40/50/60d

D

DinoS

Hmmmmm.......Paste!
Suspended / Banned
Messages
2,823
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi all,

I currently have a 400d and a 1000d which I have been using without problems, but I was thinking of upgrading to a second hand body mentioned above. The main stuff I do has been horse photos and indoor portraits and I was wandering what difference there would be between each of the bodys above. I have a 17-50 f2.8 and a 70-200f2.8 (sigma). How much better is low light handling on the xxd's anyone have personal experience.

Thanks

Mark
 
It's not going to be much different as the sensors in the xxxd and xxd are the same as each generations
 
amtaylor said:
It's not going to be much different as the sensors in the xxxd and xxd are the same as each generations
Click to expand...

The hardware and software if the xxd ranges are tweaked, high iso is improved.

OP - search facility! this has been covered to death and there was a very recent thread on this.

But i upgraded from a 400d to a 50d as I needed better high iso handling for indoor showjumping and it's far, far better than the 400d, and (as I stated in the other recent thread) much better than the 40d at handling 800 and 1600 iso, and very useable (when processed in DPP) at 3200 iso (the 40d doesn't have 3200 iso).

Ultimately the 60d is even better but you lose a lot of things which people like about the rest of the xxd range, such as alloy body and joystick controller.
 
Last edited:
HSC said:
you sure
I think all three have different sensors
10mp
15mp
18mp
Click to expand...

He means 400d same sensor as 40d, 500d same as 50d etc.

The sensors are the same but the way the bodies handles the images are slightly different.
 
Hi,

Thanks for your comments, I tried searching but nothing seemed to directly cover the question. Please post the thread as obviously I missed it! My main worry has got to be indoor ISO handling, with the 400d, ISO800 gets dodgy.

Thanks
 
Nah dint worry! In fact the last one featuring these bodies was on a thread about the d90 so that's my mistake!

I would opt for the 50d or 60d, both have significantly better iso than the 400d!
 
I'm not sure there is that much improvement between 400d and 50d. I too made that jump. I think what may make the most difference is perhaps better metering as the 400d tended to underexpose a lot from what I recall which made the noise worse. It is better but I do not see a huge difference. The best strategy is nailing the exposure which makes more difference than a better body generally.
 
But then I only compared raws as I didn't use jpegs really so that could be where the opinions are differing perhaps
 
amtaylor said:
I'm not sure there is that much improvement between 400d and 50d. I too made that jump. I think what may make the most difference is perhaps better metering as the 400d tended to underexpose a lot from what I recall which made the noise worse. It is better but I do not see a huge difference. The best strategy is nailing the exposure which makes more difference than a better body generally.
Click to expand...

Don't be silly, there's a MASSIVE improvement, the whole reason I paid to upgrade! And that's after thorough, very thorough low light testing!

But remember, the 50d (and 7d's) CR2 files are tweaked to work with DPP which gives much cleaner raw conversions.

In real world testing, the 50d's iso 3200 images where cleaner than the 400d's 800 iso images.
 
Last edited:
We'll agree to differ. I think there is a big difference in overall use but I haven't found much difference in real world shooting myself in low light ability but perhaps its just me. I found a huge difference with a 5d classic. Perhaps the big difference with that made me underestimate the difference between the 2 crops. Who knows.
 
amtaylor said:
We'll agree to differ. I think there is a big difference in overall use but I haven't found much difference in real world shooting myself in low light ability but perhaps its just me. I found a huge difference with a 5d classic. Perhaps the big difference with that made me underestimate the difference between the 2 crops. Who knows.
Click to expand...

The 5d will of course be better than both. I can post an iso 3200 image from the 50d which has been sharpened and converted in DPP (no NR), a low light shot which shows very little noise (in comparison to say, a 400d at 800 iso). The thing about the 50d is, it's just not forgiving if you get it wrong.
 
Last edited:
Cannot comment on the 50D but had the 40D for years and now the 60D (along with a 5D2 currently but have also recently had both 1dIII and 1dsII bodies just for information).

Anyway, I have ALWAYS recommended the 40D to friends as THE BEST starter serious DSLR (obviously in Canon fit). It is a superb, just very well-sorted body. IMHO you would be hard pushed to find anything particularly bad about the 40D. Depends how clean you like your images but up to iso 640 they are very good and 800+ fine with NR applied, IMHO.

