D5200 hi ISO versus 60D

<p>I'm set up with a 60D and good Canon glass. I'm working toward more portraiture and want to gain clean hi ISO images, ie; 800-3200. My 60D is OK up to ISO 400 but then it gets bad.<br />I was considering the move to FF to get clean hi ISO's but then read a review about the excellent hi-ISO of Nikon's D5200. The price of the camera is certainly an attraction but can I really get near FF hi-ISO performance from it?<br>

Thanks</p>

<p>Sorry, but define "bad" when it comes to noise? The EOS60D uses the same sensor as the 7D, which according to many on this site can do ISO 1600 just fine, ISO3200 in case of need for non-critical images.... that seems to contrast a bit with 'only up to ISO400'. Sorry to sound a bit rude, but maybe you should pixelpeep a bit less, and print a few files shot at ISO1600, and see how clean they are. I think the 60D should be fine (and I know quite a few who use it, also at high ISOs - files look just fine). Of course, if you want to see noise, it's there, but in reality people look at an image to see the subject, not the noise.</p>

<p>Either way, I would think very hard before having to sell off good lenses (which will cost money) because a single generation of camera of Brand A seems better than Brand B. You'll keep on switching like this, and loosing money each and every time. The grass is always greener somewhere else. Better to focus on what you have, and what you can do with it.</p>

<p>Hi Bob,<br /> If you go here http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikon-d5200/10 there is one example chart for jpg and one for RAW you can change which camera's you compare and looking at the 60d next to the d5200 I would say the d5200 does have a slight edge, but whether it is enough to change a whole system is up to you. I also looked at the 5D mark iii, D800 and 6D and would say they all have better noise control than the d5200.<br>

Edit: I have to agree with Wouter's comment I use a 60d and have not had any problem using photos up to 1600 or even more.</p>

<p>I'm using the D7100, which has the same sensor as the D5200. It shoots very cleanly up to ISO 2000. I will use 3200 when needed and do just a bit of post processing. Just curious, why on earth would you shoot portraits at ISO 3200? I try to stick to ISO 200, but I am using studio flash with nearly unlimited power. Maybe instead of spending huge money on a camera and lens change you might consider a couple of portable 400ws monolights? The problem with changing camera systems is that six months after you do it, there will be a new camera out that would have made the change uneeded.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

<p>I have a portable, 'studio in a bag' when I go to client's offices or apartments. Then I can shoot at base ISO's easily. But I am starting to do more outside, environmental, natural light stuff and that's where my question about high ISO comes in. When I look at my images on screen at 100% the noise from ISO 400 is very apparent. But I think what some of you are saying is correct. The first thing I should do is shoot some outdoor samples at 1600 and make a print. And to that 'grass is greener' very rude comment. You are probably right, not rude. And I agree, if the difference between D5200 and my 60D is only a slight one, then there is no real reason to changes systems. I guess the next steps are mine.<br>

Thanks for the input. Bob</p>

<p>The D5200 is about one stop better than the 60D at high ISO. It is definitely NOT worth jumping ship to switch brands; I don't think that you've made a realistic assessment of the investment involved (time, money, unfamiliarity with new equipment and having to learn it, potential missed shots and mistakes due to that familiarity, etc). Really, switching brands is almost never worth it. You are definitely not going to be able to jump up from ISO 400 to ISO 3200 and keep your image quality, sorry.</p>

<p>For portraiture, since it's controlled environments and lighting, why don't you just use a tripod and/or use some artificial lighting? Portraiture is ALL lighting. With proper light setup, you can easily enhance artificial lighting, instead of overpowering it. Consider some reflectors as well. Being able to be at lower ISO will be worlds better than investing in a new camera, and galaxies better than investing in a new brand. When I'm playing/testing a new lens, my often unwilling girlfriend and her cat are often the unwilling subjects in our dim apartment. Even without pulling out the speedlights, the tripod allows me to shoot at shutter speeds like 1/15, letting me use that much lower ISO.</p>

<p>If you shoot portraits and would like to have excellent high-ISO results, I think it is a good idea to move to full-35mm-frame bodies. That will also give you better options for portrait lenses. Since you have been using Canon, you are better off with either a 5D Mark III or a 6D, but I should point out that the 6D looks every bit like a consumer-grade DSLR.</p>

<p>Ariel, I guess the tripod is an option but I hate to add more weight to my 'studio in a bag'. But it certainly is an option worth considering. Much simpler than changing brands.<br>

Shun, funny you should say that about the 6D. I was recently having a discussion with whom I felt was a real 'gear snob'. He said he didn't think much about the 6D, that it was nothing more than a 60D with a full frame sensor. I told him, "I'm totally in." The bells and whistles of 'pro' gear doesn't mean much for the way I shoot. My stuff is not physically abused, frame rates mean nothing. I just need to change the basic photographic options like focus, shutter speed, ISO and aperture and that's all I really use. A 60D with a full frame would be just great. <br>

