Does upgrading from 40D make a big difference in low light?

[tina___cliff_t]

<p>I've been struggling with low light shots where I'm not permitted to use flash, or any additional lighting. For instance in some churches. I feel like I'm maxing out my 40D (highest ISO, f2.8, and between 60-125 shutter speed depending on movement), and still ending up with images that have to be lightened via lightroom etc. Which doesn't leave for very crisp looking photos, and often very grainy. </p>

<p>I don't have a high budget for an upgrade (otherwise there would be a few cameras I would love to get). But I'm looking at being maxed out in about the $1000-1500 range. I'm just not sure if it would be worth spending the money on say a 50D, because I haven't read very much saying that it makes a huge difference from the 40D. </p>

<p>So I'm looking for suggestions, an opinions if its worth upgrading (and maybe what to upgrade to in that price range), or just to keep managing with what I have now until I can afford better. </p>

<p>I figured I'd post here since I'd want to stay with Canon.</p>

<p>Thanks everyone for any advice. </p>

[robertbody]

<p>Yes staying with same brand would be a good choice, there are too many variables when switching brands... meaning too many expenses, and then there are the differences to get used to.<br /> Switching to 7D would show some benefit for higher ISO, switching to 5D Mark II would show more benefit, since it is a Full-Frame sensor, and Full-Frame sensors have better Low Light behavior.<br /> You could get a faster prime, 50mm f/1.4 or 85mm f/1.8, or 35mm f/2. Which focal lengths are you covering? A zoom range probably?<br /> The real way to improve low light performance is with a full-frame sensor like 5D2, 50D wouldn't give you much help at all, 7D probably some benefit, but i don't know if it would be a practical improvement for your case. Camera bodies are expensive to rent, but places such as BorrowLenses.com and LensRentals.com do rent them for shortest periods of 3/4 days. At $110/$188 for 7d/5d2 [at least from BorrowLenses, possibly slightly less from the other source], it's not a bargain in this case. Lens rentals are a lot more reasonably priced. I mentioned renting as a "try before you buy" option, but it's not cost effective.<br /> Bottom line is you are asking for too much from a cropped sensor + f/2.8 lens, both should be "upgraded" for best experience, full-frame camera and faster lens, f/1.4 or f/1.8 if budget allows.</p>

[picturesque]

<p>50D will not make a huge difference from 40D. 5D or 5D II might make a bigger difference (due to full frame handling noise better). Perhaps an even bigger difference is getting faster lenses so you aren't stuck with f2.8. Sounds like you are just running into the EV 'ceiling' with your particular gear, which is not enough for the light levels you are working with. Also, the underexposure just adds to the apparent noise. Cropped sensor cameras get 'grainy' pretty fast from pulling up the exposure in post. If you don't need to pull the exposure up, the noise is pretty OK.</p>

<p>A 35 f2 is pretty cheap and good. A 50mm f1.4 is reasonable and very good. An 85mm f1.8 is reasonable and excellent.</p>

[robertbody]

<p>First you should mention the lenses you use, that's always the best thing when you ask a question, mention all the equipment.<br /> Then the next question is, could you still use those lenses on a full-frame body, when a given focal length will look way differently........ 24mm x 1.6=36mm on 40D vs 24mm on 5d2<br /> If you would be ok with that and wanted to try the world of Full-frame, then Adorama has a Refurbished 5d2 for $2200 which from all the reviews feels just like a brand new one, has been checked by Canon... and if Adorama is out of stock on it, wait a few days, they get more all the time. The last time they ran out, within 24hours they had stock on it. For $100 more I can tell you where to get it brand new from a good source, small shop, not in NY, but their return policy would not be as good as Adorama's, so I'd go for that Refurbished. With a bit of increase to your $1500 limit [but $700, so it's not a little increase], you could keep your 40D as well, try the new [refurbished] 5d2....... like it, then sell your 40D, or decide it's not for you.</p>

[tina___cliff_t]

<p>Thanks, we've had a 3 cases so far that we've been stuck in the far back, so zooming was good. But I have broke out my 50mm f1.8 if I was close enough. Maybe I'll just look into another lens instead of another body for now. </p>

[ilya_e]

<p>I'd recommend full frame and 5D in particular. They are known to perform best in low light conditions. With your budget you can afford a very good copy of original 5D plus a fast lens like 50mm 1.4 or 85mm 1.4.</p>

[tina___cliff_t]

<p>The main ones we use are the 17-50 2.8, 70-200 2.8, 50 1.8. We also have a 18-55 3.5-5.6, 28-85 4-5.6 (I think), but only use them in better lit situations. </p>

[robertbody]

<p>135mm f/2 would be faster [than f/2.8] but not that much, anything else faster than f/2.8 would not be an affordable telephoto, and sounds like it's a telephoto you want. You should be using a monopod to help with camera shake, and maybe the subjects are still for the duration of the exposure.<br>

135mm f/2 is too pricey at $1000 new, but 85mm f/1.8 should be way less.<br>

You should also post some pictures in there, an mention your exposures for those pictures, the more info the better.</p>

