Real life comparison of a Canon 450D to a 50D

[marts_uk]

Hi,

I'm after a real life comparison of a Canon 450D to a 50D with regards to noice. I currently own a 450D, and it reaches its limit at about 400 ISO . 800 is "ok" at a push - 1600 is a no no.

Is the 50D a lot better than the 450D at handling noise?

There are various articles on the web, but nothing that compares the two together that I can find, hence me asking for anyone here who has made the jump from 450 to 50

thanks
Martin

 

[mcwarrior]

i made the jump from 450d to 60D, and 600D and the low noise usage is like night and day. images are good up to 3200 iso. Not sure how this compares with the 50D but if close its worth the upgrade.

 

[CSB]

I went from a 400D to a 50D and the 50D is better for noise but I prefer my 550D now which is even better than the 50D was.

You can look at a noise comparison in this review.

 

[andyred]

Hi Martin

Not a real life comparison of the 450 to 50D, but a good friend recently went from a 450 to 60D as he wanted more fps. He loves the vari angle screen, but he also found the 60D to be more comfortable in his hands as it is a bigger body.

Hope this is of some help...

 

[Mike.P]

I use my 50D up to about ISO 800. If I need to go higher I switch to the K-5 which is in a different league.

 

[strumstrum]

my understanding is that higher iso noise handling has just starting moving on in leaps and bounds so you might find the modern consumer end such as the 600d, D5100 etc.. handle noise better than the older enthusiast levels such as the 50d.

 

[stupar]

To assist you, the below image was taken on a 50D at ISO1600

EXIF DATA

 

[scottthehat]

i know is studio done but might help. to get all cams click all at the top of each side to get older cams.
http://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM
looking at them there is nothing in it upto iso 1600 but the 450d only goes upto 1600,

 

[strumstrum]

can that be a real world comparison though as it looks to have been treated to some PP??

http://regex.info/exif.cgi?dummy=on...c.flickr.com/6015/5897711583_0ba95fc01d_b.jpg

To assist you, the below image was taken on a 50D at ISO1600

EXIF DATA

 

[odd jim]

The 50d is a completely different beast to the 450d for a number of reasons and has many advantages, not just with high iso.

For what it's worth, I get perfectly useable images at 3200 iso with the 50d.

 

[odd jim]

50d high ISO. All with bare minimum PP, and very little NR;

iso 3200

Andy Fleming by Odd Jim, on Flickr

iso 3200

George jumping 10 by Odd Jim, on Flickr

iso 2500

Alana jumping 2 by Odd Jim, on Flickr

iso 1600

_MG_6569 by Odd Jim, on Flickr

iso 1600

Ferrari Massa copy by Odd Jim, on Flickr

 

[marts_uk]

Thanks all, for the info, very helpful.

 

[stupar]

can that be a real world comparison though as it looks to have been treated to some PP??

http://regex.info/exif.cgi?dummy=on...c.flickr.com/6015/5897711583_0ba95fc01d_b.jpg

I will let you and others be the decider.
The top image is the original RAW with all ACR sliders defaulted back to their original settings and the image saved as a jpeg.
The bottom image is the PP'd version.
At 1600 iso and no post processing I'd say noise is very well controlled and barely evident.

 

[marts_uk]

I can't spot any noise in either!