Noise control versus lens sales?

[Chrisc]

I’m contemplating buying a 300 2.8 IS lens to accompany me on aviation shoots. I currently have a 100-400 IS but the 5.6 max aperture limiting during the typical British gloom and so I find myself shooting at 400ISO more often than one and two hundred, this of course gives me much more noise and intolerance to exposure errors.

My real quandary is… Instead of spending all that money on a lens to gain a few hundredths of a second, should I wait for the 10D replacement / buy a 1D MKII, which may hopefully have better noise control at faster ISO speeds?

Is it really in Canon’s (And Nikon, Sigma etc) interest to reduce noise sufficiently at a higher ISO as surely the sale of premium fast lenses will slow / stop as we will all be able to shoot at 400/800 with our 5.6 lenses?

Is the draw of good noise control enough to out weigh the sale of big lenses?

Chris

[Scottes]

One thing to consider is AF. On a dismal day a 2.8 will AF better than a 5.6.

Then again the MKII has better AF...

And if you're going avian then you'll most likely be tacking on a 1.4 TC onto the 300, so you've gained 1 stop.

And if you don't underexpose then ISO 400 isn't so bad.

Maube you should try Neat Image and see what it does for noise. That;s a lot cheaper than a 300 f/2.8

[KennyG]

The 10D noise at ISO400 is hardly worth worrying about, it is cleaner than most at 100. I shoot at 400 most of the time with my 10D and 200 with my 1D. Noise has never really been a problem.

I would make one comment on your lens thoughts - HEAVY. I have a 300 2.8L IS and trust me, you won't want to hand-hold it for too long. I use mine at race circuits on a monopod and it is bad enough hauling the thing around the track along with a very full Billingham 555, without trying to use it hand-held.

As far as the MK-II is concerned, the jury is still out until the production models get used in anger. Chuck Westfall from Canon does say it has very low noise in comparison to previous models and the samples seem to show it, but it is too early to be 100% sure.

All manufacturers are trying to reduce the in-camera noise as much as possible, but there is only so much you can do at this point in time without effecting the image resolution.

At the end of the day it comes down to cost-benefit and how practical the technical solution is for how you shoot. It isn't much use having a fast 2.8 lens if you can only hold it for a couple of shots and then need to rest your arms for ten minutes. :lol:

[CyberDyneSystems]

Gotta say,. the MkII will be a big improvement over the 10D in a lot of ways,. but as far as noise goes,. I think the improvement will be a lot less dramatic.

The 10D is allready one of the best DSLRs out there as far as noise is concerned..... yep,. I bet the MkII will be better,. I doubt it will be so much that it will change your feelings about ISO 400 (which I agree with KennyG,.. is VERY clean on a 10D)

One last thing,. make sure you are not underexposing... (which can happen often in grey overcast weather) the noise is much more prevelent the more an image is underexposed.

:)

[Belmondo]

Very true. I took a picture of a crow a couple days ago. It was severely underexposed, and by the time I compensated the exposure enought to make anything recognizable out of it, it inded up looking like 'The Great Speckled Bird.'

I have to keep reminding myself when it's late afternoon or overcast that highlights are not going to get blown out so it isn't necessary to underexpose as I normally do.

[DaveG]

I’m contemplating buying a 300 2.8 IS lens to accompany me on aviation shoots. I currently have a 100-400 IS but the 5.6 max aperture limiting during the typical British gloom and so I find myself shooting at 400ISO more often than one and two hundred, this of course gives me much more noise and intolerance to exposure errors.

My real quandary is… Instead of spending all that money on a lens to gain a few hundredths of a second, should I wait for the 10D replacement / buy a 1D MKII, which may hopefully have better noise control at faster ISO speeds?

Is it really in Canon’s (And Nikon, Sigma etc) interest to reduce noise sufficiently at a higher ISO as surely the sale of premium fast lenses will slow / stop as we will all be able to shoot at 400/800 with our 5.6 lenses?

Is the draw of good noise control enough to out weigh the sale of big lenses?

Chris

Ah, but five years from now you'll have a pretty much new 300 f2.8 and will look back at the Mark II saying, "You mean I took pictures with that dog?" Now make no mistake about this: I want the Mark II so bad my teeth hurt. But unless the last three years have been an aberation, what's state of the art right now will look pitiful in just a few months.

How much would you pay for a D30 right now? A D60? Meanwhile a 70-200 f2.8 L lens retains its value.

So I'd say go get the 300, put the Mark II off for a year and then pay about 75% the price of what one is going for now.