Hey.

Decided my 350d is awful in low light. Have done a charity calendar shoot at work for the past two days and despite using a reasonably good f/2.8 lens indoors I'm finding anything ISO 400 or higher on the 350 is just being too noisy to be acceptable.

Was looking at the 40D for a while now, but with the advent of the 50D and 15MP's I'm thinking 'If I do low light stuff and am printing A3+ images?' would this be a better upgrade?

The 5D Mk1 is now around the same price, but looking at the specs I'm thinking the 50D looks better than the 5D Mk1, and the 5D Mk2 is far, far out of my price range (although infinitely better :thumbdwn: )

I'm thinking Full Frame is too hard on the wallet for me right now. But is a 40D worth it? Or, from a newbie update, is it worth and extra couple hundred for the 50D features and (apparently) 5D Mk1 low light performance but with a few extra pixels?

(I also have a few EF-S lenses that will need replacing if I go FF, which is a big consideration to me :( )

I don’t think the 40D is much different to the 350D in low light ISO800 to be honest (I have both). it might be a smidge but thee isn’t really much in it. From the reviews on the web on the 50D that I have read, the 50D is about the same as the 40D pixel for pixel when it comes to noise. But obviously because of the higher number of pixels when the images are produced at the same physical size the noise appears reduced when compared to the 40D. I would have guessed the 5D was better still though.

If it helps

Sample EOS 5D images

Canon EOS 5D Mark II Hands-on Preview: 14. Samples: Digital Photography Review

Canon EOS 50D Digital Camera Samples - Initial Test - The Imaging Resource!

And, if I'm not swearing, the Nikon D700

"This large sensor enables the 12 megapixel D700 to provide better image quality at higher ISOs than most DSLRs, and its picture quality is, in fact, astounding."

Samples

Nikon D700 Review: 33. Samples: Digital Photography Review

Also try this for a Full Review of the 50D. There is a comparison between the 40D, Nikons and 50D as to ISO performance. There are a lot of little links on each main page so make sure to click them all as I can’t remember where the ISO comparisons are.

Do you use anything like Neat Image or Noise Ninja?

I’d recommend the 40D not because the images are miles better (they might be a little better, but it isn’t a huge leap) but the camera is so much better to use. It not only feels like a proper camera due to it’s solidity and features, but has a lot of tricks up it sleeve and some pro features have been added too. It really is a great camera to use and of course it will accept your EF-S lenses too.

If it helps

Sample EOS 5D images

Canon EOS 5D Mark II Hands-on Preview: 14. Samples: Digital Photography Review

Canon EOS 50D Digital Camera Samples - Initial Test - The Imaging Resource!

And, if I'm not swearing, the Nikon D700

"This large sensor enables the 12 megapixel D700 to provide better image quality at higher ISOs than most DSLRs, and its picture quality is, in fact, astounding."

Samples

Nikon D700 Review: 33. Samples: Digital Photography Review

The Nikon seems to be the daddy of low noise at the moment, but there isn’t that much in it I don’t think, plus Mort has several EF-S lens which will only fit a 1.6 crop Canon, so if he wants to save money I think the 40D is a great buy. It will do 6.5 fps which is nearly twice what the 350D will do and it also has sensor cleaning (great) and live view (not so great) on it.

Cheers guys. From what I've been reading I thought that the higher ISO on the prosumer Canons (10/20/30/40/50d) were a lot better than the 3 digit counterparts? But if Lady Elanore has both and can see no real difference then I'm a bit stuck?

Anonymouse: I know the 5D Mk2 images are sweet, but at 2k+ it's not really within budget. I can get the Mk1 second hand for around the same price as a new 50D - although I'm told that the 50D is being a good contender to the Mk1 (full frame excluded) simply due to the 5 years of newer technology. (obviously that means selling the EF-S lenses and rebuying some EF ones). I'd probably have taken the 5D over the 40D at a pinch (lens issues aside), but due to the advent of the 50D at the same price I'm torn.

I do like the idea of the New screen and 15MP that's pushing me towards the 50 over the 40. I'm not a great photographer and the better screen might help me review images for focus issues before I go home to find out they're all blurry. And pictures taken for work generally are used for print at A3-A2 so the extra pixels will help sharpen that up.

