Camera upgrade: need less noise at high ISO

[armis]

I'm thinking about upgrading my trusty old 20D that I bought second-hand almost 3 years ago. I'm generally happy with it, but the main thing I need is better low-light performance. I hate flash, but I do enjoy low-light conditions. However with my 20D, at 400 ISO, noise is already noticeable but under control. 800 is borderline; 1600 is just too pronounced, even with post-production. I do have a nifty 50 but even at f/1.8 it isn't always possible to snap decent pictures without flash, and frankly a f/1.2 L is outside my price range. Plus, sometimes 50's just too wide.

Ideally I'd get an 85 or 105 at f/1.4 or 1.8, but even then I'm going to need better high-ISO noise control if I want to shoot concerts or indoor weddings after dusk or even a night out with friends.

I'd love a 7D or even a 5D Mk2, but they doesn't seem to be a decent second-hand market for those and I can't afford a new one at the moment (or rather I can, but I probably have better things to spend money on). Would a 50D be a solid choice or should I just save up and grab a 7D when I can? Are there any other models I should be looking at?

[RichardTaylor]

Have you thought of looking at a 60D?

[armis]

From all the reviews I see, the 60D with its fancy screen, higher pixel count, and strange design choices (both from an ergonomy and features perspectives) is more of a Digital Rebel ++/ point & shoot hybrid than a real successor to the 50D. I may be wrong on this so do correct me.

[Doug Pardee]

Originally Posted by armis

From all the reviews I see, the 60D with its fancy screen, higher pixel count, and strange design choices (both from an ergonomy and features perspectives) is more of a Digital Rebel ++/ point & shoot hybrid than a real successor to the 50D.

You said you wanted better low-light performance. The 60D is superior to the 50D in that regard. DPReview's conclusion page says, "Excellent image quality up to ISO settings unthinkable just one camera generation ago ... Despite having more pixels than the 50D, which would usually count against it in our pixel-level testing, the 60D improves on its predecessor even at the pixel level - producing very good high ISO images with few signs of the pattern noise (banding) that the 50D could be prone to. In fact, all round image quality is a step forward from the 50D in just about every respect."

[inkista]

I have a 50D. If high ISO performance is what you're after, go for the 60D. The banding issue on the 50D would probably drive you nuts (I simply avoid shooting at iso 6400 ).

Originally Posted by armis

From all the reviews I see, the 60D with its fancy screen, higher pixel count, and strange design choices (both from an ergonomy and features perspectives) is more of a Digital Rebel ++/ point & shoot hybrid than a real successor to the 50D.

This, I'm sorry to say, is crap. That's been promulgated over and over and over. The 60D moved the tier specs down, but it is the 50D's successor. It has a plastic body, which is why everybody keeps requoting the dpreview complaint that it's just a jumped up Rebel, but in reality, it's 1mm smaller on each dimension than the 50D, and only 10% lighter. It still has the dual wheel controls and the top LCD with quick-access buttons and bigger heftier build than a dRebel. To me that makes it an XXD.

Handle one in a store. Judge for yourself.

You also gain (over your 20D):
much better high iso performance and more high iso settings

• HD video
• a flip out LCD
• a flash master in the pop-up
• electronic level
• an additional button to separate out the metering and drive modes
• a custom setting (i.e., one where you can save the current state of the camera and flip to it as a C mode on the mode dial)
• bulb mode on the mode dial (instead of grinding and grinding past 30s)
• liveview
• sensor shaking to clean off dust

The complaints people are making about the 60D are if they're coming from the 50D. They're complaining about the removal of features, like 6fps down to 5fps, autofocus micro-adjust, having quick-access buttons to six different settings instead of four, etc. But coming from a 20D, you won't have ever have had those features to miss; and you'll still be gaining a ton of additional features. Aside from the metal body.

How often do you bash your camera into things or drop it?

Go. Hold it in your hands, play with it. Bring a CF card and take a few sample images with it, then figure out if it's the one for you and appreciate its much lower price (it MSRPed initially at $200 less than the 50D--which is why the feature set was lower). Maybe do the same thing with a 7D, and consider finding a busted Powershot to use for the Canon Loyalty Program. Right now, on the CLP, a 7D is $1100; a 60D is $640.

[armis]

Interesting answer, thanks a lot. I'll try a 60D then. I must say the AF micro-adjust was something I was kind of interested in too, but less because I actually have front/back-focused lenses and more because I'm kind of OCD like that . I certainly don't mind the plastic, although some amount of protection vs. humidity and particles would be good, as I sometimes like to shoot in the rain or in high-humidity areas (last summer in Vietnam, for instance).

But since the main thing is high ISO, I'll give it a shot .

Here's another question, one maybe I should have started with: will I actually notice significant (and I mean significant, not under-the-microscope magnitude) improvements in low-light conditions between a 7D or 60D or whatever, versus my trusty old 20D? Here's how I see things: at 800 ISO Noise Ninja usually fixes any issues I may have, with minimal loss of detail. I just discovered yesterday that a proper NN profile allows me to take 1600 ISO pictures and turn them into something that doesn't make my eyes bleed, though it is a noticeable trade-off in terms of sharpness (which I can partially get back with sparingly-applied, stronger sharpening). 3200 ISO is, as it ever was, a pipedream.

Is a 60D going to be much better than that? Because frankly, DxO tests and the snapshots I can find at high ISO on various 20D/60D reviews don't have me convinced that there's that much of a difference. While clearly jpegs are much better on the newer models, this appears to be a result of better on-board post-processing rather than much improved sensor data: RAW 100% crops on a 7D as 1600 ISO still show significant noise, and dare I say it looks quite comparable to what I see on my 20D (unfortunately I couldn't find any proper side-by-side comparison since the testing methodologies on various sites changed in the past years - and it seems that most in-depth reviews I can find of the 20D are using the camera's noise reduction).

Or, in less words: do you think the upgrade I'm looking at is worth considering I shoot only RAW?

[inkista]

Honestly, I think it depends on what you consider significant. To my eyes, going from my XT (30D gen sensor) to my 50D I gained about a stop in terms of iso performance and the pixel/noise character changed. Not quite sure how to describe it (fleckier, maybe?), but that may be what you're seeing in the 100% crops. It's not going to be a giant leap, as some people make it sound. Full frame may gain you another stop, depending on which generation of XXD you're looking at. The 5D gets updated roughly once for every two generations of XXD, so sometimes there's a little leapfrogging of sensor technology.

[fredzilla]

Canon T2i does very good as well...
High ISO using new camera T2i...