Finding a Good Low-light, Wide-Angle Compact Digital Camera

21 Thursday May 2009

Posted by mgm in All, Commentary, Reviews

≈ Comments Off on Finding a Good Low-light, Wide-Angle Compact Digital Camera

[Note: this was published in May 2009, so the information is pretty dated; most of the issues, however, are still relevant.]

I’ve owned and used various digital DSLRs from Canon. I’ve also owned and used various lenses–both zooms and primes–in various photography situations, both professionally and recreationally.

One felt need that periodically but persistently emerges for me is having a smallish camera I can easily bring with me when I go on short excursions with my family–places like a playground, ice cream stand, the mall, etc–that doesn’t hang out in front of me on a neck strap proclaiming me to be a “camera geek”…and hitting my kids in the head everytime I turn toward them (they’re young and short)!

At the same time, this smallish camera has to take photos in all sorts of suboptimal lighting conditions and produce image files that I can enlarge to make good quality 10×15 and 12×18 prints–or even use as stock–if I happen to capture some great off-the-cuff images. (75% or more of the photos I take are candids.)

The common vision among photographers is imagining oneself being Henri Cartier-Bresson with a Leica, finding and taking impromptu shots that end up being works of art! Well, even a Leica M series camera–both film and digital–weighs over a pound. And even though they may be more compact than a SLR or DSLR, they’re still larger than the digital “compacts” and “ultra-compacts” you see around these days.

The problem with these compact digital cameras is they usually have one or more of the following weaknesses:

Too much digital image noise at and/or above 200 ISO
Can’t focus in low-light
Have small maximum apertures (you’re lucky to get an aperture as large as f/3.5 at the wide end of the focal length range)
Can’t save images in an unprocessed raw image format
Seldom go wider than about a 35mm (full-frame equivalent) focal length angle of view
Poor lens and/or image quality compared to DSLRs
Limited manual/creative controls

A couple of years ago, I bought a Canon PowerShot S60 to fill this gap. It’s a 5 megapixel camera which, by today’s standards, is pretty low-resolution. However, it has a lot of nice features that many digital compacts don’t:

You can record images in raw format
It focusses pretty well in low light (with the help of an AF assist light)
Goes as wide as 28mm full-frame equivalent focal length
Has a relatively large maximum aperture at 28mm of f/2.8
Pretty good optics and image quality
Good manual/creative controls

While I got some images I probably wouldn’t have gotten otherwise (i.e., situations when I wouldn’t have taken a DSLR, so I wouldn’t have had *any* camera available), the S60 comes up short in three areas:

Digital noise: even at 200 ISO it starts to get pretty horrendous
That maximum aperture reduces very quickly as you zoom…all the way down to f/5.3 at the other end of the zoom range
5 megapixels doesn’t cut it anymore for anything other than web images or small prints

The combination of #1 and #2 made it necessary to take flash photos in most low light situations. This was my biggest disappointment with the camera.

Well, I started looking around again for a good compact camera. The three that currently seem to stand out in terms of low-light performance and image quality are the: 1) Sigma DP2, 2) Leica D-Lux 4, and 3) Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX3.

The big selling point for the Sigma DP2 seems to be the size of its sensor; it’s similar to putting the sensor from a 1.6 crop factor Canon DSLR into a compact camera. With this larger sensor comes better dynamic range, detail resolution, and low noise performance. The DP2 comes with a relatively large maximum aperture of f/2.8; but the lens is fixed at one focal length: 41mm (full-frame equivalent).

I was pretty impressed by the sample photos I’ve seen online from the DP2; they looked smoother and looked to have better detail than the images from the other two cameras. Also, this camera seems to have *very* nice bokeh (background blur).

I almost decided to get it. What stopped me?

Even though the larger sensor seems to yield better quality images in good light, the advantage goes away–or is greatly reduced–in low light
By all accounts I’ve seen, the focussing–especially in low light–is significantly better with the other two cameras
Focal length is fixed at 41mm. I actually think this a relatively good focal length to be fixed at if you have to pick one. But sometimes 28mm and 24mm can be so handy!
The maximum resolution of the images that come out of the DP2 are 2640 x 1760 pixels (about 4.6 megapixels). Even though it has been shown repeatedly that these images can be successfully up-sized to much larger than this, I don’t like the idea of having to up-size most of the images I take to make them useful for my applications.
This review of the DP1, which has the same sensor as the DP2

So, then I focussed more carefully on the other two cameras: the Leica and the Panasonic. First, let’s look at a few specifications, which are virtually identical between the two cameras:

10.1 megapixels
24-60mm (35mm film equivalent) Leica branded lens
max aperture: f/2.0 – f/2.8
ISO range: 80 – 6400
Focus modes (Normal,Macro,Quick AF,Continuous AF,Manual Focus,One Shot AF,AF Area Select,AF Tracking )
AF Assist Light
Metering (Intelligent Multiple,Center Weighted,Spot)
Output formats: JPEG, RAW
Image stabilization
More specs (Panasonic Lumix LX3, Leica D-Lux 4)

From these few specs, I think you can see these are not your average compact digital cameras. They’ve got DSLR-level features and are well set up for wide-angle, low-light photography.

I found that the Leica was retailing for around $700 (May 2009); the Sigma was going for about $650. What about the Panasonic? Around $500. I’ll come back to the issue of price a little later.

Well, it turns out there’s all sorts of speculation on the web regarding the differences between the Leica D-Lux 4 and Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX3. Some say it’s the exact same camera with slightly different “packaging”. Some say the differences are quite evident.

I did searches at both Google and Yahoo to find people who had access to both cameras and were taking comparison test images. Here are a few links if you’re interested:

Here’s what I decided: they are very close. Sometimes I think I see an advantage for the Leica. But then I think they’re *so* close, a small tweak in the processing of the images (e.g., color, contrast, clarity, sharpening) and I could make either one look better than the other. Also, some of the differences could be attributable to the person taking the photos or slightly different settings or manufacturing tolerances, etcetera.

Now I, like other photographers, am sometimes swayed by “image”; I’m talking about the status related type here. This may seem a shallow consideration; however, showing up with a camera with the name “Leica” on it may engender more confidence in my client than showing up with a camera with the name “BumSplag” on it. Also, if I ever go to sell the camera, other photographers would probably be willing to pay me more for a “Leica” than a “BumSplag”.

Since I will still primarily be using my DSLRs for professional photo gigs, I’m not so concerned with the brand name displayed on this camera. This camera is my more casual travel camera. Besides…even the Panasonic says “Leica” along the front edge of the lens! And anyone concerned about resale value of a digital camera when the digital camera manufacturers are putting out newer and “better” digital cameras every month is–in my opinion–a little off-base!

