so i've been thinking

[romanaz]

after my last event I shot, I've been dealing with some issues with my camera body. Not issues with it, like mechanical, but more so, that ISO 1600 is totally unusable (I have some 8x10's coming that will hopefully prove me wrong). There were a few other canons at some of these events I've been shooting, and the 40/50D's @ ISO 1600-2000 are crisp and much clearer then my XSi's 1600. I'm at odds at what to do, because I know come September and December I have events that I will most likely need ISO 1600 or better.

I've looked @ the T1i, and the 50D, haven't had a chance to play with a 40D quite yet. I've come to the conclusion that, in all honesty, I don't really use my 55-250 f/4-5.6 nearly enough to justify even keeping it at all, and that I am willing to part with the 18-55 for some time and to hold off on landscapes unless I can borrow a lens or something. So, I was tossing the idea around, of putting my XSi up on craigslist or something to sell it, complete with the 18-55 and 55-250 and 2 8gb class 6 SD cards and all the software etc... I've talked to b&h and I can get a 40d for 740 (refurbished) or 1000 for a 50D used. I'll look around more, but the 40D looks enticing. I figure I could sell the XSi + the two lens and such for maybe 670-700 dollars.

what is everyone else's opinion on this? I'm not exactly to the point of making money yet, but I'm on the verge of it. I got a book I'm doing for october-ish and some other things coming as well, so I think I can justify the jump, sepcially for better ISO and faster frame rate, which will help for the weightlifting events I cover. Do you guys think I could get that much for the XSi?

 

[toxic]

XSi's go for around $6-700, I think. Dunno if that includes the kit lens. Poke around the FredMiranda Buy/Sell forums.

You should wait and see how the T1i performs in regards to noise, unless someone's already released an extensive review. I doubt it'll be better than a 40/50D, though.

 

[LittleCanonKid]

You should wait and see how the T1i performs in regards to noise, unless someone's already released an extensive review. I doubt it'll be better than a 40/50D, though.

The Digital Picture's review of the T1i lets you compare directly. It seems to be even, if not slightly better than the 50D at high ISOs.

 

[romanaz]

I haven't had a chance to play with a 40D yet, but is it comparable to the 50D @ the same iso's? Trying not to have to spend the extra 300 or so it'll be for the 50D if possible.

 

[LittleCanonKid]

I haven't had a chance to play with a 40D yet, but is it comparable to the 50D @ the same iso's? Trying not to have to spend the extra 300 or so it'll be for the 50D if possible.

The 40D is better at high ISOs than the 50D, mostly due to a less-cramped sensor. You will be missing out on some things on the 50D though like the VGA screen, AF microadjust, vignette correction, etc.

 

[sangosimo]

40d has more custom function iirc. AF micro adjust is the one feature I wish the 40d had. You don't have to shop for "good" lens copies anymore.

 

[wheezy]

What are you shooting these events with lens wise? You might just need to get a killer low light prime to use so you can stick with ISO800...?

 

[romanaz]

What are you shooting these events with lens wise? You might just need to get a killer low light prime to use so you can stick with ISO800...?

I'm shooting with the 50 1.8. Its great so far, I haven't noticed to much of a difference in real world usage to bump me up to the 1.4 version. Now, if I had the money the 1.2 would be in order.

 

[toxic]

The Digital Picture's review of the T1i lets you compare directly. It seems to be even, if not slightly better than the 50D at high ISOs.

yeah, i noticed that, but i'm not about to make any conclusions based on one comparison

I haven't had a chance to play with a 40D yet, but is it comparable to the 50D @ the same iso's? Trying not to have to spend the extra 300 or so it'll be for the 50D if possible.

they are essentially the same. at the pixel level, the 50D will look noisier because you're looking closer. for the same size image/print, the 50D about the same. also, it seems like the 50D's noise is mostly chroma, which is removable without loss of detail.

somewhat unrelated, but the only real upgrade you get from the 40 to 50D is microadjustment, which saves you some trouble if your lens is front/backfocusing slightly. vignetting correction is next to useless, and a high-res LCD isn't much better...and I don't think there are any other changes worth mentioning. AF may or may not be faster.

 

[romanaz]

from the reviews I've googled, and looked up on flickr, its hard to notice the quality difference in good lighting from the 40D to the 50D. When it gets to lower-light, I see that the 50D is more chroma noise, specifically red chroma noise. Thing is, a few places noted that its easier to remove chroma noise then the luminance noise, I guess.

the other thing I figured might work out better too is the 40-50D can handle burst raw for 2-3 seconds, and the lifts I shoot are 1-2 seconds long. Means I could shoot raw as opposed to the jpeg I shoot in now and that would help noise right there, correct?

yeah, i noticed that, but i'm not about to make any conclusions based on one comparison



they are essentially the same. at the pixel level, the 50D will look noisier because you're looking closer. for the same size image/print, the 50D about the same. also, it seems like the 50D's noise is mostly chroma, which is removable without loss of detail.

somewhat unrelated, but the only real upgrade you get from the 40 to 50D is microadjustment, which saves you some trouble if your lens is front/backfocusing slightly. vignetting correction is next to useless, and a high-res LCD isn't much better...and I don't think there are any other changes worth mentioning. AF may or may not be faster.

