Iso

[Joe]

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.

[Roy C]

Originally Posted by Joe

I honestly can say I don't ever use a 'default' ISO setting.

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.

[Adey Baker]

Originally Posted by Joe

...If I had the cash I'd be buying the latest upgrade model to the one I had everytime...
...Granted, differences may be marginal, unless you spend the money on the brightest, sharpest lenses.

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), 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..

[robski]

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.

.

[robski]

Originally Posted by Adey Baker

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.

This is another reason why I wouldn't keep changing to the next version without there being some compelling reason to upgrade.

I am with you on that point Adey

[Joe]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Adey Baker
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.

This is another reason why I wouldn't keep changing to the next version without there being some compelling reason to upgrade.


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".

[robski]

Originally Posted by Joe

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

[Snowyowl]

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