ISO vs. Price; a.k.a. Choosing a Camera
I've been trying to decide which of two digital cameras to purchase: the Canon EOS 500D (a.k.a. Digital Rebel T1i) or the Nikon D90. I've read a good deal of the in-depth reviews here and here, respectively. I've read up on ISO vs. shutter speed vs. aperture (thanks partly to you wonderful people). I've read other websites and some other reviews of the cameras. But I just can't decide. The reason: price and ISO.
---Background info---
I've always had a photographer's eye and have taken loads of pictures with my old Olympus Mju II Zoom 80 film camera. I've been wanting to move into more advanced photography for a long time, and have dabbled with my father's DSLR, so I'm somewhat familiar with the basic features of a DSLR. But I was always disappointed by the noise in the photos I would take with his camera, even after adjusting the settings. (I don't recall what the camera model was, though. Sorry.) This turned me off to digital photography for a long time.
But after reading an article in Popular Science a year ago, I fell in love with HDR photography. I know a perfect spot from which I could make a stunning HDR photo of downtown Minneapolis at night. I plan on having said photo printed and framed for my apartment (probably somewhere in the realm of 24" x 36"). I would use the camera for all sorts of shots, though (day, night, macro, landscape, etc. Taking a shot of the moon at night is also very high on my list).
---End of Background info---
The two in-depth reviews I linked to at the top give comparable reviews for the two cameras. The only two major differences that I'm concerned with are the prices of the cameras and the noise at different ISO values. From the reviews, it looks like the EOS 500D has significant noise at ISO values greater than 400, relative to the D90. Should I be concerned about this?
I've read conflicting information about ISO in low-light situations. Some sources say to stick with auto ISO. Others say to use low ISO values. Still others say to use high ISO values. Considering my desired applications, what should I believe? Any advice would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks in advance.
---Background info---
I've always had a photographer's eye and have taken loads of pictures with my old Olympus Mju II Zoom 80 film camera. I've been wanting to move into more advanced photography for a long time, and have dabbled with my father's DSLR, so I'm somewhat familiar with the basic features of a DSLR. But I was always disappointed by the noise in the photos I would take with his camera, even after adjusting the settings. (I don't recall what the camera model was, though. Sorry.) This turned me off to digital photography for a long time.
But after reading an article in Popular Science a year ago, I fell in love with HDR photography. I know a perfect spot from which I could make a stunning HDR photo of downtown Minneapolis at night. I plan on having said photo printed and framed for my apartment (probably somewhere in the realm of 24" x 36"). I would use the camera for all sorts of shots, though (day, night, macro, landscape, etc. Taking a shot of the moon at night is also very high on my list).
---End of Background info---
The two in-depth reviews I linked to at the top give comparable reviews for the two cameras. The only two major differences that I'm concerned with are the prices of the cameras and the noise at different ISO values. From the reviews, it looks like the EOS 500D has significant noise at ISO values greater than 400, relative to the D90. Should I be concerned about this?
I've read conflicting information about ISO in low-light situations. Some sources say to stick with auto ISO. Others say to use low ISO values. Still others say to use high ISO values. Considering my desired applications, what should I believe? Any advice would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks in advance.
0
Comments
I'm a Canon guy, but I'd pick the D90 over the 500. You'll find yourself in situations where you'll kick yourself for not having less noise later :cry
And besides, more noise means bigger file size too. That's annoying. Lol.
I agree, I think $150 more would be worth it.
Overfocused: That recommendation means a lot, considering you're a Canon guy. Thanks for the input! That noise comment perplexes me, though. Do all of the noise-free shots I've seen on the internet over the years come from ultra-top-notch cameras or something?
dantambok: The D90 is $300 more than the 500D, from what I've found. Do you know of another store I should be looking at?
rainbow: You're making me nervous! I really don't want to spend more than $1,200 on a camera, since this is just a hobby; and one that I won't be engaging in, say, every weekend or anything. But there have been plenty of times--probably 3 to 6 per year--where I really would like a top-notch photo of something. For every other time, a point-and-shoot would probably do it.