So, I’m opting for the $200 cheaper Panasonic. But wait…there’s more!

It turns out that the Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX3 comes in both black and silver. The black version looks much more like the Leica D-Lux 4. I assume–I don’t know this for a fact–that this similarity to the Leica is why the black version sells for more than the silver version?! I saw the black version of the LX3 selling for $30 more than the silver version at B&H. I guess the black version is more hip….and more Leica-like!

Anyway, as I write this blog post, it’s actually difficult to find LX3s in stock right now. So, both the silver and black versions are going for a premium right now (more than $500).

Well, let me leave you with a tip: I found a silver version of the DMC-LX3 at Dell Computers for $429.99. It’s unclear to me whether it’s actually in stock (i.e., it doesn’t say it’s *out* of stock). But for that price, I can afford to wait a little for my uncool silver “Leica-like” compact to arrive…;-).

Addendum 1: it turns out they’re actually back-ordered at Dell. I canceled my order and bought a lightly used one from eBay. At this time (6/8/09), eBay is probably your best bet for finding one of these right now…!)

Addendum 2: A new camera from Olympus will start shipping in July (2009) that is definitely competitive in this category of cameras: the Olympus E-P1.

Visit Michael's Art Photography Portfolio at SaatchiArt.com!

Canon EF 35-350mm f/3.5-5.6L USM versus Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS USM: A Visual

14 Thursday May 2009

Posted by mgm in All, Reviews

≈ 1 Comment

I recently purchased a Canon 35-350mm f/3.5-5.6L USM zoom lens. (This lens was replaced by the Canon 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6 L IS USM and is no longer in production.) Due to some of the complaints I heard, I was a little worried the size and weight of it might be a problem…especially over the course of a long day of shooting.

Well, I haven’t used it during a long day of shooting yet; but I have used the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS USM at some of my weddings and haven’t noticed any major problems with weight. So, just out of curiosity, I thought I would compare the two purely in terms of size and weight.

First, I weighed both of them with their hoods and caps on. The 35-350 weighed in at a fairly substantial 3 pounds and 4.6 ounces. When handling them, it’s a little difficult to tell which is heavier because the weight is distributed differently. The 70-200 IS has a larger diameter and looks more substantial. And, as it turns out, it *is* somewhat heavier: 3 pounds and 8.3 ounces.

So, the 70-200 is heavier even though it covers a smaller range of focal lengths. However the 70-200 has two attributes that make it especially heavy: 1) a relatively large and constant maximum aperture of f/2.8, and 2) an image stabilization system.

I took a few photos to further illustrate their differences in size. In the first photo, they’re standing upright on a table (the 70-200 is on the left; the 35-350 on the right):

As you can see, when the two lenses are not extended, the 70-200 is longer/taller than the 35-350. How about when they’re fully extended?

Actually, the 70-200 doesn’t extend when you zoom it out; so its length is unaltered (I know, I know…the 70-200 shows it’s at 70mm, not 200mm. Trust me: it’s the same length at 200mm). The 35-350, on the other hand, has now surpassed the length of the 70-200 (it’s a push-pull zoom like a couple of Canon’s other L zooms: 28-300 and 100-400)…and there’s a relatively large and heavy piece of lens glass inside that extended end.

How about a photograph of the two with their hoods on?…

To the casual observer, they look like they’re almost the same length! I guess this is good as far as the 35-350 not making me “stand out” any more than the 70-200 does. However, much of the length on the far end of the 70-200 is lightweight plastic. The 35-350’s hood is quite a bit shorter.

So, even though the 35-350 weighs less than the 70-200 IS, the weight distribution is quite different. I’m a little concerned that when the 35-350 is fully or nearly fully extended, it’ll act as a substantial lever with my upper back acting as the counterweight….possibly making it ache after a few hours of shooting.

I guess the proof will be “in the pudding” once I actually shoot an event with it! More on that sometime soon…:-)

Visit Michael's Art Photography Portfolio at SaatchiArt.com!

A Nice General Purpose Prime Lens for a Digital Rebel or other 1.6 Crop Factor Canon DSLR: Canon 35mm f/2

11 Monday May 2009

Posted by mgm in All, Reviews

≈ 2 Comments

I like large maximum aperture prime lenses. The variable maximum aperture consumer grade zoom lenses (usually something like f/3.5 – f/5.6) can be good for outdoor daytime photography; but for general purpose indoor/outdoor, daytime/nighttime photography, a f/2 or larger maximum aperture prime lens can get a lot of shots the consumer grade zoom lenses just can’t get. In addition, you get better image quality with a prime lens and a really nice background blur that can be difficult to get with those smaller apertures.

Now, a standard entry-level prime lens that I and many other photographers start with is the plastic Canon 50mm f/1.8. For the price (under $100), the image quality and bokeh (background blur) can’t be beat. And it gave me a normal focal length lens (between wide angle and telephoto) on my 35mm film SLR camera. 50mm can be (and is for me) a very good general purpose focal length.

When I bought my first 1.6 crop factor DLSR (the Canon EOS 20D), the 50mm f/1.8 lens went from having the angle of view of a normal lens to that of a 80mm telephoto lens. This isn’t necessarily bad if you want a telephoto angle of view; but it *is* bad if you really want normal lens coverage.

The first lens I bought to accommodate the APS-C sensor of the 20D was a Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 zoom lens. 28mm on the 1.6 crop factor DSLR is about 45mm…slightly wide angle compared to a normal 50mm view. Of course it also gave me the full-frame equivalence of a 120mm at the 75mm end. It was a good lens for me, until my daughter accidentally knocked it off of our kitchen counter and permanently crippled it (I was a little surprised how fragile it was).

I eventually went on to a full-frame Canon 5D DSLR and my 50mm lenses (the f/1.8, f/1.4, and f/1.2…I’ve owned all of them at some point) went back to being true normal angle of view lenses. However, I still have a 1.6 crop factor Digital Rebel that I like to travel with.

On our family vacation to a New York state park last summer, I brought the Digital Rebel and two lenses: a Canon 24-105mm f/4L and a Canon 35mm f/2. Even though the 24-105 gave me the better range of coverage (full-frame equivalent of about 38 – 168mm), I found myself preferring the 35mm f/2 for a few reasons:

1) It’s much more compact (here’s a photo of the larger 24-105mm next to the 35mm, both with their hoods on)

2) Significantly larger aperture that allowed shooting at lower ISOs indoors and made it possible to shoot in much less light (e.g., photos of my family next to a campfire lighted only by the fire light)

3) Less worry about losing or damaging the lens since it’s much cheaper than the 24-105 zoom

A 35mm lens on a 1.6 crop factor DSLR is equivalent to a 56mm lens on a full-frame DSLR. It’s slightly telephoto compared to a true normal lens angle of view, but it’s not far off. Canon makes a 28mm f/1.8 that I think I would slightly prefer in terms of angle of view (approximately equivalent to 45mm on a full-frame), but compared to the 35mm f/2, it’s: 1) bigger, 2) more expensive (around $420 new compare to $240 for the 35mm), 3) has poorer center sharpness wide open (i.e., at large apertures).

