General Canon Questions

[ssanders79]

You are getting replies on your other thread. http://www.disboards.com/showthread.php?t=2595869

 

[Pea-n-Me]

You will get better with experience, but you have some homework to do first. Have you had a chance to read Understanding Exposure yet? That will help put a lot of the questions you have into perspective. And here is a thread that may help, too. http://www.disboards.com/showthread.php?t=2568036
At some point you need to pick up a "fast" lens for low light shooting. You can go up on the ISO but you might need to run your pictures through noise reduction software to get rid of the graininess that using high ISO often causes.

Two things you NEED to do. Read. And practice. It would be nice if there was, but there really is no other way to learn how to use this type of equipment. We've all been there, believe me.

 

[Frantasmic]

What venue are you shooting in? Outdoors? A gym? A stage performance?

From this and your other thread, it appears you believed a better, more-expensive camera would automatically produce better pictures....automatically.

Sadly, that isn't the case.

Photography is a sometimes complex set of conditions that require understanding of light, exposure, etc. The book others have recommended will teach you these ideas and then you have to practice.

Your camera does have settings that will attempt to mimic optimum settings for a shot, but that rarely occurs.

Having IS in a lens helps, but doesn't always guarantee that you have the right lens.

The type of action shot, in low-light conditions, without flash is among the more difficult shots to obtain. You probably need another lens with a larger aperture to obtain what you want. Or, you could enhance the ISO settings and learn to use your manual settings to attempt to get the shot with your current lenses.

 

[ThurlFan]

Neither of the lenses you have are really suited for nighttime action shots. And the more you zoom, the worse it will get. If you're at a sporting event that is REALLY well lit (i.e. televised college/pro football game) you can get some nice pics. If you are at a high school stadium you may get some decent shots depending on the lighting. If you are just out and about with friends and family (say walking down Main Street USA at closing time) you're out of luck. Only thing you can do is push the ISO as high as it will go and shoot using shutter priority and try to save the images with computer processing. But it's not likely you will be really happy with the results.

 

[MarkBarbieri]

Put the camera in AV mode and set your aperture to the smallest f-stop number possible. Increase your ISO to the highest number possible. You camera is now set up to minimize motion blur.

If the background in your shot is blurry, the camera isn't still enough. If IS is not on, turn it on. If it is on, you'll need a tripod or some other support.

If your background is not blurry and your subject is blurry, the subject is moving too quickly for your shutter speed. You don't have good options here. Take pictures when your subject is moving slower. Try to pan along with your subject's motion. Buy a lens that have a smaller f-stop number. Shoot zoomed out more so that the blur isn't as noticeable.

If a high ISO and a small f-stop number get you a sharp picture, you can play around with the numbers to get the best setting for you. Lowering the ISO will reduce noise (grainy dots in your picture), but at the cost of more motion blur. Making your f-stop number higher will mean that more of your picture is in focus, but also at the cost of more motion blur.

 

[photo_chick]

Auto modes sledom get you what you need in low light situations.

I'd approach it from Tv and set the shutter speed I needed. This is where you have to understand how to figure what shutter speed you need though. Then on the T2i I'd set it ot ISO 6400 (on the T2i I think you need to go into the menu and turn on the expanded ISO settings first). Then take the shot.

If it's to odark then you need ot either use a tripod so you cna use a lower shutter speed or use a shorter focal length that will need less light for the exposure. I've got the 75-300 which is a hair slower than your 70-300, and I know how far I've pushed that lens, so you can get some low light shots. Just not as easily as with a faster lens. And you may have to shoot RAW and push the exposure in post.

 

[LimoFam5]

This is why we were encouraging you to save on the 70-300mm and get a faster lens instead. What you have just cannot handle that situation. You need a faster lens.

Thanks but the 70-300 came as a package. Spending money on another lens is not out of the question so with that said what lens would u recommend?

 

[MarkBarbieri]

Thanks but the 70-300 came as a package. Spending money on another lens is not out of the question so with that said what lens would u recommend?

You want faster glass, and that doesn't come cheap. You want a lens with a maximum aperture of at least f/2.8. For sports, you probably want the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 ($1,300), the Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 ($800), or the Canon 200mm f/2.8 ($750). You can get even faster (Canon 200mm f/2) or longer (Canon 300mm f/2.8), but the prices for those are well over $4,000.

 

[ukcatfan]

Thanks but the 70-300 came as a package. Spending money on another lens is not out of the question so with that said what lens would u recommend?

You want faster glass, and that doesn't come cheap. You want a lens with a maximum aperture of at least f/2.8. For sports, you probably want the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 ($1,300), the Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 ($800), or the Canon 200mm f/2.8 ($750). You can get even faster (Canon 200mm f/2) or longer (Canon 300mm f/2.8), but the prices for those are well over $4,000.

Before you bought it, some of us were suggesting that you not get the package and go ahead and get one of the lenses Mark mentions here. I think you paid around $500-600 for the lens in the package. The $800 lens is not that much more. If it were me, I would return the package, buy a single lens package, and buy a 3rd party 70-200mm f/2.8 like the Sigma or a Tamron. These do not have IS though I believe. You have to spend more to get that. Since you are talking about low light action shots, you will probably need a fast enough shutter speed that would make IS not even necessary though.

 

[bob100]

Before you bought it, some of us were suggesting that you not get the package and go ahead and get one of the lenses Mark mentions here. I think you paid around $500-600 for the lens in the package. The $800 lens is not that much more. If it were me, I would return the package, buy a single lens package, and buy a 3rd party 70-200mm f/2.8 like the Sigma or a Tamron. These do not have IS though I believe. You have to spend more to get that. Since you are talking about low light action shots, you will probably need a fast enough shutter speed that would make IS not even necessary though.

I would also recommend that route especially if you will be taking a lot of night or low light sports/action pics. There are Canon packages with the 55-250IS and 18-55IS lens combination that are much cheaper than what you paid at (Costco?). Check B&H, Adorama, etc and then put the extra $$ into a 3rd party f2.8 zoom.

 

[Gianna'sPapa]

The latest incarnations of the 70-200 with image stabilization costs are as follows (B & H prices):

Sigma $1,699
Canon $2,069

There is a long list of Canon 70-200's that are cheaper, but I don't know enough about the product line to give you a recommendation.

The non-stablized Sigma is $799 and Tamron is $729.