T2i A few questions before the big shoot tomorrow!

D

dcorwin

Member
I've had my T2i for a little over a week now and have been experimenting and learning as much as I can before a commercial shoot I'm doing Friday. Just wanted to get anyone who can to chime in on some of my thoughts / questions. Thanks!

Lenses:
The shoot takes place in an office, it's not super big but not cramped either. I could go maybe as far as 6 feet away from the subjects for my widest shots. I have plenty of pro lights so that's not an issue either. The subjects are pretty much stationary for the shots and I'll be doing a combo of medium-closeups and wide shots, all on tripod with no pans. I don't need shallow depth of field. With that said, I have a number of lenses but am really kind of digging the stock Canon pulled out to 18mm for the shots. Am I crazy? Am I going to have less-than-great quality? I was considering the Tamron 17-50mm because the samples I've seen on here look really good. Or the Tokina 11-16mm seems nice. For my shots, does anyone have a preference of those three? I don't necessarily "want" to spend more money, but I will if it's going to make the commercial better or my job easier.

Shooting:
This is minor but wanted to double-check. It seems you can't display the grid lines while shooting? Is this right?

Basically with my lights and setup and tests I'm leaning toward shooting with these settings. Please beg to differ if I'm missing something (final output will be 4:3 NTSC):
1080 30p, shutter 60, ISO 100, F around 4, or 2.8 if I go with one of the lenses I haven't bought. Highlight tone priority ON seems like a good idea. 18% greycard as custom white balance.

Delivery:
I'll be making both an HD and NTSC versions. For NTSC I'm planning on cropping to 720x540 then nesting that into a non-square 720x480.

Any thoughts, tips, caveats extremely appreciated!

-Dave
 
Yes you cant display grid while youre shooting video.
Kit lens is slow for low light thats why people complaining that its bad,also people tend to shoot closeups with it on 18mm without zooming to get more shallow DOF,its a mistake and it looks like cheapo video camera.Sometimes in 24p it doesnt but most of the time it does.Youre shooting in 30p so... dont be surprised later,it wont look like film.
Sharpness and contrast of this kit lens is even too good for t2i video.
 
Kit Lens is perfect, it's actually the BEST lens that Canon makes for price/quality.


If you have lights then you do not have ANYTHING to worry about. The only knock on the kit lens is it's aperture at f/3.5 ( wide open), but if you have lights then this is something you do not have ANYTHING to worry about.


Another poster on this very forum shot a Godaddy commercial with the kit lens and won second place for a prize of $50,000. As long as you frame your shots correctly and light good the kit lens is a fantastic.


I would suggest shooting at 1080p 24fps with iso no more than 800 and 60 shutter speed.

Good Luck!!
 
dcorwin said:
Shooting:
This is minor but wanted to double-check. It seems you can't display the grid lines while shooting? Is this right?

Basically with my lights and setup and tests I'm leaning toward shooting with these settings. Please beg to differ if I'm missing something (final output will be 4:3 NTSC):
1080 30p, shutter 60, ISO 100, F around 4, or 2.8 if I go with one of the lenses I haven't bought. Highlight tone priority ON seems like a good idea. 18% greycard as custom white balance.


-Dave
Click to expand...


ISO 100 and 2.8~4 Splits? Indoors?

You must be using 20Ks or something.
 
Thanks for the pointers, keep 'em coming! I have 3 Flolights which put out a lot of light, and then some backup studio lights with diffusers, but I hope not to have to mix the two light kits. I may go ISO 200, but so far with stock lens the lighting seems fine.

-Dave
 
Highlight priority off. Kit lens is ok but try a prime with a 1.8 ap such as 50 1.8 and there is a night and day difference. Do some test shots framing exactly the same shot at the same fstop. Analyze the frame and you will notice the difference. There is a difference. Kit lens are okay to get by but if you shoot seriously such as for a client for someone's film, giving the best quality image is important. Once you try shooting some lowlight stuff with a 1.8 you'll see that it is an option that is well worth it.

All in all I have a kit lens and shoot with it and I think it's great. I think Clieloent is right about the value and about lighting correctly.. and framing. That alone will create a very good or great image. Aside from that use the same light setup on a prime and it can get even better. Don't believe me... then throw down 100 bucks on the 50mm 1.8 for starters and try it.

Take a look on videos shot with the canon primes and you'll see what I'm talking about.
 
Last edited:
draven4 said:
Highlight priority off. Kit lens is ok but try a prime with a 1.8 ap such as 50 1.8 and there is a night and day difference. Do some test shots framing exactly the same shot at the same fstop. Analyze the frame and you will notice the difference. There is a big difference. Kit lens are okay to get by but if you shoot seriously such as for a client for someone's film, giving the best quality image is important. Once you try shooting some lowlight stuff with a 1.8 you'll see that it is an option that is well worth it.
Click to expand...

?