[picturesque]

<p>85mm f1.8. On a cropped sensor camera, it is about 135mm. Breaking out the tripod would not hurt, whereas being forced to go underexposed hurts a lot. If you are underexposed on the 5D and need to pull up the exposure, you are still going to get noise. I'd work on the exposures first.</p>

[KenPapai]

<p>YES</p>

<p>One reason I upgraded to 7D from 40D was the 7D has MUCH BETTER high ISO performance (1600 and up) than the 40D. Yes. Indeed. Plus the 7D AF blows away the 40D's, esp. in low light and fast glass.</p>

[jeff_higdon]

<p>My serious work is always in low light venues - concerts, recitals, plays etc. so I always enjoy reading about the capabilities of the Canon bodies and lenses.<br>

I have used, from time to time, most of the Rebels as well as the 30D/40D/50D and the 5D mk1. Of these, the 5Dmk1 (I have not used the 5Dmk2 and that's probably your best bet for an upgrade) and the T2i have performed above all the rest when using high ISO in low light venues. I have found little difference between the 40D and the 50D to each other and each is only slightly better than the 30D (and that could have been my imagination).<br>

(I have found it interesting that writers like to brag about a camera or a lens' high ISO ability and then post photos to prove it when the photos are taken in very bright arenas or in the outdoors well before susnset. There's a difference, IMHO, of using the high ISO - 1600 or higher - in low light venues vs. in good light. Yes, one might move to 1600 or 3200 to get a higher shutter speed etc. but it's really not the same test.)<br>

I am very glad to see Ken's comment re the 7D. I have never used it except in the store. I have read pro and con on the 7D's effectiveness in low light as compared to the 30D/40D/50D and the Rebels. I have no reason to doubt Ken's findings (or anything he has ever written). Since I have seen a significant improvement in high ISO in low light venues for the T2i (better than the 40D or 50D for example), it's not surprising to hear that the 7D has a significant improvement there also. But, again, I've read otherwise also.<br>

Tripod, monopod, fast lens (including even 2.8 though 1.8 or 1.4 are preferred) and steady hands are your best bet. Rent a 7D or T2i or 5Dmk2 or buy a 5Dmk1. Rent some fast lenses. See what works for you. Use a noise suppression software package. </p>

[KenPapai]

<p>In this recent thread:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.photo.net/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00WXj5">http://www.photo.net/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00WXj5</a></p>

<p>I posted a 7D low light example at ISO 3200. Another factor is B&W -- if that's yuor bag -- low light B&W work than the 7D fits that bill very well -- no chroma noise in B&W (after conversion to B&W at least)! :)</p>

[jeff_higdon]

<p>I saw that shot, Ken. Very clean, very sharp, very nice. Impressive use of 3200.<br>

But it looks like the light shining on the wall is bright - how low light would you consider that bathroom?</p>

[m._scott_clay1]

<p>I didn't see any low light difference between my 40d and 50d. I did get better low light performance with my 5d. You might also consider a noise plug-in for Photoshop or perhaps Noise Ninja. They will let you shoot at higher ISO's and take out the noise in post. I've used my 50 1.4 and 85 1.8 in low light with success (sorry, don't have anything to post at the moment).</p>

[buffdr_rasouliyan]

<p>Once you use a full frame, you will understand. The 5D as better ISO performance than the 40D or 50D. I also have the 7D and as much as I want to say it's a great high ISO shooter, my 5D mark II is that much better. The faster lens' will help you as well but I think they both contribute to better picture. Do yourself a favor and rent a 35 1.4 for 3 days to test it out and see if that will solve your problem. For 70.00 you will be sure about the lens speed or a better ISO performance with a new body. Good luck v/r Buffdr</p>

[picturesque]

<p>I'm not saying that full frame won't make a significant difference, but I'm posting the following to show how noise just gets worse the more you have to pull the exposure up in post. I used my 5D 'real world' wedding images since I had enough files to show 0 stops to 1.43 stops pulling up of exposure. You can see the progression in the dark parts of the tux. I had one 40D file that was only pulled up .10 stops, so I put that in for comparison (see shadow side of black bag). Note that I did not further sharpen the files for the web to prevent them from looking even worse--these are 100 percent magnification.</p>

<p>What this means is that the pulled up 0 stops and .10 stops files were correctly exposed. You see that noise is not really so bad. Once you start pulling the exposures up, things start looking worse quickly.</p>

<p>Moral of the story--don't underexpose. While I don't doubt the 7D has maybe a stop more 'nice looking' noise handling ability, I still read that the original 5D holds it's own against the 7D in this regard (not others), and that while I would use my 40D up to ISO 1600 without hesitation, I might use ISO 3200 the same way on a 7D. That is one stop.</p>

<p>You need to analyze whether that is worth it to you since the 7D is $1700 or so. And if you underexpose using the 7D, you are still going to get *more* noise. A used 5D can be had for $900-$1000. Look at the difference in my example image (0 and .10 pulled up files). Is it worth it?</p>

