Timeline for Is this grain normal? Canon T2i (550d) grain in high light
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
19 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 8, 2013 at 13:12 | comment | added | AJ Henderson♦ | @MichaelClark - that may be it. I'll double check tonight. I know I want it to behave that way, because I agree with the principal of ETTR. I'll post again when I verify if I have that set. Thanks for identifying what the setting might be. | |
| Oct 8, 2013 at 6:48 | comment | added | Michael C | It sounds like you may have Highlight tone priority enabled, which means you are already ETTR without realizing it. | |
| Oct 8, 2013 at 2:37 | comment | added | AJ Henderson♦ | As a matter of technique, I do almost no in-camera review. I do my development work from RAWs after the fact. The 5D Mark iii will, particularly in direct sunlight, push the highlights right up to the edge of the sensor's range when set at a standard exposure, particularly if the scene captures a wide enough dynamic range. I don't know if that kind of exposure logic is reproduced on any of the lower end bodies though, and it may be some setting that I don't remember having set, but I did do a lot of customization of settings on my 5D. | |
| Oct 8, 2013 at 2:37 | comment | added | AJ Henderson♦ | @MichaelClark - hmm, perhaps that was the comparison I saw. It was close to a year ago that I last was looking at them seriously (about when I was buying the 24-70. | |
| Oct 8, 2013 at 2:36 | comment | added | Michael C | @AJHenderson Every review I've seen is practically identical to the results at DxO Mark and The-Digital-Picture when comparing the 24-70 II to the two cheap 50mm primes. What they can't do is zoom from 24mm to 70mm. What the 24-70 can't do is shoot at faster than f/2.8 at any focal length. The primes are considerably softer when wide open than when at f/2.8. | |
| Oct 8, 2013 at 2:30 | comment | added | AJ Henderson♦ | @MichaelClark - I know what RAW and JPEG are. I'm talking about actual experience with the RAW files having blown highlights. For certain types of images, it will expose right up to the limit of the sensor in RAW. Outside of DXOMark, I've read reviews that slightly favored the zoom over the cheaper primes, though they are really close enough as to be hard to tell. I also wasn't trying to say that a zoom is better than primes, but rather highlight the difference high end glass makes when a zoom (which is harder to make) can match sharpness (or very nearly) of a prime. | |
| Oct 8, 2013 at 2:28 | comment | added | Michael C | @AJHenderson Just because the preview jpeg shows blown highlights on the rear LCD doesn't mean the highlights aren't recoverable from the RAW data. You 5D3's RAW files have almost 2 stops of headroom above the in-camera warning that uses the jpeg preview to turn on the blinkies. | |
| Oct 8, 2013 at 2:22 | comment | added | Michael C | The two primes are slightly better in terms of vignetting and CA as well. Distortion is almost equal, although the primes are about +0.5% (barrel) and the zoom is -0.5% (pincushion). | |
| Oct 8, 2013 at 2:12 | comment | added | Michael C | The EF 50mm f/1.4 is just as sharp in the center and sharper at mid-frame and in the corners than the EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L II at 50mm and f/2.8, and the difference gets wider as the apertures increase. the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/… | |
| Oct 8, 2013 at 2:09 | comment | added | Michael C | Click 'Measurements-->Sharpness-->Profiles' and then set each lens to 50mm @ f/2.8. dxomark.com/index.php/Lenses/Compare-Camera-Lenses/… | |
| Oct 8, 2013 at 2:06 | comment | added | Michael C | @AJHenderson Almost every technical comparison I've seen of the EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L II vs. the EF 50mm f/1.8 and EF 50mm f/1.4 put the two primes almost exactly equal to the zoom at 50mm and common apertures. Having said that, there are a lot of other primes that are better than either. | |
| Oct 7, 2013 at 19:33 | history | edited | AJ Henderson♦ | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 12 characters in body
|
| Oct 7, 2013 at 19:32 | comment | added | AJ Henderson♦ | @ChinmayKanchi - I don't know how it is on the T2i, but I know on my 5D Mark iii, I can't over-expose without blowing highlights. I think some of the more recent cameras have moved towards putting more emphasis on getting as much detail out of the shadow as possible. That said, a 2/3 underexposure is still quite a lot. If I do under-expose, I do it by 1/3 at most, and that's with a high dynamic range sensor. | |
| Oct 7, 2013 at 19:30 | comment | added | AJ Henderson♦ | @ntgCleaner - it isn't that it isn't a solid lens. For the price, it's great, but it's also not high end glass. My 24-70 f/2.8 is slightly sharper than the 1.8 and I'm pretty sure even the 1.4 from what I can recall. Keep in mind, we're also pixel peeping quite closely to see any issues. It's still a great lens, just not top quality. | |
| Oct 7, 2013 at 19:24 | comment | added | Patrick Hurley | There is nothing at all wrong with the 50 f/1.8, but it will be quite a bit sharper up around f/2.8 than it is wide open. But that is not the source of the grain -- the grain is as others have mentioned likely due to the underexposure. | |
| Oct 7, 2013 at 19:08 | comment | added | Chinmay Kanchi | If you're shooting RAW, try overexposing by about 2/3-1 stop. Basically as much as you can without blowing out the highlights. Then drop the exposure in post. You'll be stunned at how much this helps. My aging 30D feels like a brand new camera since I started doing this! | |
| Oct 7, 2013 at 19:03 | vote | accept | ntgCleaner | ||
| Oct 7, 2013 at 23:01 | |||||
| Oct 7, 2013 at 19:03 | comment | added | ntgCleaner | Thank you for this answer! I am shooting in RAW and even though it's their cheapest lens, I thought the Canon 50mm 1.8 was great glass? I will turn the exposure up a bit and experiment some more. I am currently saving up for that exact 24-70 f/2.8 II lens right now. | |
| Oct 7, 2013 at 18:41 | history | answered | AJ Henderson♦ | CC BY-SA 3.0 |