does anyone have experience with the canon 50mm 1.4 indoor sports

[Ryan L]

Don't be afraid to bump the ISO. I shoot gymnastics and we can't use flash. I'm using the 5D and usually the 70-200 f/4L, so I'm used to using ISO 3200, f/4 and if I can get 1/320...it's a good day! Usually 1/160 to 1/250 is the norm.

Wow, well I think the 5D does a little better in the noise deptartment......but 3200 really?? That is my next upgrade is the 5D MkII...just waiting to find a deal. I would love to use my 70-200 2.* IS indoors...but at our gymnasium....eeehhh I will have to pull up some pictures from last week.

 

[table1349]

You arent going to gain much from going to 1.4 from 1.8. Try shooting at ISO 800. I have heard that the in between stops on the ISO tend to not be as good due to the camera processing or something.....someone else can probably explain more 800 shouldnt be too bad, it wasnt on the t1i which shares most of the 50d guts.

Sorry I have to disagree with you on this one. I shoot sports and I shoot the 50 f1.4. The advantage of the 1.4 is not in the difference in aperture although every little bit helps. The advantage is in focus speed of the USM motor in the 1.4 over the traditional cheaper, slower motor of the 1.8.
.

Do we have to be overly in depth with each post? I meant in regards to the OPs original problem, not everything else under the sun. Clearly the 1.4 is an all around better lens, but that wasn't what he was asking. While you are correct in your assesment, the issue here wasn't focus speed, it was shutter speed, which he isn't going to gain much going from 1.8-1.4. Hence the need to bump up the ISO. I would bet that the main issue here is the 1/3 stop ISO settings he is using. Its not a real ISO in the sense that it ups the sensor sensetivity, its a "faked" ISO using exposure manipulation, which flies in the face of what you just said about getting the exposure right to reduce noise.

Let me get a bit more in depth for you then. The op is using an ISO of 640 @1.8 to acheive a shutter speed of 1/250th.

f1.8 is 2/3's of a stop smaller than f1.4. An ISO of 640 is 2/3 of stop above 400. The math would then indicate that an f1.4 lens would allow the op to maintain a 1/250th shutter speed with an ISO of 400. To your way of thinking, or at least your 7D reference, would be contrary to your posting and must actually make a difference thus solving the op's problem. (Numbers in red are full stops)

f Stop range in 3rds.
1.0 1.1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.5 2.8 3.2 3.5 4 4.5 5.0 5.6 6.3 7.1 8 9 10 11 13 14 16 18 20 22

50D ISO range:
100 125 160 200 250 320 400 500 640 800 1000 1250 1600 2000 2500 3200

Simple math and physics.

 

[HikinMike]

Wow, well I think the 5D does a little better in the noise deptartment......but 3200 really?? That is my next upgrade is the 5D MkII...just waiting to find a deal. I would love to use my 70-200 2.* IS indoors...but at our gymnasium....eeehhh I will have to pull up some pictures from last week.

Maybe a little, but I'd like to think the 50D shouldn't be that bad. Heck, I'll trade your 2.8 for my f/4...LOL!!

Here's some photos from our last event. I did use my 50mm f/1.8 for the two bar shots (#4 & #5)....since I was pretty close. I still had to crop it. The EXIF is intact.

Sock Hop Invitational 2010

 

[Derrel]

I can't imagine the 50D topping out at ISO 640 indoors when shot in RAW with a good custom white balance...surely you should be able to get to ISO 1600 with a solid custom WB and decent exposure, then run some noise reduction on the keepers...I mean, really...ISO 640? My ancient D1h did better than that...my 20D can do ISO 800 no problem. Are you skipping all noise reduction?

The 50/1.4 tends to focus faster, and more reliably than the 50/1.8-II I used to have. The 1.4 is just a better-handling lens all around than the 1.8 model.

 

[Ryan L]

Here is a crop, can you can see the noise? This one is actually at ISO800, F2.8 @1/250th (yes I blurred her face on purpose) I have not done any NR for the purpose of seeing how it looks compared to what people think it should look like.

 

[GeneralBenson]

Here is a crop, can you can see the noise? This one is actually at ISO800, F2.8 @1/250th (yes I blurred her face on purpose) I have not done any NR for the purpose of seeing how it looks compared to what people think it should look like.

