Ah yeah cool so you're talking noise performance at higher ISOs, which i already sort of knew, just wanted to make sure there wasn't some other crazy science there that i didnt understand. I'm still blown away by the noise performance on my 350d, iso 100-800 is pretty fantastic, and iso 1600 is comparable to like iso 400…
To make a properly exposed image you have to get a good ratio of these three things: ISO: sensativity, higher is more sensative to light (800 vs 200) but introduces more noise, and less dynamic range. Aperture: Larger apertures (represented by smaller numbers, 1.4 is larger than 2.8 ) let in more light at once. Shutter…
Yeah i looked at the reviews and some comparison shots and they looked decent up to about 1600. I mainly want to shoot scenery and texture references so I hopefully won't have to use that high of an ISO (I say that now but once I really learn the ropes, I probably will :) ). I'll wait until this second round of snow hits…
At iso 1600 the 400d sucks compared to the XXD line. You will see banding in the noise because of the sensor type, whereas the XXD and XD lines have a more random pattern that isn't as obvious to the eye. It might have more bells and whistles, but I've always valued final image quality over small tech advances. The one…
Yeah if i would have wanted to spend a little more and get a new camera, that sony would have warranted serious consideration. I ended up with a canon XT(350d) + accessories + 18-55mm kit lens + 50mm F1.8 prime lens for $400, which was my max budget =) I have really shaky hands as well, but its turned out to be less of an…
There aren't so many differences in the progress upgrades within a line. XXDs are mostly the same, it's only when you go to XXD or XD that it starts jumping in features. Canon locks down feature sets based on price. Even the newest 500d has areas that aren't as nice as the 10D (original XXD camera). That said, 160 dollars…
I have a 5D original. The 5D II has nicer high ISO, but only by about 2 stops, and that's not enough for me to shell out the cash for. Right now I spend my money on lighting. ISO 1600 is fine for me right now. It's more that big photo receptors = better low light performance, and full frame has room for larger photo…
Yeah thanks guys, you bring up a lot of good points, in low light i would much rather have the speed than not be able to get the shot at all, even if a little blurry. Can always sharpen a bit in PS =) I think i'll get the 50mm, and look into other stuff down the road if i find it isnt flexible enough for me. Ben, whats…
A good way to see the amount of image quality lost with a cheap filter is to take a picture of something with vivid colors and fine detail. Your colors can be corrected (much more work), but the detail will never be recovered. When I was shooting rally cross, I didn't run a filter/glass cover. Just know when to use zoom,…