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