The 60D is in some ways a worse camera but I think it has a great sensor. Again, I tend to find the images a bit noisy above 800 but others will be happy with iso 3200, depends how well exposed your images are and what other PP is going on.

Sorry, I cannot comment on the 50D but the 40D is just a stunning camera for the cash and the 60D is also brilliant in many ways but for about twice the money. You cannot go wrong with either, again IMHO.

Good luck with your selection.
 
Response to Jim not the one above me.
Perhaps. I suppose on thinking I have had some pretty clean high ISO stuff on it which I probably wouldn't have achieved on the 400d. Perhaps I just thought I'd got better lol. And I never did a proper comparison of the same shots etc which you have. But I would definitely recommend the upgrade for many reasons in addition to the noise handling.
 
Meant to add to my comments above that EVERYONE I know who did get a 40D on my recommendation has loved it ! One guy ignored my advice bought a Nikon, hated it, bought a 40D and loved it ! He got there in the end. 40D is sureley, the best bang-for-buck in photography ?
 
gary43 said:
40D is sureley, the best bang-for-buck in photography ?
Click to expand...

Have to agree with the above.

Didn't find the 50D offered any more in terms of quality so kept the 40D and if I was looking for another 1.6 crop - would probably skip the 60D for a 7D.
 
Last edited:
gary43 said:
Meant to add to my comments above that EVERYONE I know who did get a 40D on my recommendation has loved it ! One guy ignored my advice bought a Nikon, hated it, bought a 40D and loved it ! He got there in the end. 40D is sureley, the best bang-for-buck in photography ?
Click to expand...

Better than a D90?
 
When I upgraded my 400D to a 40D, the first thing I noticed was how the 40D locked focus quicker than the 400D. From what I can remember, on the 400D, ISO 800 noise was comparable to ISO 1600 on the 40D. As you go up the new camera model ladder, there are upgrades of course, in which you decide for yourself if they are worth the money you pay for.

What I don't like on the 40D is the screen. What I like about the 50D is the screen and microadjustment function. Can't comment on the 60D, but I love the 7D. If you can stretch a little, go for it.
 
Last edited:
cam1986 said:
Better than a D90?
Click to expand...

cam1986 said:
Which one would you choose? :thinking: :D
Click to expand...

40D is better than a D90. But the OP is not asking about it.

What I notice with a lot of mikon users is that they insist their cameras are the best:nono:, but with canon users, they generally advise go to a shop and test the cameras, weigh the pros and cons, etc. :rules:
 
Last edited:
i find the 50D very usable in low light up to around iso 1600, though i tend to stick to the standard increments of Iso as they seem to be less noisy might just be me though, but yea looked at the 30-40 and 50Ds and they all seem to be awesome value for money much better than the 60D :)
 
strobemonkey said:
40D is better than a D90. But the OP is not asking about it.

What I notice with a lot of mikon users is that they insist their cameras are the best:nono:, but with canon users, they generally advise go to a shop and test the cameras, weigh the pros and cons, etc. :rules:... grow up people.
Click to expand...

What makes you say the 40D is better?
 
It's silly to say the 40d is better than the d90.
It has faster fps and a bigger raw buffer, as well as metal body and a better live view implementation, but the d90 is newer with a better sensor (less noise, higher ISOs), nikon's CLS wireless flash and a few other things that better the 40d (can't think of them off the top of my head)

I went with the 40 because I found canons layout suited me better, but that's a very personal thing.


We've done all this in your thread already.

Sorry for going a long way OT
 
Last edited:
squishy said:
It's silly to say the 40d is better than the d90.
It has faster fps and a bigger raw buffer, as well as metal body and a better live view implementation, but the d90 is newer with a better sensor (less noise, higher ISOs), nikon's CLS wireless flash and a few other things that better the 40d (can't think of them off the top of my head)

I went with the 40 because I found canons layout suited me better, but that's a very personal thing.


We've done all this in your thread already.

Sorry for going a long way OT
Click to expand...

Yea, i know. Just couldn't understand how he could say the 40D was better without justifying that comment.
 
cam1986 said:
Yea, i know. Just couldn't understand how he could say the 40D was better without justifying that comment.
Click to expand...

Some will find the 40d better, others will find the d90 better. It depends what you find useful in a body and what you shoot.

