Best camera for ISO performance

macmilm

macmilm

Suspended / Banned
Messages
14
Edit My Images
No
Hi all,

as title really... considering a purchase around the £1000 mark or maybe more if its worth it..

Important things are ISO performance (with lowish noise) for taking pics in poor light conditions...

I am not in camp Canon or camp Nikon so would consider either I suppose

Keep changing mind between various models e.g 6D, 5D mk ii, Nikon d700
Too much choice

Dont mind second hand either..

Thanks for any advice guys n galls :)
 
ecoleman said:
Never used a Nikon! but the 6D would have better noise performance than the 5D mkii
Click to expand...

Thanks for quick reply.. only thing that is in back of my mind about 6D is people keep telling me it has poor build quality/plasticy feel e.t.c

Cheers
 
IIRC the D700 is the best of the bunch at the £1000 price point. It should (given correct exposure) give reasonably noise free images up to ISO 1600 and useable ones (albeit a bit noisy but not too obtrusively so) up to ISO 6400 or even higher. Unavailable light photography is a phrase I've heard used for its capabilities (along with the full pro bodied D3).
 
I am very much in camp canon, used a 5dmkii for 3 years now and really cant fault it, i try not to go beyond iso 1000 -1250 but its not often i need to go that far anyway

it also feels well built and a sturdy camera!
 
macmilm said:
Oh dear I can see what I'm going to spend my Sunday doing now! Thanks fatmarley :lol:
Click to expand...

No problem :)

I don't know how accurate the link is but if it is accurate, I rather like the Nikon d700 at high ISO. It looks a bit like film grain but with plenty of detail and blacks look nice and dark too. Could look nice in B&W at high ISO.
 
What a noob... when I posted D700 I meant to post D7000...
lol
Prefer the higher mega pixel
 
Another one here for the Nikon D700 within your price range s/h,also what sort of iso would you like to push your camera to ?

:)
 
simonblue said:
Another one here for the Nikon D700 within your price range s/h,also what sort of iso would you like to push your camera to ?

:)
Click to expand...

I could probably use some advice on that tbh...
I just want it as a toy for family e.t.c
My wife is toying with the idea of Birth Photography whether it will actually happen or not who knows, so for that purpose I want to get the camera with the best low light capabilities I can just incase she does go down that route... (personally think she is mad trying to take pictures where no light is allowed lol)

What ISO would be recommended based on this... basically no light is allowed at a birth under any circumstances.. might get away with a (dim) light box but no flashes at all

Thanks for any tips
 
Not entirely sure what birth photography is, but if it's those people who go round maternity wards taking snaps of newborns to sell to parents, then a D700 would be excellent at 6400 excellent as from memory the snaps tend to be quite small. I wouldn't have bought anything bigger than 6x4 from the person who tried to flog us some pictures when my daughter was born a few years back, I was more than happy with the ones I took on my D700.

A fast lens would obviously allow you to use lower iso's albeit at the expense of depth of field.
 
macmilm said:
...What ISO would be recommended based on this... basically no light is allowed at a birth under any circumstances.. might get away with a (dim) light box but no flashes at all

Thanks for any tips
Click to expand...

If you can stretch your budget a little, I'd definitely recommend a 6D. A friend has one and the image quality is excellent and almost imperceptibly behind my 5DMKIII. Don't forget to budget for some decent glass though. Given the nature of what you intend to photograph, a decent 24-70mm f/2.8 should be on the cards at some point. :)

I photographed the birth of my daughter last year with a Fuji X10 and was more than happy with the results. The lighting in delivery rooms tends to be fairly good anyway mainly because midwives, nurses and doctors don't like working in poor light any more than anyone else! :D
 
The 6D is very, very clean at high iso. Iso 6400 is very usable, as is 8000. 12800 works if you do a bit of pp. The camera is deffo not plasticky, although it doesn't have the heft of a 5D. High iso performance is a league above the best ape-c cameras on raw e.g. nex-5n.
 
I maaaaay be wrong but I think that even though Canon have moved the game on a little from my 5D there are still two aspects in which hey can't match Nikon - higher ISO performanve any dynamic range.

I used to be a Nikon SLR shooter but was persuaded to change to Canon when I went digital but these days I think that ignoring such things as lens line up, handling and features (important though they may be) and looking at pure image quality and specifically high ISO performance I think you'd have to be a dyed in wool share owning Canon fan boy to deny that Nikon has a clear lead.

So, if just buying today on image quality I'd go Nikon.
 
