How much difference would it make going from T3i to 1D X in low light situations?

Cerulean

Cerulean

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 27, 2006
Messages
9,476
Greetings,

Having reviewed the EOS-1D X in its ISO capabilities, how much of a difference would I experience using a 1D X over a T3i with the same lens and in the same low light situation? My thinking is that I would be able to get the same quality picture with a higher ISO on the 1D X but with also a faster shutter speed (as a result of using higher ISO) -- so overall, with a 1D X I should be able to take higher quality photos at the same shutter speed compared to the T3i in the same low light situation using the same lens. Could someone confirm my thinking?
 
Your comparing Canons flagship camera to one of their entry level cameras. It had better perform, I don't know, $6400 better IMHO seeing how the 1DX is $6800. I would say it would safely stomp the T3i in matching ISO comparison tests.
 
T3i Maximum ISO: 12,800
1DX Maximum ISO: 204,800

Canon's focus primarily on it's cameras especially its flagship cameras is to increase in ISO sensitivity without an increase in noise.

This change came after the 5D Mark II in which they recognized that a megapixel war is pointless, the 21MP sensor in the 5D2 already outstripped film and it outstripped any method used in print including magazines, posters, and the like. As a result they changed their primary focus to the aforementioned ISO.

The 1D4 was the first camera with this new line of thinking, and the new 5D3 and 1DX are a continuation of that technology. The T3i although built after the 1D4 pales in comparison to any of the aforementioned cameras as none of Canon's consumer level cameras have had this technology trickle down.

That matched with the fact that the 1DX is a full frame sensor vs the T3i's 1.6x crop (meaning that each individual pixel has a larger surface area than each pixel on the T3i, meaning therefore that each pixel gathers more light) and has micro lenses on each pixel means that the 1DX's low level performance blows the T3i out of the water.

The 1DX has been shown to shoot photos easily at 12,800 with noise but fully usable, whereas I'm guessing the T3i would struggle at around 1,600 (someone else I'm sure could confirm, I seriously doubt 3200 would be practical or usable). For some samples, I'd recommend doing a Google search. Here is a quick set of shots from an FMer showing the ISO capabilities from ISO 100 all the way up to 12800 in real world usage. So to answer your question more simply, yes the 1DX will be able to use a significantly higher ISO, still take clearer pictures while under unfavorable conditions, and have the reciprocals slanted onto shutter speed in ways that the T3i simply will not be able to match. How much depends on what you consider to be usable on the T3i. If it more or less maxes at 1600 of usable ISO, that's a 3 stop difference, which is significant.
 
Last edited:
T3i supports an ISO of 6400 (boosted) with a normal ISO cap at 3200. 1600 doesn't look too bad, but you will notice some noise. 800 is fine. 3200 and 6400 look horrible though; only good if you're going to post-process your photos to look like they were shot in the 70s or 80s or some other artistic/creative style.

Thanks for the input UnknownSouljer!
 
I'm not sure how the 1DX compares to the 6D for high ISO noise, but I'd imagine it would be slightly better due to it's lower pixel density, although I could be wrong since the 6D has a newer sensor design. With the 6D though, I have no issues shooting at ISO 12,800.

I shot one of the US Air Guitar regional qualifiers a few weeks ago and kept my ISO at 12,800 the entire time. If you want to view some samples, here's a link: https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0BwHFKEJVY5pCemFLaTJ4OWM1WGs&usp=sharing
 
Cerulean said:
T3i supports an ISO of 6400 (boosted) with a normal ISO cap at 3200. 1600 doesn't look too bad, but you will notice some noise. 800 is fine. 3200 and 6400 look horrible though; only good if you're going to post-process your photos to look like they were shot in the 70s or 80s or some other artistic/creative style.

Thanks for the input UnknownSouljer!
Click to expand...

I don't have access to a T3i to play with, but Wikipedia says otherwise. Interestingly enough, so does Canon. In order to see the 12,800 option, you need to turn ISO expansion on. It's usually a deep setting in the custom function section.
 