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=212083

Shot with the kit lens for a grand prize of $50K. People need to seriously remove thoughts from their mind that do not exist. Primes generally provide a sharper image, but the kit lens and many other zoom lenses provide excellent picture quality as well.

50mm indoors is a chore to use, wide shots are simply impossible. I would rather setup some lights and shoot at 18mm then shoot at 50mm and feel "trapped"


18mm at f/3.5 with a good lighting setup can deliver an amazing picture.

I guess winning 50K is not serious? People need to let the idea go that the kit lens is not good when in actuality it works great and acts like an 18mm f/3.5 prime.
 
I'm not totally against the kit lens. He just asked if it would make things look better. I have no doubt if he knows how to light good then it will turn out great. I was just answering his question on will it actually look better quality wise. Honest answer is yes.

I have no doubt that you can win awards with a kit lens. You can win an award with any lens if you use is appropriate to the story you are telling. Heck we've all done things with non HD formats........like the DVX and that has won awards. But if you compare a DVX and a Canon 7d obviously the quality of the actual image is "better". Not creatively per say but an actual image pixel per pixel quality.

So I am just answering his question from a technical point of view and not creative artistic. I only brought up the 50mm 1.8 as an example because he said he didn't have a lot of $$. I guarantee if he bought a 50mm 1.8 though and brought it to his shoot he would see a difference and probably would use it where he could.

I am well aware of other lens such as 28mm 1.8 24mm 1.4L ect ect.
 
I'm not a kit lens hater it's just when people ask me if primes are worth it I can honestly answer yes.

Here are some things on the 50mm 1.8
IMPORTANT NOTICE: No media files are hosted on these forums. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website. We can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. If the video does not play, wait a minute or try again later.
I AGREE

IMPORTANT NOTICE: No media files are hosted on these forums. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website. We can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. If the video does not play, wait a minute or try again later.
I AGREE

IMPORTANT NOTICE: No media files are hosted on these forums. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website. We can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. If the video does not play, wait a minute or try again later.
I AGREE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pmArvsBoGT0
 
Cieloent said:
?

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=212083

Shot with the kit lens for a grand prize of $50K. People need to seriously remove thoughts from their mind that do not exist. Primes generally provide a sharper image, but the kit lens and many other zoom lenses provide excellent picture quality as well.
Click to expand...

No offense to the content creator, but there wasn't much competition to compete for the 50k, either... the videos I've seen there are poorly produced, right down to terrible audio. Winning isn't a testament to any camera or tool, realistically, just effort.

I don't think it's really an example on the "power" of the kit lens.

It's definitely true: the Kit Lens is generally extremely contrasty and needs taming, not to mention the sharpness exacerbates the aliasing and moire issues that much more.

It is an option, and well if good enough is good enough then that's what it is... there are justifiable reasons to suggest not using it.

50mm indoors is a chore to use, wide shots are simply impossible. I would rather setup some lights and shoot at 18mm then shoot at 50mm and feel "trapped"
Click to expand...
Don't disagree here. 50mm focal lengths should be reserved for special cases, but then again it all depends on shooting style.

18mm at f/3.5 with a good lighting setup can deliver an amazing picture.
Click to expand...
Quite certainly, so long as the composition is up to snuff, I agree.

I guess winning 50K is not serious? People need to let the idea go that the kit lens is not good when in actuality it works great and acts like an 18mm f/3.5 prime.
Click to expand...
It is definitely serious... however, money is not the measure of cinematography nor quality. Again, there wasn't much to compete against... once more, no offense to the content creator.
 
Last edited:
This is a better example of a cheap prime in low light.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kp6oiso0RdA&feature=related

In relation to what Kholi said I totally agree. In fact the images are pretty flat. It's when you get into dynamic situations with lower light, different contrast ratios and such is where you can see the benefits of a better lens.

You don't have to take my word for it. Just try out different lens and see.
 
Last edited:
draven4 said:
I'm not totally against the kit lens. He just asked if it would make things look better. I have no doubt if he knows how to light good then it will turn out great. I was just answering his question on will it actually look better quality wise. Honest answer is yes.

I have no doubt that you can win awards with a kit lens. You can win an award with any lens if you use is appropriate to the story you are telling. Heck we've all done things with non HD formats........like the DVX and that has won awards. But if you compare a DVX and a Canon 7d obviously the quality of the actual image is "better". Not creatively per say but an actual image pixel per pixel quality.

So I am just answering his question from a technical point of view and not creative artistic. I only brought up the 50mm 1.8 as an example because he said he didn't have a lot of $$. I guarantee if he bought a 50mm 1.8 though and brought it to his shoot he would see a difference and probably would use it where he could.

I am well aware of other lens such as 28mm 1.8 24mm 1.4L ect ect.
Click to expand...

Absolutely agreed.
 
dcorwin said:
Basically with my lights and setup and tests I'm leaning toward shooting with these settings. Please beg to differ if I'm missing something (final output will be 4:3 NTSC):
1080 30p, shutter 60, ISO 100, F around 4, or 2.8 if I go with one of the lenses I haven't bought. Highlight tone priority ON seems like a good idea. 18% greycard as custom white balance.
Click to expand...