But after all this input, I think I'll just work with my 60D, good glass and maybe a tripod. <br>

Thanks all, Bob</p>

<p>I second what Ariel said above. Portraits are all about controlling light. It is the Light that sets the mood and raises the level of "artistry." Below is a shot I took a few weeks ago of my son and the owner (Ron Cameron) of Hilo Ukeleles & Guitars. Since my camera (Leica IIIc) didn't have flash sync, I had someone hold a white poster board to the right of the store owner to kick some light back and even it out. Shot was made with 1/20s and f4. The ISO? I was shooting Ilford FP4, ISO 100. Camera was solidly anchored on a nearby counter top, tripped by Leica cable release. If I can do this with 70 yr. old gear, surely you can do it with four yr. old gear?</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p><div></div>

<p>Yes. When I bring my studio with me, I have all the power and modifiers I need to create just the look I want given the face and personality in front of me. My only issue is when I'm out on the streets of New York, in the afternoon shade and want to get a fast shutter speed in low soft light. I favor not having a tripod so I can handhold and move around my subject, quickly grabbing those fleeting moments of expression. The quality of that kind of light is flattering and contextual, environmentally speaking. It's just usually at a low level. And it's always just me and my subject so no assistants are available.</p>

<p>Bob, what you are describing is more what I'd call "street photography" than portrait. With portrait you are usually working with your subject in a two-way exchange. Street photography is strictly candid and impromptu. You subjects often don't know they are being photo'd. My two favorite cameras for this are 1) Rolleiflex f2.8. 2) Nikon D5200. The d5200 is a small camera that looks very unassuming. Smaller cameras like this seem to put strangers a bit more at ease than pointing a big camera with a honking big lens at them. The main reason I like the D5200 for street photography is that like the Rolleiflex, you can fold out the screen so you hold the camera at waist level to take a shot. This does two things for you. First, it steadies the camera much more than holding it to your face. Second, it has you looking down and not directly at your subject--much more discreet! This would be the reason to buy a D5200, not so much the sensor.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

<p>Kent, while I have done street portaiture, I have a whole gallery on my site and on youtube as well, what I'm talking about in this post is actual portraiture, just using the street as a backdrop. You can see my street portraiture here: <a href="

These were done with a very long tele-zoom. Most of the time the people had no idea I was shooting them. Some did and you can tell those. But what I'm talking about here is taking a client outside, or inside a space like the Metropolitan Museum of Art, and shooting them, portrait style with poses, expressions and everything. That is where the high ISO comes in. All of the people will be aware of my presence because they're paying me to do it!</p>

<p>Ah, OK. In some of those places you probably couldn't get away with a ,more formal portrait shot because the general manager would want you to pay or get a permit. In that sort of "guerilla" photography I can see where you'd need to stay inconspicuous by not using flash or tripod. My solution would be to use a Sigma 85mm f1.4 on the D7100, or your 60D.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

<p>I've been doing "casual" natural light portraits since the 60's with all kinds of cameras. From the D70 on I've used 1600 iso without a hitch. My current camera, a D7100 at 24 mp is clearly capable of iso 3200 if you can stand a little "grain." 1600 is very clean. I compared the raw files provided by dpreview on the 60d and d7100. The 60d looks closer to the d7100 images at 3200 or so. I do shoot at iso 3200 a lot indoors. You have to remember that often a print will be reduced from the native size of 13.3 x20 inches at 300ppi, which reduces the grain. The raw image of a full frame Nikon d600 is grainless at iso 1600, and I would guess the Canon FF cameras would be similar, but of course you are paying more for it. </p>

<p>By the numbers (from the DxOMark site), the D5200 is not all that much better in the noise department than the Canon 60D.</p>

<p>You may see the most improvement by improving your post processing skills and software. Are you shooting RAW? How are you post processing your images (what software are you using)? Are you making prints from your images, if so what size? What lenses are you using? What is your budget?</p>

<p>@Elliot, I always shoot RAW and use LR4 for most of my PP. I put the magnifier on an area of slight shadow and detail so I can get an idea of what is happening to details and noise. I try to just pull it so some of the larger noise is knocked down but so the details are maintained as much as possible. If I do sharpen, I always use the mask option to contain the effect. I always want to be able to print at decent sizes, say 16X20. I do that with my architectural stuff and that's my target, sharp and clear at 16X20. However, since b&w is my thing, and the 60D noise is pretty grainlike and uniform, I might be able to be happy with the noise that's left with ISO 1600. In film days, "don't fear the grain" was my mantra. Maybe it still should be. <br />@Steve, that is what started this whole post, the idea, like you say, to be "grainless" at 1600. Maybe I just need to sell some work with what I've got and take the 6D or used MK II route.</p>