 

[jwelch76]

You'll still need a solid noise reduction plugin for whatever PP software you use, but yes, RAW will give you more flexibility. The 40D and 50D are pretty snappy compared to the XSi, let me tell you...

 

[anubis]

Have you tried using Noise Ninja? I've found that it can give me about a 2 stop improvement in noise without noticeable sacrifices in sharpness.

 

[mrbash]

I would go with the 40D. I bought one over Christmas and have been very happy with it. Fantastic camera!

 

[romanaz]

here is a shot before/after in noise ninja. Pretty impressive I say. Still, its an extra step I might not need to do.

 

[TheReef]

Try overexposing slightly, it'll reduce noise (and develop a steadier hand to compensate )

 

[PimpDaddy]

40D ftw!
I recently had to upgrade from my old 30D due to a faulty shutter and ended up with the 40D which left me with some money to buy a new lens. As said before the only real difference between 40D/50D is the microadjust feature.

I say save some money or use the extra money you would have spent on the 50D for new a new lens or other gear

 

[OreoCookie]

Can you show us examples, what is `unbearable noise' for you?
You can do a lot by shooting RAW and using tools such as Noise Ninja.

 

[romanaz]

Can you show us examples, what is `unbearable noise' for you?
You can do a lot by shooting RAW and using tools such as Noise Ninja.

thing is, I can't shoot in raw with the XSi, its just not capable of keeping up long enough in burst for what I need. I need for the snatch, a minimum of 1-2 seconds of burst and the clean and jerk lift needs 2-3 seconds. The XSi can't keep up with that, even with a class 6 card, the buffer fills up to fast. The post before shows whats unbearable and a fix in noise ninja. The first one I have put on an 8x10 and while its not terrible, its not outstanding like my other ones from the event before at ISO 800.


and to thereef, shooting at 1/160, ISO 800 and f/1.8, that is as bright as I can get it. I can't shoot slower at 1/120, everything blurs. That is as far as I can go. I prefer 1/250 or higher for the weightlifting events. I got one coming up in a few weeks thats in a gymnasium which will be a bit better then the last one.

its no problem at that ISO 1600 when printing to 4x6, but over that I to be able to provide a good product, and even with noise ninja, I might not be able to. I'll do a re-print of that particular photo with the noise ninja to see how it is.

I should also note, 8x10 is probably average size for my prints for these. I might go higher, 16x20, depending on requests, but I want the ability to provide that size print at a reasonable quality.

 

[ChrisA]

after my last event I shot, I've been dealing with some issues with my camera body. Not issues with it, like mechanical, but more so, that ISO 1600 is totally unusable ....

If that is the problem nothing but a larger sensor will address that. Do whatever it takes to get a full frame sensor. All the other features in the body are just details. If you are moving to FF concider even swapping brands to Nikon or stay with Canon.

Remember, going from an f/5.6 lens to an f/2.8 lens means you no longer need to shoot 1600 ISO, the f/2.8 lens would let you shoot at ISO 400 in the same light. But if you need low-noise you need a larger sensor. f/2.8 many takes will not work because you need a larger DOF.

Incremental steps are just the way to go. If this is a business a FF camera is cheap compared to what other similar business people need to invest in.

 

[wheelhot]

Try overexposing slightly, it'll reduce noise (and develop a steadier hand to compensate )

Yup, u are right, even at ISO1600, if the image is overexpose abit, the noise is very much less noticeable then the darker areas.

Also noise will forever be at higher ISO, a FF will improve that but it will be overkill if a person is just starting out since without proper lens and accessories, to me it's pointless to own a FF without flash gun and L lenses, that's just me.

I used to be a paranoid about noise issue and high ISO is like a must until I came to a realization that pros during the old film days manage to capture remarkable shots in low light with films, so since we are now in digital and allow to make mistakes, there must be away how to get those shots

 

[Knomad]

A 40D will be a big improvement for a relatively modest investment. If you use the savings over a 50D to get a faster lens, a lot of your noise issues will go away... but they will go away mostly because of the faster lens and not needing to shoot at high ISO as often. The important gains with a 40D are more about better build quality and more versatility and better functionality when shooting RAW.

Depending on what you shoot, consider a fast prime like a 50mm f/1.8 which you can usually pick up for less than $100 US. Suddenly, you're shooting that same situation at ISO 400 or 320. Or a 50mm f/1.4, and you're now at even lower ISO, maybe 250 or even 200. The tradeoff is losing zoom capability and needing to use your feet instead, and you'll also have shallow depth of field, which depending on subject matter can be a plus or a minus. Many pros at least keep one of these in the bag for when they need it.

