Suggest a upgrade canon 40d

A 5D would not work with your zoom lenses ,the 50D is a nice camera and superior to both the 60 and 70 as they are biased towards video ,had them all and with your budget the 50D is the best bet .
 
the black fox said:
A 5D would not work with your zoom lenses ,the 50D is a nice camera and superior to both the 60 and 70 as they are biased towards video ,had them all and with your budget the 50D is the best bet .
Click to expand...
...but it still wouldn't give the OP that leap in high ISO performance, which is the point of her upgrade. As good as the 50d is (it'll also do video with the magic lantern firmware),
 
Having read this and your other thread regards shooting at dog shows, I appreciate your budget is limited, but you are looking to achieve the impossible IMHO.

This may sound harsh but you need to accept the reality of what you are asking for on a budget. Being a little more open to system change and trading existing equipment to gain better ISO performance may, in the end be necessary.

Might I suggest saving a little more because it does appear to be the camera body that will make the most difference for what you want. (It will astound you what is possible with some cameras nowadays - shooting in a darkened coal cellar will bring better results than you can see with your naked eyes for those cameras at the top end) - although you don't need that.

A small LED light source will probably not throw enough light across the venue to achieve the result you want, so is a waste of money.

Can you not borrow a couple of suitable camera examples from friends/fellow togs to see the differences for yourself, so that you have a camera body to focus on? Once you know what you want will make saving that much easier.
 
Having read this and your other thread regards shooting at dog shows, I appreciate your budget is limited, but you are looking to achieve the impossible IMHO.

This may sound harsh but you need to accept the reality of what you are asking for on a budget. Being a little more open to system change and trading existing equipment to gain better ISO performance may, in the end be necessary.

Might I suggest saving a little more because it does appear to be the camera body that will make the most difference for what you want. (It will astound you what is possible with some cameras nowadays - shooting in a darkened coal cellar will bring better results than you can see with your naked eyes for those cameras at the top end) - although you don't need that.

A small LED light source will probably not throw enough light across the venue to achieve the result you want, so is a waste of money.

Can you not borrow a couple of suitable camera examples from friends/fellow togs to see the differences for yourself, so that you have a camera body to focus on? Once you know what you want will make saving that much easier.
 
Having read this and your other thread regards shooting at dog shows, I appreciate your budget is limited, but you are looking to achieve the impossible IMHO.

This may sound harsh but you need to accept the reality of what you are asking for on a budget. Being a little more open to system change and trading existing equipment to gain better ISO performance may, in the end be necessary.

Might I suggest saving a little more because it does appear to be the camera body that will make the most difference for what you want. (It will astound you what is possible with some cameras nowadays - shooting in a darkened coal cellar will bring better results than you can see with your naked eyes for those cameras at the top end) - although you don't need that.

A small LED light source will probably not throw enough light across the venue to achieve the result you want, so is a waste of money.

Can you not borrow a couple of suitable camera examples from friends/fellow togs to see the differences for yourself, so that you have a camera body to focus on? Once you know what you want will make saving that much easier.
 
Having read this and your other thread regards shooting at dog shows, I appreciate your budget is limited, but you are looking to achieve the impossible IMHO.

This may sound harsh but you need to accept the reality of what you are asking for on a budget. Being a little more open to system change and trading existing equipment to gain better ISO performance may, in the end be necessary.

Might I suggest saving a little more because it does appear to be the camera body that will make the most difference for what you want. (It will astound you what is possible with some cameras nowadays - shooting in a darkened coal cellar will bring better results than you can see with your naked eyes for those cameras at the top end) - although you don't need that.

A small LED light source will probably not throw enough light across the venue to achieve the result you want, so is a waste of money.

Can you not borrow a couple of suitable camera examples from friends/fellow togs to see the differences for yourself, so that you have a camera body to focus on? Once you know what you want will make saving that much easier.
 
odd jim said:
...but it still wouldn't give the OP that leap in high ISO performance, which is the point of her upgrade. As good as the 50d is (it'll also do video with the magic lantern firmware),
Click to expand...
Her budget doesn't stretch to a camera that will give her that sort of leap which is the POINT of my suggestion .there are lots of cameras out there that will do but NOT on a £200 budget
 
the black fox said:
Her budget doesn't stretch to a camera that will give her that sort of leap which is the POINT of my suggestion .there are lots of cameras out there that will do but NOT on a £200 budget
Click to expand...
But there aren't ANY cameras out there that will solve the OPs issue for what she's prepared to pay, that's the whole point. Having used both 40 and 50d (still owning the 50) there's not much in it in high ISO. So what's the point in spending £150 to be back at square one?