You're definitely right about the lenses: I haven't looked into those at all. But that's only because I don't plan on purchasing additional lenses any time soon. I'm sure the stock one will fill most of my everyday needs. The only two lenses I think I would ever be interested in purchasing (and that would probably be some time down the line) would be one for macro shots, and one for astro-photography (along with a tracking mount for long exposures).
Again, thanks for the help, you guys. If anyone has anything else to add, please chime in! Else, I'll be buying myself a Nikon D90.
I hate to say this, but don't buy it locally. The prices around here are to high.
2) What lens are you looking to get with it?
Are you buying it with a kit lens, or going with a body only purchase and buying the lens you want?
3) If the price of $1200 for the camera is for 'just' the camera, I'm guessing you went to NCE.
Check prices at B&H or Adorama on the web. I think you'll do better on the price at one of those.
Basking in the shadows of yesterday's triumphs'.
sorry, my bad. These were what I looked at.
http://www.adorama.com/ICADRT1IKR.html
http://www.adorama.com/INKD90R.html
But, you do need to keep a view to the future and think a bit about how your photography may/will evolve over time, say the next year or three. And that leads to the question of, "Do one buy what one will need and pay the premium now, betting that one will eventually need "Feature X" but not have to buy a different camera body at sometime in the near future or buy what is needed now only sell it when one has out-grown the body and be "forced" to buy something else in six or 16 months?" I guess that's going to be driven by your current budget.
Not necessarily. But it is almost a certainty that these images to which you are referring were properly exposed at time of capture. There are two primary causes of noise in an image (1) High ISO and (2) an improperly/under-exposed image that has been pushed in post processing. And, as strange as it may seem at first blush, using high ISO does not automatically equate to a high noise image.
My suggestion would be, as has already been alluded to above, make your purchasing decision with a view to buying into a system. It is very expensive to go with one manufacturer only to decide later that this was a mistake and you need/want to sell it all and go with another. Look at the lenes available - I fear you will find the "stock" lens offered to be sorely lacking (but, YMMV). What about other equipment in each system? Have you considered the way flash photography is implemented? Pick up and play with a representive body from each manufacturer - which one feels better in your hands? For which one does the functioning seem more intuitive? There are some people who have a very hard time understanding/using a camera from one manufacturer but feel right at home with a camera from another.
My Photos
Thoughts on photographing a wedding, How to post a picture, AF Microadjustments?, Light Scoop
Equipment List - Check my profile
www.focusedonyourmemories.com
What you see depends on what you're looking for.
Personal preferences as to the feel of the body, and of course lens selection, are probably the best guide guides to what you should purchase; that, and what type of photography you'll be doing.
The images you see on the internet are only previews of the full size image and nowhere near the actual size and amount of pixels needed to print a photo at a huge resolution needed for a 24"x36" photo.
Here's what I mean:
Most previews are from 400-1000 pixels in the long dimension and they're from images originally MUCH larger. Most images you see online are just big enough for seeing on a screen. I have a 10MP Pentax K10D that takes a photo at 2,592x3,872 pixels. Thats 10,059,456 pixels of image data per image taken. It's noise performance @ high ISO pretty much sucks. So, if I take a noisy image with 10 million pixels in it, and chop it down to lets say 1000x667 (a decent size for internet viewing) now you have an image that is only 667,000 pixels total. You've shrunk the noise so small and cut out %93 of the original image data, so that noise is not going to be seen in such a small picture preview.
A 24"x36" image printed @ photo resolution (300DPI or dots per inch) would require an image that is 7,200x10,800 pixels (77,600,000 pixels total) which is effectively blowing up the noise of a 10MP such as the one taken with my camera by %776! You're having to digitally enlarge the noise which will make it much easier to see in a giant print like that. It will look good from across the room but close up it may turn into a bit of a mess.