UnknownSouljer said:
I don't have access to a T3i to play with, but Wikipedia says otherwise. Interestingly enough, so does Canon. In order to see the 12,800 option, you need to turn ISO expansion on. It's usually a deep setting in the custom function section.
Click to expand...
Oh wait, yeah, my bad. I do have ISO expansion enabled on my camera, just that I rarely use it and it's denoted as an "H" rather than "12800". 3200 and 6400 look bad enough. 12800 is a nightmare. At least in low light situations.
 
SilverMK3 said:
Are you actually considering upgrading from an entry level consumer camera to Canon's flagship professional sports camera? There's gonna be a learning curve!

Here's a comparison site that shows the two cameras head-to-head: http://camerarocket.com/cameras/Canon-Rebel-T3i-vs-Canon-EOS-1D-X
Click to expand...

Personally, I think he'd be better off upgrading to a 6D or 5Dmk3 and getting some good lenses to go with it. The 1DX is the camera to get if you're making a living shooting sports and photojournalism. Unless you've got a good business plan together, I don't know if the 1DX is worth it. Also, if you're going to be making a living with your camera, you're going to want to make sure you have a backup camera that's nearly as good. For the price of the 1DX, you can easily buy 2 5Dmk3's and a decent lens.
 
From personal experience (Canon T1i and Canon 60D), any Canon crop camera has too much noise at literally any ISO if you shoot into the shadows. You literally have to shoot around the noise with these cameras for smooth RAWs, or you have to use detail-destroying post processing (which is what I ended up doing with my 60D). The T1i could actually be better, as it had bigger pixels (only 15MP versus 18MP on the 60D).

As for which Canon semi-pro or pro camera to get? Well damn, you'd probably want to research that.
 
You have to nail your exposure in camera if you want to avoid dealing with noise in post. Meter for the shadows and recover your slightly blown highlights in post.
There is more image data available for your software to use in the highlights than in the shadows, so follow the Expose To The Right (ETTR) principles to maximize your signal-to-noise ratio.
 
SilverMK3 said:
You have to nail your exposure in camera if you want to avoid dealing with noise in post. Meter for the shadows and recover your slightly blown highlights in post.
There is more image data available for your software to use in the highlights than in the shadows, so follow the Expose To The Right (ETTR) principles to maximize your signal-to-noise ratio.
Click to expand...

No doubt, but the difference between the 60D sensor along with all Canon crop sensors compared to most of the competition and Canon's own Full Frames (not fair, but real) is quite glaring. Looking at shots from my 60D and comparing it to a friend's A500 (old Sony crop) made me want to stop taking pictures.

Moving to a 6D has gotten me back into it, but man, I wanted to sell everything and leave the hobby before that point.

If I had to do it again, I'd be shooting Nikon. The noise in their crop sensors is far more manageable.
 
IdiotInCharge said:
No doubt, but the difference between the 60D sensor along with all Canon crop sensors compared to most of the competition and Canon's own Full Frames (not fair, but real) is quite glaring. Looking at shots from my 60D and comparing it to a friend's A500 (old Sony crop) made me want to stop taking pictures.

Moving to a 6D has gotten me back into it, but man, I wanted to sell everything and leave the hobby before that point.

If I had to do it again, I'd be shooting Nikon. The noise in their crop sensors is far more manageable.
Click to expand...

Agreed, the usable ISO on my 7D is about half that of my 5D2! The current generation of Canon sensors seem a lot better than previous ones, but Sony (makers of image sensors for Nikon, Pentax, etc.) had leapfrogged them in noise performance over the last 5yrs or so.

I think Fuji is the company to look out for in sensor design, their X-Trans tech is awesome. No repeating RGBG pixel pattern like all other Bayer sensors means that they don't have to use a sharpness-reducing anti-aliasing filter, and what little noise DOES show up in images is more random and organic-looking that typical digital noise, lending it a film-like quality.
 
SilverMK3 said:
I think Fuji is the company to look out for in sensor design, their X-Trans tech is awesome. No repeating RGBG pixel pattern like all other Bayer sensors means that they don't have to use a sharpness-reducing anti-aliasing filter, and what little noise DOES show up in images is more random and organic-looking that typical digital noise, lending it a film-like quality.
Click to expand...