As above, for her budget she's asking the impossible. Shreds sums it up perfectly. Save a little more and she'll have a 5d2 in her bag for just over £400.
 
Last edited:
odd jim said:
But there aren't "lots" of cameras out there that will solve the OPs issue, that's the whole point. Having used both 40 and 50d (still owning the 50) there's not much in it in high ISO. So what's the point in spending £150 to be back at square one?

As above, for her budget she's asking the impossible. Shreds sums it up perfectly. Save a little more and she'll have a 5d2 in her bag for just over £400.
Click to expand...

But buying the 5d2 means I'll have to replace my grip, lenses and other bits too

Which is adding to the cost also

If I were to get a 5d, I'd be as well switching systems as will have to replace everything anyway.
 
gothgirl said:
But buying the 5d2 means I'll have to replace my grip, lenses and other bits too

Which is adding to the cost also

If I were to get a 5d, I'd be as well switching systems as will have to replace everything anyway.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately youve hit the nail on the head. This sort upgrade costs money.

Also you haven't really spent any money on lenses, so a system change or shift shouldn't be an issue? You only have the kit lens and the 55-250. The 50mm will work brilliantly on FF. You could PX the efs lenses for some inexpensive primes.

The grip you can sort out later.

But you will need to spend money for high ISO performance. It's almost the holy grail of photography! (From a technical perspective)
 
Last edited:
Slowly reality is dawning...... a 5D now isn't going to help, its not that much better than a 40D in low light, and requires a lens change. Personally I don't think that a 5DMk2 is the answer either when Canon's low light monster, the 6D can be had for similar money.

This is my view:-

Really you want to be aiming at the 6D, yes I know that funds don't allow purchase at the moment so either just save your money, or buy another (FF compatible lens) like the 85mm f1.8 that will help now by giving you a bit more reach and will work well on the 6D. £200 should be there or thereabouts for the 85mm.

I'd go for the save money option, having just traded away a 6D + Tamron 24-70VC for less than £1K, I would save your money until you can afford to make the change, A gripped 40D has some value, your existing zoom lenses less so, but all of that kit combined with £200 is probablyr halfway to a 6D.+ zoom lens.

Practise with your existing 50mm, crop heavily if required.
 
Mr Perceptive said:
Slowly reality is dawning...... a 5D now isn't going to help, its not that much better than a 40D in low light, and requires a lens change. Personally I don't think that a 5DMk2 is the answer either when Canon's low light monster, the 6D can be had for similar money.

This is my view:-

Really you want to be aiming at the 6D, yes I know that funds don't allow purchase at the moment so either just save your money, or buy another (FF compatible lens) like the 85mm f1.8 that will help now by giving you a bit more reach and will work well on the 6D. £200 should be there or thereabouts for the 85mm.

I'd go for the save money option, having just traded away a 6D + Tamron 24-70VC for less than £1K, I would save your money until you can afford to make the change, A gripped 40D has some value, your existing zoom lenses less so, but all of that kit combined with £200 is probablyr halfway to a 6D.+ zoom lens.

Practise with your existing 50mm, crop heavily if required.
Click to expand...

i agree
 
I agree with the the above about the 6D as well.
After shooting a wedding recently in a fairly dark church on my 70D I was finding I was having the push the ISO up towards 1250 and 1600 at points which whilst the images were acceptable post Lightroom processing. I realized quickly why most Wedding Photographers shoot full frame. Whilst the 70D is a great camera I am now looking at the 6D to give me the gains in ISO performance that I desire. Though I would have no intention of replacing like for like as the 70D would wipe the floor with some of my other photographic interests with it's superior AF system and fast burst rate and the 1.6 crop factor (useful for extra reach!). Ultimately they are both tools suited for particular jobs.
 
On a budget the sensible way of going about it is to upgrade your lenses 1st if you can't afford the latest cameras, and use canons photo processing software as will handle noise in your photos far better than using LR or Photoshop as it strips data from your raw files.
 
