upgrade from 450d? if so, to 600d or 650d?

[david_bain4]

<p>Hello everyone<br>

I have had a Canon 450d for some years, shoot in raw, and edit in Lightroom. <br>

I am considering upgrading my 450d for something with better picture quality, in particular at higher ISO levels. In particular, I was impressed by a friend's night portraits, taken without flash, which were much sharper and less noisy than mine (he was using a 5d ii, I think). He tells me that any recent camera will not only have much higher ISOs, but will produce much higher quality pictures at each ISO level, compared with my 450d.<br>

I always think picture quality is largely a matter of lens, not body, but ISO performance does seem signifcant too, hence my thinking I might upgrade, probably to either the 600d or 650d.<br>

So my questions:<br>

1. Is the raw picture quality at higher ISO levels in the 600d/650d far better than the 450d? Is that worth upgrading for?<br>

2. What about the other determinants of picture quality, e.g. focusing, sharpness, etc. Will these be appreciably better in the 600d/650d compared with the 450d?<br>

3. Regarding both of the above questions, if it IS worth upgrading, then to what? In particular, which of the 600d and 650d is better regarding picture quality, esp at higher ISOs?<br>

The DPR review camera comparison widget seems to suggest the raw picture quality is slightly better in the 650d, but noise handling at higher ISOs is slightly better in the 600d. Is that right? Is it a significant difference? If so, that's frustrating, since I like the idea of the 650's touch screen -- but weight picture quality, if the difference is appreciable, more than ergonomics. <br>

4. Finally, other options include the 60d and 7d, but these are bigger and heavier, and I guess I think that, if I am going to go bigger and heavier, which I might one day, I might as well go full frame, perhaps for the 6d. Sensible? Or not?<br>

Anyway, thank you so much in advance for any advice you can give.<br>

Really, my main issue is whether to upgrade at all, on the basis of picture quality, esp ISO performance, and if so which of the 600d and 650d to upgrade to.<br>

Thanks<br>

David</p>

[jaydesi]

<p>High ISO performance gets better with each generation of sensors, so there would be an improvement. While it is better, they aren't noise free. But first, how often are you shooting at high ISO? Is it often enough that your current camera is limiting you in the kind of pictures you want to take? Would a flash (and learning how to use it properly) be a better way for you to spend money? Which version of Lightroom are you using? The newer the version, the better the noise reduction algorithm.</p>

<p>As far as what bodies to consider, it depends on what kind of shooting you do. Full frame isn't a magical size, and any APS-C body may fit your needs better...for example, if you shoot subjects where you need a lot of reach. Also, if you have a collection of EF-S lenses, a full frame purchase will also entail a substantial lens replacement, as EF-S lenses will not be compatible with any full frame camera. Similar to my second question, what benefit would you get from going full frame that you can't accomplish with an APS-C format camera?</p>

[esfishdoc]

<p>What to do. Here the down and dirty:<br>

Will a 650D be better. Yes.<br>

How much better. dunno...<br>

Is it worth it? To me it would be.. for you... dunno..<br>

Lensrentals.com is the answer... or rent one somewhere else. Get one for 4 days and shoot everything you can think of. You will have your answer for under 100 dollars. <br>

You then question the possibility of full frame... go for it. Never look back.<br>

Just my quick opinion.<br>

Richard</p>

[david_bain4]

<p>Thanks. Very helpful.<br>

I guess I am not often shooting at high ISOs, but it is is low light that I notice the contrast between my camera and others.<br>

I take your point about getting a better flash; I am using the latest Lightroom. And I do have an EF-S lens, and like lighter bodies, so will not go for full frame -- I think you're right.<br>

All this prompts two further questions:<br>

(a) In the list of specs, e.g. on DP Reviews, I can't see any info about sensors except their resolution and size. Do sensors, like processors (Digic 5, etc), have names or numbers or some other means of comparing them?<br>

(b) Is it the case that anything the camera body can do to reduce noise can also be done in Lightroom, so that if one shoots in raw, and is prepared to sort out noise later, there is no gain in getting sensors that handle low light better? I suspect this is NOT the case, but it would be interesting to know.<br>

Thanks again<br>

David</p>

[massimo_foti]

<p>I have both 450D and 7D. I think in term of high ISO noise the 7D is around one stop better. On 450D I wouldn't go higher than ISO 800, while I feel I can get similar quality on 7D up to ISO 1600/2000.<br>

550D and 600D share the same sensor as 7D so I expect them to be pretty much the same in this department. I can't comment on 650D, since it has a different sensor.<br>

If that's better enough to upgrade is a question only you can answer. One stop isn't dramatically better, but it's an improvement anyway. If you would like something that is significantly better in high ISO noise, then 6D seems worth considering, but that's a different budget and may also depend if your current lenses are compatible with a full-frame camera.</p>

[addicted2light]

<p>My first Canon - I came from Nikon, and I was checking if I liked the "other side" - was a 350D. While I was deciding if Canon was the way to go I bought a 400D, than a 50D, and every time the quality at low and high iso got a little better.</p>

<p>The only time it made a true impressive jump was when I finally bought a full format - a 5D mark II.</p>

<p>So my suggestion is: if you can afford it go for the 6D, otherwise start shopping for a nicely kept 5D first series. My 2 cents.</p>

[brad_trostad]

<p>You've got a couple of different angles going here. To resolve the touch screen vs standard controls preference, go the store and play with a t4i for a while to see if it really adds something worthwhile. If not and given how similar it is to the t3i, I would suggest the t3i.</p>