X-Trans is awesome, and I fail to understand why Canon and Sony/Nikon have stuck to the Bayer pattern with it's know limitations; especially since they're starting to experiment with taking the AA filter off as in the D800E.

The other issue seems to be Fuji's auto-focus; and this is something that I think only Sony has gotten right in mirror-less setups (SLT's don't count).

For mirror-less, I'd have to say Sony still has the overall lead; Fuji has the best sensor; and Canon's EOS-M only makes sense if you're already invested in Canon, although they are in the process of releasing an update to it's geriatric auto-focus.

Personally, I'd go with a Fuji, but my grandfather has a stock of Minolta MD Rokkor-X manual lenses that would be awesome on a Fuji, assuming I can't get the Minolta XG-1(n) in working order. But Fuji is damn expensive.
 
SilverMK3 said:
You have to nail your exposure in camera if you want to avoid dealing with noise in post. Meter for the shadows and recover your slightly blown highlights in post.
There is more image data available for your software to use in the highlights than in the shadows, so follow the Expose To The Right (ETTR) principles to maximize your signal-to-noise ratio.
Click to expand...
Are you sure about that? Maybe it's camera specific, but once overblowned... the detail is gone. I am however able to recover a metric ton of detail from an underexposed images from D800 without sacrificing a whole lot in noise. :confused:
 
northrop said:
Are you sure about that? Maybe it's camera specific, but once overblowned... the detail is gone. I am however able to recover a metric ton of detail from an underexposed images from D800 without sacrificing a whole lot in noise. :confused:
Click to expand...

On most modern sensors (which Canon's 18MP crop sensor is not; damn thing hasn't been updated in five years) you can do that. I can do it like mad on my 6D, with it's giant (relative to a D800(E)) pixels.

But on a Rebel, EOS-M, 60D, or 7D, you can't do that; not at any ISO. If it's in the shadows, it has a harsh, mechanical noise quality to it that you essentially have to blur out, destroying detail.
 
UnknownSouljer said:
This conversation has gotten way off track, but Canon has been experimenting with stacking pixels ala Foveon. Not sure if and when that sensor tech will make it into cameras. Canon is very slow and deliberate with releases.
Click to expand...

Deliberate is a euphemism for slow :).


But that's okay, because Sigma's FoveonX3 sensor introduces more problems than it solves. And the technology is so promising; at real resolutions (Sigma's is far lower than they report) without de-mosaicing and AA filters (which can already be ditched in other ways, a la X-trans), I can just imaging the results we'd get shooting through Canon's best glass.
 
IdiotInCharge said:
Deliberate is a euphemism for slow :).


But that's okay, because Sigma's FoveonX3 sensor introduces more problems than it solves. And the technology is so promising; at real resolutions (Sigma's is far lower than they report) without de-mosaicing and AA filters (which can already be ditched in other ways, a la X-trans), I can just imaging the results we'd get shooting through Canon's best glass.
Click to expand...

It can be used euphemistically yes, but I think Canon is probably the most intentional company when it comes to their top tier products. There has never been a 1 series that wasn't proven as an example and they took their time with the 200-400mm, but the results speak for themselves. I'm certain that they don't want to release another sensor type unless it gives them a competitive advantage, excellent ISO, a host of other things (like hopefully increased dynamic range), AND is bullet proof before its released.
 
Awesome conversation.

I have an 85mm 1.2L, 17-40mm 4L, and 70-200mm 2.8L IS ii. I'm planning on getting the 100mm 2.8L IS, 24mm 1.4L, 35mm 1.4L, 16-35mm 2.8L ii, and 8-15mm 4L. I have had a T3i since late-January 2012, never used flash (learned without flash), and also use Magic Lantern. When I got my 85mm 1.2L about 4-5 months ago I decided to only get L lens and stop using non-L.
 
Cerulean said:
When I got my 85mm 1.2L about 4-5 months ago I decided to only get L lens and stop using non-L.
Click to expand...