I have found the 35mm f/2 to give me great photos and to focus quickly and accurately, even without a USM autofocus drive motor (it makes a high-pitched whizzing sound when it’s focussing because it’s not USM; but this doesn’t bother me).

I really think the Canon 35mm f/2 is a great lens for anyone who owns a 1.6 crop factor Canon DSLR (includes the Canon EOS 10D – 50D and all the Digital Rebels) and would recommend you try one out if you haven’t already!

Visit Michael's Art Photography Portfolio at SaatchiArt.com!

The One Canon Lens for Photojournalistic Coverage of Outdoor Events (Super Zoom Lenses)

05 Tuesday May 2009

Posted by mgm in All, Reviews

≈ Comments Off on The One Canon Lens for Photojournalistic Coverage of Outdoor Events (Super Zoom Lenses)

Over the past week, I photographed two events at my children’s small private school…one as an observer and one as a participant. (It’s much easier to photograph an event as a non-participant!)

In any case, during the event when I was an observer, I put the Canon EF 70-300 F4-5.6 IS USM on my Canon 5D with the assumption I’d mostly want close-ups of the children. On the other day (when I was an event participant) I brought the 5D again, but had two lenses: the Canon EF 24-105 F4L IS USM and the Canon EF 70-300 F4-5.6 IS USM again.

On the day I had just the 70-300, I did run into some circumstances where I wanted a wider perspective. But being outdoors and fairly mobile, I just retracted the zoom to 70mm, ran some distance away from the children, turned around, and took the shot. Of course, during a little run like that, you’re liable to miss a few shots..! (I can just imagine telling the wedding couple at an outdoor wedding to go back and walk down the aisle again so I can run some distance and get a wider perspective…:p).

On the other day when I had two lenses, the 24-105 came in handy when I was taking shots of the people around me…especially, when I was right in there with them participating in some group activities. It was a little difficult, though, to get any decent shots of the people that were far away from me (we were quite spread out over a large grassy area).

Later–when I got a chance–I changed to the 70-300 lenses to get candids…mostly of children who, hopefully, wouldn’t notice me focussing on them. This was fine until the children got into groups and lines for some games. Again–as I did on the previous day–I had to run back away from them to get them all into the 70mm view.

Two cameras

When people pay me to shoot an event–like a wedding–I normally bring and wear 2-3 cameras with 2-3 lenses to cover a wide-angle, normal, and telephoto perpective simultaneously. When I travel or go to an event that I’m covering with little concern for fiscal remumeration, I don’t want to walk around with two or three cameras hanging from me! Not only is it nicer to have only one camera to tote around, but having multiple cameras hanging from me puts me in “work” mode…and tells all the people around you that you’re truly a camera geek!

No, I’d rather have one camera and one lens (maybe one additional small lens that fits conveniently in a pocket) when I’m traveling or photographing my kids. Yet, I want that camera and lens to yield “professional” images that could be sold as prints or stock images should I happen upon shots with such promise.

One Good Camera + Lens Combo

I’ve toyed with the one perfect camera + lens scenario a number of times over the past couple of years. I have seen the Canon EF 28-300 F3.5-F5.6 L IS USM out there on the market and thought that 28-300 on a full-frame sensor would do a pretty good job of covering most shots I would want when traveling or when photographing my kids’ school events.

So, what’s stopping me from buying it? A $2300 price tag and mediocre image quality reviews. And if I’m going to pay that amount of money, I would want to replace a bunch of my lenses. The 28-300 can’t replace my Canon F2.8L zooms (24-70 F2.8L and 70-200 F2.8L IS) or my F2.8 – F1.4 primes, which are critical in indoor low-light situations. And although I don’t use my 17-40 F4L zoom that often, when I need it I *need* it. I suppose the 28-300 could almost replace my 24-105 F4L IS, but I’d have to be convinced the image quality is close enough before I could get rid of a dependably good performer like the 24-105; same with my 70-300 F4-5.6 IS.

Canon has recently come out with a EF-S 18-200/3.5-5.6 IS that covers the equivalent of 29-320mm on a full frame DSLR; but it’s gotten even more mediocre reviews than the 28-300, and I don’t have a good APS-C format DSLR (1.6X crop factor) to put it on…and don’t really want to buy one this year.

I started looking around at third-party lenses, but the only one that came close to what I wanted while achieving acceptable image quality was the Sigma 50-500mm (nicknamed the “Bigma”). But I’d be giving up any wide-angle coverage. I guess I could carry around something like a 24mm F2.8 in my pocket for wide-angle shots; but I hesitate to give up on my quest for that single affordable, good quality lens that I can just leave on the camera the whole time. Also, even though I’ve owned a good third-party lens or two in the past, I’m most comfortable sticking with the original manufacturer’s lenses to keep compatibility issues–especially with future DSLRs I might buy–at bay.

Since I’m not afraid of older Canon lenses (I’ve had a great Canon 80-200 F2.8L zoom that went out of production in 1996), I started to look for a blast from the past. Well, I found the Canon EF 35-350mm f/3.5-5.6L USM zoom, which apparently went out of production in 2004. It doesn’t go as wide as the 28-300, but it’s got more telephoto reach (350mm vs 300mm). From my past use of a 24-70mm on a 1.6 crop factor DSLR (24mm becomes effectively 38.4mm on the APS-C sensor), 35mm on a full-frame DSLR should work quite well for me, especially outdoors. The 35-350 doesn’t have the image stabilization (IS) of the newer lens, but it’s about 10oz lighter than the latter.

What about image quality? I haven’t been able to find a side-by-side comparison on the web, but I’ve been led to believe there isn’t a huge difference in image quality: both are “L” lenses with the superior build and image quality that the “L” designates; but the image quality ratings are dragged down for both by their trying to perform well at such a huge range of focal lengths.

It seems that the image stabilization is pretty important for some commentators and the wider wide-end is a big factor for people with 1.3X or 1.6X crop factor sensors. People complain about the heaviness of both, but–as I said–the newer lens is the heaviest (those IS systems add significant weight).

Well, I discovered you can get a used 35-350 in immaculate shape for about half the price of the 28-300. I saw a “bargain” quality 35-350 selling for around $800 without a hood; but I fear getting a well-used lens that is no longer in production because getting it fixed could turn out to be difficult. No, give me a lightly-used out-of-production lens every time!

