Low Light video - Kit lens T2i

[Matthew Capowski]

Interesting. I found the kit lens horrid, but that is in comparison to my Nikon 18-55 kit lens. The 50mm F1.4 is much better (but obviously of a different class).

[Perrone Ford]

Originally Posted by David St. Juskow

Just to chime in on the continuing kit lens debate, I have to say, despite my earlier post about how disappointingly bad low-light video was using my kit lens, I've been shooting stills a lot with it (while I wait for my tokina 11-16... and wait...) and, for stills, it's pretty kick-ass. For a hundred dollar lens, I got some great shots at 3.5, iso 800, 1/2 second shutter speed- totally handheld, even, full manual focus. We're talking barely-lit here, yet sharp, warm photos.

Of course, those are stills. But there's clearly nothing wrong with that kit glass...

Uhhh, did you just say you were taking 1/2 second exposure handheld stills? And they looked good to you? And it ISO 800?

Ok...

[Robert Turchick]

Thinking the same thing Perrone! HeHe!

Kit lens gave me a weird thing in video mode too, I zoomed in a bit and it seemed to almost strobe the lighting during the zoom. The particular instance about 8 sec in to the vid on this thread when I zoom out. It's not a function of compressing to web, the original looks the same.

http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/eos-550d...rk-sample.html

Is this a function of the f-stop changing? I'm rather new to this whole DSLR thing. When doing the same move with my 24-70 f2.8 or 70-200 f4 there's no weirdness. (yes, those lenses are in a different league) Those lenses have the ability to keep the f-stop constant through the zoom range though, right?

[Bruce Foreman]

Yes, it is a function of the f stop changing during the zoom. There are warnings against zooming while recording video with zooms that do not have a constant aperture.

The two lenses you mention giving no "weirdness" while zooming are constant aperture lenses (I recognize the 70-200 f4 as probably being an "L" series lens) and that is because the aperture remains constant in those throughout the zoom.

The 18-55mm f3.5 - f5.6 "kit" lens for the Rebels is an economy lens that when used in sufficient light does an excellent job of providing a useful wide angle to moderate portrait telephoto range for those starting out.

[Bruce Foreman]

Originally Posted by Perrone Ford

Uhhh, did you just say you were taking 1/2 second exposure handheld stills? And they looked good to you? And it ISO 800?

Ok...

In the mid 1970's I had to do just that with ASA 64 Kodachrome as the light failed between late afternoon going into early evening. I had been invited to photograph a unique ceremony by the head priest of the Buddhist Temple on Taiwan that had been selected to host it.

The ceremony was conducted by 7 priests of high rank and I chose not to use flash so my photography would not be intrusive. As the light failed I braced up as best I could, including a position with clasped arms and camera laying across left shoulder (135mm f3.5 lens) and shutter speeds down to 1/2 second. I still show scans of some of those images today.

I was not told the ceremony would run from mid morning through all afternoon and way into the night. The area of the temple where the ceremony was to be held was illuminated by sufficient daylight streaming in during the afternoon, by sunset and after the lighting was from flourescents overhead and candlelight on the tables.

What he claims can definitely be done.

[Robert Turchick]

Thanks! LOVE this forum! Learn something new every day.
yeah, both that I mentioned are L glass and look wonderful. The Canon 50mm 1.4 and Tokina 11-16 are constant aperture too. I decided it was worth investing in lenses and these seem to do every trick in the book for me!

And regarding the 1/2 second stills, maybe it's too much caffeine in my system to have that steady a hand! HaHa!

[Perrone Ford]

Yes, I've taken handheld footage at 1/30 on Pan-X in a dark auditorium... but that was back when I was a lot younger, and I was shooting daily. There is no way on EARTH I'd try to pull off taking unbraced, handheld shots at half a second exposure now.

But everyone is different.

Originally Posted by Bruce Foreman

In the mid 1970's I had to do just that with ASA 64 Kodachrome as the light failed between late afternoon going into early evening. I had been invited to photograph a unique ceremony by the head priest of the Buddhist Temple on Taiwan that had been selected to host it.

The ceremony was conducted by 7 priests of high rank and I chose not to use flash so my photography would not be intrusive. As the light failed I braced up as best I could, including a position with clasped arms and camera laying across left shoulder (135mm f3.5 lens) and shutter speeds down to 1/2 second. I still show scans of some of those images today.

I was not told the ceremony would run from mid morning through all afternoon and way into the night. The area of the temple where the ceremony was to be held was illuminated by sufficient daylight streaming in during the afternoon, by sunset and after the lighting was from flourescents overhead and candlelight on the tables.

What he claims can definitely be done.

[George Angeludis]

This is a site I just found out. You may probably know it but has some lenses tests.
It has the kit lenses of the 550D as well. And it says that it is a very good one.
Pbase lens tests

[David St. Juskow]

The photo was of a sleeping mother & child, so I blurred the subjects since they wouldn't appreciate being posted on the web as the subjects of tech talk. Other than that, the photos are completely untouched. The only light was a tiny little lamp at the other end of the room- it was pretty damn dark in there. You can see the detail at 100% with all the camera specs next to it for reference. I bracketed just to see how much I could push the lens, and I have to say, even at a 3.2 second / 100 iso exposure, the photo looks great! The grain at 800 is completely passable- soft, even, rather than that digital harshness you get sometimes with cheap digital cameras. The kit lens went below my expectations for video, and above them for stills!

p.s. i used the live view for these shots, holding it over them at slightly lower my eye level, so that i could barely see the frame when i shot. Focusing was done by me hovering over them and magnifying to focus. From what I remember of the 5D, the screen is not as sharp as the t2i- i'm able to focus a lot easier right of the screen, even in broad daylight. that's a BIG plus for this camera and part of the reason why the kit lens "works" much better.

[Alex Sava]

Speaking of low light video with the kit lens, here's a video I made.

I was showing my camera to a friend and he shot a few things out the window as I was driving around my city. I made a montage of it just for kicks:

2nd Canon 550D/T2i Test on Vimeo

I tried to cover up the low light noise with some film grain and color correction in post and I like the way the video looks small, but full screen it is very disappointing. I need faster lens.

[George Angeludis]

Good Alex but leaving any camera on auto, can't give you the best of it.Or it was manual? I have seen shots with the kit @1600 ISO and I loved it.
See

here

.

[Alex Sava]

Yeah some of those shots look good... Anyways I haven't shot any of those scenes, my friend was just playing around so I just made a montage. It was on manual for the most part, I think he left the ISO on auto though...

But even in that video I see some annoying grain, but maybe I'm expecting too much from this camera/lens.

[George Angeludis]

While this is compressed to fit on vimeo, where is the point that you see noise?
It is not my video of course. It is 4.18 minutes and it should be around 1.5g if it was online quality.
But it's only 67mb instead...

[Alex Sava]

Don't get me wrong, it annoys me that his video looks better than mine even though mine went through some subtle post, and the only thing keeping me from hanging myself is knowing that I didn't shoot my video, I merely just pieced it together -- that is a compliment directed at the video you posted btw :P

I'm just saying in those really low light shots of buildings, I can see some noise.

[George Angeludis]

Do not worry there are no bad feelings here. Those buildings are shot @1600 (ISO).And given that this is too compressed I think that this is marvelous. At the flowers shots you can't really tell if it was shot on video or film. And that video was untouched (expect from the compression...). This is too filmic. I love that colors.