which canon body for low light use?

R

robin wood

Suspended / Banned
Messages
27
Edit My Images
No
I have a 300D bought when they first came out and have loved it but think it is time for an upgrade.

I mostly photograph traditional craftsmen at work using natural light to publicise the Heritage Crafts Association, I enjoyed my 50mm 1.8 till it fell apart and have recently got an 85mm 1.8, next purchase will be a sigma 30 1.4 to replace my 28mm 2.8.

I am happy with my 300d in every way except low light performance. 1600 iso is totally unusable and 800 only just so.

I am happy with plastic bodies but want better low light performance. I read of a few folks that had upgraded to 40d for better high iso performance, is this level also available in a cheaper plastic body, 450d for instance?

I don't have unlimited budget. I could run to £400 or so for a second hand 40d but if I could get similar performance for £250 or £300 I would be delighted. Then again if I was told that I would get a huge improvement for £600 I could justify it.

Thanks for any advice.
 
when you start looking at things like a 40d you will get more than just iso improvement. And this should betaken into account. You will get a huge jump in image quality, and that will be the most noticeable improvement.

iso wise you may still struggle on a 40d if you are hitting 1600 on a regular basis, the 40d can do iso1600 and be usable but it depends how close to the edge youa re with it.

i cant recommend anything else as i havent used anything lower. sorry that didnt fully answer your question mate.
 
Nothing (Canon) comes close to the 40D's performance and handling for ~£400 second hand. There are plenty about, so try and find a nice low-mileage model. Always ask the owner for shutter count and check for excessive wear and tear.
 
Thanks for the responses, I have just been searching other threads and reading this http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=179902&highlight=6400 it sounds like Nikon are leading the way with high ISO.

I guess 40d is the easy way to go for me, I have just got the 85 1.8 and have a few cheaper zooms I use for snaps a 75-300 and 28-105

If I am going to spend £400 on a new body plus £250 on a sigma 30 1.4 I wonder if I should consider moving to Nikon. Is it so much better for the low light stuff that I want to do?

These are the sort of images I take http://greenwood-carving.blogspot.com/2009/08/david-bedford-hand-engraver.html

These done with sigma 50mm macro f2.8

Thanks Robin
 
not in that price range im afraid..
 
fraggle101 said:
not in that price range im afraid..
Click to expand...

Not sure what this is saying.

There is nothing significantly better than my 300d in that price range.?

Everything under £600 gives poor low light performance you need a 5d?

I had thought that my photo quality was more limited by lens and photographer skill than body. With lights I have produced good print quality images from the 300d and sigma 50 macro stopped down but wide open in available light I have not been happy.
 
Not sure what this is saying.
Click to expand...

At a guess, I think it means that you wont see any difference between the canon and nikon bodies that are in that price range.

Your other option here, if you haven't already, is to take a closer look at noise removing software. There are people here that get way better high ISO performance from bodies that I use because they know what to do these things. :)
 
How about a 500d at £400? http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=180779

Would that give as good image quality in a low light situation as a 40d?

I know the 40d has metal body and probably extra features that I am unlikely to use. I don't think the 15m pixel sensor is such an advantage as my current 6mp seems to give good resolution so long as light and lens are good.

Anyone use a 500d in low light? Anywhere I could see sample images?
 
try fickr for example images. try here Linky there are a few decent shot in there and some of them taken in low light..

I think this body and the 30 1.4 and 50 1.8 could give you some nice shots..

Just a thought but have you tried using bounced flash? You can get very natural looking results and not ruin the ambience of the shot if done well/correctly.
 
I'm surprised that ISO 1600 is unusable.

Although others disagreed with me in another thread I found my 300D ISO 1600 to be perfectly usable as long as they were well exposed and minimal cropping was done.

I'd have thought that shooting RAW and running modern noise reduction software would make your shots usable at a fraction of the cost of a new camera, perhaps even at no cost as there are free RAW and noise reduction packages on the net.
 
I owned a 300D as my first DSLR and was very happy with it for a few years. After the 20D came out I upgraded and found that the noise improvement was very noticable - particularly at ISO 800 and ISO 400. I kept ISO 1600 for use in emergencies only but it wasn't all that bad. The speed was much much better and that was the main reason for the upgrade I made back then.

The 40D will be even better still and you can see the kind of noise performance here on the DPReview site:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/CanonEOS40D/page19.asp

Even though you don't mind plastic bodies I would seriously consider the 40D as an excellent upgrade package - the body feels a lot sturdier to use, the AF is much better than on the 300D and you'll see a definite jump in acceptable ISO range and dynamic range. Find a good 2nd hand one and be pleased, you'll be glad you waited and saved for a little bit longer.
 
Do you use AF in your low light work? If you do i'd go for the 40D over the 500, since the AF will cope better with focusing in low light, and noise is irrelevent if your photos are out of focus.
 
I would reccomend the 40D . I use ISO 800 a lot and 1600 is usable if the exposure is right
Its worth getting a copy of noise reduction software , I use neat image its excellent and there is a free version
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top