Iso
 

I afraid that my hands are not as steady as they once were and that creates problems for me hand holding my camera. I have been working at ISO100 unless in poor light levels and have not been terribly pleased with the results.
Yesterday I got thinking about the 50D and it's high ISO settings and saw some pretty good examples of what could be done at the higher levels. I decided to try the various ISO levels on my 20D and must admit to being very pleased with the results. The attached pictures are fairly randomly selected and completely un-PP'd except for converting from RAW to JPEG and resizing to allow them to be posted on here. I think that once these shots have been PP'd they will be pretty decent. The lens was my Canon 100-400 IS L. I think in future I will be working much more in these higher ISOs. Obviously this is a very subjective test rather than any attempt to be scientific.

20D may be an old camera now but it takes great shots and the high ISO rendering is excellent. You can certainly use ISO 800 with confidence and 1600 is very reasonable and will clean up well if necessary. Sometimes I use a Gitzo walking/monopod stick if light levels are bad and this can be used together with IS. With a long lens I use 400 ISO as my default setting even in good light and put it up to 800 or 1600 as necessary. Far better than the old high speed films!

I think I will be using 400 much more now. I use a Manfroto monopod sometimes but I find that it slows me down when I'm in the woods.

Hi Dan

Like Mike I've used 400 ISO as standard. Rarely is the light good enough to go below that for very active birds. Yes I've been watching the 50D debate on BF too. My feelings are unless you have very good glass your not going to see a huge difference between 40D and 50D. The noise seems to be on par with each other. Disappointed to see the loss of dynamic range on the 50D.

I noticed our local independent camera shop had a 50D in stock. The manager (a Nikon user) is a friend of my son. I asked him on his thoughts on the new model. He said he has only had a little play with it but thought it much the same as the 40D. So no WOW!!! Factor there. Like Tim Taylor on BF I'll not be rushing out to upgrade.

I have the 50D and am very pleased with the high ISO results so far, its much better than my 40D at 1600, and 3200 with no loss of feather detail.
Ben Weeks has just posted a great hands on revue on warehouse express. He borrowed one to take to Castleton down the caverns.

I use ISO 400 as standard with the 40D and 800 if necessary. When you use high ISO's correct exposure is essential (if you underexpose and push in processing any noise will be magnified, especially if you crop hard). From everything I have seen and read the 50D and 40D are pretty much on par fro high ISO noise.

My interest in the debate is primarily because I would love to upgrade from my 20D. A side benefit to the discussion, to me, though is that it has made be look at using higher ISOs.

OK Dan I'll try and post some like for like tests on the 40D and 20D tonight.

At the time of the upgrade to 40D I did notice reduced noise compared to the 20D.

20D is now just a backup and toooooooo battered to sell second hand.

wise words which I thoroughly endorse (albeit from Nikon end): you can only assist yourself the once, either by using higher ISO, or exposure compensation in PP.

What ISO one uses varies incredibly with the light quality where you are. I set at 100 with great delight when I go to the seaside, but crawl back to 200 on good days back home in 'sodden and unkind' midlands and higher as needed

Wouldn't it be lovely if you could fix speed and aperture and the camera come up with the ISO as an alternative to aperture and shutter priority

If you use a Pentax K10D or K20D you can do just that. Unique to Pentax, they call it TAv mode.

Duncan

I honestly can say I don't ever use a 'default' ISO setting. I'll use the lowest setting I can get away with, 200 on the D1h bodies or 125 on the D1x. If I can't open the aperture up anymore, and the shutter is on the limit, then yes, ISO gets cranked up.

It is far easier to 'correct'/ minimise noise from a high ISO than it is sharpen up blur from a shutter speed which is too slow.

I can't quite understand the number of people who sniff at new digi camera models. If I had the cash I'd be buying the latest upgrade model to the one I had everytime. Admittedly, things didn't always get 'improved' with film cameras (the legendary F3 being replaced by the F4 turd, then fortunately rectified with the F5, for example).....but digital is a completely different proposition. Things like firmware and support software improve with the cameras too. Granted, differences may be marginal, unless you spend the money on the brightest, sharpest lenses.

