T2i Need help with my T2i - Lots of grain!

J

JS25

Member
Hello everyone, so today I bought a T2i. From the test films on YT, it looked amazing and the reviews were great too.

However, when I tried my first test shot, it looked very grainy. I'm new to DLSRs, but these are the settings I used:

-720p, 60fps
-ISO 6400, then 3200, then 1600
-AF off

Also, anything lower than 3200 in my decently lit room is too dark to view.

Can someone please help me out? I really don't want to have to return it.

EDIT: I'm talking about video, not photos. Sorry for the mix up.
 
Last edited:
1. Never shoot 720/60p on a Canon DSLR.
2. Stick to ISO 640 or lower
3. Turn off Auto Lighting Optimizer
4. Turn off Highlight Tone Priority
5. If your room is too dark, you'll need to add light or get a faster lens. Turning up the ISO is going to make the image much more noisy, and going to 6400 ISO will make it astonishingly noisy (as you found out).
 
A few things...

1. All cameras need light.
2. If you need to shoot at beyond ISO 400, you do NOT have enough light for the lens on the camera.
3. The higher the FPS, the more light the camera demands. (Not strictly true, but true for your purposes here)

So, you have a few options.

1. Use a LOT more light
2. Purchase a lens suitable for the light conditions you'll be using the camera in.
3. Return the camera until you learn a bit more about all this stuff.

There is nothing wrong with your camera. You are facing a basic obstacle of many new owners who don't have a good background in photography. The kit lens that comes with the camera is really only suitable for daytime or outdoor shooting in good sunlight. or indoors with a significant amount of movie lighting.
 
Yea it's not the cameras that are so special themselves... it's the lens choice. I know budget is a big reason people choose these cameras, but if you can only afford to shoot with the kit lens, you probably shouldn't have gone with a DSLR. You need quality glass that is fast. I would never put something slower than 2.8 on a DSLR if you're going to be shooting anything in low-light. Hell, you probably shouldn't be shooting anything slower than f2 at night. Before you sell or return your camera, do yourself a favor and at least buy the Canon 50mm 1.8. It's a little long for the crop on the T2i, but you see a world of difference.

Barry_Green said:
1. Never shoot 720/60p on a Canon DSLR.
Click to expand...

That's not true. The 60p mode is fine if it's a close-up. Just don't shoot something in 720p mode with deep focus in a city or a forest.
 
My opinion is don't go higher than ISO 200 - I've had some videos look great at 400 but it's luck at that point, all depends on the color of your objects and the natural exposure for the scene. The 50mm 1.8 is a great little lens that helps you keep natural low light settings at around 400. To be honest, if you just got your T2i, why not take it back to the store and get a 60D? Same price, with tons and tons of more features, including the ISO range of the 7D if I'm not mistaken (also including manual audio, extensive white balance presets, JPEG & RAW editing in camera, built-in level, swivel screen, ect ect). With the extensive ISO range, you can go well up into the 800's range with the inbetween ISO's that are designed to keep the noise lower. Just some tips!
 
JS25 said:
Well, the T2i was $799 and the 60D was $999 (Body alone), so it's not the same price. But about the 50mm lens, is this the one you're talking about? If so, is it good in low light? Because the kit lens is terrible in low light.

http://www.bestbuy.ca/en-CA/product...spx?path=06ae450478daad14eaee2b902a2230dfen02

Btw guys, I was talking about video, not photo.
Click to expand...

Yes. That's the one. Cheap build quality and flimsy focus ring... but the optics are not bad at all. The lower the F stop the wider the aperture. Wide apertures mean more light. Again, you never want to be above f2 in low-light.

kostas said:
Could you elaborate on this one please Barry?
For me it is the way to go for smooth slow motion.
Click to expand...

I think he meant "never use it" because the aliasing is worse than normal in 60p. I use it all the time for music videos and aliasing rarely shows up... as long as used for medium/close up shots.
 