Is that a %100 crop or just a bit of a crop? The noise is plenty workable, and should give perfectly fine results with some NR. But I have to say, if that is the kind of results from a 50D, I'm pretty unimpressed. Was you're exposure on target, or did you need to push it in post? You said you weren't having the right white balance in camera, what was it set on?

 

[gsgary]

Here is a crop, can you can see the noise? This one is actually at ISO800, F2.8 @1/250th (yes I blurred her face on purpose) I have not done any NR for the purpose of seeing how it looks compared to what people think it should look like.

Is that how it came out of the camera or have you altered the exposure in post ? any under exposing will give you more noise it's best to try and over expose a bit in camera

 

[gsgary]

Does arm wrestling count

 

[Taylor510ce]

Sorry I have to disagree with you on this one. I shoot sports and I shoot the 50 f1.4. The advantage of the 1.4 is not in the difference in aperture although every little bit helps. The advantage is in focus speed of the USM motor in the 1.4 over the traditional cheaper, slower motor of the 1.8.
.

Do we have to be overly in depth with each post? I meant in regards to the OPs original problem, not everything else under the sun. Clearly the 1.4 is an all around better lens, but that wasn't what he was asking. While you are correct in your assesment, the issue here wasn't focus speed, it was shutter speed, which he isn't going to gain much going from 1.8-1.4. Hence the need to bump up the ISO. I would bet that the main issue here is the 1/3 stop ISO settings he is using. Its not a real ISO in the sense that it ups the sensor sensetivity, its a "faked" ISO using exposure manipulation, which flies in the face of what you just said about getting the exposure right to reduce noise.

Let me get a bit more in depth for you then. The op is using an ISO of 640 @1.8 to acheive a shutter speed of 1/250th.

f1.8 is 2/3's of a stop smaller than f1.4. An ISO of 640 is 2/3 of stop above 400. The math would then indicate that an f1.4 lens would allow the op to maintain a 1/250th shutter speed with an ISO of 400. To your way of thinking, or at least your 7D reference, would be contrary to your posting and must actually make a difference thus solving the op's problem. (Numbers in red are full stops)

f Stop range in 3rds.
1.0 1.1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.5 2.8 3.2 3.5 4 4.5 5.0 5.6 6.3 7.1 8 9 10 11 13 14 16 18 20 22

50D ISO range:
100 125 160 200 250 320 400 500 640 800 1000 1250 1600 2000 2500 3200

Simple math and physics.

Thanks for the lesson, I feel enlightened. Going from a noisy 640 to what should be a perfectly useable 800 is $350 cheaper. Theres some simple math for ya.:mrgreen:

 

[gsgary]

There is something wrong with that ISO800 shot it should not be that bad, just had a look through my shot for a shot at ISO800 with my 1Dmk1 which are meant to be noisy

 

[Ryan L]

ok heres my thought. When I bring the Raw file into Adobe Elements the preview looks really dark. When opened its better, but darker than what showed on my LCD. if I shoot jpg + raw it looks good on the jpg but Raw is still darker. Clicking auto of course corrects it pretty close. clicking default underexposes the crap out of it.

Heres a question. In Adobe Elements when you open the raw file, if I set all the sliders to zero, my image is very dark. Should the exposure be as I saw it with them all at zero?

Does anyone know where I can post a 18 meg raw file for anyone to try on their computer? I could even email it if your email supports large files.

 

[Ryan L]

anyone know if the sliders should be at 0???

 

[Derrel]

I think you are underexposed and have a bad white balance on the gymnasium shot. A better option would be to open the RAW file on your computer and do a screen grab of the Red-Green-Blue channels and their histograms....I opened the file crop above, and the red channel looks somewhat under-exposed to me...ISO 800 ought to look less noisy than that **IF** the exposure is good, meaning generous...you are in need of 1/3 of an f/stop more shutter speed here...you could jack the ISO setting to 1600 and OVER-expose, and probably get a less-noisy file than what you are showing us here...

 

[gsgary]

Don't ever use the lcd screen to look at exposure, use the histogram now i know why it looks so bad you are underexposing

 

[Ryan L]

I never said I use the LCD screen to check exposure. I use the meter. Than can I assume the metering on the camera if wrong too? I shoot manual 90% of the time, so do I need to add a add a full stop to what I see in the metering or what?