Equipment re-shuffle?

shabba

shabba

Messages
936
Edit My Images
No
Hi all,

Just thinking out loud here…..basically I’m finding I need a camera with better ISO performance, my 40D is fine upto ISO800 but often this isn’t enough. Also I’d like something a bit sharper maybe, so sure if I need to get better lenses or upgrade the body, full frame would be amazing but is a huge jump (cannot afford).

Problem is I shoot everything and anything! Outdoor portrait stuff, pics at friends weddings, indoor corporate do’s, motorsport, Rugby, City breaks – you name it! I just love taking photos so it’s all good to me.

Current kit…

Canon 40D – has served me well, v nice camera but ISO performance not ideal. (£300 value) – how much better is a 7D’s ISO performance?

Canon 50mm – 1.8 (LOVE this lens, use for portrait stuff, esp in low light situ’s) – (£50 value) how much sharper is a Sigma 1.4?

Canon 17-55 IS 2.8 – Nice enough lens but I barely use it for some reason (£500 value) – maybe I should swap for a Tokina 17-55 .2.8 and re-invest the £250?

Canon 70-200mm F4 (£350 value) – Love this lens, ideal for motorsport/Rugby etc, would only swap for a 2.8 or IS etc.

Sigma 10-20mm 4-5.6 (£250 value) – Love this lens, use it a lot for city breaks and static car stuff.

Canon 430EX flash (£120 value) – seems to do the job when needed, I try and avoid using it though if I can as a bit hit & miss getting the setup right I find (indoor events etc).


So what do you think, I could possibly raise £500 or so but selling the Canon 17-55 and adding some of my own money in, but then I do I stretch a bit more and go Full frame and be left without any lenses except the 70-200, which is then shorter for sports/Msport and the camera is slow for these too. Or a 7D – but will that satisfy my quality desires – should I spend on glass instead?
 
I also have £215 in Clubcard vouchers, which is woth 2x in jessops, but given they are usually 10-20% over-priced to begin with it's not so good. That and I buy everything used usually as it doesn't really lose much money then.
 
The fundamental physics of it is that if you want better high ISO performance you have to collect more light. You can do that either by going full frame with a sensor that is twice the area, or with lower f/number lenses.

For a significant jump in performance, there are no other options.
 
Yep aware of that - just unsure what way to go, and was asking how good the 7D is at ISO handling?
 
shabba said:
Yep aware of that - just unsure what way to go, and was asking how good the 7D is at ISO handling?
Click to expand...

You'll start a riot with questions like that ;) Opinions are divided, quite a few threads on it - some say it's better than 40D, other say high ISO performance isn't great.

My own experience is that the 7D is an improvement over my old 40D, but it wasn't massive and I only tried ISO400 and 800. But the fact that opinion is divided says quite a lot really, because if there was a big improvement there wouldn't be any doubt.

When I tested 7D against 40D, Jessops also had a 5D2 so, almost by accident, I shot some side by side comparisons with that too. 5D2 just blew me away. Turned into quite an expensive accident :D Love it though :)
 
It might be worth looking at the 60D. Decent ISO performance and you'd be able to use all your existing lenses, and it won't break the bank.

And you can reserve and collect in store using Jessops website, therefore getting their online prices.
 
Agree with Jonathan, have a look at the 60D for better ISO peformance at not too much cost, if you want sharp why sell the 17-55mm, not going to find better for a crop body.

For motorsport, rugby etc the 7d does have a much better AF system and higher fps too, no complaints about the iso peformance and coming myself from a 40D would say its an improvement
 
With regard to the 7D the answer is it does have good noise handling but will punish you if you underexpose. There are lots of threads here about it and some examples of images at high ISO that look fine to me.

5d2 will be better again, but you're looking at three times your budget.

As said above a 60D may be the answer to your requirement and budget.
 
The 7D is definitey an improvement over the 40D but nowhere near as good as a 5D II, looking at images at 100% the 5D just blows them out of the water. 5D on centre focus is better than the 40D for autofocussing as well.

Another option is a secondhand 1DIII, being a bit older the screen is not as good as the 7D but better at higher ISO and autofocussing, I recently picked one up for 1200 so more than a new 7D which will come with a warranty. On the 1D you get a 1.3 crop. With either the 7D or 1D you will notice a big improvement in the autofocus and keeper rate go up.
 
I'd go for the 60D personally. It has very good ISO performance and is brilliant at video and low light.

I don't think much is wrong with your glass either to be honest. If I could say anything, just sell everything you've got (except the fifty) and buy everything from the start again. That way, you'll know out of all of your kit everything that you definitely want to keep and then after you've sold what you don't want you'll be able to get evidently what you do want. :)
 
Guys, big thanks - I will now look at the 60D route, I had assumed it wasn't much different to a 40D for ISO handling.

A 60D will effectively use up my £415 clubcard vouchers along with the sale of my old 40D.

My other option is to get a 'free' (with vouchers) Sigma 50mm 1.4 (or Canon 50mm 1.4 but I've always heard the Sigma is better).
 
