How important is high ISO in reality (choosing between FF/APS-C)

arad85

arad85

Messages
9,438
Name
Andy
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi all,

I'm about to make the leap to either a 7D or 5Dmk2. I don't do any specific photography - liking wide angle stuff as well as telephoto. I also like candid portraits and will probably move into slightly more posed stuff as and when I get more experience. Generally I want to be able to take "nice" pictures that I can feel proud of, not to sell, but perhaps to print the best out and hang on a couple of walls. I'm not into studio style work at all yet (nor do I think I will be).

I currently have a 450D with kit IS and 70-200 f/4 L (non IS). I am thinking of two options for the next purchase (having held a 7D in my hand, and just bought a 580EXII I know I need a bigger body camera to feel safe and moving to the 50D doesn't seem much of an upgrade):

7D with 17-55 f/2.8 IS

or

5Dmk2 with 24-70 f/2.8 L

Most of my low light photos are likely to be candid point and shoot style. How much more is the better high ISO speed of the 5D going to give me with those lenses.

Would I be better off for the indoor stuff that I'd prefer to get in low light (without flash where possible as I want them as atmospheric as possible and so people don't notice - I have a houseful of people who don't like being in front of the lens) just adding a nifty fifty to my bag and using the extra stop or so of that to get those shots instead of winding up the ISO?

The 5D option is a good few hundred quid more, plus the 7D has better video and seems more suited to wildlife so I'm leaning (quite heavily) 7D at the moment.

I know it's not just about low light as image quality is better on the FF cameras, but although I pixel peep and get frustrated if it isn't totally 100% correct, I don't have a display device that's remotely capable of displaying 18, let alone 21 mpix unless I'm 100% in photoshop which isn't how you look at the final picture.

Thoughts on my ramblings appreciated.
 
Andy......you really should be leaning towards the 5D2 in my opinion. I had the 7D and frankly was a bit disappointed at low iso shots. Just seemed a bit grainy even when correctly exposed. Mostly used it for action low light stuff. It was ok for that.
However lots of folk are really happy with it and lots of other folk are glad they bought the 5D2...choices
 
Hi Trevor,

Thanks for that. Do you mean you were disappointed at high ISO shots (low seems counter intuitive)?

When you say action low light, can you give me an idea of where the noise stared to get intrusive? Do you have any examples of problematic low light with a relatively fast lens so I can get my head around this to know if it's an issue that is likely to bother me.

Thanks in advance
 
I've been toying with the same problem recently, so for the past couple of weeks I've been borrowing a 7D. I have to say it's a great camera, the autofocus is fantastic and I've got some really nice pictures with it.

But I'm now pretty sure I'm going to buy a 5DMk2. Although the 7D is good at high ISO, it's not brilliant, and for me image quality has to come first. Bear in mind though that I will be looking to produce big prints and sell them (fingers crossed!)

If you enjoy shooting wildlife or sport and it's just for pleasure I don't think you'll go far wrong with the 7D. You just need to decide what's most important to you (annoying when there's no clear-cut answer, isn't it?) :)
 
I have owned both and can say that the 5d mkii blows the socks off the 7D in terms of IQ and ISO performance. I was not impressed with the 7D at all (however others on TP seem to be very happy with the 7D and are getting some great results).

Personally I don't need the crop factor or the high fps rate - and in all honesty noticed no difference in focus speed. However these things may be important to you.
 
I'd probably have a 5DII tomorrow but it doesn't have a built in flash, not important to many but a deal breaker for me. Why no Canon D700 I wonder.
 
arad85 said:
Thanks for that. Do you mean you were disappointed at high ISO shots (low seems counter intuitive)?
Click to expand...

Hi Andy,

Having read comments about this whilst researching 5DII vs 7D - it is low ISO which has been noted as poor. It seems counter-intuitive, but basically owners have noted an unexpected level of noise at low ISO - but at higher levels (where you would expect higher noise) the performance has been noted as good.

This behaviour I think has varied between 7D's, with some people reporting problems and other people not.

Cheers,

Paul.
 
Thanks Lauren/John.

I think the problem is that I'm trying to piece together how often I need high ISO performance. It's not that I don't see the quality improvements of the 5D (there are enough test shots out there - even on low ISO speeds) just that it's not clear when I'd need to be up in the 1600+ ISO range with the 17-55 f/2.8 lens (or even a 50 f1.8) without a flash.
 
woof woof said:
I'd probably have a 5DII tomorrow but it doesn't have a built in flash, not important to many but a deal breaker for me. Why no Canon D700 I wonder.
Click to expand...
Yeah, that's also on my list of big issues too - I need a point and shoot for others in the family to use (and me when I've had too many ;))
 
mrdaviesuk said:
Hi Andy,

Having read comments about this whilst researching 5DII vs 7D - it is low ISO which has been noted as poor. It seems counter-intuitive, but basically owners have noted an unexpected level of noise at low ISO - but at higher levels (where you would expect higher noise) the performance has been noted as good.