But 50D at around 800 and 40D at around 500 (second hand) is a sizeable difference.

I've not used any software noise reduction programs, but I'm a graphics purist: The noise is stopping me capture the details at stage 1. I don't think any amount of noise reduction will improve the images after that. Might have a look into them though, cheers.

As far as Nikon goes (I know it's not applicable here ), the change from a D200 to D300 does give better / lower noise images for a given high ISO, so I would guess the same with Canon. The advances in technology and noise reduction mean that for a given pixel density and amount of light, the newer generation sensor and image processor will yield better pictures in the noise department.

Having now gone full frame, it's a league apart though. I've taken some shots at ISO1600 that are usable out of the box and come out pretty well if cleaned up a bit. I do believe the best way is going full frame, but then you have the whole crop format lens problem :(

I reckon the 50D is probably the most sensible upgrade. Sure a 5D would be better, but the cost to change with your lenses is probably enough to not warrant the change.

But I'm speaking hypothetically and comparing it with the equivalent Nikon lineup so could be totally wrong

I think the 40D can be had for about £500 brand new with cash back. I read somewhere (might have been on here?) that the image that you see in the back of your Canon is of a thumbnail, not an actual copy of the picture taken. A set of thumbnails is made for all pictures and that’s why when you zoom in on them they sometimes don’t seem so sharp, but when you get home they look fine.

I think the 50D is better for noise slightly as mentioned above and I read somewhere that they are using some sort of clever edge to edge photocell technology that means they are just as good in low light as the slightly large cells in the 40D. Either camera will be a revelation to use, regardless of whether you think the IQ is a leap forward. I love the semi-pro features even if I am still clueless how to use them properly.

Do you have any samples that we can see?

Noisy images are usually caused by a shot which is under exposed.

Canon cameras, including the 350d usually offer very good ISO performance even at ISO 800 and acceptable at ISO 1600 if the picture is well exposed.

Have you looked at the histogram after the shot and looked at the luminance graph to check exposure.

I quick test you can do at home is to shoot raw a few test shots. First shot Av as normal, then using the exposure compensation to +1/3 +2/3 and +1. Beware of the shutter speed as camera shake can result. If you have a tripod, that would help.

Then in post processing you have modify the exposure to correct levels if the shot is a little over exposed. Check the noise in the shadow areas between the shots and you will see how the noise performance will be improved.

I would try this before investing in a 40d and above as you may be disappointed with similarly exposed shots at higher ISO.

The shots were all taken from a tripod, histogram looks fine, with a good spread across the range and no blown highlights or full blacks. The only bad thing was lighting - which I know makes a huge difference. But I didn't expect contrasty or pin-sharp images really, just less noise.

Not sure I can really post any examples on the web unless I do some heavy cropping (naked students).

Looking around at what people have said here and on (far too many) review sites I think it's safe enough to say that the 40/50D won't be giving me noticeably less noise. I'd need to go full frame for that. So upgrading seems to be a choice of whether to get a more ergonomic and better to use camera rather than an issue of IQ. Have to say I'm tempted though. Can't see my Bank Manager allowing me to go Full Frame for a couple of years anyway...

Guess I'll have to practice more. Or invest in some studio lighting

(naked students).

Oh yea.....I think it would be a good idea to put up the unedited pics so we can have a look

For Mort

From

Canon EOS 50D Review: 1. Introduction: Digital Photography Review

In the conclusion

"We're by no means saying the 50Ds image quality is bad but it's simply not significantly better than the ten megapixel 40D. In some areas such as dynamic range and high ISO performance it's actually worse ....... "

I think the 40D can be had for about £500 brand new with cash back.

Might be interested to know where

Steve

Might be interested to know where

Steve

Try this on for size;)

For Mort

From

Canon EOS 50D Review: 1. Introduction: Digital Photography Review

In the conclusion

"We're by no means saying the 50Ds image quality is bad but it's simply not significantly better than the ten megapixel 40D. In some areas such as dynamic range and high ISO performance it's actually worse ....... "

Yes I found that an interesting read too. Also they say the pixel count is stretching the resolution of the lenses, including Primes! I am sure Scuff might have a lens or two that would be more than good enough.

Ah, it seems the cash back is only £60 now, it was a £100 when I got mine. Still I think a quick haggle would get the price down to make £500 after cash-back.