upgrade from 400D

[tony359]

Hello all,

Since I bought a new lens for my 400D I found myself shooting much more, I never realised that the 18-55 lens was so limiting!
Now, the camera is a tad old. It works well, but I'm mainly disappointed by its performances on low light. I've been thinking of upgrading - either with a 650 or maybe with a 60/70 (I like the focus microadjustment feature, which is only available on the 70D unfortunately) but I am concerned I may not get the quality upgrade I am expecting.
I have seen many samples and reviews and I am still confused. While I may enjoy all the bells and whistles the new models come with, I am mainly looking for an upgrade in picture quality: I'd like to be able to use ISO higher than 400 in low light conditions without beginning to see red pixels all around the picture!

I don't want to upgrade and then realise that there is not much difference. I am not a pro, just an amateur.

Any suggestions appreciated!
Thanks
Tony

[jamsus]

Hello!

First, what is your budget? I mean, if you have a limited budget - an APS-C should be a good answer. 60D or 70D both, i think they can handle a better image quality with higher ISO (check pixel-peeper for some pictures at high iso) than the 400D!

My suggestion is a 60D + a good lens.

But, an used 5dMarkII would be a truly improvement of the image quality, but in that case you need to invest also on you lens park!

It depends on "the budget"

Another thing you should consider, is that with a good post-processing you can "remove\handle" a lot of "noise" caused by the high-iso settings, you already know how to do it?

Because if you go in the "detail", on pixel peepeing - pretty each picture is noisy, but maybe at a lower resolution that image is really appreciable!

[tony359]

hi Jamsus,

I am not considering single-digit cameras. Budget issues and also size/weight issue! I read around that the picture quality of a 60/70D is basically similar to a 650/700D but the 650/700D is lighter. The only nice feature I would like of a 70D would be the focus microadjustment.

I use Lightroom, I can remove some noise but usually at sharpness expenses. Red dots can be pretty much eliminated but shooting a 1600 is basically useless with the 400D. In daylight I can use it for some high speed shots, but still the result is quite poor (better than a blurry one of course).
But I have never looked into it, can you suggest a link where I can expand my knowledge? You never know I may miss something important - I learnt the other day that Chromatic Aberration is easily fixed by LR with a click!

My main concern is: will I see a major improvement if I upgrade to a XXXD/XXD?

[Kayaker72]

My main concern is: will I see a major improvement if I upgrade to a XXXD/XXD?

Hi Tony,

It depends upon what you mean by "major." You will go from 10 MP to 18/20 MP. So your resolving power will increase. I would expect you to feel that your images are sharper and you would definitely be able to crop more and still retain detail.

I quick check of www.dxomark.com (http://www.dxomark.com) where you can compare sensors of different cameras, noise will improve slightly (~1/3-1/2 of a stop), dynamic range will improve about 1 stop, tonal range about 1/2 stop, and color sensitivity would be about the same. So, I would say to expect an improvement, but I am not sure I would call it "major."

Overall, at least with the sensor, I would expect your biggest difference to be in terms of MPs. But if low light is your concern, I suspect you may not see much of a jump.

I don't know how loyal you are to Canon and how much you have invested, but you may see an improvement in sensor performance jumping to Nikon or Sony.

It isn't as if each system does not have their knocks against them. Canon, in some arenas, is noted for having limited improvements to their sensor tech (one reason why I am watching the 7DII closely). But Canon is known for excellent affordable lenses and accessories. Also, Canon is known for better customer service,ergonomics and quality control. Nikon uses sensors made by Sony and (if I recall) Toshiba. Those sensors are current state of the art. However, the general knock on Nikon is quality control, cost and quality of certain lenses (compared to Canon), customer service, and ergonomics.

I hate to bring up a different brand as people are taking good photos with each brand and, ultimately, I have personally concluded Canon is the best brand (for me). But, if you get something better than Nikon's kit lens (Canon's kit appears much better), and what you care about is high ISO performance in a crop body, right now the D3300 has a better sensor than the 700D.

EDIT....I should also add the obvious, if you want better low light performance, you may want to try a faster lens. Depending upon your budget, Canon has a nice lineup. You could get 2-3 stop improvement in low light performance. Or, get a good flash.

[tony359]

Hi Kajaker,

That's quite a nice analysis, thanks.
I'll check the site you mentioned - I did do a comparison on dpreview.com before and I ended up being a little puzzled.
I've just bought a Canon lens (70-300) and a new 18-55 IS STM. I am not thinking of moving to Nikon at the time being - but I'll think about it.

With "major" I mean that I could expect to shoot at least at ISO1600 with the same quality I now have when shooting at ISO400 on my 400D.

Thanks for taking the time to post a such detailed comparison, I appreciate it! :)

Tony

[conropl]

I started out with a 400D and then moved to a 7D. There was a big difference between the two. The focus was better, the resolution was better, the ISO was nominally better. The other pluses you already mentioned - such as micro adjustments.

That was going from a 400D to a 7D. The 70D is better than the 7D on all those points stated above. So will you see a difference... definitely. The real question is will you see a big difference between the latest xxxD compared to the 70D... that is more dependant on whether your technique and composing capabilities are to the point to take advantage of the differences.

As for shooting at ISO 1600 - You should be good to 800, and depending on you tolerance to noise and the size the picture is going to be viewed at, then maybe 1600 is going to be acceptable. If you want to shoot at 1600 most of the time, then go to full frame.

[tony359]

hi,
Thanks. All reviews I've read on the 70/700 say that they are basically giving the same picture quality, that's why I was thinking of a 650/700D instead.

Your pictures are amazing, I can't stop watching them! :)