Years ago when I went FF, I had to upgrade most of my lenses, too. This photography lark is not cheap if you have a particular need such as low light photography.

Getting it right first time though, in camera, is the way to go rather than faffing with pp. That should be the icing on the cake, not the basic ingredients.

I regularly shoot at 1600 ISO and beyond in pitch black surroundings and get more than satisfactory results with hardly any noise. (I only have a max of 25600 ISO at present but that is due to change) ;)

For once, it is the equipment here that is making more difference than the photographer.
 
Last edited:
gothgirl said:
If I were to get a 5d, I'd be as well switching systems as will have to replace everything anyway.
Click to expand...
Which is an option worth considering. Is it just the high ISO performance where your current set-up leaves you frustrated? or are there compromises in your lenses as well?

If you had no camera and no lenses, what would be the set-up you'd choose to buy?
 
Hotshots said:
On a budget the sensible way of going about it is to upgrade your lenses 1st if you can't afford the latest cameras
Click to expand...
Whilst this is *usually* true, I don't think it is in this case. The OP is constrained on shutter speed because of the need to photograph moving animals, and she's constrained on aperture because of the need to maintain an adequate depth of field. So the only variable she has to work with is ISO, and that points to a camera upgrade rather than a lens upgrade.
 
...and before the OP asks a 7d won't give her the high ISO requirements she wants either :)
 
@gothgirl
I really think this needs a step back and evaluate.
One of the methods we use for evaluating a problem is to repeatedly ask 'why' like a 5 year old. I reckon the answer would lead you here...

I suspect the answer to your problem is to find a different shot, because you've painted yourself into a corner where the only way out is more gear. Set yourself up for static shots that your gear can get, ignore the shots you can't. You're not shooting 3rd division football where the 'action' is the point of the shot. You can shoot each competitor as they leave the ring, and spend 30 seconds on a choice of poses, better pictures, the 'difficulty then is to convince the organisers to give you the opportunity - and you have to do that by selling the positives, more images - better quality.
 
gothgirl said:
Suggest a upgrade to the canon 40d?

Doesn't need to be a big jump up, and I'm not looking to spend huge amounts on a used body...I'm mostly happy with how my 40d performs , just would like something that performs a bit better in low light.

Sticking with canon please.
Click to expand...

The Canon 40D was a exceptionally well made camera with a professional grade metal body and layout.
It can still produce exceptionally fine quality photographs. Modern raw processing engines as in lightroom/photoshop, improve on the "Noise" compared to those available when it was new.

Modern Canon entry level crop sensors have nothing like the build quality but have higher pixel counts and handle high ISO rather better.
I up graded my 40D with a canon 17-55 F2.8 in the first two weeks of ownership. the constant f2.8 is a game changer.

I doubt changing the camera body within your budget, will make much difference at all.
I would step up the lens quality, then save for a better body later.
 
Phil V said:
I suspect the answer to your problem is to find a different shot, because you've painted yourself into a corner where the only way out is more gear....
Click to expand...
I think you've hit the nail on the head, Phil.

If you can't slow down the shutter speed because you need to freeze the action.... if you can't open up the aperture because you need to maintain the depth of field.... if you can't increase the ISO because your camera won't cope and you can't afford the upgrade.... if you can't increase the amount of light available.... then you can't take the shot. So you need to find a different shot to take.
 
All things considered ... I love my 40d , the way it works , the Weight etc .

If I upgraded , I'd like one in the same body range , 50d, 60d etc as I love the function of it

Got on better with it than any of my other cameras

I'm thinking of getting a monopod and speaking to stewards about light use

Plan on skipping the 50d, but if i see a reasonable 60 or 70 will take a punt at it

Also seen a 60d with a 28mm 2.8, which may buy if it goes within my range

And going to look at a 28 2.8
 
STAFF EDIT : No offers for sale outside of the classifieds section please.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
gothgirl said:
All things considered ... I love my 40d , the way it works , the Weight etc .

If I upgraded , I'd like one in the same body range , 50d, 60d etc as I love the function of it

Got on better with it than any of my other cameras

I'm thinking of getting a monopod and speaking to stewards about light use

Plan on skipping the 50d, but if i see a reasonable 60 or 70 will take a punt at it

Also seen a 60d with a 28mm 2.8, which may buy if it goes within my range

And going to look at a 28 2.8
Click to expand...
None of that will really help.
 