That's not a bad philosophy, but know that you'd be excluding yourself from some awesome 'interim' glass. There's also glass that does stuff L glass doesn't made by Canon and those that make EF-mount lenses, for various purposes. L glass just doesn't cover everything; here's two examples:

1. 24/28/35 IS- Smaller, lighter primes with decent apertures (the 35 is F/2, even) that have very good color and sharpness. If you don't need the super-fast apertures of the 24L II or 35L, these lenses compete at every level.

2. For an alt lens, the Samyang (nee Bower, Rokinon, and half a dozen others around the world) 14mm F/2.8 fully-manual rectilinear lens is reported to be better for skyscapes and nightscapes due to suffering less coma than Canon's 14L, while being literally 1/6th the price and arguably very sturdy (it's all glass and steel).

There are plenty others, of course, but I thought I'd point those out to start :).
 
UnknownSouljer said:
It can be used euphemistically yes, but I think Canon is probably the most intentional company when it comes to their top tier products. There has never been a 1 series that wasn't proven as an example and they took their time with the 200-400mm, but the results speak for themselves. I'm certain that they don't want to release another sensor type unless it gives them a competitive advantage, excellent ISO, a host of other things (like hopefully increased dynamic range), AND is bullet proof before its released.
Click to expand...

I do agree- I was picking on you (a little).

What I'd want most from a Foveon-based Canon sensor is raw resolution; minus de-mosaicing and anti-aliasing, even a 12MP or 15MP actual resolution would be incredible, if they could match the ISO and dynamic range of their current FF sensors in the process. But they'd have to get the colors accurate, something Sigma is notably struggling with in shipping products.
 
Cerulean said:
Awesome conversation.

I have an 85mm 1.2L, 17-40mm 4L, and 70-200mm 2.8L IS ii. I'm planning on getting the 100mm 2.8L IS, 24mm 1.4L, 35mm 1.4L, 16-35mm 2.8L ii, and 8-15mm 4L. I have had a T3i since late-January 2012, never used flash (learned without flash), and also use Magic Lantern. When I got my 85mm 1.2L about 4-5 months ago I decided to only get L lens and stop using non-L.
Click to expand...

You should pick up some flashes and start learning how to use them. I use Yongnou 622c ETTL radio triggers and 4 speedlights. I also have 5 studio strobes. It opens up a whole new type of shooting when you learn how to have complete control of your lighting.

There are some fantastic non-L lenses out there too. The MPE-65 and 100mm macro are two of them. The 24 and 35mm lenses are pretty close in focal lengths too, so I don't think you'd use them much, plus the new Sigma 35mm 1.4 is supposed to be much better than the Canon version. I'd also consider looking at the 17mm TS-E f/4 L. It's a great wide angle and you can do some fantastic city scape and landscape shots with it.
 
IdiotInCharge said:
That's not a bad philosophy, but know that you'd be excluding yourself from some awesome 'interim' glass. There's also glass that does stuff L glass doesn't made by Canon and those that make EF-mount lenses, for various purposes. L glass just doesn't cover everything; here's two examples:

1. 24/28/35 IS- Smaller, lighter primes with decent apertures (the 35 is F/2, even) that have very good color and sharpness. If you don't need the super-fast apertures of the 24L II or 35L, these lenses compete at every level.

2. For an alt lens, the Samyang (nee Bower, Rokinon, and half a dozen others around the world) 14mm F/2.8 fully-manual rectilinear lens is reported to be better for skyscapes and nightscapes due to suffering less coma than Canon's 14L, while being literally 1/6th the price and arguably very sturdy (it's all glass and steel).

There are plenty others, of course, but I thought I'd point those out to start :).
Click to expand...
My mind is open. Preach more.
 
Cerulean said:
My mind is open. Preach more.
Click to expand...

I'm not IdiotInCharge, but there isn't much else to say.

They're all just tools. Use what it takes to get the job done, and don't, whatever you do, get G.A.S.

Zack Arias is (someone I reference a lot) and someone I look up to in terms of being practical with gear purchases. He only had one piece of L glass (which came up much later) and primarily shot with the 35 f/2 (not even the new IS model) and an 85mm f/1.8. He also picked up a 50mm f/1.4 and he used those three pieces of glass to build his business.

