5D; 5D2; 50D - ISO performance

Jelster

Jelster

Suspended / Banned
Messages
9,986
Name
Steve
Edit My Images
Yes
I'm at a point where I need/want to invest in a 2nd body (again). I love shooting wildlife and portraiture and whilst the 40D with a decent lens isn't bad, I want better high ISO performance.

So, I've been pondering on whether to go full frame - I know all the ups and downs, but I can't help thinking that images from the 5D (1 or 2) always seem to be rich in colour with deep tonal quality. A trait with full frame it seems. The other bodies I've thought about are the 50D or even the 1D MkII/III.

However, 2 grand for a 5D2 is a lot of cash, especially when I'm also looking at a 24-105 & a 70-200 to add to the collection.

What I'd like to know is, how does the high ISO performance of the 5D Mk I compare to the Mk II, and how does the 50D perform ?

I'd appreciate any feedback, especially on the Mk1 5D and the 50D, as I think I'm going to struggle to get the 5D2, although it's not out of the question.

Please DO NOT give any wise comments about Nikon, I'm NOT changing systems, I like using Canon and have no interest in jumping ship.

Cheers,
Steve
 
Hi Steve, I've got the 5D and a 1Ds and not really tried the 5DII yet. I can say that the 5D is still an admirable performer up to ISO1600. I find that lenses of the f1.4 to f1.8 variety are my weapons of choice and very rarely do I encounter shooting conditions that warrant me spending another £2K on a body that would give me a small percentage performance improvement.

The autofocus on the 5D is not it's strongest point though and that may be a drawback on wildlife stuff, especially if it's moving.

I tend to think of the 5D as a great lightweight (compared to the 1Ds it is!) camera best suited to people pics.
 
Hi Steve

I bought a 50D before Christmas and am very pleased with it for wildlife. With very large prints and high ISO the noise will probably be visible but with smaller prints it is very acceptable.

I am thankful I did not go the 5DM2 route - my CF cards and hard drive are filling up fast enough with the 50D I read to think what they would be like with the 5DM2
 
Just to say... I have a 5d mkI and I love it... I moved over form an EOS3 film camera and as did not want to change over all my lenses to suit a crop sensor model hence my choice... I think I chose wisely... Its a fab camera and I have no complaints for my photography needs which are mainly travel, general UK landscape and photojournalistic work and a wee bit of everything else...

I've not had any focus issues... I just wish it had the eye focus that my old EOS3 had... although not really done any moving object stuff yet... so not really tested the AL Servo...

In terms of cost I think its now a bargain due to the into of the MKII... Build quality is excellent... and as i've never even picked up a 50D I cant comment on that...

But in short... Unless you actually need to make movies... or shoot at an ultra high megapixel rate... im not sure why anyone needs the MkII
 
I find the LCD screen on the 5D absolutely dreadful coming from the 40D. You probably would too.

Another thing that really pees me off about the 5D is that auto-bracketing switches itself off every time you change lenses, among other things.:thumbsdown:

Image quality, though, is excellent.
 
Thanks for the inputs everybody.

I have thought that for wildlife and the odd bit of motorsport, the 40D will suffice (it's funny that I actually bought the 40D for moorsport but since I've had it, I've not had the time to get to any events !!) and that a 5D will provide me with what I'm looking for in portraiture.

However, yesterday I visited the Natural History Museum and I could of really done with something that I could be confident would take decent images at 1600 - the 40D just can't cut it with some of the latest technology.

Steve

 
Jelster - I have a 40D and on a visit to the Natural History Museum last year I had to use ISO 3200 in the dinosaur area. I was only using a 18-55 IS as a tourist lens, but I was pretty impressed with the high ISO performance.

From what I've read so far, the 50D high ISO performance is no better than the 40D at the full 15mp resolution. But to be honest as I'm happy with the ISO performance of the 40D that wouldn't bother me, and the extra resolution would personally be valuable to me for wildlife shots but for now the 40D is still keeping me very happy
 
Don't forget chaps that with the extra resolution, you can crop more severely and still have enough resolution for a top shot. Very useful for wildlife in particular :);)
 
From reading elsewhere, I get the impression that both 5D models are pretty close in their high ISO capability, and that the 50D is a good stop worse.
The issue you have is with the types of shots you take. The 5D is generally considered to be a better camera for portraits, whilst the 50D with it's extra reach would be great for wildlife.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top