When I made this comment I was referring to my settings for hand holding my 400mm f5.6 non IS lens for bird photography - it is very rare indeed that I can go below this although I often have to go up to ISO 800.

When taking the occasional landscape shot with the 17-40 I, of course, use the lowest ISO I can.

Well, quite, but constantly spending on the latest model means you'd never be able to afford the finest lenses if you're on a limited income.

I added a 40D body to my 20D but it wasn't an 'upgrade' as such, as I use both bodies regularly alongside one another unless I'm travelling light.

I don't like changing lenses out in the field (one camera body, two lenses and at least one body cap equals four items to be manoeuvred by two hands:eek:), so the biggest advantage was nothing to do with the features of the model I chose.

The 40D has some useful features over the 20D, of course, such as quieter shutter/mirror and the sensor cleaner but they're not identical in handling (changing the ISO, for instance) so you're never using them completely instinctively. This is another reason why I wouldn't keep changing to the next version without there being some compelling reason to upgrade.

Now when they really get to grips with live-view and put a swivel-screen on so that you don't have to keep lying flat for ground level shots and introduce a 'roving' autofocus point on the live-view to assist in the same sort of situation...or even a remote screen - you can already connect a computer but why not just have an upgraded remote control with the usual shutter/focus button plus a small screen identical to the live-view screen - much more compact than a laptop! Then I would be interested in upgrading again, but I reckon that'll be two or three models away yet..

As promised some samples of ISO noise of 40D (10M sensor) vs 20D (8M sensor).

Target was a wildly out of focus gray card so all we are seeing is sensor noise.
Same lens used.
Same room light source.
manual exposure.
Same shutter speed for all shots 1/15 Sec.
Same f stop used for each pair. f2.8, f4 and f5.6
Bodies at same room temperature.
40D was set to faithful and 20D set to parameter 2

The images are screen grabs at 200% to make the noise visible.

The only image processing was a 100% crop from the centre.

Generally they have managed to keep the noise levels on par despite the reduced pixel size of the 40D.

The thing I like about the newer models is that you can eek up the ISO in 1/3 or 1/2 stop increments compared to the 1 stop jumps of the 20D.

.

I am with you on that point Adey

The quote tool is great...everyone can mis-quote everyone else and really get in a twist. marvellous lol

The key to this one are the words quoted "If I had the cash".

What makes you think we were referring to you Joe ?
We know you worked for Jessops but you can't walk around with a chip on you shoulder all your life :D very tongue in cheek no offence intended mate.

I think the general point being made is that rushing out to buy the next model does not necessarily bring an improvement to the photography. It's a bit like a non-smoker rushing out to buy a new car because it has a self emptying ash tray. Those of us with a limited cash flow are always looking to see where we can get the best bang per buck.

I upgraded my 20D to 40D 10 months ago so as far as I am concerned it has plenty of life left in it yet. The main reasons for the upgrade was because my 20D was over 2 and a half years old. Halfway through it's shutter life. It had more than it's fair share of being dropped and soaked. View finder full of dust.

So 10 months down the road what did I gain out of the upgrade. To be honest image quality if any comes a fair way down the list. Most reviewers also make this point. What surprised me is how much I prefer larger screen on the back over the 20D. The sensor cleaning has also been a boom, touch wood I have not had to resort to manual cleaning yet. On the odd shot you see the odd mark in rapid fire mode (the flapping mirror stirring things up) but it soon clears.

I find the menus generally better than the 20D. The highlight priority and the smaller increments in ISO come in useful. I believe the 40D also has an auto ISO Mode but I have never made use of it. Many people made a fuss over the Nikon having spot metering which was introduced on the 40D again I have not made much use of it. The other feature which I am starting to make more use of is the live view (even though it drains the battery like hell). Great for getting shots in critical focus as my eye sight is not too good with the small view finder on crop cameras.

Thanks for the comparisons, Rob. I think that the 20D fares quite well in these shots.