I would say overall the 40d has more features and characteristics I like in a camera, but others might prefer the characteristics of the d90. The last thing you need now is a change of mind!

Anyway we've discussed that in your thread!
 
Last edited:
odd jim said:
Some will find the 40d better, others will find the d90 better. It depends what you find useful in a body and what you shoot.

I would say overall the 40d has more features and characteristics I like in a camera, but others might prefer the characteristics of the d90. The last thing you need now is a change of mind!

Anyway we've discussed that in your thread!
Click to expand...

Dont need a change of mind as i have settled on the DSLR i want. :thumbs: Or have i? :thinking: :D
 
squishy said:
I went with the 40 because I found canons layout suited me better, but that's a very personal thing.
Click to expand...

odd jim said:
Some will find the 40d better, others will find the d90 better. It depends what you find useful in a body and what you shoot.

I would say overall the 40d has more features and characteristics I like in a camera, but others might prefer the characteristics of the d90.
Click to expand...

:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:
 
odd jim said:
The 5d will of course be better than both. I can post an iso 3200 image from the 50d which has been sharpened and converted in DPP (no NR),
Click to expand...

But doesn't DPP automatically apply NR even if sliders are set to zero?

I'm sure that I read that somewhere and if that's the case the only way to see what a shot is like without NR would be to process unsing something else that doesn't automatically apply NR.
 
woof woof said:
But doesn't DPP automatically apply NR even if sliders are set to zero?

I'm sure that I read that somewhere and if that's the case the only way to see what a shot is like without NR would be to process unsing something else that doesn't automatically apply NR.
Click to expand...

No, only with jpeg. Even with high iso NR active (a menu setting on the 50/60/7d) the raw file ignores this. There is a default NR setting in DPP but this doesn't actually activate until you press 'apply' in the NR section.

Otherwise what you see is the raw data as interpreted by DPP.
 
Last edited:
I'm sure that what I read related to RAW files. I'll Google and see if I can find it but thinking about it even if DPP does apply NR as long as all shots are processed using the same software there's a level playing field to compare the results.

PS... Just to clarify what I'm sure I read in a review somewhere... that DPP automatically applies an amount of NR to imported RAW files even when NR sliders/tick boxes or whatever else it has are set to "off." If anyone else remembers reading that maybe they can supply a sourse. It stuck in my mind as it annoyed me as I believe that "off" should mean off.
 
Last edited:
The in camera NR definitely doesn't transfer to the raw, checking the 50d manual reference the high iso NR option, it states this only applies to the jpegs and not the raw file, it then advises how to replicate this option for the raw by adjusting it in DPP using the software.
 
Yes I know that. What I'm sure that I read is that DPP automatically applies some NR to imported RAW files even when it's meant to be off.

If no one knows what I'm talking about, fine, but I'm sure that I haven't imagined reading it in review... but of course that doesn't mean that it's true :)... but it certainly wouldn't be the first time that someone has been either caught or suspected of applying changes when the option is supposedly off.
 
woof woof said:
Yes I know that. What I'm sure that I read is that DPP automatically applies some NR to imported RAW files even when it's meant to be off.

If no one knows what I'm talking about, fine, but I'm sure that I haven't imagined reading it in review... but of course that doesn't mean that it's true :)... but it certainly wouldn't be the first time that someone has been either caught or suspected of applying changes when the option is supposedly off.
Click to expand...


Once you open a RAW file in DPP,therse is an automatic noise reduction set that will apply once you try to convert the RAW to jpeg. There is a slider to remove the automatic noise reduction in DPP, just put the sliders back to "0" beofre you convert.

Edit:
I just tried putting the noise reduction back to zero and clicked "apply" the RAW file I tested became noisier, so this means DPP applies the NR to the RAW file automatically I guess.
 
Last edited:
Just tried the above and yes, it does get noisier when you apply the 0 variable on the sliders. So Woof is right, there is a default applied! However, its only a tiny amount, and this tiny default is still far better than a hefty application of NR in CS3/LR or any ACR based software so I still maintain that DPP is far better at processing high ISO images. It just seems to covert so much cleaner and when you do apply more NR is retains far more details than other applications.

However, none of the NR settings in camera get applied to the raw file when loaded into DPP, this definitely only affects the jpegs.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top