So, I went and bought the 35-350 L and haven’t even received it yet. You can be sure I’ll post some sample shots and some observations in coming weeks. I should also get a chance to compare it head-to-head against the newer 28-300 L in about a month because I plan to borrow that for an outdoor wedding. Keep an eye out for that if you’re interested!

Visit Michael's Art Photography Portfolio at SaatchiArt.com!

A Polaroid Camera for the Digital Age: the Polaroid Pogo

28 Tuesday Apr 2009

Posted by mgm in All, Reviews

≈ Comments Off on A Polaroid Camera for the Digital Age: the Polaroid Pogo

The first Polaroid Land camera came out in 1948. For the first time in photography, the photographer could see his/her photos only a minute after taking them. Color Polaroid film was introduced in the 1960s. The general public bought up Polaroid cameras like hot cakes and professional photographers used Polaroid film and film backs to take test shots before using their regular negative or slide film to capture the final image/s.

By the the late 1990s, digital photography was beginning to take off and started to cut into the Polaroid market. After Polaroid’s recent announcement that they will stop making Polaroid film at the end of this year (2009), it seemed that Polaroid’s run as a special player in the photography market was finally over.

But digital photography only replicated one feature of the “Polaroid experience”: the instant viewing of a photo just taken. What about the instant *print* feature? Sure, you can connect a digital camera to a printer and get a print reasonably easy; but you still need another piece of equipment to make the print possible.

Apparently Polaroid finally realized the initial inspiration for the Polaroid Land Camera still had some mileage to give them. So they’ve come up with the new Polaroid Pogo which is a digital camera with a mini printer build into it! You can print a nifty 2″x3″ print right in the camera and hand it to your friends and family to “ooh and ah” over. The camera has a 3.0″ LCD on the back; so unlike the original Polaroid film camera, you can sort through the images and only print the ones you like. It’ll be available this June (2009).

I don’t how much it’s going to cost or how good the images or prints will be, but I have to say they’ve done it again! They come up with a product that rekindles the original Polaroid magic and I, for one, would like to take a look at one once they become available…:-).

Visit Michael's Art Photography Portfolio at SaatchiArt.com!

Canon 5D Mark II Redux – Report from a Wedding (Wedding Photography)

20 Monday Apr 2009

Posted by mgm in Wedding

≈ 1 Comment

I shot my first wedding using a Canon 5D Mark II. I’ve got it on loan and have nothing invested in having to like it (if I’d bought it, I’d have to rationalize the purchase!). I’m a long-time 5D user and I have also owned and/or used various 1-series Canon DSLRs. I photographed approximately 40 weddings over the past three years.

Canon 5D Mark II, Canon 15mm Fisheye lens, 100 ISO,
f/2.8, 1/200 sec, aperture priority

I was interested to see how well the new auto ISO feature worked because it covers almost the entire range I’ve ever used with the 5D (all except for an ISO of 50). I also wanted to see how well the new auto 1/60 – 1/200 flash sync setting worked for flash photography. But before I report on those, I have a note of warning for Canon 5D users…

New Placement of AF-On Button
If you’re a heavy user of the AE-lock button like me (it’s the “*” button at the top right rear of the 5D that you use to lock in an exposure settting), beware the new AF-on button on the 5D Mark II that is now located just to the left of the AE-lock button…(!) I couldn’t figure out why the AE-lock button wasn’t working very well for much of the day, until I realized my thumb was used to reaching for “the far left” button whenever attempting to press the AE-lock button. But on the Mark II, Instead of pressing the AE-lock button, I was pressing the AF-on button, which seemed to be doing absolutely nothing!

So, if you’re a heavy user of the AE-lock (*) button on the 5D, be sure to retrain your thumb before shooting an event with the 5D Mark II. Note: I just discovered you can actually swap the functioning of the AF-on and AE-lock buttons in the custom function settings; so you may want to look into that.

Canon 5D Mark II, Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L lens, 1600 ISO,
f/2.8, 1/10 sec, aperture priority; processed in Lightroom

RAW Image File Sizes
I shoot weddings in Camera Raw (i.e., with the camera set for camera raw image file format) to make image adjustments easier afterward. There was no way I was going to shoot 21 megapixel raw images with the Mark II; image files that large would fill up my 8 GB memory cards too fast! So, I chose the Mark II’s new sRAW1 format, which yields 10 megapixel images. According to Canon’s EOS 5D Mark II instruction manual, these 10 megapixel images are about 14.8 MB in size. This brings me to two issues…

1) The 5D Mark II is giving you 10 megapixel raw images that each take up 14.8 MB of space on your memory card. Well, it turns out that a full 12.8 megapixel RAW image on the 5D takes up less space on your memory card…about 13 MB! Now, I’m guessing this is because the images have gone from 12-bit to 14-bit. What will make a bigger impact on your client…the color depth in the images or the number of pixels? I guess you’ll have to be the judge. In any case, the 12.8 mp RAW 5D images take up less space on a memory card than the 10.0 mp RAW 5D Mark II images.

2) I took a look at the image file sizes for the images I shot at this last wedding. (I was shooting with both a 5D and the 5D Mark II.) The file sizes from the 5D ranged from about 12 MB to 16 MB. The file sizes from the 5D Mark II (sRAW1) ranged from about 10 MB to about 23 MB. So the file size is much more variable on the Mark II and really depends on what you’re shooting.

Auto ISO
I was really looking forward to the new 100-3200 Auto ISO feature when I first heard it was going to be included on the 5D Mark II months ago. How many times have you suddenly gone from a low-light situation to a bright-light situation while photographing (e.g., a bridal couple coming out from inside a dark church to the bright sunshine outdoors) and forgot or didn’t have a chance to change the ISO from 1600 or 3200 ISO to 200 or 100 ISO??

In a nutshell, this new feature isn’t the “silver bullet” I hoped it would be. I didn’t have any problems with it outdoors, though I have heard some say it selected a higher ISO than they would have wanted in such situations. My main issue with the auto ISO is when it selects a too-low ISO (especially indoors) and allows the shutter speed to go down to 1/20 second! I’ve got a number of blurry indoor shots for which I wish the camera would have selected a higher ISO and shutter speed when I was shooting with the lens wide open in aperture priority mode. Maybe auto ISO works better indoors in shutter priority mode?

If you could set a minimum shutter speed in the custom functions, that would be a possible solution; that doesn’t seem to be available with the 5D Mark II. Also, be aware that the upper end of the auto ISO changes to 400 instead of 3200 when you have a flash attached and turned on.

