Advice on the xxD series

S

studioworks

Messages
800
Name
Mark
Edit My Images
Yes
I currently own a 350D which i find great in most circumstances, the only thing i find lacking is its low light ability. I shoot a lot indoors at night and find myself having to bump up the iso to keep a decent shutter speed even with my 50mm 1.8.
Rather than just going for a newer xxxD series id rather go straight to xxD series now, what im intrested in just quite how much diffrence their is noise wise at high ISO`s between the 30D, 40D and 50D.
I can strech to 50D second hand prices but obviously if the older models are just as capable in low light then id rather save the money.
I know theirs other diffrences in them and i`d be happy to hear peoples opionons on which to go for.
Thanks in advance.
 
This was taken on a 40D using a nifty fifty and ISO 1600. I'm not claiming it's completely noise free, but it perfectly acceptable for me. I should add that no noise reducing software has been used on this image.

7920sm.jpg
 
the newer ones get better as they go on, so look at the xxd series and you budget and pick one, I really rated my 50d.

There is a significant diffrence in high iso performance, 50ds weren't a massive improvement but there was a firmware patch that improve my noise handling by a stop (ish).
 
I was very impressed with my 50D at high ISO.
Obviously not as good as my D700, but certainly usable upto ISO1600.
 
Ive been reading up a bit more on the 40D vs the 50D and im still undecided, they seem to be similar performance wise at high ISO`s so not too sure wether the other improvements are worth the £100+ price diffrence.

Id be intrested to hear from anyone who went from a 40D to a 50D and wether they considered it worth while afterwards?
 
40d better than 50d and 450d biggest jump from 350d but as pixel density increases noise gets worse so don't expect miracles until you go for D700 or 5D mk11.

We have a 50D and It's beautifully built but no better than 40d except for microfocus which means you can tune it to use lenses like Sigma 50mm f1.4 (which is absolutely awesome ).
 
daugirdas said:
I found 40d better than 50d. But why not consider 5d?
Click to expand...

I had actually thought about the 5D but from what ive read for portrait and sports type of pictures id be better off with a crop than a full frame and the 40D/50D has better AF than the 5D which would be useful.

Ive pretty much made up my mind on the 40D now as from what everyones said their doesnt seem to be any real reason to spend the extra £100+.
Just need to sell or part ex my 350D now and i`ll be able to move on up.
 
daugirdas said:
I found 40d better than 50d. But why not consider 5d?
Click to expand...

phototuition said:
40d better than 50d and 450d biggest jump from 350d but as pixel density increases noise gets worse so don't expect miracles until you go for D700 or 5D mk11.

We have a 50D and It's beautifully built but no better than 40d except for microfocus which means you can tune it to use lenses like Sigma 50mm f1.4 (which is absolutely awesome ).
Click to expand...


Just to throw a spanner in the works, I thought that the high ISO performance of my 50D was better than my 40D, and I had them both at the same time to compare. In fact, I think CT did quite a bit of testing against the 40D when the 50D came out and concluded that the 50D was better.

Both are better than what you have, but personally I found the better screen on the 50D to be worth at least £100 anyway... You just have to set the 50D up correctly in the menu system.

Steve
 
wippers said:
For what it's worth, I found my 50D quite poor above ISO400 which in the end was the main reason I have replaced it with the 5Dmk2.:shrug:
Click to expand...

Poor above 400 ISO?? You MUST have had it set up wrong, I find up to ISO 1600 is very, very good indeed and I dont really notice much noise until I push it further than that.

The great high ISO performance is the reason I bought the 50D and why I'm so happy with it (I do a lot of poorly lit indoor equestrian stuff) and found it compared very favorably to the 7D I had borrowed but ultimately couldnt afford!
 
Last edited:
wippers said:
For what it's worth, I found my 50D quite poor above ISO400 which in the end was the main reason I have replaced it with the 5Dmk2.:shrug:
Click to expand...

Yes, the ISO 400 and 800 on 50D were pretty appalling compared to 40D with obvious chroma noise in all slightly darker image areas; I am not even bringing 1-series into this comparison. At ISO1600 50D would become fairly similar to 40D, and overtake it at 3200, all as the result of some very clever high iso noise reduction algorithm. LR3 could easily clean up most 40D files, not so with 50D for some reason.
 
studioworks said:
I had actually thought about the 5D but from what ive read for portrait and sports type of pictures id be better off with a crop than a full frame and the 40D/50D has better AF than the 5D which would be useful.

Ive pretty much made up my mind on the 40D now as from what everyones said their doesnt seem to be any real reason to spend the extra £100+.
Just need to sell or part ex my 350D now and i`ll be able to move on up.
Click to expand...

Full frame wins for portraits, but excellent results are certainly possible with crop.

I wouldn't say that 5D has worse AF - it has more hidden assist points, and the same centre point - and that looks like a very slightly better combination. Well, xxDs are definitely not for serious sport photography due to primitive AI-Servo AF.
 
daugirdas said:
Yes, the ISO 400 and 800 on 50D were pretty appalling compared to 40D with obvious chroma noise in all slightly darker image areas; I am not even bringing 1-series into this comparison. At ISO1600 50D would become fairly similar to 40D, and overtake it at 3200, all as the result of some very clever high iso noise reduction algorithm. LR3 could easily clean up most 40D files, not so with 50D for some reason.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I've never heard so much rubbish in my life (no offence!!). I extensively tested a 50D against a 40D (2 40D's in fact) and a 7D few months ago. The 50D overtakes the 40D noise wise from 200 ISO onwards. Most noticeable noise is almost completely removed by DPP on conversion as well until you push past 1600 ISO (and thats not using the noise reduction options).

