xti vs 5D mark 2

[john_valjean]

<p>I like to share a story with the forum members and maybe somebody can give an opinion or make a comment. I have been using an XTI body for a while and I became very comfortable with the camera and the lenses I use with it. I know the shortcomings and I know what results to expect in different scenarios. So my kids are playing at the Gym (very poor lighting), so of course tried to take some pictures with no flash that turn out to be garbage material as expected. A friend of mine buys the 5D Mark 2 and let me use it. I bumped the ISO to 6400 and took some shots using an aperture of 4.0 and variable focal lengths, I was so impressed with the pictures, for a 5x7 no issue whatsoever with noise due to the high ISO etc.<br>

So my question is, forget the full frame advantage and the better built quality, is it possible that having this camera would make it so easy for me to take such pictures, I mean everything I have been hearing is that it is not the equipment but the techniques etc. I was very very impressed with that camera. Of course I can't justify it to myself or my wife to fork the $2500 on the camera.</p>

[elliot1]

<p>Low ISO is always prefered over high ISO even with the MKII. You can get better results with your XTI by investing in Canon's $100 50mm f1.8 lens.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Get a nice EF 50mm f/1.8 mk ii, for sure. But low ISO is not <strong><em>"always"</em> </strong> preferred over high ISO.</p>

<p>Even with fast lenses, this low ISO idea can be taken too far. High ISO is better than no picture, just as GAF high-speed slide film was better than no picture back when. Sometimes, it is even the case that by mimicking the "graininess" of old high-speed films, the high ISO can produce a picture that <em>looks</em> like a proper "low light" picture. Don't fight it, embrace it!</p>

<p>High ISO is definitely a tool to be used with caution, and where it is appropriate, but why buy modern advanced cameras if you are going to ignore the features and advantages you get with them? Frankly I find even the 6400 of the older xxD and 5D to be very useful, and you might find them to be alternatives to the 5D mk ii that would still meet your needs, especially with the "nifty fifty" or, even better, one of the faster short telephoto zoom lenses.</p>

<p> </p>

[mark_pierlot]

<p>While Elliot is correct that low ISO is superior to high ISO, sometimes you can't obtain proper exposure without "bumping" the ISO. And the 5D Mark II's IQ at high ISO's is quite simply staggering, as you have discovered, John. I detest using a flash unless it's absolutely necessary, much preferring the "natural" look of images taken in available light. So the Mark II has been a godsend for me. And this is coming from a guy who still shoots film!</p>

<p>Technique will always be 90% of the story, but to shoot effectively in very low light requires a tripod and a very still subject, or a camera body capable of producing low noise images at high ISO's. The Mark II is such a body, and it's worth every penny IMHO. </p>

<p>The fastest lens in the world on a Rebel (or on a film body) doesn't approach the low light image-capture capability of the Mark II, regardless of what the Luddites might claim.</p>

<p>By the way, isn't it "Jean Valjean"?</p>

[john_valjean]

<p>Jean Valjean is the character from les miserables, I get this a lot ... thanks for the advice.</p>

[frank_page]

<p>I have photographed my son playing basketball in gyms with a 20D and f/2.8 lenses. It is tough with that camera to get a shutter speed fast enough to freeze action without choosing an ISO that is really grainy - ISO 800 barely works, 1600 is better (but grainy on the 20D) and 3200 would be preferable (but is way too grainy on the 20D). By the way, no amount of technique will freeze action at too slow a shutter speed.<br>

<br /> Since my son likes basketball and will be playing it in the future, from what I have read the 5D Mark II is the best affordable solution for the situation (the best from my reading would be the Nikon D700, but I can't afford to switch...).<br>

<br /> In this case, where you want to take photos of action in poor/little lighting without flash, a digital camera body that can shoot cleanly at high ISOs will make a very, very big difference.</p>

[mike_gendimenico]

<p>I own a 5D and absolutley love the low light capability. I use it for film set and event photography (such as concerts) where it's not practical or desirable to use a flash and have gotten great handheld results at 1600 or 3200 iso w/ 2.8 L lenses (and the MkII is suppossed to be even better).</p>

[naturetrek]