I don't get why people are suggesting the 6D either, it's well over £1000. There's a reason it's called a budget, it's the limit of what you can spare for the purpose. With something like the D7100 you've enough left over for a nice primes lens, like a 50 or 35 1.8
 
Thanks all... in answer to above question..
Birth Photography is being present at actual birth and taking shots within seconds of newborn e.t.c

My wife is a doula (google is your friend) who are paid by the pregnant mother for support through birth e.t.c pre/post natal so my wife is looking to offer this as an extra add on service to births she would be at anyway e.t.c .. if that makes sense
 
I prefer this comparator. I suggest you compare raw files.

I believe almost any of the current Nikons will match any Canon for high ISO. For Nikon's I'd list them in this order: D7000/D800/D7100- D3/D700/D600- D3s/D4. I would put them as ISO 800-1600-3200 before noise becomes apparent, double that for noise becoming problematic (digital display), and maybe triple that for inkjet printing. There is some variability w/in the groups, but it's pretty minor. And you can gain ~1 stop "performance" from the higher MP cameras by downsampling.

Also keep in mind that there is a big difference between using high ISO due to a lack of light as opposed to using high ISO due to high SS/small aperture. Expect at least 1 stop worse performance (2-3 is likely) in low light situations due to photon shot noise. Most comparisons do not make this clear, and the link I provided doesn't either.
 
Last edited:
Cagey75 said:
I don't get why people are suggesting the 6D either, it's well over £1000. There's a reason it's called a budget, it's the limit of what you can spare for the purpose. With something like the D7100 you've enough left over for a nice primes lens, like a 50 or 35 1.8
Click to expand...

Keith,

Sometimes it's better to wait and improve your budget before committing to a purchase which is why the 6D has been suggested. There may even be a few second-hand ones knocking about which would obviously keep costs down.

I'd be reluctant to photograph a birth with a fast prime. Getting the best from a prime requires the photographer to be flexible which isn't necessarily possible if you were shooting something like this. As I mentioned previously, I photographed the birth of my daughter last year and so I know from experience that it's very easy to inadvertently get in the way! To that end, a fast zoom would be preferable. :)

I don't use Nikon so I can't comment directly on their performance although I've heard good things about the higher end bodies. My advice was and still is to hold off making a purchase until there's a bit more money in the pot!

Cheers,
Si
 
Buy the camera you can afford today. That's the way I see it. If you have to save a lot to go Full frame, then buying lenses to match and get the best out of it is going to be a killer.

I didn't suggest he use just a prime. It's additional, with the money saved. And to be frank, if you can't use a prime for jobs like that, you pronably shouldn't be offering the service.
 
Last edited:
Cagey75 said:
I don't get why people are suggesting the 6D either, it's well over £1000. There's a reason it's called a budget, it's the limit of what you can spare for the purpose. With something like the D7100 you've enough left over for a nice primes lens, like a 50 or 35 1.8
Click to expand...

If you can get past the hysteria, Panamoz are selling the 6D for £1007.00.
 
woof woof said:
I maaaaay be wrong but I think that even though Canon have moved the game on a little from my 5D there are still two aspects in which hey can't match Nikon - higher ISO performanve any dynamic range.

I used to be a Nikon SLR shooter but was persuaded to change to Canon when I went digital but these days I think that ignoring such things as lens line up, handling and features (important though they may be) and looking at pure image quality and specifically high ISO performance I think you'd have to be a dyed in wool share owning Canon fan boy to deny that Nikon has a clear lead.

So, if just buying today on image quality I'd go Nikon.
Click to expand...

From what I understand, the Nikons have better dynamic range at the low ISO range which I guess is important for landscape photography. There really isn't much in it in terms of high ISO noise performance, and the new 6D doesn't show the banding issue that caused problems with the 5D II when lifting shadows.
 
manualfocus-g said:
From what I understand, the Nikons have better dynamic range at the low ISO range which I guess is important for landscape photography. There really isn't much in it in terms of high ISO noise performance, and the new 6D doesn't show the banding issue that caused problems with the 5D II when lifting shadows.
Click to expand...

As a Canon user (although trying to give up :D) I'd probably stay with Canon but as I said, if looking just at image quality I think the best you can say is that in real world shooting you'd have to look pretty close to see the advantages of Nikon but that's why I mostly use MFT now... because most of the time in the real world it's good enough but when you do push what's possible to the very edge or look very closely that's when you'll see the difference and when being honest (as a Canon user) I'd have to say that Canon, today, can't match Nikon. They can get close but at the final small % Nikon shades it IMVHO.
 
Its funny .. you ask what you think is a simple question only to realize several hours later that the question has become so much more complicated lol...

Really appreciate all the help and advice... time to research a bit more me thinks !!!