I'd also suggest learning more about photography and how the camera works. This little bit would go a LONG way in u understanding how your camera works, and how lenses work so you can get better images.
 
Cbrianchester said:
Yes. That's the one. Cheap build quality and flimsy focus ring... but the optics are not bad at all. The lower the F stop the wider the aperture. Wide apertures mean more light. Again, you never want to be above f2 in low-light.
Click to expand...

Okay, so just to be 100% clear, this lens is great in low light for video, right? Also, what about noise? Is that a problem? I would imagine not for photography, but film is different, right?
 
JS25 said:
Okay, so just to be 100% clear, this lens is great in low light for video, right? Also, what about noise? Is that a problem? I would imagine not for photography, but film is different, right?
Click to expand...

I know that no one here wants to get into photography 101, which quite frankly would be the most helpful thing to you at this point. But I can't just watch people give you this "advice" without even some basic explanation.

1. The term "low light" is absolutely meaningless. It's like using the term "short rope". Well how short is short? Compared to 100ft, a 10ft rope is short. But people would still call a 10ft rope a long rope depending on situation. Low light, use as a term to itself tells no one anything. So no one can say what would be great in low light. You might be asking about light levels where NOTHING would work, and we have no idea.

2. There is a triumvirate in photography of three things that determine a proper exposure. They are shutter speed, aperture, and ISO. In film, we tend to shoot at a 1/48 (or 1/50) shutter most often when we are shooting 24p. So this common variable is now a fixed number. That means that the two things we typically vary to get a good exposure are aperture, and ISO. They have VERY specific mathematical relationships. ISO 200 lets in exactly twice as much light as ISO 100. And ISO 800 lets in 4 times as much light as ISO 200. The tradeoff for this is that the higher the ISO, the more noise we get in the footage. In aperture, you will see F-numbers. They will be things like F2.0, F2.8, F4, F5.6, F8. These are also mathematical relationships. F2.0 lets in twice as much light as F2.8. And F2.0 lets in FOUR TIMES as much light as F4.0. Every mathematical doubling lets in 1/4 as much light. F8.0 lets in 1/4 the light of F4.0. The tradeoff here is that the more light we let in via aperture, the shallower or DOF (depth of field) is.

3. When shooting in dark conditions, whether that me an indoor play, a night time shoot under the moon and stars, etc., we have to make a trade off of shutter speed, aperture, and ISO to get an image. At some light level, it becomes impossible to make a good image. If you have to film 2 people walking under a dark sky and you want both in focus without a lot of noise, you are going to need a certain light level to pull that off without getting noisy, blurry, out of focus footage.

4. The 50mm F1.8 lens lets in quite a lot of light. A 50mm F1.4 lens will allow in TWICE as much. Of course it trades off DOF to get you there. However, that F1.4 lens can be used at F1.8 to get the same results as an F1.8 lens. There are literally DOZENS of 50mm F1.8 lenses by all kinds of manufacturers. The one that has been suggested to you has decent optics but is built like crap. For the same money, you could have a MUCH better lens, with good optics, but you wouldn't be able to get it new. Buying older lenses makes a lot of sense for use with DSLRs. None of these cameras do autofocus in video mode, so buying a lens that is MADE for manual focusing has a lot of advantages. Not the least of which is most of them were made to a MUCH higher quality standard. Trying to manually focus the modern Canon 50mm F1.8 is a bad joke. That focus ring was not made for a human to touch.

5. ANY F1.8 lens will perform similarly to the Canon 50mm F1.8. There is nothing magical about that particular lens. There are literally dozens and dozens of thread on this site where myself and others have offered advice about purchasing quality lenses. Please search for it, read it, and buy yourself some decent glass. If you have questions, ask.
 
Last edited:
PerroneFord said:
I know that no one here wants to get into photography 101, which quite frankly would be the most helpful thing to you at this point. But I can't just watch people give you this "advice" without even some basic explanation.