I'm still shooting with my 40d around 10 years since I bought it . The 40d has been rated by many as to having one of the best low light performances in any xxd series even more so when you the 50d was released and deemed to have poorer results. I'm only now looking at upgrading and that's as I'm looking at full frame now. Phil's advice maybe the best on here and I'd maybe invest in the 85mm 1.8 . I picked mine up during a promo for £180 which was a steel really not to turn down .
 
odd jim said:
None of that will really help.
Click to expand...

So using a monopod instead of hand holding won't help...

Using a 2.8 , instead of the kit lens won't help...

Having a 60d instead of a 40d won't help..

And potentially being able to USE lighting in situations where I usually can't won't help...

Flipping heck .
 
gothgirl said:
So using a monopod instead of hand holding won't help...

Using a 2.8 , instead of the kit lens won't help...

Having a 60d instead of a 40d won't help..

And potentially being able to USE lighting in situations where I usually can't won't help...

Flipping heck .
Click to expand...


The monopod no - you have a moving subject so shutter speed is key. The subject would still be blurred.

Going to an f2.8 lens will help shutter speed but you'll still need to use high ISO to prevent subject blur, so you'll still have noisy images.

While the 60d is *slightly* better at high ISO, it's higher res sensor is more demanding and still noisy at high ISO, which you'll still have to use.

You won't have a "lighting rig", you'll have a low powered led light which won't throw any useful lift over the subject. These are normally used for macro or fairly close video.
 
Last edited:
gothgirl said:
So using a monopod instead of hand holding won't help...

Using a 2.8 , instead of the kit lens won't help...

Having a 60d instead of a 40d won't help..

And potentially being able to USE lighting in situations where I usually can't won't help...

Flipping heck .
Click to expand...

Monopod does nothing to slow down your subjects so won't help

You already have f/1.8 so how will a slower lens help?

Canon sensors haven't really moved that much in years, not at the rate of the other brands to sequential upgrades don't really make that much difference so changing to a 60D will help a bit but not that much.

Lightroom might help a bit but it can't do miracles.

Personally, and I know lots will disagree, if getting these shots was ALL I cared about without spending loads of cash I would be switching systems to Nikon or Pentax, both of which have excellent high ISO in bodies even a few generations old. Heck, even the D3200 can be had cheap as chips and that has a fantastic sensor in it - way better than any Canon crop body has.
 
Nawty said:
Monopod does nothing to slow down your subjects so won't help

You already have f/1.8 so how will a slower lens help?

Canon sensors haven't really moved that much in years, not at the rate of the other brands to sequential upgrades don't really make that much difference so changing to a 60D will help a bit but not that much.

Lightroom might help a bit but it can't do miracles.

Personally, and I know lots will disagree, if getting these shots was ALL I cared about without spending loads of cash I would be switching systems to Nikon or Pentax, both of which have excellent high ISO in bodies even a few generations old. Heck, even the D3200 can be had cheap as chips and that has a fantastic sensor in it - way better than any Canon crop body has.
Click to expand...
A d3200 won't give her the high ISO boost she needs (if she wants to take the same shots). She really would need to invest in a good FF body ultimately.
 
odd jim said:
A d3200 won't give her the high ISO boost she needs (if she wants to take the same shots). She really would need to invest in a good FF body ultimately.
Click to expand...


It's decent enough at 6400, especially when downsampled, and that's a whole extra stop to play with. MPB have them for £164 and there's a D3300 in the classifieds for less than that.

The first FF body I would be looking at to do the job would be a D700 which has great high ISO and excellent AF, I'd walk straight past the 5Dc and 5Dii. But all of these are out of budget so its a moot point anyway.

The simple fact of the matter is that, as has been said, some things cost money. And as has also been said by quite a few, a good photographer knows how to shoot within their kits limits and not spend their time trying to get shots they can't achieve and just look bad.
 
Ok... the nifty fifty, is a great lens, but it's too close... Hence why I was also using the kit lens.
The 2.8 won't be better than the nifty fifty, but it Will be an improvement on the kit lens, and it's the better focal distance for me than the 50.

The monopod, I've never used one so I am not certain, but can this not be used with panning? which is something that was suggested might help get a shot of movement rather than standing ? if not, a monopod is worth investing in anyway I am sure, as there's many situations I could use it in.