This behaviour I think has varied between 7D's, with some people reporting problems and other people not.

Cheers,

Paul.
Click to expand...
Hi Paul,

Yikes. I've spent the last 3 days trawling the usual sites and not got that feeling. Any pointers?

Andy
 
If you want to shoot at high ISO with available light, is suggest you go for the 5d. That large sensor will make all the difference. For wildlife? Keep your 450d or buy a kenko 1.4x teleconverter :) Having no built in flash is no biggie when you have great high Iso. And the built in flashes are very limited anyway :)
 
If your already considering either and you have no main advantage to get the 7D, then your choice has been made up...the 5D2.

There's no question, it's a safer bet.
 
The ideal is to have fast glass on a body that can give clean images at high ISOs. Makes handheld shots of floodlit buildings possible with reasonable results.
 
Sorry to take so long, trying to find something to show that demonstrates why I was disappointed with low ISO stuff. This was shot at ISO 200. Notice the noise on the skin tones.
URL]
 
Last edited:
Hmmmm.. Got a bigger version of that anywhere?
 
Changed to a link to larger size.
 
Ta
 
at the end of the day, it's better to have the ability to use a higher ISO even if you don't need it. It'd be terrible if you found yourself needing it and didn't have it!
 
Grr..

What I really want is a 5Dmk3 with the same features as the 7D but FF....

Anyone know if one is around the corner?
 
I have also read reviews about the graininess at low ISO, but I can't remember where so can't give you a link sorry!

Here's an example though, a shot I took on a trip to the beach last weekend. It's taken at ISO100 and has pretty minimal processing, just levels etc.



Here is a 100% crop of the same image:



Personally I was surprised by that for ISO100, especially since I had read great things about the noise handling. It's enough to make me want to do a quick noise reduction, which I never had to do with my 400D (obviously from ISO400 up, the 7D is streets ahead of the 400D!).

But again, at normal print sizes you'd never know. As I said, I think the 7D is a great camera; I loved the big clear viewfinder, extra AF points and the ultrafast frames per second. I'm sure whatever you choose you'll get some cracking shots from it :)
 
Rutherfordium said:
But again, at normal print sizes you'd never know.
Click to expand...
Yes - this is what I keep coming back to. My display resolution for full images are either a 1080p display (so 1920x1080) or my 24" monitor which is 1920x1200.

I've seen a number of posts where people claim this level of noise is pretty indistinguishable even on 20"x30" prints. Anyone have any opinions on whether I'd actually see it on the displays I have (and the prints I MIGHT print out via an online print shop)?

If I do print, they will be bigger wall mounted prints. I'm not concerned about 6x4s for the family...
 
Just to add another option, an announcement on the 60D (or whatever it gets called) is expected in the next couple of days - thurs 26th? - with it in shops from the end of sept/ early oct. It may or may not be the camera you're after and it may or may not have a few teething problems.

I've considered the 7D/5D dilemma and would go for the 5D, I think of the two the 5D would be the camera you want as it's most suitable for what you are shooting.
 
woof woof said:
I'd probably have a 5DII tomorrow but it doesn't have a built in flash, not important to many but a deal breaker for me. Why no Canon D700 I wonder.
Click to expand...

arad85 said:
Yeah, that's also on my list of big issues too - I need a point and shoot for others in the family to use (and me when I've had too many ;))
Click to expand...

What? Built in flashes are rubbish! If it is such an issue then why not just get a little Canon 270EX, tiny and fully auto but will have enough height to reach over some small lenses. A built in flash would never reach over a 24-70 even without a hood, nor any good size lens!!!
 
I think what I'm really after is a 5Dmk3 that has the bells and whistles of the 7D and the ISO performance of the 5Dmk2. Given there appear to be rumours of a 24-70 f2.8 IS L lens, and I can't believe Canon won't implement a full frame camera with all the bits from the 7D reasonably soon, it looks like I'd be wanting (whether I'd actually need to or not is another matter ;)) to swap the full frame kit over soon.

Given the full frame stuff costs more to start with, it's looking like a trip down the 7D road for the moment and seeing what I can do with that. Still reading up on the theory and pondering though so any more opinions welcome :)
 
arad85 said:
I think what I'm really after is a 5Dmk3 that has the bells and whistles of the 7D and the ISO performance of the 5Dmk2. Given there appear to be rumours of a 24-70 f2.8 IS L lens, and I can't believe Canon won't implement a full frame camera with all the bits from the 7D reasonably soon,
Click to expand...

I think they will - but it will be a 1DsMKIV not a 5DMK3 ;)
 
topcatproduction said:
What? Built in flashes are rubbish! If it is such an issue then why not just get a little Canon 270EX, tiny and fully auto but will have enough height to reach over some small lenses.
Click to expand...
Because it's about hassle factor for other people to use where there's a "I just want something to point and click and not bother with assembling the camera...." problem.