<p>I have the XTi and I also have the new 50D (which is very much the same as 40D). The low light capability of the 50D is impressive, compared to the XTi. Not sure how the 50D compares to the 5DII at ISO 6400, but I get really good results at high ISO and low light.</p>

<p>My point is, you don't need to cough up $2500 to upgrade the XTi. Try out the 40D and see how well it performs for your needs.</p>

[mark_pierlot]

<p>Sorry, John, I thought that your photo.net user name was a pseudonym. Et oui, I'm well aware that Jean Valjean is a Victor Hugo character.</p>

<p>By the way, there's no comparison between the high ISO capabilities of the xxD series bodies and the 5D Mark II, not to mention the overall IQ. But only you can decide whether the Mark II is worth the extra cost.</p>

[mark_pierlot]

<p>Addendum to my last post:</p>

<p>With a history of using FD and EOS film bodies, I wasn't interested in crop frame, and so the 5D Mark II was the "natural" choice for me. Once I started to use it, I was simply floored by its high ISO image quality. It has quite literally changed the way I approach low light photography.</p>

[chrisjb]

<p>G`day John, guess you proved to yourself how much difference there is without extra work, I waited for the 5d2 but went back to the 5d as it was sufficient for my purpose. Diana d I agree with, as like most things a compromise is often needed. The newer xxd models are improving with high ISO software enhancements, plus combined with other softwares can give a reasonable image and as stated better than none. We use 40d`s for our main work at 800ISO and some stage stuff at 3200 is not at all bad, the 50d may be better not sure how high ISO goes with it but its a 1/2 way alternative when put with f1.4~f2.8 lenses..cheers :)</p>

[neill_farmer2]

<p>I have usedf my XTi at ISOs up to 1600 for low light stuff. I find it is vital to get the shot well exposed, pushing under exposure further in PP and then sharpening brings out the nasties. OTOH good exposure, moderate PP sharpening will produce quite usable A4 prints. I only shoot RAW, don't know what happens if you shoot JPEGs.</p>

[paul_b._davis1]

<p><em>I mean everything I have been hearing is that it is not the equipment but the techniques etc.</em></p>

<p>This is a myth perpetuated by elitist digital photographers who in turn inherited it from film photographers. From the film perspective, film is film is film. It's all 35mm, it's all cheap, it's printable everywhere, and it works the same in a $25 body as it does in a $1000 body.</p>

<p>The reality of today's situation is far less conservative than that particular mindset. Skill gets you the composition, it gets you the creative element, and it ultimately plays to the difference between "Joe's vacation snapshots" and a higher level of quality work output. Good photographs take skill, creativity and work.</p>

<p>Well lit snapshots of your kid's basketball game merely require an accurate, sensitive camera sensor with decent glass in front of it. The rest is up to you.</p>

<p><em>Of course I can't justify it to myself or my wife to fork the $2500 on the camera.</em></p>

<p>Try an original 5D. Since it's full frame, it also features excellent high-ISO performance, and can now be picked up for a pretty good price on the used market. I bought one a few months ago amid worries that I'd just be wanting the 5D MKII, but I honestly haven't thought about upgrading since I saw the image quality it was giving me.</p>

<p>I've actually started worrying about buying another one before the used market dries up.</p>

<p>-Paul B. Davis</p>

 

[ken schwarz]

<p>I believe that you can do more with the XTI body that you might realize. I think that the most critical issue is "shutter lag"--the time between the moment you press the button and the picture is taken. The XTI is very good here, so you have lots of options. Here are some "tricks". Try shooting at low shutter speeds but pan with the subject as it moves through the frame. This will often express the feeling of motion much more powerfully than the frozen motion of a high-speed shot. (Most sports pictures just look like a tangle of figures and are not very interesting, I think. This will give you a much more exciting result.) The other is to take a picture of your subject just before he moves. What you will find is that not only will he be conveniently still so that you can get a sharp shot, this will be the moment with the most drama, because you will be able to read the unfolding story in your subject's face and pose. For both of these, you usually need to get in pretty close and/or have a long lens to fill the frame with your subject. Here, the XTI will help because it is a crop body. The 50/1.8 is a good choice; use it at f/2.0 or f/2.8 to get enough depth of field so that it's not quite so fussy about perfect focus. For telephoto, there are many choices in the Canon line, but they can get expensive. You might consider the 200/2.8, as a lower-cost, no-compromise alternative to a tele-zoom. Finally, if you need it, go ahead and pump up ISO to the max. Shoot RAW and salvage the picture in post-processing. If you get a lot of noise, just convert the shots to black-and-white: the noise will look "artistic". Besides, gym lighting gives lousy color anyway, even in the best cameras at the lowest ISO.</p>