Probably a silly question but what's wrong with the 40D in terms of Iso performance, are you finding you need to rack it up because your lenses are "slow" and you get a lot of noise, have you tried noise reduction s/ware to reduce the noise (I'm assuming you have but need to ask -hence silly question on my part).
I have 1D Mk2, 5D Mk1, wife has 50D and an old 10D and tbh from a sharpness point of view there's not a massive difference when using the same lens and doing a comparison in normal daylight shots. There's a huge difference though when I compare say my 85mm 1.8 against some older zooms (none L lenses). So for sharpness you have good lenses in the 50 and the 70/200, I doubt if a body upgrade will show an upgrade in sharpness, so your body upgrade needs to be for noise improvement reasons only.
I believe that is where you should be looking and unless you break your budget I think you will be dissapointed if you only spend a little (say £500 as mentioned).
Every increase in performance comes at an ever bigger increase in cost, all of the current really good crop cameras (XXD range and & 7D obviously) these days perform really well, so a small increase in performance is going to cost a lot, hence the post recommending a 5D2 as a probable good upgrade, anything else (1.6 crop camera) from a noise point of view wont gain you much.

Alternatively, the Heretic in me might suggest looking at Nikon, which will seriously dent your budget of course.

Matt
 
Last edited:
Thanks, great reply.

Ok 3 shoots I've done/doing recently caused an issue....

1) Gym shoot, I shot a trainer in a studio with barely ay natural light, I had to use ISO800-1200 and the 50mm at max 4.0, even then I was struggling to get 1/50th sec.

2) I did a shoot for a Musician, we went to the Woods and it was rather a dull day, so again I needed ISO800, but had to go as low as 2.5 on the 50mm to get 1/30-/50th. Ok it was late so getting dark but it was the only time we had, I just felta bit frustrated.

3) Doing a shoot this weekend indoors for a Karate competition, the lighting will be rubbish of course and I'll need a high shutter speed to capture the action. Hopefully I'll be borrowing a 1D MkIII though.

The 40D is fine upto and including ISO800, but at 1600 it's too noisey for my liking, I figure a better body will produce less noise at given ISO ratings.

Also when I do indoor stuff (at events/parties) I'd like better ISO performance, when I cannot use flash it's very difficult indeed. Also I always believed (could be wrong!) it was best to use the flash as the least dominating factor for parties, i.e lower flash setting, higher ISO and a small apeture so you capture more of the natural light rather than forcing the light with the flash.

I'm going to be a geek and work out the exact costings of everything and what the best deal will be, I have these possible £430 of Jessops vouchers but it migt be better to just buy something, sell it on at a 15-20% loss and then use that cash elsewhere buying used equipment, I generally never buy anything photography related new.
 
shabba said:
Thanks, great reply.

Ok 3 shoots I've done/doing recently caused an issue....

1) Gym shoot, I shot a trainer in a studio with barely ay natural light, I had to use ISO800-1200 and the 50mm at max 4.0, even then I was struggling to get 1/50th sec.

2) I did a shoot for a Musician, we went to the Woods and it was rather a dull day, so again I needed ISO800, but had to go as low as 2.5 on the 50mm to get 1/30-/50th. Ok it was late so getting dark but it was the only time we had, I just felta bit frustrated.

3) Doing a shoot this weekend indoors for a Karate competition, the lighting will be rubbish of course and I'll need a high shutter speed to capture the action. Hopefully I'll be borrowing a 1D MkIII though.

The 40D is fine upto and including ISO800, but at 1600 it's too noisey for my liking, I figure a better body will produce less noise at given ISO ratings.

Also when I do indoor stuff (at events/parties) I'd like better ISO performance, when I cannot use flash it's very difficult indeed. Also I always believed (could be wrong!) it was best to use the flash as the least dominating factor for parties, i.e lower flash setting, higher ISO and a small apeture so you capture more of the natural light rather than forcing the light with the flash.

I'm going to be a geek and work out the exact costings of everything and what the best deal will be, I have these possible £430 of Jessops vouchers but it migt be better to just buy something, sell it on at a 15-20% loss and then use that cash elsewhere buying used equipment, I generally never buy anything photography related new.
Click to expand...

I'm not quite sure what you meant by the bit I highlighted. But in your second scenario you "mention going as low as 2.5" as if shooting with a large aperture is a bad thing. Personally with a 50mm lens for an environmental portrait I would probably shoot at F2. In order to isolate the subject and blur the background. I just get the impression that you're implying that opening up the lens is a bad thing.

I would suggest shooting with larger apertures and investing in other fast lenses such as an 85mm 1.8 or 1.4. The 50 1.4 Sigma is very good in answer to your question.

And if you do need to stop down (for group shoots for example) then bounce your flash with an ISO of 800. That's usually enough to ensure the ambient registers.

HTH
 
Thanks Ryan, I find any less than F4 for a headshot leaves a bit too much out of focus (working on the eyes as the focus point).