One other thing: I was wondering what would happen if you had the camera in manual exposure mode and had the ISO set at auto; would the ISO fluctuate so that your exposure would suddenly be off? Or maybe the ISO would change to accommodate changing lighting conditions, effectively giving you a semi-auto-exposure manual exposure mode! Well, it turns out the ISO simply fixes at 400 ISO regardless of the lighting conditions.

New 1/60 – 1/200 sec Auto Flash Sync
In addition to the 1/200 fixed flash sync speed on the 5D which works in aperture priority mode (I use this a lot because it works much better than Auto when you’re shooting in a dark room with a flash in aperture priority mode), the new Mark II also has a variable 1/60 – 1/200 sec auto flash sync for flash photography that works in aperture priority mode. Well, I have to say I didn’t notice much of a difference. In fact, when you’re trying to catch people moving and dancing around in dark reception halls, you almost always need 1/200 anyway. I still like the idea of it, but it didn’t make as much of an impact as I had hoped.

920,000 Deceiving LCD Pixels
The new 3″, 920,000 pixel LCD is quite nice; it’s certainly much less “pixelly” than the 3″ 230,000 pixel LCD I witnessed on the 40D! However, the definition is *so* nice, I think it can actually deceive you into thinking the captured image is actually sharper and better focused than it really was! It misled me more than once. Probably once you get used to the higher definition LCD, you’re better able to discriminate between the sharp/in-focus images and the blurry/out-of-focus ones.

Odds and Ends
The auto white balance (AWB) on the 5D was never that good, but my initial experience with the Mark II indicates it’s no better. In fact, it seemed ever so slightly worse to me. The autofocusing system on the 5D Mark II is the same as it was on the 5D; this indeed seems to be the case (i.e., it works fine in most cases, but tends not to be very good in low light…especially without a flash attached and the AF Assist turned on).

For some reason, it really stood out to me how well the Mark II performed when I was taking photos of the people in the receiving line just outside the church. It was a bright mostly cloudy afternoon and almost every photo seemed to a have close-to-ideal exposure with the camera set to aperture priority + auto ISO. However, in other cases, with strong backlighting, I was having a heck of time getting the proper exposure…even when I switched to spot metering.

I liked being able to switch the ISO to 6400 on the Mark II to get some important shots in the dark church where the ceremony took place. However, I’d swear there were shots I could get with the 5D at 3200 ISO that required me to switch to 6400 on the Mark II to get. And even though I was using two different lenses on the two camera bodies (70-200 f/2.8 on the 5D and 24-70 f/2.8 on the 5D Mark II), I had them at or near the same maximum f/2.8 aperture on both lenses when I really needed to, and the 5D seemed to need less light for a proper exposure. Not a completely controlled experiment, but…

Conclusion
So, the 5D Mark II was really my “main” camera for this wedding and it did a pretty decent job. However, I really don’t feel like it was a significant “step up” from using my good old 5D as my main wedding camera. I said this in a previous blog post and I’ll say it again here: I sincerely think a lightly used 5D for around $1300 at eBay may be a better purchase right now than a 5D Mark II for around $2700….*unless* you really want or need the capability of: the extra 8 megapixels per image, high definition video recording, or shooting at 12800 – 25600 ISO even though the camera may not be able to autofocus in such low light conditions.

All images and text are (c) Michael Grace-Martin Photography.

Visit Michael's Art Photography Portfolio at SaatchiArt.com!

No Difference between Canon 5D and Canon 5D Mark II at 1600 & 3200 ISO

15 Wednesday Apr 2009

Posted by mgm in All, Reviews

≈ 5 Comments

I just got a Canon 5D Mark II in my hands from an official Canon source that I shall not mention here. Here’s the question I had: is there any difference between the Canon 5D and the new Canon 5D Mark II at 1600 ISO and 3200 ISO? The 5D Mark II can also shoot at 6400, 12800 and 25600 ISO. But I wanted to know if any improvement had been made at the two highest ISOs they share: 1600 ISO and 3200 ISO.

I shot photos of one of my kids’ rain boots laying on the basement floor in very dim natural light. I used a Canon 24-70 f/2.8L lens on both the 5D and the 5D Mark II. I shot all photos at 51mm and f/2.8. All photos were shot in RAW format and then prepared for this report with Lightroom 2 and Photoshop CS2. Now, I know the 5D Mark II comes with some new fancy algorithms for reducing image noise. But if you shoot almost everything RAW, like I do, those don’t really matter much.

The one thing I did that some people might object to was crop the same amount of the scene for both cameras, even though a true 100% magnification section would take in less of the scene with the 5D Mark II compared to the 5D because it has 65% more pixels per image. (At the end of this test I’ll include one of those comparisons in case you’re interested.) My reasoning was that if I were looking at a specific object in a 5×7 print from each camera (for example, the bride’s face when she’s with the groom on the dance floor at the reception), I would be interested in the amount of noise I saw in her face in the 5×7 image, which would be the same size for each camera (more pixels doesn’t change the relative size of objects in the same 5×7 photo!).

Note: I didn’t use a tripod for these tests; so you can’t tell much about the resolution of details from these photos; but some camera movement will not affect the amount of digital noise in the image. I did no sharpening when preparing these images for this report.

At 1600 ISO

Canon 5D Mark II at 1600 ISO (a higher quality version of the above image)

Canon 5D at 1600 ISO (a higher quality version of the above image)

The details are a bit clearer in the Canon 5D Mark II shot; but it’s not clear whether that is due to the greater number of pixels in the 5D Mark II image, or whether there was more camera shake when I took the 5D shot. Regardless, the point of this test is to compare the amount of noise in the two images. Look at both the shadow and highlight areas. Do you see any significant difference? I don’t.

At 3200 ISO

Canon 5D Mark II at 3200 ISO (a higher quality version of the above image)

Canon 5D at 3200 ISO (a higher quality version of the above image)

Somewhat ironically, the image from the 5D has the better detail in this comparison, probably due to camera shake. But again, this would not affect image noise. So, if you look at the noise in the highlight and shadow areas, which camera is best? Is there really any difference?! I think it’s truly a dead heat.

Now, the 5D doesn’t offer the higher ISOs of the 5D Mark II….6400, 12800, and 25600 ISO. So, let’s look at a similar image taken at 6400 ISO with the 5D MarkII:

Canon 5D Mark II at 6400 ISO (a higher quality version of the above image)

Pretty noisey. Makes me wonder if I underexposed a shot at 3200 ISO with a 5D by one stop if I’d do any worse once the exposure level was raised in Lightroom?