<p>I had a 450d for a few months, it was a great camera. I sold it and a 40D to go towards a 5D2 - what a awesome camera. A few months back I found a used t3i (body only) with box, cables, factory body, orig warranty card, etc for $330. My wife likes it and I like it but I always grab the 5d2 when I know the lighting conditions wont be ideal. Actually, I pretty much always grab the 5d2. The flip out screen on the t3i hasn't been that big of a deal for me so a t2i may have been just as good.</p>

<p>If you really want a cleaner high iso camera from Canon I would look for a used 5d2 or even a new one if they are still available. But first give the 6d another month or so to see what real users are saying. The 6D may very well be the perfect FF upgrade from a rebel. If it turns out to be very good, perhaps the 5d2 prices will drop a bit more to give you a few more options.</p>

<p>Someone else mentioned renting, why not rent a 5d2 for a week. You'll get to try the larger frame, heavier body as well as FF and some higher iso shooting. Unless the weight/size put you off I predict you'll buy a FF.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Which lenses do you have?<br>

Choosing between an "upgrade" to another camera to gain one stop, or getting a ~f/2 lens, I'd go for the lens first. Depending on the lens you currently have, it could also be a (much bigger) step forward in terms of sharpness (and creative options). I'm not using canon, but let's simply say that between a standard consumer lens at 35mm and the 35mm primes I have, there was a world of difference - 2.33 stop (f/4 versus f/1.8), and a different league of sharpness. As you wrote "I always think picture quality is largely a matter of lens", I think you're spot on there. </p>

<p>Another thing with the flash: many times low light is diffuse and has little real contrast (soft shadows, and basically everything is shadow-y). This leaves murky noisy-looking photos nearly all the time. Also cameras with much better high ISOs cannot resolve such situations. It's not only the quantity of light available, but also its qualities.<br>

So, yes, there is merit in having better high ISO performance, but it's not the right solution for all scenarios, so I'd look at more options than just the body.</p>

[addicted2light]

<blockquote>

<p>I always think picture quality is largely a matter of lens, not body</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Largely true, but only between sensors of the same size, more than of the same pixels count IMHO.</p>

<p>When I bought the 5d mark II I kept for a while the 50D, thinking it would be useful for tele shots and the like, as an impromptu 1.6x multiplier, and as a "expendable" camera for bad weather etc.</p>

<p>In a few occasions though I shot them on the same assignments, and I noticed that the shots taken with the 50D seemed always out of focus. So I decided to shot them side to side with the same lenses and focusing through Live View to learn what was going on. Bottom line: the pictures taken with both cameras were in focus, but the ones taken with the 50D <em>looked</em> blurred due the difference between full format and aps-c. I repeated the test with the Canon 5D mark I of a friend and, though there was a bit of difference due the pixels count, it was not nearly as dramatic, just barely discernible. YMMV.</p>

[david_bain4]

<p>Thanks all, these are incredibly useful responses; I'm very grateful.<br>

Characteristically, I am still dithering but I think I am likely to save the money and spend it on a FF (perhaps after renting and comparing) and a flash, which I guess I'll need given FF cameras lack them.<br>

This will also require selling my EF-S 17-55mm f2.8 lens.<br>

What would be the best equivalent of that for a FF, I wonder?<br>

Thanks again<br>

David</p>

[addicted2light]

<blockquote>

<p>What would be the best equivalent of that for a FF, I wonder?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>For reportage use:</p>

<p>1) <em>if you don't need the fast aperture</em> (remember, FF looks really good still at 1600 iso): <br /> > AF = Canon 24-85/3.5-4.5 EF Usm. Really, really good, especially at the wide end; a tad soft at 85mm at full aperture; from 100 to 180 euro<br /> > manual focus = Yashica ML 28-85/3.5-4.5. Great lens, with beautiful "Zeiss" colors and contrast (it's basically a copy of its Contax sibling, minus the T* anti reflective treatment); a bit annoying the short focus distance, that requires often to have to use the "macro" focusing ring; from 50 to 100 euro</p>

<p>2) <em>if you need AF and the fast aperture:</em><br /> I heard good things about the Tamron 28-75/2.8 (and you can find its test here <a href="http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/35mm_e.html">http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/35mm_e.html</a>); probably around 300-350 euro</p>

<p>For landscape use I'd forget the AF entirely, so:</p>

<p>- a fixed 24 or 28mm (far cheaper) from Olympus, Nikon, Canon, Contax, Yashica, Pentax, etc. (I'd avoid Sigma, Tamron, Tokina etc.); they are almost all great, and almost ever better than a zoom at least at the borders. For the prices you can go from 25 euro (yes, twenty-five) for an Olympus 28/3.5 (sharp as a tack) to the 300-350 of a 25mm Contax (not great, better the 28 of the house in this case) or a new Canon EF (not the best of the bunch, but still a good lens). <br /> Add to this a 100 or 105mm, at the cost of maybe 100 euro more, and you're set.</p>

[addicted2light]

<p>A couple of examples:<br>

> The Canon 24-85mm:<br>

<img src="ftp://1711941@aruba.it@ftp.addicted2light.com/www.addicted2light.com/photonet/35mm-R47_07.jpg" alt="" /><br>

<img src="https://dl.dropbox.com/u/9763620/35mm-R47_07.jpg" alt="" /> </p>

<p>> The Yashica 28-85mm:<br>

<img src="https://dl.dropbox.com/u/9763620/_MG_58901.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>> Olympus 28mm (<em><strong>this shot it's absolutely ugly</strong></em>, but you can see how the little Zuiko renders the colors):<br>

<img src="https://dl.dropbox.com/u/9763620/_MG_2798.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>> Nikon 105/4 Micro (more or less 70 euro; not a great lens for landscapes though, there are better alternatives at the same price like the 105/2,5 of the house or the Pentax Takumar 105/2.8):<br>

<img src="https://dl.dropbox.com/u/9763620/GIA0830.jpg" alt="" /></p>