But as stated above, to really reduce noise substantially at high ISO means FF, and the still considerably higher cost associated with that.

 

[OreoCookie]

A 40D will be a big improvement for a relatively modest investment.

I disagree, judging from the glass the OP owns (taken from his sig). I'd rather get the 50 mm f/1.4 or another prime (80 mm perhaps?).

 

[romanaz]

I disagree, judging from the glass the OP owns (taken from his sig). I'd rather get the 50 mm f/1.4 or another prime (80 mm perhaps?).

theres an 85 1.8, but if I have issues now @ 1.8, that lens would be more of the same from a farther distance away. The 50 1.4 might be a smidge better, I'm not 100% sure.

I think, honestly, after digging through the research I now definitely got the itch to upgrade to a better body for what I primarily use the camera for.

I'm thinking of picking up a 40D, unless I can find reason really to go for the 50D, and then later on the summer picking up the 50 1.4 and/or the 85 1.8.


quick question, since I haven't had a chance to play with a 40D yet, I got a question, I've seen on the 50D, that I can go from ISO 1600, to 2000 to 2500, then to 3200. Can the 40D do that as well?

 

[toxic]

On 40D vs 450D noise: the 40D is slightly better. i don't know if it's one stop better, but it is an improvement. either way, once you get to ~f/2, faster lenses cost substantially more and DoF starts getting too thin.

noise reduction can only remove chroma noise and some luminance without loss of detail.

quick question, since I haven't had a chance to play with a 40D yet, I got a question, I've seen on the 50D, that I can go from ISO 1600, to 2000 to 2500, then to 3200. Can the 40D do that as well?

no. the 50D has a native ISO 3200, while the 40D's is software-created. in other words, the 50D's 3200 is entirely from sensor sensitivity, while the 40D takes an ISO 1600 image and pushes it one stop. since Canon decided not to make third-stop increments for non-native ISOs, there's no in-camera ISO 2000.

the same idea of software-manipulated ISO applies for intermediate ISOs as well (on non-1D bodies). for example, ISO 125 is just ISO 100 pushed 1/3 of a stop, and 160 is 200 pulled 1/3. this causes a loss in dynamic range. since 3200 on a 40D is 1600 pushed one stop, this means you lose one stop of DR. basically, if you shoot RAW, there is no reason to use intermediate ISOs - just use full stops and push or pull as you see fit. for non-native ISOs ("H" or "L", ISO 50) is your choice - you can do it perfectly well in post, but if you're not sure if you're exposing well enough, you could use them so you can see the histogram.

then it gets more complicated: the 50D, even though it has a native ISO 3200, still loses one stop of DR coming from 1600, so no gain there. theoretically, it would still be better noise-wise since you're not pushing an exposure, but i have no experience with either a 40 or 50D at 3200, so that's something you'll have to find out for yourself.

anyways, get a 40D. better build, AF, buffer, frame rate, etc. than a 450D while not giving up much of anything to the 50D.

 

[romanaz]

On 40D vs 450D noise: the 40D is slightly better. i don't know if it's one stop better, but it is an improvement. either way, once you get to ~f/2, faster lenses cost substantially more and DoF starts getting too thin.

noise reduction can only remove chroma noise and some luminance without loss of detail.



no. the 50D has a native ISO 3200, while the 40D's is software-created. in other words, the 50D's 3200 is entirely from sensor sensitivity, while the 40D takes an ISO 1600 image and pushes it one stop. since Canon decided not to make third-stop increments for non-native ISOs, there's no in-camera ISO 2000.

the same idea of software-manipulated ISO applies for intermediate ISOs as well (on non-1D bodies). for example, ISO 125 is just ISO 100 pushed 1/3 of a stop, and 160 is 200 pulled 1/3. this causes a loss in dynamic range. since 3200 on a 40D is 1600 pushed one stop, this means you lose one stop of DR. basically, if you shoot RAW, there is no reason to use intermediate ISOs - just use full stops and push or pull as you see fit. for non-native ISOs ("H" or "L", ISO 50) is your choice - you can do it perfectly well in post, but if you're not sure if you're exposing well enough, you could use them so you can see the histogram.

then it gets more complicated: the 50D, even though it has a native ISO 3200, still loses one stop of DR coming from 1600, so no gain there. theoretically, it would still be better noise-wise since you're not pushing an exposure, but i have no experience with either a 40 or 50D at 3200, so that's something you'll have to find out for yourself.

anyways, get a 40D. better build, AF, buffer, frame rate, etc. than a 450D while not giving up much of anything to the 50D.

alright, that does make sense. So even if the 50D does do ISO 2000, its not really much because theres a good chance ill be shooting RAW anyhow and then it doesn't matter. If I'm shooting jpeg, it would matter slightly more, but I bet not much more.

so, basically, I'm going to be looking at selling the XSi, the 18-55, the 55-250, my SD cards and probably my card reader (its just SDHC expresscard) and hoping that can cover most if not all of the cost of a 40D body.

I'm excited now