Anyway, let me show you the 100% magnification crops for the 5D and 5D Mark II at 3200 ISO so you can see if it makes a difference–i.e., if it makes the difference between the 5D and 5D Mark II any clearer:

Canon 5D Mark II at 3200 ISO 100% magnification

(higher quality version of above image)

Canon 5D at 3200 ISO 100% magnification
(higher quality version of above image)

The 100% magnification view doesn’t make much of a difference to my eye. Let me know if you see something I’m not.

Conclusion

I think there’s the assumption out there in the Canon user community that the 5D Mark II probably has less image noise than the 5D at 1600 and 3200 ISO because it can take relatively “acceptable” photos at 6400 ISO, and can also take photos at 12800 and 25600 ISO. The results of this test have convinced me that this difference doesn’t actually exist. And unless I want to take a bunch of photos at 6400-25600 ISO, have an extra 8 megapixels per image, and shoot HD video, then a lightly used 5D selling for $1300 versus the 5D Mark II selling price of $2700, might just make a lot of sense!

-mgm

Addendum: I made the statement that the noise reduction in the 5D Mark II doesn’t affect RAW images. While I believe this is true, I can’t find mention of this in the 5D Mark II manual. So, in the interest of full disclosure, I will include the fact that the 5D Mark II’s high ISO noise reduction setting was at “standard” for these tests, which is second only to the highest setting: “strong” noise reduction.

Note: you may also be interested in my follow-up blog post describing my experience using the 5D Mark II to photograph a wedding.

Note 2: I finally got a hold of the 5D Mark II again and did a follow-up comparison of images at 1600 and 3200 ISO with those from my 5D. My results were a bit different this time…

Visit Michael's Art Photography Portfolio at SaatchiArt.com!

Canon 1DS Mark II, Canon 1D Mark II & Mark III, Canon 5D Mark II, Canon 5D, and Wedding Photography

14 Tuesday Apr 2009

Posted by mgm in Wedding

≈ 2 Comments

On the brink of the majority of my 2009 wedding photography season (I had one wedding in January), I have been looking around for another camera to accompany my trusty old Canon 5D. I’ve used this 5D for over two years as my main camera for weddings and portrait sessions; it’s got some mileage on it and I’m worried I might get to the end of its shutter lifespan any day now. (Having to get a new shutter isn’t the end of the world; but it *is* expensive and puts the camera out of commission for a week or so.) So I really think it’s time for a new “main” camera to shoot weddings with. Perhaps the trusty old 5D can take over the role of “second” camera…(?)

I’ve always shot weddings–and will continue to do so–with two cameras for at least two reasons:

It makes two different lenses (e.g., wide angle and telephoto) immediately available at all times
I have a backup immediately available if something goes wrong with one of the cameras or lenses

Last year I used a Canon 1D Mark II as my second camera. It was an ideal camera to put a 70-200mm lens on and take photos outdoors or indoors. The camera is relatively big and heavy, but this helps to steady your shots when you’re using a big and heavy telephoto zoom lens (like a 70-200 f/2.8) that tends to tip everything forward. It also worked well with my 15mm fisheye lens because the 1.3 crop factor of the 1D series cropped some of the most distorted part of the image (for which fisheye lenses are famous), but left lots of nice wide angle coverage.

I considered moving the 1D over to being my main camera with the flash for weddings (my “main” wedding camera always has a flash attached for when I need some flash lighting), but I found that it never performed as well with my 580EX II or my 550EX flashes compared to my 5D. Also, I’ve gotten used to having the 12.8 megapixels of the 5D–especially for large group shots, because I like to leave extra space around the groups in the image so my clients can crop them to different sizes and aspect ratios–and feel that 8 megapixels is on the edge of acceptability. One other factor playing into this decision was my new involvement in stock photography where they really prefer as many megapixels as you can give them. I decided to sell the 1D Mark II.

What about the new 21 megapixel 5D Mark II? Isn’t that what 90% of wedding shooters using Canon equipment are doing?! Well, the main thing I like about the 5D Mark II is the ability to shoot at even higher ISOs than the 5D or 1D Mark II (6400 ISO and even 12800 ISO look usable on the 5D Mark II). But the camera I’m looking for here is my main camera with the flash attached; I usually shoot the low-light, non-flash photos at weddings using my second camera with the “specialty” lenses attached (e.g., my f/1.2 and f/2 primes). The 5D Mark II is an expensive “second” camera! Especially because I would want the vertical grip on it to make work better with the 70-200 f/2.8 telephoto zoom. With the grip, the 5D Mark II is pushing the $3000 barrier. I also have an issue with the autofocusing system on the 5D Mark II being the same as the 5D; both of which aren’t that good in low light compared to the 1-series. Plus 21 megapixels is overkill for my needs; and the HD video capabilities aren’t something I care to get involved with at this point.

What about the 1D Mark III? It’s got the great low-light focusing capabilities of the 1-series cameras! I borrowed and used the 1D Mark III for four weddings last year. I like the focusing system and used the max ISO of 6400 quite regularly. But in addition to many of the reasons I’ve ruled out the 5D Mark II (including it working better as a second camera than my main camera), the 1D Mark III is more expensive (about $4000) and has only 10 megapixels…which is fine for wedding photography, but which makes it less attractive for stock photography than even the 5D. (Note: high ISO capabilities are of little value for stock photography because they [the stock photo companies] seldom accept images with an ISO of higher than 800 from *any* camera.)

Well, let me tell you, I convinced myself that the Canon 1DS Mark II was the camera I was looking for! It’s got 16.7 megapixels (plenty of resolution for stock and weddings), the 1-series focusing system that works well in low light, and it’s a workhorse tested to 200,000 shutter actuations! Sure, it doesn’t have a self-cleaning sensor and the LCD is only 2″. But I’ve only had one camera with a self-cleaning sensor and many of my LCDs have been 2″ or smaller (e.g., the 1.8″ LCD on the 20D), and none of this scared me off.

So, I found a $2100 1DS Mark II in really nice shape and bought it. It had fewer than 50,000 shutter actuations and should last, I felt, at least a couple of wedding seasons. I did some preliminary testing and found it to worked well. I compared images to my 5D and saw that the noise at 1600 and 3200 ISO was even slightly lower on the 1DS. I was pretty happy!

Before the end of my 7-day testing period, I put a 580EX II flash on the 1DS and took it to a fashion show. I generally stay away from flash photography as much as possible. But there are times at weddings–especially during night-time wedding receptions–when I simply can’t avoid using my flash or flashes to provide some needed light.

The fashion show was taking place in a somewhat dark gymnasium in the late afternoon on a dark, dreary, and cold early Spring day. I was taking some photos at 3200 ISO with my 70-200 f/2.8L IS lens on my 5D and the shutter speed was still quite low: 1/40 and 1/30 sec. I tried a few flash photos with the 1DS; but since the ceiling was so high and there were no walls around, I didn’t like the absence of reflected light (I usually “bounce” the light from my flash as much as possible) and didn’t take many flash photos.