Gonna tell the Mrs you all said she is better off sticking with her 1.3MP Blackberry camera .. ;-)
 
What did you expect? just one straight answer? :/

Nothing complicated here. You gave a budget, for one of the best current cameras for ISO performance, and got answers. Job done.

Just know if you go full frame, you'll be wanting pricey lenses on top to get the best from it.
 
Completely ignoring all of the arguments above, I would opt for either the Canon 6D or Nikon D600 from Panamoz at just over grand each.
 
Cagey75 said:
What did you expect? just one straight answer? :/

Nothing complicated here. You gave a budget, for one of the best current cameras for ISO performance, and got answers. Job done.

Just know if you go full frame, you'll be wanting pricey lenses on top to get the best from it.
Click to expand...

You may have misunderstood me.. I wasnt knocking anyone of being negative.. have appreciated the responses.. just saying how decisions can more complicated when you get down to it !!! Too many options I think.
 
Orville said:
Completely ignoring all of the arguments above, I would opt for either the Canon 6D or Nikon D600 from Panamoz at just over grand each.
Click to expand...

Thanks I think I have narrowed it down to those 2 aswell...

Thanks for all responses
 
Just to complicate things and throw another hat into the ring....

The latest sensor pixel technology from Canon, only in the 70D so far, is exceptional on high ISO lack of noise. IF I can easily find the illustrated review I'll post it here (unless you say you have already decided what camera to get).

Canon 70D body only is around £1,000.
 
Unless you are pushing your kit to the extreme, then there isn't a great deal in it. That's Canon and Nikon
 
Tugster said:
Unless you are pushing your kit to the extreme, then there isn't a great deal in it. That's Canon and Nikon
Click to expand...

....I agree.

The choice between these two rival brands comes down to how it feels in your hand and which interface and hardware controls you prefer on both camera bodies and lenses.

I personally wouldn't choose one over the other solely on ISO capability - Unless perhaps if you worked professionally undercover, but then they would supply you with the right gear for your job.
 
RedRobin said:
Just to complicate things and throw another hat into the ring....

The latest sensor pixel technology from Canon, only in the 70D so far, is exceptional on high ISO lack of noise. IF I can easily find the illustrated review I'll post it here (unless you say you have already decided what camera to get).

Canon 70D body only is around £1,000.
Click to expand...

Would appreciate that link if you can find it !!!
Minds note made up 100% and it's never too late to change ;-)


Thanks
 
RedRobin said:
Just to complicate things and throw another hat into the ring....

The latest sensor pixel technology from Canon, only in the 70D so far, is exceptional on high ISO lack of noise. IF I can easily find the illustrated review I'll post it here (unless you say you have already decided what camera to get).

Canon 70D body only is around £1,000.
Click to expand...

I wouldnt go so far as to say exceptional in all fairness.

It is on par with the 60D, even Canon quoted it as being about the same as a 60D raw file.

Exceptional is what the 6D and the 1Dx ect are, the 6D at 12800 is the same in regards to noise as 6400 on the 70D and 60D.

For the money of £1000 and wanting the best iso performance the 6D smashes the crop sensors out the water...... and thats coming from someone who loves my 60D

A comparison to the 70D vs the 60D

http://thenewcamera.com/canon-70d-vs-canon-60d-high-iso-test/
 
Last edited:
I've just moved from a 5D2. I wasn't sure if it was going to be the right move but i wanted top IQ in the smallest body and that easily went to the 6D. The little time I've had the camera it really does seem to produce cleaner images. The AF is leagues ahead of the 5D. I've never had so many sharp in focus images at 1.2!
I've not really missed the joystick either, it was nice but you soon get used to your new controls.
For me I would choose the 6D over the 5D2. In fact I would also choose it over the 5D3 but I know id be in the minority here.

Panamoz recently quoted me £1007 delivered via bacs. But in the end I choose to buy it from a uk supplier and take advantage of the £150 canon cashback and can also use the free software (lightroom and elements) to claw a little more back bringing the total cost of the camera to a little over £1100. For me the extra £100 was worth spending for the two year warranty which I can utilise should I need to by popping the camera into my local store.
 
macmilm said:
Would appreciate that link if you can find it !!!
Minds note made up 100% and it's never too late to change ;-)

Thanks
Click to expand...

....I've just checked through all my bookmarked reviews/vids on the 70D and haven't found the examples comparison. I'll keep looking....
 
RedRobin said:
....I've just checked through all my bookmarked reviews/vids on the 70D and haven't found the examples comparison. I'll keep looking....
Click to expand...

Dont worry thanks for trying... Google is my friend ;-)


P.S In general really grateful for such a welcoming response from all to a newbie... some forums can be full members with a god complex if they have more than 100 posts lol...

Cheers
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top