Is it worth upgrading?

noneforit

noneforit

Messages
1,298
Edit My Images
No
Hi

I have a 50D and was asked to take some pictures at a friends Christening.

As it was a church, no flash was allowed and I had to bump up to 3200 ISO to even have a chance of getting a decent enough shutter speed.

They are happy with the pictures but the inside church ones clearly have noise and I wonder if its now time for me to look at upgrading to a better body which handles noise better.

I am not ready for full frame yet so my thoughts are a 7D or a 70D but I am still not convinced its worth it just to get slightly less noise?

I used a Tamron 17-50mm F2.8 VC lens.

Some of the images are in the link below:

http://alfie.forthoctet.com/

Thanks
 
I have a 7d and a sigma 17-50mm f2.8, like you i dont like bumping up the iso. My solution is to use my 50mm f1.4 whenever i think im going to be in low light.
I think a brighter lens would give you more benefit than a new body?
I would have thought you could get a couple of nice prime lenses for less than the price on a body
 
Ivan_1983 said:
I have a 7d and a sigma 17-50mm f2.8, like you i dont like bumping up the iso. My solution is to use my 50mm f1.4 whenever i think im going to be in low light.
I think a brighter lens would give you more benefit than a new body?
I would have thought you could get a couple of nice prime lenses for less than the price on a body
Click to expand...
I have a 50mm F1.8 but being at the christening, I was told to be subtle and being fixed at 50mm would have been very restrictive as I couldn't move around much.
 
kennysarmy said:
What about investing in some decent noise hiding software such as noise ninja?
Click to expand...
I pay for Photoshop and am going to try some noise reduction tonight but I am not sure how much of an improvement this will be at 3200 iso.

Thanks
 
I've always regarded it as a general rule that the cheapest way to get less high ISO noise is to use a really good specialised noise reducer in post processing. That probably means acquiring it as either a stand alone program or a plug-in, since few editors, even the most expensive and sophisitcated, are good at noise reduction. A specialised noise reducer also involves you in having to learn how to use it.

More expensive is to get faster glass. But faster glass has the advantage of requiring less learning to get the best from it. The most expensive of all, not only costing the most but probably giving the least improvement, is to get a new camera. The new camera body however has the car speedometer advantage -- the camera body is the only improvement that gives an easily visible number to its highest ISO. It also requires the least learning. And rather like looking through the window of a parked sports car and seeing with awe the biggest number on the speedometer, the "official" noise performance figures of a camera body are more of an advertising stunt than a measure.
 
Fir p
noneforit said:
I have a 50mm F1.8 but being at the christening, I was told to be subtle and being fixed at 50mm would have been very restrictive as I couldn't move around much.
Click to expand...
Fair point one of the things I like and dislike about the 50mm is the fact that you really have to think about framing the shot, in your situation that wasn't an option.

Seems like the consensus is to go down the post processing route
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top