Overall it literally doesn't matter what camera you get if you use a tripod and keep the ISO to 100 or 200 at night time. Sunny days and overcast aren't a problem for either camera , but if you like shooting hand held in low available light and twilight, then you'd want the D90. From the sounds of it, a reasonably cheap DSLR with a big enough resolution, a sharp as nails prime lens, and a nice tripod would do you a lot more good. In your case of wanting to make occasional huge posters, more megapixels @ ISO 100 or 200 will make a huge difference since noise is virtually non existent in any camera at ISO 100 with proper exposure.
http://www.tanyastafford.com
http://www.tanyastaffordblog.com
Twitter
Facebook
davev: I was originally looking to buy it at Best Buy, but I decided to look online and found MUCH better deals (how Best Buy is not constantly being sued for false advertising--their name--is beyond me). As I said in my original post, right now I'm only looking to go with the kit lens. In the future, I may purchase lenses for macro photography and astrophotography. But that's all I'm really interested in. As for B&H and Adorama, I actually just heard about those sites yesterday! I'll definitely check them out.
Overfocused: Thanks for the clarification. I will definitely be purchasing a tripod, but I can also see myself often caught without it while in a low-light situation--suddenly seeing a stunning sunset, for example, and quickly grabbing my camera to take a shot before the sunset disappears.
Tas67, you pretty much summed up my feelings after reading up on both cameras: Just get the better ISO and you won't have to worry about it!
Thanks again, everyone!!
Technically sunsets are pretty bright...
No, I know what you mean. You could grab a 50mm F1.4 or 1.8 prime for that, or a wide angle lens ~F/2 fairly cheaply. If budget is a concern, old MF lenses with superior build and excellent optical quality go for just $50-100.
This website makes things very easy. I should bookmark this place. In reality you're only getting half a stop less noise, so to me that is sort of a moot point. The extra build quality and performance however... that's where you'll really benefit more. Basically the 90D is all around better, not a ton better, but for the price increase it's definitely many small improvements in
many areas.
http://snapsort.com/compare/Canon_EOS_500D-vs-Nikon_D90
1) Nikon's pro lineup has about half a stop to a full stop over Canon's pro lineup in regards to noise at elevated ISOs (so if Canon and Nikon were both set at ISO 1600, Canon's noise level would look like 1600 while Nikon's noise level would look like ISO 800-1200; and
2) Canon equipment is less expensive than Nikon.
If you google around you will find a number of sites which have compared Canon model(s) and Nikon model(s) noise levels at various ISO. The Canon is a newer design and in many areas has better specs, 15mp vs 12mp, 1080p video vs 720p, 6400/128000 ISO range vs 3200 ISO range. The Nikon is a better built machine, has 4.5 FPS vs 3.4 FPS, 11 point autofocus vs. 9 point autofocus. For $100 more you can get the Canon 60D, a much better camera overall than either T1i or the D90.
In the $500 to $900 dollar range I doubt, (I could be wrong), if there will be significant differences in Image Quality (IQ) at any ISO between any Canon/Nikon dSLR. In fact, up to an 8x10 and at ISO 400 or less, you won't see any significant differences between The top-of-the-line cameras and entry level camera. (I haven't any experience with video and the above does not address video capability.)
Gary
PS- This has probably been said before, but if your looking to do a lot of HDR, then you should/will/probably be using a tripod, in which case noise, will be a mute issue, as with a tripod you can set your ISO as low or high as desired without any ill side-effects from handshake.
G
Unsharp at any Speed
Yes MOST canon equipment is less expensive than nikon. Current top of the line bodies between canon and nikon = Nikon D3s has about 1-2 stops better noise control than the best Canon camera. Resolution = Nikon D3x is the best between Canon and Nikon. AF system = debatable, but D300 has more selectable points than, say, 7D.
Now, compare Nikon D300s to Canon 7D and the 7D has better noise control, better resolution, and better video function. The same three advantages are available on the Rebel T2i, which has the same basic sensor. The rebel T2i is roughly the equivalent of the Nikon D90 in most other respects and limitations. The Rebel T2i is about the same price used as a D90.