14:41:19 GMT

"BTW, you have 50mm already in your kit zoom lens. If you want or think you need 50mm just set it there."

I do not understand the logic of this argument. There is a major difference between 50mm f/5.6, and 50mm f/2.8, or even wider. It is called 2 stops. When you need more light, then using a faster lens is much preferred over using a higher ISO.

Re: Me or my camera?

Waddizzle — Tue, 05 Jan 2021 14:44:31 GMT

@ambaranowski wrote:
So one more question and then I'll put this thread to bed: how much light is more light? This shot was taken indoors but the subjects were facing a wall with two windows about six feet from them. Not a sunny day, but still plenty of natural light. There were also four bright recessed lights above them, four in each of the adjoining rooms, and two windows behind them (15' or so away). What makes indoor photography "well lit"? Even my outdoor shots on cloudy days seem grainy. Does well lit have to be full sun?

Your metering system in the camera should tell you when your exposure is properly set for the available light.

However, indoor lighting can actually fool the camera into thinking there is more available light than there actually is. Indoor lighting tends to flicker faster than the eye can see. If the shutter fires at the wrong moment, then the photo will look underexposed, which sort of what your original photo looks like. Some cameras can detect flicker, and will fire the shutter only when indoor lighting is at its' brightest.

Re: Me or my camera?

ebiggs1 — Tue, 05 Jan 2021 15:29:37 GMT

" "BTW, you have 50mm already in your kit zoom lens. If you want or think you need 50mm just set it there."

I do not understand the logic of this argument."

I'm not surprised. It gives you the opportunity to try being forced to stay on 50mm without spending any money. That's all, so you can see how limiting a prime can be. If you'er good with it you might want to buy the prime if not now you know.

Re: Me or my camera?

ebiggs1 — Tue, 05 Jan 2021 15:30:57 GMT

"When you need more light, then using a faster lens is much preferred over using a higher ISO."

No, not necessarily. That may be your opinion but it is not true or a fact.