1. The term "low light" is absolutely meaningless. It's like using the term "short rope". Well how short is short? Compared to 100ft, a 10ft rope is short. But people would still call a 10ft rope a long rope depending on situation. Low light, use as a term to itself tells no one anything. So no one can say what would be great in low light. You might be asking about light levels where NOTHING would work, and we have no idea.

2. There is a triumvirate in photography of three things that determine a proper exposure. They are shutter speed, aperture, and ISO. In film, we tend to shoot at a 1/48 (or 1/50) shutter most often when we are shooting 24p. So this common variable is now a fixed number. That means that the two things we typically vary to get a good exposure are aperture, and ISO. They have VERY specific mathematical relationships. ISO 200 lets in exactly twice as much light as ISO 100. And ISO 800 lets in 4 times as much light as ISO 200. The tradeoff for this is that the higher the ISO, the more noise we get in the footage. In aperture, you will see F-numbers. They will be things like F2.0, F2.8, F4, F5.6, F8. These are also mathematical relationships. F2.8 lets in twice as much light as F2.8. And F2.0 lets in TWICE as much light as F4.0. Every mathematical doubling lets in 1/4 as much light. F8.0 lets in 1/4 the light of F4.0. The tradeoff here is that the more light we let in via aperture, the shallower or DOF (depth of field) is.

3. When shooting in dark conditions, whether that me an indoor play, a night time shoot under the moon and stars, etc., we have to make a trade off of shutter speed, aperture, and ISO to get an image. At some light level, it becomes impossible to make a good image. If you have to film 2 people walking under a dark sky and you want both in focus without a lot of noise, you are going to need a certain light level to pull that off without getting noisy, blurry, out of focus footage.

4. The 50mm F1.8 lens lets in quite a lot of light. A 50mm F1.4 lens will allow in TWICE as much. Of course it trades off DOF to get you there. However, that F1.4 lens can be used at F1.8 to get the same results as an F1.8 lens. There are literally DOZENS of 50mm F1.8 lenses by all kinds of manufacturers. The one that has been suggested to you has decent optics but is built like crap. For the same money, you could have a MUCH better lens, with good optics, but you wouldn't be able to get it new. Buying older lenses makes a lot of sense for use with DSLRs. None of these cameras do autofocus in video mode, so buying a lens that is MADE for manual focusing has a lot of advantages. Not the least of which is most of them were made to a MUCH higher quality standard. Trying to manually focus the modern Canon 50mm F1.8 is a bad joke. That focus ring was not made for a human to touch.

5. ANY F1.8 lens will perform similarly to the Canon 50mm F1.8. There is nothing magical about that particular lens. There are literally dozens and dozens of thread on this site where myself and others have offered advice about purchasing quality lenses. Please search for it, read it, and buy yourself some decent glass. If you have questions, ask.
Click to expand...

Thanks for all the information! I know it sucks trying to teach newbies, but I think I understand exactly what you mean.

Thanks everyone else, too. You've all been a huge help.

By the way, by low light, I was talking about a dark room with the only light source being a computer screen, or the inside of a parked car with the only light source being the street lights.
 
JS25 said:
By the way, by low light, I was talking about a dark room with the only light source being a computer screen, or the inside of a parked car with the only light source being the street lights.
Click to expand...

That is not a low light situation. That is a no light situation, and nothing you can buy here will allow you to get good images in those conditions. If you want good images, you must light your films. It's really that simple.
 
As PerroneFord said, that's just not enough light...