Convenience is very often taken over quality. The world is full of examples....
 
topcatproduction said:
What? Built in flashes are rubbish! If it is such an issue then why not just get a little Canon 270EX, tiny and fully auto but will have enough height to reach over some small lenses. A built in flash would never reach over a 24-70 even without a hood, nor any good size lens!!!
Click to expand...

built in flashes are wonderfully useful, particularly for fill.
 
trencheel303 said:
built in flashes are wonderfully useful, particularly for fill.
Click to expand...
I also like the fact the 7D has the built in transmitter too so can control external flashes without further cost.
 
For anyone else stumbling across this, I found this article which, whilst pretty technical, has a lot of information in it: http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/does.pixel.size.matter/

The conclusion just about sums it up:

Roger Clark said:
Larger pixels have higher signal-to-noise ratio at all levels, but especially at low signal levels. The obvious improvement still possible would be to reduce the read noise, but that would likely improve large sensors also, thus large sensors with large pixels will always have an advantage. Whether the difference in noise is great enough for you to choose a larger sensor, and thus likely a larger and heavier camera, is a decision you must make for yourself.

When choosing between cameras with the same sized sensor but differing pixel counts, the one with larger pixels (and fewer total pixels) will have better high ISO and low light performance, while the one with more pixels can deliver images with finer detail in good light. You will need to decide where that trade point is. My models show the optimum in DSLR-sized sensors have pixels around 5 microns. You will need to determine what your prime imaging will be. For low light work, I might bias the pixels to a little larger than 5 microns; if low light/high ISO work is not as important, I might bias my choice to slightly smaller than 5 microns. ...

Because good digital cameras are photon noise limited, the larger pixels will always have higher signal-to-noise ratios unless someone finds a way around the laws of physics, which is highly unlikely.
Click to expand...

Helped me a lot on understanding :) but still undecided on which camera :(
 
"What? Built in flashes are rubbish! If it is such an issue then why not just get a little Canon 270EX, tiny and fully auto but will have enough height to reach over some small lenses. A built in flash would never reach over a 24-70 even without a hood, nor any good size lens!!!"

I always raise an eye brow when reading comments like this, no offence of course, as I personally occasionally find a built in flash very useful and I've never had an SLR without one. Of course these days you can expose for highlights and boost the shadows to your hearts content in post capture processing even if you then have to run some detail smudging noise reduction but a valid alternative is to use a little subtle fill flash and of course there are the more obvious occasions for use when it's simply too dark to take a shot at your chosen aperture and shutter speed.

Add on flashes have their place and uses but they also add to the bulk of an SLR, stop it fitting in your bag, can be intimidating to the subject, can be completely scene and ambiance destroying and can draw far too much attention to the shooter. I have never used an add on flash and I'd rather not take the shot than resort to one.

It would be nice to at least have the option of buying a Canon FF camera with one but sadly at this point in time Canon don't get my money. They'll live.
 
trencheel303 said:
built in flashes are wonderfully useful, particularly for fill.
Click to expand...

the only thing a built in flash is useful for is for setting of my external flash as a signal. The tiny bulb produces such a harsh light, even as a fill

as for the 7d low ISO perfromance - bare in mind this is more and issue with individual 7ds than the 7d as a range. I've never had any problem at low iso's

for example

4862769266_750aefb05d_b.jpg


but I wouldn't imagine the 7d is better than the 5d at low iso!!!
 
A colleague at work and I had the same problem. In the end he went with a 5Dm2 and I got the 7D. This is because he is doing a lot more landscape and portratish sort of stuff and the FF is something that would really help him and FPS was not important at all.

I got the 7D as mostly do fast moving stuff like wildlife, motorsport and aircraft etc so the 8FPS is amazingly great. The 19point AF is great too.

They are both great cameras and it really does only come down to what you will use it for.
 
"the only thing a built in flash is useful for is for setting of my external flash as a signal."

That is another use but you're wrong if you think it's the only use, it's just the only use that you have for it. Again without wishing to offend anyone it would be nice if people and Canon at least accepted that others have different uses for equipment and allowed the option without switching to Nikon.
 
Ive had a 40D for around 2-3 years, I could count on one hand how many times ive popped the integrated flash! Its creates a horrible, harsh, flat light. Nothing more than a gimmick in my eyes!

If they were that useful you would have one in the 5D.

If it helps any Ive just got a 5Dii, the IQ is head and shoulders above my 40D!
 
Matt989 said:
If it helps any Ive just got a 5Dii, the IQ is head and shoulders above my 40D!
Click to expand...
No it doesn't (well, yes it does, but it doesn't help me when I'm trying to convince myself to buy the 7D :thinking: ).
 
Matt989 said:
Ive had a 40D for around 2-3 years, I could count on one hand how many times ive popped the integrated flash! Its creates a horrible, harsh, flat light. Nothing more than a gimmick in my eyes!

If they were that useful you would have one in the 5D.
Click to expand...
The problem is that we want 1 camera to suit all. Whilst you or I are happy to spend oodles on small shaped bits of glass and a thing that counts photons, those around me look on in a mixture of wonderment but ultimately just want to push a button and it take a snap.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top