[DickArnold]

<p>I have both an XTi and a 5D. First there is no 6400 setting on a 5D as stated above. You can get 6400 by pushing 3200 a stop in PS. Not so good. 5D 3200 still amazes me as compared to the XTi which only goes to 1600. However, I have taken a lot of very good sports pictures with the XTi. I once did sports for a paper and know how to get passable pictures for publication and the XTi is fully capable of doing that. I learned long ago to keep a flash mounted on my camera when doing high school sports because of poorly lit end zones and gyms with sickly yellow pale lighting. In my opinion if you want to do good sports you need to know how to effectively use flash on occasion. It saved many a picture for me particularly in areas of high contrast lighting. The XTi supposed shutter lag has never really bothered me. See below swimming picture. I have always put lenses before bodies in my purchasing. A fixed focus 200 2.8 is a great economical lens but fails when a fullback is thundering toward you on the sidelines while you are trying to shoot a picture while trying mightily to get the hell out of the way. 70mm is very important. I have done a lot of swimming recently with both the XTi and the 5D. The 5D is definitely better in low light such as the dark end of the Harvard pool last weekend, however I have gotten very good pictures at that end of the pool with XTi and some flash at 800 iso. Noise Ninja is a good investment. I bought a Canon 70-200 2.8L in 1996. I have used it quite effectively on a number of bodies, including the Xti for sports, weddings, wildlife etc. It works as new and it did this past weekend. IMO the 70-200 is a much better investment for sports use than a 5DII for effective picture taking if you are an amateur. My philosophy has always been to make the most effective use of what I have until I become overcome with lust for a piece of equipment I don't have and succumb to it. I still have made most improvement by improving my knowledge and skills but still hark back to my mostly manual Bronicas for some of my best pictures. </p><div></div>

[belman]

<p>Unless a sports photographer has access to ceiling strobes, shooting at high iso is required. I often find myself shooting at 3200 iso in order to obtain a shutter speed that will stop the action, while using an aperture that will create an adequate DOF (usually 2.8 min). The key to less noise at higher iso is correct exposure, but even then I still run my final images through Noise Ninja. </p>

<p>A high end camera will afford you higher iso settings with less noise. The amount you want to spend is the only barrier to the performance and quality you can obtain. Another consideration, if you shoot indoor sports continually, is the camera's, and/or lenses', ability to focus quickly. For these two reasons, I'm eagerly awaiting the 1d Mark IV.</p>

<p> </p>

[markonestudios]

The high ISO performance of the 5D2 is indeed amazing, especially when compared to a camera like the XTi (which I own and love). It indeed pushes the boundaries of what has previously been considered possible as far as low-light photography. I am planning to get one myself as soon as possible. I shoot semi-pro (i.e part time but for money) so I shall consider it a business expense. I think it's worth every penny.

[JDMvW]

<p>Of course, I <em>meant</em> to say ISO <strong>3200</strong> of the old xxD and 5D. The trick of underexposing and processing produces a little more "noise" than even <em>I</em> appreciate, and it's hard to avoid banding .....</p>

[philip_wilson]

<p>As others have said the 5DII is amazing for high ISO use. I am a dedicated film user and bought the 5DII for several reasons, one of which was to shoot kids ice hockey. The 5DII is amazing at high ISO it allows me to get shots where otherwise I could not. I often end up at 1/200 and ISO 3200 with F2.8. While I can get the F2 200mm lens I need a spped of about 1/200 to freeze motion so these shots would not be possible with film or a cheaper digital body. By the way i try and limit myself to 3200 ISO on the 5DII</p>