I tend to like quite close up shots of my subjects, but obviously open to advice from someone like yourself. Shooting a less close up then yes I could go lower and usually do.
 
Sell the 40D, 17-55 and 10-20. That should get you to £1050 if your valuations are correct. Then spend £250 ish on a tamron 17-55 (which I think is a full frame lens?) and then buy a 5DmkII second hand.
You'll obviously be short, but that is what I would do for a significant upgrade in noise performance. I have sold landscape images at 1 minute and ISO6400 taken with my mkII. It is excellent up to 1600, very good at 3200 and good at 6400.
 
I'd be worried that the Tamron is not upto the job on that camera though?
 
shabba said:
I'd be worried that the Tamron is not upto the job on that camera though?
Click to expand...

Especially as it's not a lens for full frame.

I would receommend that you try a 60D side by side with your 40D at high ISO. I'm sure it will be better, but there won't be much it. Full frame has fundamental advanatages, but is expensive.
 
I have a 40D and the ISO is not great with it but for the price it brings now 2nd hand I dont think I woould sell it as I use it as 2nd body much preferring my 'older' 1dmk2n which handles noise better along with the other benefits of having a far better made camera and better autofocus systemand can be picked up for around £600
so buying a 2nd hand 1 series camera would give you a better camera by adding some extra cash

and I agree with Ryan Jarvis about getting a good fast aperture Lens which will make your F4 look sick for indoor shooting plus the one's he suggests are well priced and very affordable
 
Be aware if your going to upgrade to a 60D you'll need to reinvest in storage cards as its SD not compact flash, one of the reasons I'm looking at a 50D due to the amount of money Id need to spend on SD cards.
 
Great replies guys, love this forum :).

Maybe a 50mm 1.4 is the way to go for now and then look towards getting a 1D mk3 - that seems a decent 'next step' all-rounder.
 
shabba said:
Great replies guys, love this forum :).

Maybe a 50mm 1.4 is the way to go for now and then look towards getting a 1D mk3 - that seems a decent 'next step' all-rounder.
Click to expand...

If you dont like the limited dof with a 50/1.8 then going to a 1.4 wont improve anything, in fact it will be worse. The 1.4 and the 1.8 are almost identical in terms of sharpness and IQ above f2, build quality is obviously better in the 1.4 lens.
I would seriously look at using a noise reduction programme for shots above Iso 800 and make sure your metering is spot on as errors magnify noise before moving onto a new body. Try a 1D before you buy, they are huge great awkward lumps (although wonderful to use).

Matt
 
Might consider a 5D mark 1? Won't be too expensive and will still wipe the floor with the crops for noise performance, while providing a perfect backup to a 5D2 if you eventually go down that route :)
 
I was wondering if anyone would recomend a 5D, might be a bit slow for sports though? Also the screen is quite poor?

I used a 1D MkIII for a shoot yesterday, not reviewed all the pics, but the ones at ISO1600 are pretty impressive, did alot on 3200 too so will check those.

The focusing was rather nice and it had an X-factor of 'just feeling right' - I was shooting with the 40D too and it felt clunky after the 1D. I actually found the 1D perfectly light/small, every sounds they are beasts but maybe with my big hands/frame it's ok, it felt perfectly fine to me.
 
Still thinking, you know what I would like....

A 1.3 crop camera, i.e giving image quality between a 5D mkII and a 40/50/60D type along with ISO performance between the 2, but in the format of a 40/50/60D shape/size rather than the pro-build 1D/1Ds series......shame they don't make such a camera!

I'm sure there is a gap in the market, do Nikon/Sony offer such a camera? It would be priced around the £999 mark so probably be £750 used, would be for those who want better ISO/IQ than a 7D and don't mind losing the fps & focus system of the 7D as a sacrifice.
 
The 7D and 60D suffer more with noise than say the 50D because they're squeezing more pixels onto the sensor.

If ISO performance is a top priority then 5D ain't bad, as a sports camera, would depend how you used it. machine gun spray and pray, then yes, not up to scratch, but I've seen some good actions shots with that camera from togs who know what they are doing.

But reading you problems and looking at your lenses, personally you need some better lenses, especially for the indoor shots and primes rather than zooms. F2.8 is the minimum lens I would think about using indoors, take a look at the 85mm or 100mm or 135mm or 200mm prime lenses, ideal for action and other types of photography indoors.
 
I use the 50mm 1.8 or the 17-55 2.8 indoors, it's just when I HAVE to use ISO3200 then it's impossible as the images aren't good enough. Like the other day when shooting a Xmas do, I wanted candid shots and not to annoy people with a flash, so limited the use of my 430EX, even at 1.8 and ISO3200 it was only possible to get 1/25 to 1/50th, but then the images looked terrible as the 40D doesn't do 3200 ISO well, 1600 is it's useable limit.

I do also shoot sports so kind of need something that isn't too short either and has half decent focusing, 40D is 'ok' for this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top