...and as for xxD not being good for sports, I use my 50D in possibly the most demanding of ways - indoor sports, and I am continuously impressed by how it copes with high ISO (and ISO noise in general), superb AF and how useable it is. I can only assume those who have had the problems described must have had it set up incorrectly (the default settings just arnt right!) or used old firmware?
 
Last edited:
I found the 50D great upto ISO1600, although I have never used a 40D to compare. Its certianly not disapointing in any way.

The screen on the 50D is vastly superior to the 40D too, and the has microadjust feature. I think those combined are worth the extra £100.
 
This is totally unscientific, but prefer the background detail in landscape pics from the 40D when compared to the 50D. Seems to be more distinct whereas the more crowded sensor tends to merge leaves etc into a more cartoony type presentation

As I said just personal taste, but still not convinced that much above 12mp is a good idea on a crop sensor
 
odd jim said:
Poor above 400 ISO?? You MUST have had it set up wrong, I find up to ISO 1600 is very, very good indeed and I dont really notice much noise until I push it further than that.

The great high ISO performance is the reason I bought the 50D and why I'm so happy with it (I do a lot of poorly lit indoor equestrian stuff) and found it compared very favorably to the 7D I had borrowed but ultimately couldnt afford!
Click to expand...

Jim, I'm speaking from my own experiences with the 50d. What sort of things could I have set up wrong with the camera to give the poor noise I experienced? I still have the 50d and perhaps could be getting more out of it?
 
odd jim said:
Sorry, I've never heard so much rubbish in my life (no offence!!). I extensively tested a 50D against a 40D (2 40D's in fact) and a 7D few months ago. The 50D overtakes the 40D noise wise from 200 ISO onwards. Most noticeable noise is almost completely removed by DPP on conversion as well until you push past 1600 ISO (and thats not using the noise reduction options).

...and as for xxD not being good for sports, I use my 50D in possibly the most demanding of ways - indoor sports, and I am continuously impressed by how it copes with high ISO (and ISO noise in general), superb AF and how useable it is. I can only assume those who have had the problems described must have had it set up incorrectly (the default settings just arnt right!) or used old firmware?
Click to expand...


Can I ask for samples as a proof please? I would like to see something at ISO 400 and 800 at 100% with fairly plain and darkish content. At ISO 400 I want them to be smooth as ice.

What software do you use? I have LR3, before that LR2. Thats one of the most common packages. How do you process your files, how far do you push the NR?

How far to the right do you expose? How much highlights can you recover back from each camera? Did you compare it to something like 5D mk2?

AF - what lenses do you use? Anything at f/2.8 or faster? What sports do you shoot, and where / how do your subjects move? These could be gaming changing factors.

BTW. My 40D and 50D were with the latest firmware, and all the useless optimisations off as they degraded IQ much further than that.

40D, ISO1600, no flash, LR3 processing, 22% luminance NR, 25% color NR - not so easy with 50D

Postman butterfly by BristolPhotos - Daugirdas Tomas Photography, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
Ok daugirdas, I dont know if this will provide the proof you require (in the TP court of law :lol:). Though if you want to pixel peep this isnt the best way! Heres a few recent ones (I havnt got the time to trawl through my images so I'll use some recent ones so they might not be the best photos per se), these are just for the points raised in this thread...

Heres a few from the other w/end when I was shooting indoor/outdoor equestrian after dark. All at 1600 ISO with a 100% crop no flash. These were shot with a lowly EF 50mm I was testing for a friend (he thinks its soft on the right, I think it is!); No NR just cropped and converted with DPP

1600isotest.jpg


100% crop showing colours and dark area;
100crop-1.jpg


Another 1600 ISO indoors - faultless AF even with the crummy EF 50mm motor (hense the oof edges with the Ef 50 opened at 2.5);
Georgeinside2.jpg


Heres one at 400 iso, again, no NR (why would I at 400 iso?!) the full frame shot was CS3 with the crop being trimmed and converted with DPP. Shot with the 18-135 IS. Granted, there is slight noise but less than I would expect on a 100% crop on a crop sensor, and I found less than both 40d's I played with;

Holly.jpg


100% crop
100crop.jpg


In general I dont push the NR as I rarely shoot at above 1600 ISO.

I think these are more than perfectly acceptable. Ok, they wont be as smooth as the 1Ds or 5D files, but I honestly cant think you could ask for more on a crop sensor body?

Here's one at 2500 ISO shot again with the EF 50mm (f 2.5 I think so again has oof edges thanks to the 50mm) under some VERY poor lighting conditions. Ignore the blown highlights as the exposure want right and for the purposes of this thread I've used a fairly unprocessed version. This one I did push the NR with a bit of fill light but not by much with no sharpening;

Georgejumpinginarena6.jpg


Sports 'togs will agree with me here when I say indoor equestrian is possibly THE hardest area of sports togging to get right, even with the best bodies and L lenses. I dont often go to 3200 iso even with the slower telephotos I use.

The 50D is a supurb piece of kit. I'll be tying it to a 70-200 2.8 after xmas, cant wait!
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top