And in regards to lighting, in that post I never mentioned LED's... I Just said that I would speak to the stewards in regards to "lighting"... as in, hopefully some shows might allow me to use flash if I ask permission, and have permission of the owners.

And the 60d, might not be a huge improvemet, but as stated the 40d to 60d is a jump of almost double the mp, from 10 to 18... so this would surely affect the visible noise of the images ? (not at 100%)
And low light aside, I am sure there are other good reasons to upgrade to the 60 if one comes up at a reasonable price ?
 
Last edited:
gothgirl said:
Ok... the nifty fifty, is a great lens, but it's too close... Hence why I was also using the kit lens.
The 2.8 won't be better than the nifty fifty, but it Will be an improvement on the kit lens, and it's the better focal distance for me than the 50.

The monopod, I've never used one so I am not certain, but can this not be used with panning? which is something that was suggested might help get a shot of movement rather than standing ? if not, a monopod is worth investing in anyway I am sure, as there's many situations I could use it in.

And in regards to lighting, in that post I never mentioned LED's... I Just said that I would speak to the stewards in regards to "lighting"... as in, hopefully some shows might allow me to use flash if I ask permission, and have permission of the owners.

And the 60d, might not be a huge improvemet, but as stated the 40d to 60d is a jump of almost double the mp, from 10 to 18... so this would surely affect the visible noise of the images ? (not at 100%)
And low light aside, I am sure there are other good reasons to upgrade to the 60 if one comes up at a reasonable price ?
Click to expand...
Extra MP, if anything, can increase noise in images.
 
StewartR said:
Now, you'll read many comments on the internet that say the 50D noise performance is no better than the 40D. That's probably true, but only up to a point, and you need to understand what people mean by that. You see, most people look at noise by looking at images at 100% magnification. That's fair enough, but the 50D has 15 megapixels and the 40D has 10 megapixels. If you downsample the files to the same size (eg 2 megapixels for on-screen display, or 8 megapixels for a 12"x8" print), you'll be downsampling the 50D image to a greater extent and that will reduce the noise accordingly. Unfortunately I haven't seen any comparisons which look at noise this way so I don't know how much better it would be.
Click to expand...

odd jim said:
Extra MP, if anything, can increase noise in images.
Click to expand...

I'm really lost.
 
gothgirl said:
I'm really lost.
Click to expand...
OK, let's see if we can disentangle this a bit.

Firstly, other things being equal, smaller pixels mean there is more noise at the pixel level. So for example consider the 50D and the 5D II. These came out at the same time so presumably they have sensors which use similar technology. The 50D has 15 MP and the 5D II has 20 MP, but if you scaled up the 50D sensor to full frame size it would have about 38 MP. Therefore the pixels on the 50D are smaller, and you would expect the noise to be worse.

(You have to be very careful when making comparisons like this though, because sensor technology has been improving so rapidly. The "other things being equal" means you have to compare sensors made by the same company at the same time if you want to be confident in your conclusion.)

Secondly, other things being equal, a newer sensor will tend to have less noise at the pixel level than an older one. That's just your basic technology improvement. (Note that it's the age of the sensor design that matters, not the age of the camera. Sometimes Canon will bring out a new camera using the same sensor as its predecessor, and sometimes they cascade down older sensors into the lower models.)

But the third effect is the one I mentioned earlier; reducing the image size reduces noise. If you're aiming for a constant output size such as 2 MP for onscreen viewing or 8 MP for a print, then down sampling from a higher MP image will reduce the noise more than down sampling from a lower MP image.

Does that make sense?

Putting it all together: you'd expect a 50D to have less noise at the pixel level than a 40D because it's a newer sensor design, and if Canon had left it at 10 MP then it surely would have. But they increased the pixel count by 50%, and smaller pixels are noisier, and the net effect was no significant difference at the pixel level. There's still an advantage to the 50D when you're reducing the image size for display or print, but it's probably not a very big advantage.
 
This has now got me intrigued. I have just upgraded to a 70D. I notice it has a medium raw setting that makes it about 12MP instead of the full 20.2MP. This is the same as my old 450D.

Am I right in thinking, however, that it won't be any less noisy than the large raw setting as the pixels are still the same size.

How, though, does the M raw setting work. Does it only use every other pixel, or 12/20ths of the sensor?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top