Well, I had promised to take photos of a certain group of models because I knew one of the models in the group. It was getting time for me to leave, so I gathered the group for photos. It was evening at this point and quite dark; so I was going to have to use the flash. Well, I discovered that the 1DS was having quite a lot of trouble focusing to take the flash photos! This was true when the models were standing still and even worse when I tried to take of photo of them walking toward me.

I believe part of the problem stemmed from sporatic functioning of the AF Assist light; when the AF Assist wasn’t coming on, it was having lots of trouble focusing and allowing me to take the photo. It was pretty embarrassing when I couldn’t get it to work in a timely fashion standing in front of these models!

The next day, I decided I needed to get to the heart of the problem. I have the Canon 580EX II Speedlight and the older 550EX Speedlight. So I did a bunch of side-by-side tests. I put the 580EX II on the 5D and tried some shots without the lights on in my basement; then I put it on the 1DS and tried the same shots. I did the same thing with the 550EX on the two cameras.

The AF Assist was working on both cameras with both flashes; so I’m not sure why I had *that* problem the night before; maybe it was one of those weird temporary problems that goes away if you turn the camera or flash off and back on.

In any case, here’s what I found: compared to using a flash on my 5D, there was a slight but significant delay in the flash firing and the shutter opening on the 1DS MkII, even when the AF Assist light was working. The delay was long enough that if you were photographing someone walking in a low light situation (e.g., a wedding couple coming toward you down the aisle in a dark church), the focus would never lock in, the flash would never fire, and the shutter would never trigger. *This* was exactly the problem I was having at the fashion show!

I tried all sorts of different settings to get rid of this delay on the 1DS MkII. The only solution that came close was putting the camera focusing system in AI Servo mode, regardless of whether the subject was moving. This got rid of the delay, but most of the flash pictures taken were out-of-focus; i.e., it no longer stopped me from triggering the shutter and flash until it was in focus, but then most of the time it was out-of-focus!

Now I don’t know if this is an issue with this particular copy of the 1DS or if I’m missing some other setting I could tweak (I swear I tried them all); but I decided this flash delay killed any chance this camera had for being my “main” wedding camera. I sent it back.

So, where does that leave me?

It occurred to me that I have no problem with the 5D being my “main” wedding camera with the flash attached. The only problem I have is using my current 5D because it’s been through so many weddings! But if I could find another one that hasn’t been used so much, it should make a fine main wedding camera.

Even though I have some reservations about buying used camera equipment from a place like eBay which, obviously, features camera equipment used by non-professionals; it’s the perfect kind of place to find camera equipment that hasn’t gotten much use. Even though professionals may be better about taking care of their equipment (this isn’t always so), they actually *use* the equipment because that’s what they use for their work! Amateur photographers, on the other hand, may go through phases of taking photos and ultimately give the equipment light overall use. Also, amateurs may treat their equipment better because it’s part of an enjoyable hobby.

In any case, I decided to buy a relatively lightly used 5D on eBay to be my “main” camera with flash attached for weddings. I also bought two other things to set up my trusty old 5D as a good second camera: 1) I bought a vertical grip to make it easier to handle with the big 70-200 f/2.8L IS attached, and 2) I bought a Canon ST-E2 Speedlight Transmitter to give it an AF Assist light in particularly low-light situations (and also to do some creative lighting during wedding receptions in conjunction with my two flashes…more on this in a later post).

So, we will see where these decisions take me. I’ll have more to say later in the wedding season!

-mgm

Visit Michael's Art Photography Portfolio at SaatchiArt.com!

Photographing Fashion Shows – Lessons Learned

09 Thursday Apr 2009

Posted by mgm in All, Commentary, Fashion/Glamour, MGM's Photos

≈ 14 Comments

Tags

fashion, glamor, photography

Canon 1DS Mark II, 24-70 f/2.8L, f/5.6, 1/60 sec,
manual exposure, 200 ISO

Over the past four years, I’ve been photographing the fashion show put on by the Cornell Design League (CDL) at Cornell University early each Spring. This is always a “dead” time of the year for photography up here in the Northeast, so I do it as a warmup and chance to test new equipment for my weddings and portrait sessions that begin in earnest in May.

Neither the CDL nor Cornell University pays me anything up front to photograph the event, but I often make *some* money from print sales to designers, models, and their relatives, and digital sales to media organizations, like the Cornell Chronicle.

After photographing four years of shows, I’ve learned a bit about what works and doesn’t work when it comes to fashion show photography.

Backstage
Before the show even begins, I like to go backstage and take “getting ready” photos. Much like the “getting ready” photos I often take during the weddings I photograph, these are candid photos of the emotional and
sometimes quirky things that go on before the “big event”. I find them to be more interesting than photographing the event itself, because it’s all unstaged. However, there are commonly special challenges presented during this phase.

Canon 5D, 70-200 f/2.8L IS, f/2.8, 1/80 sec,
aperture priority, 1250 ISO

Canon 5D, 70-200 f/2.8L IS, f/2.8, 1/100 sec,
aperture priority, 1250 ISO

Canon 5D, 70-200 f/2.8L IS, f/2.8, 1/60 sec,

aperture priority, 1600 ISO

The Cornell fashion show takes place in a large gymnasium-type building with lights 25 feet up near the high ceiling. Even when these are on–they turn them off 45 minutes or so before the show–it’s pretty dark back behind the main stage where everyone is getting ready. Some of the designers bring their own lights because it’s so dark. Needless to say, the lighting is usually insufficient and uneven. And I resist using my flash because it destroys the ambience and candidness of the moment.

Canon 5D, 70-200 f/2.8L IS, f/2.8, 1/50 sec,
aperture priority, 1600 ISO

Canon 5D, 70-200 f/2.8L IS, f/2.8, 1/250 sec,
aperture priority, 1600 ISO

So, commonly, I’m pushing the limits of my equipment. It’s not uncommon for me to have to open my aperture to its maximum setting of f/2.8 and dial the ISO up to 3200. Even then, the shutter speed for proper exposure can be 1/30, which is pretty slow, even with Image Stabilization (IS). So, the biggest challenge is getting them sharp! A monopod wouldn’t be a bad idea; I usually just steady and brace myself and take 2-3 shots in a row and keep the best one.