Those three primes take amazing shots and if someone didn't tell you (and you couldn't look at the data) you'd never know which was shot with L-glass or with lower cost lenses. To reiterate my opening point, gear is something you use to be artistic, you don't need crazy gear to do that.
 
Last edited:
Cerulean said:
will have to think on this mmmm
Click to expand...

If you want to try one, I have the excellent 24/2.8 IS USM. I used it more (though briefly) on my 60D than I do on my 6D; though I'd prefer to keep it (who wants to let great glass go?) I don't have any problem shipping it off. It's in mint condition and I have the original box (including receipt if needed).
 
IdiotInCharge said:
If you want to try one, I have the excellent 24/2.8 IS USM. I used it more (though briefly) on my 60D than I do on my 6D; though I'd prefer to keep it (who wants to let great glass go?) I don't have any problem shipping it off. It's in mint condition and I have the original box (including receipt if needed).
Click to expand...

He can also join Canon Professional Services. With the Gold level which is $100 a year you're able to borrow bodies and lenses from Canon for a week for free. You basically just have to pay for shipping/insurance. It's a great cheap way to rent lenses or test out different gear.
 
patric said:
He can also join Canon Professional Services. With the Gold level which is $100 a year you're able to borrow bodies and lenses from Canon for a week for free. You basically just have to pay for shipping/insurance. It's a great cheap way to rent lenses or test out different gear.
Click to expand...

If he want's a 24mm anyway, though- I can verify that mine is pristine, and I'd be letting it go for less than he'd get online. It's an important FL to cover.
 
http://erickimphotography.com/blog/...re-yourself-of-gas-gear-acquisition-syndrome/ good article about Gear Acquisition Syndrome (G.A.S.)

Maybe I should sell my 85mm 1.2L and use that money for a lens I might use more. I've hardly used this lens -- 85mm is too much of a focal length for me / never encounter appropriate scenarios for use. I might possibly benefit from a 24mm more. Until I had gotten the 70-200mm 2.8L IS ii, I used the heck out of my 17-40mm 4L. Maybe I should get a better body to solve the low-light situations (still desiring the 1D X).

I don't do photography for profession or hobby. The way it came to me is simply (1) I needed a camera -- most people just grab a $20 camera off the Walmart shelf, but I kicked it up 40 notches to have something more decent, (2) I perceive my equipment as scientific instruments for my own natural curiosity in wanting to know what it looks like through different lens, what if I took this lens and a second lens and flipped one of them around, same thing but inverse, etc, and (3) later on in my journey since buying my T3i in January 2012, my interest level for photography died and contemplated seriously on selling everything passing it off as all just a waste of money, but never managed to do that because seeing reason as (a) POTENTIAL business investment or leverage in IT career and (b) hope that future SO would be into photography and could use equipment I already have to do photography for money or something.. or at least take it out of my hands and put it to better use.

Presently, I've found a purpose and use for it at a church of about 100 people that I participate in. My boss had assumed that I was really into photography / it was my hobby / etcetera, and finally asked how many hours a week average do I spend with my camera or photography: 0 hours. (no joke) Like everyone else, I only use my equipment when there's a need to take a picture (simply).

In my situation, a 400mm would be handy. The low light situation at the church got me to post this thread inquiring more about the 1DX low light performance & ISO. f/2.8 works fine, but in some shots it is appropriate to use a focal length between 5.6 and 8.0, and I'm hitting or exceeding appropriate limits of my T3i weeding into the territory of noise issues and compromises/sacrifices (1600 and 3200).

In August I'll be going to a youth camp in Colorado or North Dakota or something. I've been thinking I ought to bring at least my 70-200mm, possibly rent a 24mm 1.4L, my 17-40mm, and possibly rent a 1DX for a week (like $250-300 for 7 days).
 
