[kluen]

Hello,

If I may pick your brains please:

I'm currently a 450d user, had it for around a year now.

I mainly shoot in low light at live music events.

I'm considering upgrading to a 40d primarily for the higher available ISO and improved general ISO performance.

Has only one done something similar, or have some low light experience with a 40d they could share?

Thanks in advance.

[Yandros]

Actually I was under the impression that the 450D sensor is better than the 40D! You do get the better AF module though.

Correct me if I'm wrong Canon peeps, but the 500D, 50D or 5DMk2 would offer ISO upgrades.

You might be better off looking at fast glass if you don't have any already.

[kluen]

Hmm not sure, as far as I can see they both use the Digic III chip, with 14 bit A/D conversion (no idea what that does lol).

The top ISO range on the 40d is 3200 with 1600 on the 450d. It may be a case that the 40d's lower megapixels (10 vs 450d's 12) positivly affect the noise levels.

In terms of glass im f1.4 or f2.8 throughout.

It'll be time to save if a 50d is the only way to improve my body however im shocking at saving!

[senu]

Originally Posted by Yandros

Actually I was under the impression that the 450D sensor is better than the 40D! You do get the better AF module though.

No it isnt "better "
it has 2 million more more pixels though
Canon 40D vs Canon 450D / Digital Rebel XSi: Digital Photography Notes

Correct me if I'm wrong Canon peeps, but the 500D, 50D or 5DMk2 would offer ISO upgrades.

Debatable if you compare the huge price jump to FF( 5DmkII) and the fact that the 50D (very good though it is) isn't naturally an upgrade to the 40D and is not considered to be better in lower light ( DP review conclusion isnt very complimentary)

Conclusion - Cons

• High ISO performance worse than 40D
• Reduced dynamic range in the shadow areas compared to EOS 40D
• Per-pixel detail not as good as on good 10 or 12 megapixel cameras
• High-end lenses required to get the most out of the camera
• Poor white balance performance under artificial light
• Flash must be up for AF assist lamp (although AF is good even in low light)
• Live view not as accurate as on 40D (framing very slightly off-center, in contrast detect AF mode not possible to magnify right out to the extreme corners)

Dp review 50D review conclusion

One wonders though considering the no of exceptional images from the 50D users: maybe a case of knowing how to use yourkit

The 500D Im unsure about TBH. DP review considers it not an upgrade but one for anyone thinking of a 450 to consider

If you currently own an EOS 450D or another fairly recent entry-level DSLR from an image quality point of view there is not necessarily a need to upgrade to the EOS 500D. However, the HD video mode, new high-resolution screen or extended ISO range make it easier to justify the expense if you're likely to use these features. For anybody buying their first DSLR the 500D is an easy recommendation.....

Dp review conclusion on the 500D

You might be better off looking at fast glass if you don't have any already.

True at 10Mp compared to the 450Ds 12, you can argue more for better glass as you may not be able to get " better " images, but I suspect youll have an easier time getting them with the 40D, more likely to get more keepers and perhaps get them much faster
I havent actually used the 450D ( just tried it out) but have the 40 and it really does rock
(But then Ive said that about the Canon 30D Nikon D200 and 300D too so maybe Im just easily pleased!)

[Yandros]

I just remember the folks in the 40D forum on dpreview having a tantrum when the 450D was launched, and were even talking about trying to fit a 450D sensor into a 40D body

In the OPs position, I'd be looking at going FF. Looking at the text images, I think the high ISO differences in the DX crowd, even if you go up to a Nikon D300, are pretty marginal.

Used 5D Mk1 for about £900?

Jump ship to Nikon and get a D700?

[senu]

Originally Posted by Yandros

I just remember the folks in the 40D forum on dpreview having a tantrum when the 450D was launched, and were even talking about trying to fit a 450D sensor into a 40D body

It was knee jerk and fuelled by Canons own marketing
I have yet to see anyone go from the 40D to 450D .. unless size has been an issue
Th XXD Series are more photographer friendly even though in objective terms of absolute image output quality , as you say FF is the next real step upwards with the need for costly glass to take advantage of that

[kluen]

Thanks for taking the time to post guys, most useful!

The "boss" wouldnt be happy with going full frame or Nikon so ill have to rule those out!

Expect a 450 listing in classifieds in the near future.

[jradley]

I'm in the same situation, own 450D and want better high iso performance.....

If you can hold off upgrading for a little while the 60D is rumoured to be announced sometime around autumn this year. If the advanced rumours are to be believed it will have about 15Mp so the same as the 50D but will have a completely new design of sensor which supposedly can match the performance of the 5Dmkii. Of course this is purely conjecture and rumour, but since I'm in no real hurry to upgrade I'll wait and see.