Highlight tone priority ON will definitely give you a tad bit more dynamic range, so keep that on, but bare in mind that you can't stop the ISO down below ISO 200. For a ultra clean image I would go with either ISO 200 or 400. ISO 800 you can get away with if you have to, but it doesn't sound like you'll need it. ISO 400 sounds like where you'll want to be. Also, what is this for anyway? I'm just wondering because of the 1080p30. If you're not looking for a film look at all then go for the 30 fps, but I personally just like the look of 24p. Always have.

As for lenses. I've heard great things about all of them, but test them out before the shoot. Me personally, I like having a faster lens and then stopping down to say a F4. It makes the image sharper and cleaner, and still gives you enough shallow DOF to play with.
 
P.S. Speaking from experience, I would choose a few thirty-dollar (30.00) second hand Sears or old-school film lenses of an obscure brand before committing to capturing imagery with the kit lens meant for narrative purposes.

For documentaries and events, things in that spirit I would choose the kit lens for convenience.
 
Thanks for all the good points.

50mm indoors is a chore to use, wide shots are simply impossible. I would rather setup some lights and shoot at 18mm then shoot at 50mm and feel "trapped"
18mm at f/3.5 with a good lighting setup can deliver an amazing picture.
Click to expand...

Exactly. I have this lens and do like it, I brought it to the shooting location and it's just too tight for my shots.

30fps and greater depth of field is what I'm going for on this shoot, though normally I would do 24p and shallow, just not for this. It's basically two business guys talking in an office.

I've been testing with and without Highlight Tone Priority on. Don't usually see much of a difference, but from what it says it does it seems like having it on may save an overblown shot that could slip by otherwise. I do wonder if using a greycard AND highlight tone priority is overkill though.

Thanks all!
-Dave
 
How about for a wrap-up, the real final question is Tokina 11-16 or stick with my stock kept out at 18mm? Anybody compared those scenarios in a shooting situation? I mean if it's going to make it noticeably better then I just have to get it. I tried it in a store and liked what I saw but couldn't really tell the two lenses apart, albeit I was just shooting in a dark store handheld. So both equally sucked! :-)

PS. I will try to use my 50mm prime for tighter shots if I can pull it off.

Thanks again,
Dave
 
Post-shoot wrap up and observations

Post-shoot wrap up and observations

So I did the shoot last night. Here's some observations.

I stuck with the stock 18-55, keeping it at 18 the whole time. I also have the 55mm f1.8 that's mentioned in this thread. Lesson one is all the testing you do before a shoot isn't anything like when you're at the location doing the real thing! In my at-home tests I had daylight seeping in throw my windows, little things like that, that made the 18mm lens and my settings look good.

Now here I am in a smallish office room with no windows. I turned on my lights and the camera, had the actors in the frame and went "ut-oh, that's really dark!". I had to really bring the lights in close to properly light, and not having an external monitor I had to hope I was getting usable footage via the little 3" viewfinder screen. I still made my shots from the storyboard with this setup, but after getting my footage I switched to the 55mm prime to do some safety retakes. Wow! Such a difference! But for wide or even medium shots I had to open the office door and shoot from a different room because of the closeness of the lens.

Even though it was 2am when I got back I just had to watch the footage. So I offloaded it and played it back on my big HD TV. Bottom line I LOVE THIS CAMERA! I breathed a huge sigh of relief, every shot setup was totally usable. It looks beautiful!

So the recap, at least in this situation and with my setup and my style of shooting, a lens that opens up to f1.8 is really ideal. And having an external monitor on the set would have been great to catch little things like a lavaliere wire poking out on the actor, or being able to check the actors' eyelines to make sure the shots will mesh. But the footage you can get out of this little cheap camera is pretty stunning! In my career of shooting I've gone from the first round of Sony miniDVs, then to the Sony HDVs, then switched to the Canon XH-A1, then more recently I jumped onto the DSLR wagon with the Nikon D90 and now this t2i. I had the D90 for about a week and besides the wobbles and crawl, the whole motion JPEG compression I just found unusable, so I was pretty scared to be doing a commercial production with the untried (by me) t2i. But it rocks!

-Dave
 
Glad it went well. Ya anything with daylight in is going to be way brighter than without it. I mean you're comparing a small 1000 watt light to the light that illumnates half the Earth. Lol

But ya the camera really is great. I was like you. I tried the T1i and hated the lack of manual controls, and having to shoot in 720p with all the compression artifacts killed me. The T2i is definitely a MAJOR improvement.
 
Oh, I just remembered one more observation from my first t2i shoot. Setting Highlight Tone Priority On AND using an 18% gray card, at least in this situation, really dulled down the picture. From reading about HiLiteTone it sets the cap at 18% as well, so it seems to be overkill using both.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top