<p>Or would nailing exposure be less costly and perhaps more effective? If you are just setting your gear to ISO 3200, f2.8, 1/60-1/125th without determining whether that is correctly exposing your scene, there is your problem. I usually use ISO 1600 if I can, but I use wide aperture primes, and I will use a tripod if necessary, rather than go to ISO 3200, for both my 5D and 40D. I try very hard not to underexpose, but of course, "things happen" when photographing ceremonies.</p>

<p>The other side of the story is whether we photographers get too caught up with noise. You know that noise does not show up on prints half as bad as on a monitor. These days, the viewing preference is turning more toward monitors, but for instance, in an album, these images are not usually printed very large. This is not an excuse, but if you concentrate on exposing correctly (not underexposing), your noise problems will diminish, combined with knowing just how it appears or doesn't appear in prints.</p><div></div>

[w_t1]

<p>Ken, nice example, not sure if i would pack a 7d into a neighborhood with a bathroom like that though. ;)</p>

[jimstrutz]

<p>I didn't see much low light improvement from 40D to 50D either. In fact, I didn't see much improvement over the 20D, but the resolution increase was nice. I had a 5D that was very much better at 3200, and I'm sure the 5DII is even better. However, I recently started using Lightroom 3 beta 2. The difference over Lightroom 2 is amazing at ISO 1600, 3200 & 6400. I think my high ISO 50D images are very nearly as clean and sharp as any of the 7D images I've seen.</p>

<p>Since Lightroom 3 beta 2 is still free for a time, I would give that a try with your high ISO raw 40D images and see if the improvements are enough for you. The real Lightroom 3 should be out soon.</p>

[markonestudios]

An upgrade from 40D to 7D will indeed give you cleaner high ISO and may be a worthwhile upgrade given your lens cache. You'll also get a very fast and accurate AF system, bright viewfinder, great LCD and some pretty good weather sealing (if that is a factor).

<p>They can be had (refurb) for 1500USD: http://www.adorama.com/ICA7DR.html

[Andy Collins]

<p>As nice as the 5DII is, if the OP doesn't have "a high budget for an upgrade", then the 5DII probably shouldn't be on the list. Sure, the 5DII has outstanding low-light performance, better than all of the cameras listed here but it shouldn't be implied that the 7D's low light is only marginally better. I upgraded from the 30D to the 7D and have found low-light shooting to be a huge improvement. ISO3200 shots are routine and I'm quite comfortable, <em>very</em> comfortable using 6400 with or without noise reduction. The 5D is also a great camera but it lacks the excellent metering of the 7D (as does the 5DII) and its AF doesn't come close to the performance of the 7D's AF, nor is it as customizable.</p>

[KenPapai]

<p><em>...not sure if i would pack a 7d into a neighborhood with a bathroom like that though. ;)</em></p>

<p>I sort of know what you mean but I am known there. (and I'd bet Jeff S. knows about that place too) I've been going there 18 years now. It's only a bare couple blocks away from a BAD area of SF.</p>

<p>The light there is rather dim. Shooting ISO 3200 at f/3.5 so I could sharply handhold at 1/40 means low light (likely I also dialed down -1/3 EC to get the faster shutter). With a 5D2 I imagine you could dial down -2/3 EC and have same quality (ala Nadine's excellent info above).</p>

[dipeshl]

<p>You can get a used 5D (instead of a 5D2). It would be in your budget. Its a great value if you get one in excellent condition. Someone also mentioned a faster lens...My recommendation is the 85mm 1.8. </p>

[david_henderson]

<p>When I first got a 5D I was decidely unimpressed by the high levels of noise I got in dark scenes. Whilst I still don't think that low light performance is this camera's strong point, the realisation that you have to get the exposure right and not rely on pulling it up in post does help a lot. Sadly it does mean that you end up using a tripod in situations where its tempting- and a lot more convenient- to hand-hold the IS lenses. </p>

[ejder]

<p>My experience with editing 5D and 40D images in the same sets on a regular basis tells me that I can push (increase exposure in processing) the 5D images about 1 more stop before seeing similar noise.</p>

<p>In your situation, since you might not want the loss of reach or be able to afford a full frame option that goes over ISO3200 max, the 7D is probably your best possible choice.</p>

<p>And with that, my new 5D II's battery is officially fully charged. Time to see if it's as good as they say.</p>

[micha_goldfine1]

<p>I just "upgraded" (sorry don't like or trust this word anymore) changed to the 7D from the 40D and I must say that it's one of the best cameras I have used. I shot all day in-doors at a museum at ISO 5000 and the images where fantastic. and that's with the kit lens 15-85. just an amazing piece or technology. Quick (very quick), precise (both focus and metering) and has those extra much needed buttons (instant raw, quick menu and instant movie mode). <br>

Although packed with features and customisation I find the learning curve to be ow coming from the 40D. most of the menu items and buttons are the same so you can start shooting straight out of the box.<br>

see some high ISO samples.<br>

http://www.flickr.com/photos/michagoldfine/sets/72157624044516487<br>

Micha</p>