If you want to upgrade now personally I'd go for the 40D since I think it offers the best value for performance of any of the Canon bunch above the 450D.

John

[bigtim]

If you want ISO3200 on the 450D just shoot one stop under (-1ev exposure comp) and pull it back up in processing. If you want ISO6400 then just shoot 2 stops under

No need to change body to get these ISOs, if the images are too noisy there's always noiseware or noise ninja (or just convert to black and white for the grainy look ).

[wicker_man]

I recently shot my first gig with my 40D (and 18-50mm f2.8 lens) and I was at ISO3200 for most of the gig, see: Blaze Bayley (with Fury UK) RoadHouse Birmingham, 20/06/2009 - a set on Flickr

I shot in RAW and was very suprised how clean they turned out compared to in-camera JPG, a friend thought they were at ISO800! If you don't already, try using RAW, and also it gives you much more flexibility in processing your photos.

[senu]

Originally Posted by bigtim

If you want ISO3200 on the 450D just shoot one stop under (-1ev exposure comp) and pull it back up in processing. If you want ISO6400 then just shoot 2 stops under

No need to change body to get these ISOs, if the images are too noisy there's always noiseware or noise ninja (or just convert to black and white for the grainy look ).

Not a bad way to put it
The 40D advantage would be cleaner High ISO images (RAW) and a much faster and responsive , robust camera. It is heavier but it feels very purposeful.. That is a fact AF is also faster and more spot on.. most of the time.. In short .. more keepers
Ironically I find that the 30D AF module is pretty well sorted too.... and Canons claim of a better AF in practice compared seems to be .. (in a way) user and lens dependent
This description does not make the 450D any less a camera than it is though
The use of a faster lens , High ISO then noise ninja or ( neat image) with a 40D image would be nothing short of awesome I think..
40D ISO 400 with fill-in flash . I had to reduce exposure in LR

[kluen]

Originally Posted by bigtim

If you want ISO3200 on the 450D just shoot one stop under (-1ev exposure comp) and pull it back up in processing. If you want ISO6400 then just shoot 2 stops under

No need to change body to get these ISOs, if the images are too noisy there's always noiseware or noise ninja (or just convert to black and white for the grainy look ).

I never would have thought of that. Will give it a try next time i'm out.

Originally Posted by wicker_man

I recently shot my first gig with my 40D (and 18-50mm f2.8 lens) and I was at ISO3200 for most of the gig, see: Blaze Bayley (with Fury UK) RoadHouse Birmingham, 20/06/2009 - a set on Flickr

I shot in RAW and was very suprised how clean they turned out compared to in-camera JPG, a friend thought they were at ISO800! If you don't already, try using RAW, and also it gives you much more flexibility in processing your photos.

Looking at those without knowing I wouldnt have guessed they were at 3200, they're very clean.

[senu]

Originally Posted by kluen

I never would have thought of that. Will give it a try next time i'm out.

Certainly worth a try. However, This method is fairly well known and hardware implentation of Higher ISO is infinitely better, bearing in mind that it is a matter of degree.

For instance,I found the noise from high ISO of Canon 400D worse than that of 30D in identical scenes with same lens and had to use more NR on the 400Ds otherwise decent images
Also Noise reduction is already available within Canons DPP software , if you dnt have Noise Ninja ec.
I have Neat Image but I think NR software can "soften" the image albeit in a subtle manner if not used judiciously

[jradley]

Originally Posted by bigtim

If you want ISO3200 on the 450D just shoot one stop under (-1ev exposure comp) and pull it back up in processing. If you want ISO6400 then just shoot 2 stops under

No need to change body to get these ISOs, if the images are too noisy there's always noiseware or noise ninja (or just convert to black and white for the grainy look ).

I understand where you're coming from and agree that if it means you get a shot rather than none at all then it is a trick worth doing.

However as a general rule I wouldn't say underexposing shots is a good alternative to having a camera body/lens capable of getting the shot right in the first place. If you subscribe to that belief why buy a 400mm lens when you could just buy a 200mm and 50% crop, or a 100mm and crop some more - there comes a point where it just doesn't yield the same results as having the right gear for the job.

I love my 450D and it is a great camera, but I am finding a little too often that I want higher iso than what I can get without worrying about noise.

Cheers,

John

[Paranormalist]

Get a 500D!!!

[senu]

Originally Posted by Paranormalist

Get a 500D!!!

DP review does not think so, ( read my post.. )

[HotblackDesiato]

Originally Posted by jradley

I understand where you're coming from and agree that if it means you get a shot rather than none at all then it is a trick worth doing.

Isn't this the same trick Canon employ to give those H1 and H2 ISO settings? It works in a push but in linear gamma it's going to get noisy quickly, as the bits describing the shadows are limited..