<p>Since the D5200 sensor is the same as the D7100, here is an example of a shot with the d7100 at 1600 iso demonstrating typical noise/grain. I find it quite pleasing, coming from Tri-X days! This is a 100% crop of course. Processed in ACR 5.7 (similar to LR 4) with no sharpening (set to zero).</p><div></div>

<p>Steve, I have to say, for b&w final output, that's some beautiful noise. VERY fine 'grain like' structure with well defined details. I'm not even sure I'd apply any NR at all on this. In b&w, I think it would look great. With this as a benchmark, I'm going to have to go out and shoot some 1600 tomorrow and compare. Thanks.</p>

<p>You might try going to <a href="http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-eos-6d/23"><strong>this page.</strong></a>(Entering ISO 3200 might give you a better idea of what you are likely to be up against in most situations.) Now, "turn the page" to compare results shot with raw. You might be surprised at what some of the less expensive full-frame cameras can do with raw files.</p>

<p>Would your existing Canon glass work on a FF camera (such as the 6D or the 5D III), or would you have to start from scratch? I think that you need to look carefully at costs versus expected benefits of changing either formats or brands, although there is little doubt that full-frame sensors do perform better than crop sensors in low light and with high ISO. I had the Canon T2i, which I used with good glass, and it was fine at base ISO but deteriorated rapidly at higher ISOs. I still had the 5D II at the time and had a basis for comparison. (The T2i did about as well as the 60D and 7D where image quality was concerned, although it not as good a camera in general as the 60D or 7D.)</p>

<p>If you are going to have to change your glass to move to FF, then changing brands might make sense. I repeat "might."</p>

<p>--Lannie<strong><br /></strong></p>

<p>Landrum, My 'portrait' glass is EF so yes, it will work on FF. I'm going to see what my camera does at 1600 using the same kind of shot that that was posted earlier of the leafy stuff with a blurred background. That's a great image type to compare noise in details and also in a soft, monochromatic background.</p>

<p>Unless you have only 1 or 2 low-price lenses, changing systems just doesn't make any economic sense. Nikon and Canon are pretty much neck-and-neck WRT image quality, lens range, sensor technology and everything else. One maker's camera might be briefly ahead of the game, but then the other will just play catch-up or push even further ahead. Besides, a lot of the "advances" in noise reduction have simply come from better in-camera software processing, and nothing that can't be done equally well in post from a raw file.</p>

<p>If you really need 3200 ISO for portraiture, then you probably want to find better lighting! Afternoon shade should need no more than 400 ISO really. It'll read about LV 9 or 10, and 1/125th @ f/4 and ISO 400 should do fine.</p>

<p>I have already investigated this issue. There has been a performance gap between Nikon and Canon sensors regarding noise and dynamic range for many years which I know from real use. And I know what you mean about being disappointed from ISO 400 and up. But you are not going to get a full stop of difference with the sideways switch you are thinking of. Switching to Nikon would be a bit better, switching to full frame would be a lot better but you would need to evaluate the value proposition.</p>

<p>I'm beginning to think, from all your input, that the 'sideways' shift in the cropped sensor technology might not be the answer. As I've usually thought, it's looking more like I might be better to wait until I can get into the full frame arena. Still going to test a shot and see how the 60D compares to that D7100 image though. It's got me curious. And I've shot in several interior places, with great soft but weak light and found that ISO 400 wasn't cutting it. </p>

<p>Bob, that dpreview page suggested by Landrum is a good place to download raw files and open in your particular raw converter to compare. I just re-compared the raw 60D test image and did a side by side comparison with the D7100 raw image and to my eye they actually are pretty similar. I don't think I could tell which was which in a blind test. The first time I compared them yesterday I accidentally did not turn off sharpening in the conversion of the 60D image, making it look noisier. My image posted above is well exposed, and a underexposed image will of course be grainier. Still, doing the comparison with your camera will give you a good idea what you are working with. </p>

<p>I also just went on to DXO and used their low light chart. If you go by their 'low light' findings, the D5200 is only about a 1/2 stop better, roughly 800 ISO versus 1200 ISO. That ISO 800 is pretty consistent with my own personal observations with my RAW CR2 files. Then I perused the upper reaches of their chart where I found the full framers with ISOs around 2200. I guess that's where I really want to be and a new 6D or used 5D MKII is about the best way to get there. <br>

So I'm going to stay with what I've got because my grass is fairly green here if I just step back. Going to have to save the pennies for FF but seems like I'll be pretty happy when I do.<br>

Thanks everybody. You all had great input and I really appreciate your help.<br>

Bob</p>