If you just want to shoot low light indoors- such as in a church- a 6D would be perfect; a 5D III would be the right kind of overkill. A 1D X would be a purchase you might regret; it doesn't work like the semi-pro cameras and it's damn heavy. It will also get you noticed, though your 70-200/2.8 II probably helps that already.

I get the use of that lens; it's the best consumer (i.e. not $5000+) zoom available on any system, and it's a workhorse. But otherwise, if it's just an occasional hobby (for me, I try to shoot every week), making the kit lighter will help you keep some interest in it.

And not using the 85/1.2? You have Canon's premiere portrait lens; there's nothing else like it, anywhere. I understand not welding it to the camera, but if you moved up to a full-frame sensor, I bet you'd find all manners of new uses for that lens. On a 6D which sees in the dark (I take great low light portraits with the inexpensive and slow 85/1.8), you will do amazing things with that lens.
 
IdiotInCharge said:
And not using the 85/1.2? You have Canon's premiere portrait lens; there's nothing else like it, anywhere. I understand not welding it to the camera, but if you moved up to a full-frame sensor, I bet you'd find all manners of new uses for that lens. On a 6D which sees in the dark (I take great low light portraits with the inexpensive and slow 85/1.8), you will do amazing things with that lens.
Click to expand...

The 85mm on a crop body is more like a 135mm which is fantastic for head & shoulders type shots outside. I didn't use mine much when I only had a 7D and 20D, but now that I have a 6D, my 85 f/1.8 has become one of my favorites for portraiture. Before selling off any of your lenses, I'd rent or borrow a full frame and try them out. For some lenses it's like having a brand new lens!
 
IdiotInCharge said:
If you just want to shoot low light indoors- such as in a church- a 6D would be perfect; a 5D III would be the right kind of overkill. A 1D X would be a purchase you might regret; it doesn't work like the semi-pro cameras and it's damn heavy. It will also get you noticed, though your 70-200/2.8 II probably helps that already.

I get the use of that lens; it's the best consumer (i.e. not $5000+) zoom available on any system, and it's a workhorse. But otherwise, if it's just an occasional hobby (for me, I try to shoot every week), making the kit lighter will help you keep some interest in it.

And not using the 85/1.2? You have Canon's premiere portrait lens; there's nothing else like it, anywhere. I understand not welding it to the camera, but if you moved up to a full-frame sensor, I bet you'd find all manners of new uses for that lens. On a 6D which sees in the dark (I take great low light portraits with the inexpensive and slow 85/1.8), you will do amazing things with that lens.
Click to expand...
Ok, so maybe I was a little overwhelmed / mostly discouraged when I posted my last post.

I've looked into CPS before but didn't have squat. I looked again, added my equipment, and I've got 30 points, enough for the Gold ($100/year) qualification. It has sparked encouragement in me, and is making me thinking this is good -- I should go down this route and borrow lens through CPS. In addition, I shouldn't get rid of my 85mm (for the points), but your encouragement also helps.

I should make it an objective to get a replacement for my T3i (or a second body at the very least) that is better at low light photography to help me get by for 3-6 months. This would ease some discouragement and burden off of me.

Next to that, I still would like to get a 24mm 2.8 or something (not for GAS, but actual reason) -- or the 16-35mm 2.8L ii as a potential functional replacement of my 17-40mm 4.0L. I've encountered several situations over the past 1.5 years where I have dreaded not being able to do anything less than f/4.0 on this lens. This could cover 24mm, as well as UWA/WA uses and save some money.

Lens that I want to get out of natural curiosity/science and a little bit of fun are the 100mm 2.8L IS Macro (for closeup things!) and 8-15mm 4L Fisheye (for stars). I had also wondered what a pancake lens would be like (especially if using it on a reverse lens mount & a reverse filter).

Questions:
So what full frame bodies would be a good selection for low light performance?
What crop sensor bodies would be a good selection for low light performance? (Maybe I should aim to get one of each?)