Canon 5D, 70-200 f/2.8L IS, f/2.8, 1/100 sec,
aperture priority, 1600 ISO

Canon 5D, 70-200 f/2.8L IS, f/2.8, 1/400 sec,

aperture priority, 3200 ISO

Canon 5D, 70-200 f/2.8L IS, f/2.8, 1/25 sec,
aperture priority, 3200 ISO

Show Time – Finding and Securing a Position
Though I haven’t been good about this myself, it’s really a good idea to get to the runway/cat walk early to check out different positions to take before the show starts…and then *reserve* the best spot you can find. I haven’t tried this, but I bet I could put an official-looking sign that says something like: “Reserved for Show Photographer” on the best seat near the stage to keep anyone from sitting there. If that’s not possible, you could bring someone and have them sit there until the show starts and then move to let you in. All this assumes “open seating” and will vary from fashion show to fashion show. It also wouldn’t hurt to talk to the show organizers and see if they might reserve a spot for you.

In any case, you’ll want a relatively central spot near the end of the runway. Personally, I like being slightly off-center because I find a slight angle to be more interesting than straight-on shots. Also, you probably don’t want to be right *at* the stage, if that’s even possible. If you’re right at the stage/runway, you’ll have to use a small aperture and wide angle focus length, which is a bad combination in terms of perspective/distortion, shutter speed, and depth of focus. It’s best to be 4 feet or more back and use a normal or telephoto lens. More on lenses next…

Canon 5D, 70-200 f/2.8L IS, f/3.5, 1/60 sec,
manual exposure, 250 ISO

Canon 1DS Mark II, 24-70 f/2.8L, f/5.6, 1/80 sec,

manual exposure, 250 ISO

Cameras and Lenses
The last two years, I’ve brought two cameras with me and put a standard zoom (24-70mm or 24-105mm) on one camera and a telephoto zoom (70-200mm or 80-200mm) on the other. I then catch some shots as they first start down the runway with the telephoto lens, and then switch to the standard zoom for the posed shots at the end of the runway. (Tip: be sure to time synch the cameras just before the show so that all the images from both cameras are easily time sequenced afterward.) In the two previous years I shot with one camera connected to a 80-200 f/2.8L lens, a 1.6 crop factor DSLR, and positioned myself well back from the end of the runway. I think the ideal one camera + lens combo would be a 70-200mm lens on a full-frame DSLR and then position yourself within 10 feet of the runway. 70mm on a full-frame camera isn’t so far from a normal (50mm) perspective, and you still have the 200mm to catch them at the beginning of their stroll. If I photograph the show again next year, I think I’ll try this latter one camera configuration. Even though it’s nice to get some of the wide angle shots afforded by the 24-70 on a full-frame camera, I’d be able to get at least 85% of the shots I’d want with only one camera and lens.

Canon 1DS Mark II, 24-70 f/2.8L, f/6.3, 1/80 sec,
manual exposure, 250 ISO

Lighting
The lighting at fashion shows is reasonably good because, presumedly, the designers want the audience to be able to clearly see the clothes they designed! Due to this fact and my fear of annoying everyone around me with my flash, I seldom use flash at a fashion show. Sometimes, however, there are dark areas near the end of the runway that the lighting setup people have missed. If you experience this situation at a fashion show and you have brought two cameras, you can attach the flash to the camera with the standard zoom (e.g., 24-70) and use it only when the models step into the dark area/s when they get near you at the end of the runway.

Canon 1DS Mark II, 24-70 f/2.8L, f/4.0, 1/80 sec,
manual exposure, 200 ISO

Uneven Lighting
Even if the lighting is sufficient to keep your camera’s ISO settings below 800, it can vary along the runway. Also, occasionally they will allow different designers to incorporate different lighting effects into their presentations. This can wreak havoc with your exposures if you’re using a manual exposure setting! So, let’s talk about camera settings…

Camera Settings
Even though I was using shutter speeds of 1/60 and 1/80 sec this last show (I wasn’t thinking straight because I was coming down with a cold), I advise using shutter speeds of 1/200 sec or faster….especially when catching them during their long walk down the runway. They’ll be moving–sometimes running and dancing!–and you want some nice sharp detail. Your aperture for the distant shots when they first start down the runway can be quite large–e.g., f/4.0 or even f/2.8 is not usually problematic. But once they get close to you (like within 10 feet), you’ll want f/6.3 or f/5.6. If you’re using two cameras, the one with the telephoto lens can have the larger aperture and the other one should have the relatively small aperture. If you’re shooting with only one camera, you would be well advised to go with the smaller aperture (f/6.3 or f/5.6) and leave it there.

Canon 1DS Mark II, 24-70 f/2.8L, f/6.3, 1/80 sec,
manual exposure, 250 ISO

Canon 5D, 70-200 f/2.8L IS, f/3.5, 1/60 sec,

manual exposure, 250 ISO

The biggest question to me in terms of camera setting is which camera mode to use..? The last two years, I’ve photographed the show in manual exposure mode. The goal was to reduce the amount of image processing needed after the show. However, I’ve run into two problems that have undermined this goal: 1) the uneven lighting along the runway means I get darker and lighter photos depending on the variation in light, and 2) I occasionally bump either the shutter or aperture setting and end up with bad exposures.

The main reason for #2 is, I believe, because I’m using two cameras and all those camera switches end up in accidental alterations of settings (due to jostling). I could solve this problem by using only one camera, or putting tape over the controls that keep getting bumped to help keep them in place. The only solution for problem #1 (short of changing the manual settings *as* they walk down the runway!) is to switch to either aperture-priority or shutter-priority mode. So, why don’t I just do that?

Canon 1DS Mark II, 24-70 f/2.8L, f/5.6, 1/50 sec,
manual exposure, 200 ISO

Canon 5D, 70-200 f/2.8L IS, f/3.2, 1/60 sec,

manual exposure, 160 ISO

I photographed the first two years of fashion shows in aperture priority. But when a model walks out in a pure white or dark black outfit, the exposure the camera calculates automatically can be seriously off! Using shutter-priority makes a lot of sense in some ways–because you know you want to maintain a relatively high shutter speed–but the camera is still calculating the exposure and can be as far off as aperture priority mode. Of course you can also play around with the type of metering the camera is doing (spot, partial, average, etc), but I’ve found that all of them are off in *some* situations.

Unless the lighting varies a *lot*, I think I still prefer manual exposure for the best overall results. But shoot in raw format to best allow for exposure adjustments in post-processing. Also, if you are shooting with two cameras, you can optimize the one with the telephoto lens for the lighting at the beginning and/or middle of the runway, and the other camera with the standard/normal lens for the lighting at the end of the runway.

Canon 1DS Mark II, 24-70 f/2.8L, f/3.5, 1/40 sec,
manual exposure, 3200 ISO

So those are my tips and “lessons learned”. I hope they help you should you too come across the opportunity to shoot a fashion show. Fashion shows can definitely be interesting and a lot of fun!..:-).

Visit Michael's Art Photography Portfolio at SaatchiArt.com!