If you really need to shoot in those conditions, you may want to consider getting your money back, waiting a month or so, then getting a GH2 (said to have clean ISO up to 3200) and a voigtlander 25mm f/0.95 for m43

that combo is more expensive, but could theoretically give you acceptable footage with 28 times less light (compared with ISO 400 and f/1.8; of course I haven't tried the GH2, though), and with DoF equivalent to full-frame f/2 (very shallow, but maybe fine depending of the type of shot you want to take)

the other options are the canon 1Dmk4 and nikon D3s, which are way more expensive
 
Last edited:
I just wish one of these brands would hurry up and slap IS on one of these cheapo 50mm's, how hard can it be? They'd sell millions of em, and I'd certainly be a customer. But yeah, I say if you can find a good 35mm 1.4 lens, I'd say it's a much better investment. I was trying to film my washer and dryer in the laundry room today, and it still gets on my nerves how constricting 50mm is on these crop cameras (it feels like it would be perfect on a full frame, which may be a better investment all in itself). But yeah, even though the 50mm has no IS and is a little too constricting in tight spots, I have to say that according to thedigitalpreview.com, the Canon 50mm is the sharpest glass you'll find outside of Nikon's brand, looking around on there, it seems that all non-L Canon, Sigma, and Tamron lenses seem to be crap compared to this little lens. This flimsy little device seems to absolutely beat everything else out there starting at aperture 2.2, where as no other lens seems to come close even at their own apertures like 8 or 11. But that's for resolution charts, I've noticed that the 50mm really seems to suck at showing green and red aberrations galore at times, and with video work, I'm sure that one would rather risk a bit of sharpness than have something that looks like it was meant for 3-D...

But I wouldn't rule out buying the 50mm. It's only 100$, it's tiny, it's easy to handle, it's not going to fall apart if you touch it, and having an aperture of 1.8 is striking to say the least. Thing is, I honestly feel like in the grand scheme of things, that this lens merely educates you on what you still need to get, rather than solving anything. I'm in a extremely well lit room right now, four ceiling lights that are practically bright as a classroom, yet using the 50mm along with a 60 shutter, I can't get anything lower than 400ISO. Not exactly helpful. And it's an impossible lens to use handheld, it's like filming using jello as your rig - my AF switch is already messed up to boot, it's now horribly difficult to switch. My perfect lens would be a 1.4 35mm IS, or the 50mm version of that. And generally, that'd be a perfect on-the-go lens for everyone, useful for so many purposes....low light, vacations, quick interviews, budget filmmaking, ect etc. I'd sacrifice stuff like bokeh shape, build, weird focus rings, ect ect in a heartbeat to have a lens like that for around $400 or so. It'd be the most absolutely perfect beginner lens on the planet, and the honest truth is I'm sure it'd also take a hell of a load off some of the professionals as well, the three features of having an aperture of 1.4, a focal length of 35mm or 50mm, and having IS is pretty much a triple threat, who wouldn't use it?

I'd even pay $600 for something like that as long as it had a higher number of aperture blades and of coarse, had great glass.
 
Last edited:
A couple thoughts here:
- I really like the Canon 50mm f/1.4 because it's very sharp, has USM (works great for pre-focus in low light, then switch to live view/video) and the focus ring just works WAY better than the 1.8 (had that lens- good, but not USM, front ring rotates, etc). For $325 this is a great investment.
- Lock your ISO at 100 or 200, pick your shutter speed 24/30 and use 1/<2*frame rate> for shutter speed (1/50 or 1/60 respectively) depending on the look you're after
- If the scene is dark, you'll need to "underexpose" if you're just reading the meter - this issue causes a lot of people to have excessive noise for dark scenes
- If you don't need a particular DOF, change aperture settings until you attain the desired exposure, otherwise pick an f stop and change exposure between 100 and 200 (I don't like to go over that)
- If you can't get the look/exposure you need by following these steps, you'll need to alter your lighting. You can do this and still have it look like the computer screen is the only light - you'll need to maintain the same balance between the "computer screen" lighting and the ambient lighting to make that happen.

I hope that helps. These cameras can really nail these dark scenes if you learn the basic "knobs" to turn and required settings.

Fixing shutter speed equation: 1/<2*frame rate>
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top