A 1D X would be a purchase you might regret; it doesn't work like the semi-pro cameras
Click to expand...
Could you elaborate? :? I'm curious

The 5D Mark III is in an affordable range of $3300 (still need to put in some time of saving money, but nothing like $7000 for a body!) ... and shoot, I thought the 5D III was also a full square-shaped body like the 1DX; my memories must be off X_x

Regarding flash: I know that sooner or later at some point in time I must enter this territory. The reason I didn't to begin with is because I wanted to learn "the hard way" (lighting I hear is actually more advanced/difficult) without flash and relying on natural light/scenario lighting and also not come across as a typical consumer who incorrectly uses flash (even not having had any experience, I didn't want to be one of those people -- which is most people with a cheap camera from Walmart) and ruins photos that could otherwise look very decent
 
Last edited:
As an Amazon Associate, HardForum may earn from qualifying purchases.
You can sometimes find refurbished 5Dmk3's on Canon's site for $2300-2500, especially when they have sales.
 
Just going to throw this out there. I've talked about it a little bit in other threads.

You don't need a $7k body. You don't need a $3k body. You don't even need a $2k body.
Look if you have the cash, this is for fun and games etc and you just want to spend a lot. Then by all means. But if this is about pursuing the art of photography you can do it for far less.

Make the needs of what you're trying to accomplish drive your acquisitions, rather than just buying whatever is "top-end" because it's nice to have. The 1DX/5D3/6D all came out within the past year and a half +/-, it's not like every photo taken before that time on a different body is now worthless. I like the commentary I've heard from even wedding professionals like Doug Gordon, "these days if you don't have a 5D3 and an 85mm f/1.2L you can't even shoot a wedding." In case reading this as text makes this statement blow over your head, he's being facetious.

I bring up Zack Arias a lot in these various camera threads because he's by far the most practical, cash-and-carry, get-what-you-need-not-what-you-want sort of photographers you can find. I'd get something used and save a bank-roll. Use inexpensive high quality EF primes, a used 5D/5D2 and learn and grow. It'll take years to out grow that gear and most would never need capabilities more than what those can offer (outside of maybe focusing speed/lock and ISO, but they would certainly not outstrip a majority of the rest of the system). Or like I said earlier, if you have $10k to spend on primes and $7k to spend on a body just burning a hole in your wallet you could just do that instead.
 
Cerulean said:
Questions:
So what full frame bodies would be a good selection for low light performance?
What crop sensor bodies would be a good selection for low light performance? (Maybe I should aim to get one of each?)

Could you elaborate? :? I'm curious
Click to expand...

1. All current Canon and Nikon full-frame cameras. Wouldn't suggest others due to limited lens selection (if only compared to Canikon).
2. No Canons; recent Nikons (D3200/D5200/D7100) are great, older ones are still better than Canons. Remember that Canon's crop sensor (all Rebels, the EOS-M, and the 60D/7D) is over five years old, and it wasn't 'great' then.

Cerulean said:
Regarding flash: I know that sooner or later at some point in time I must enter this territory. The reason I didn't to begin with is because I wanted to learn "the hard way" (lighting I hear is actually more advanced/difficult) without flash and relying on natural light/scenario lighting and also not come across as a typical consumer who incorrectly uses flash (even not having had any experience, I didn't want to be one of those people -- which is most people with a cheap camera from Walmart) and ruins photos that could otherwise look very decent
Click to expand...

Flash is like cheating, but you pay for it. If you use it without forethought, you'll get your lower ISO and faster shutter speeds, but you won't be impressed by the look. Depth will be gone and shadows will be harsh; you'll look like you're shooting with one of those Wal-mart cameras, even if you use a 1D X.

Cerulean said:
Could you elaborate? :? I'm curious
Click to expand...

As others have said (read and head UnknownSouljer's comments, especially the one directly above mine), you don't need an amazing new camera to make good pictures.

In that sense, there's a reason to get no less than a 6D; and it's not because the 6D is so good, though it is perfect for low light shooting; it's because Canon's crop cameras are 'crippled' to the point that you have to work really, really hard to make good photos. Now that's subjective of course, but shooting my 60D in Singapore made me wanted to give up photography. The combination of a moving and shooting Canon crop sensor and slower zooms like the 15-85mm and 70-300mm lenses almost killed me; I either got far too much noise or far too much blur.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top