Suggest a crop camera with quality high ISO

Just what the title suggests!!!

Want to stay with a crop camera.

I have a T4i. I enjoy that camera, but am researching an upgrade.

Budget???

What I shoot. People, landscapes, action, anything really.

I have been considering the 70D, and salivating over the 7DMII, and the thread dedicated to it . I'm not sure if I would be in over my head with the latter.

Just looking for opinions from folks who can give me some good advice!

If you are just after better controls, with about no difference in the photographic results, the 60D is huge bargain right now. If action, and the required AF-performance is also important, consider the 70D. I don't believe there is noticeable IQ difference between these two. The 70D is also equipped with DPAF for video. I don't do video, but those who do, rave about this feature. The 7D2 has all of that, a new AF-system that covers a HUGE portion of the viewfinder, and is a step up in IQ, especially at higher ISO settings. Adding the 6D to your arsenal presents you with a different set of possibilities.

If you were to ask what I would do, which you clearly did not, I'd keep the T4i and add a 6D. I use a 60D and a 6D. I like the versatility of having both formats.

One more thing, the T4i is a quite capable camera. It may be a bit limited in controls and features, but the results it is capable of are excellent. Maybe put your budget toward a new lens, or some lighting accessories, or a good tripod?

Good luck, and happy shopping!

sharod wrote in post #17297269
Just what the title suggests!!!

Want to stay with a crop camera.

I have a T4i. I enjoy that camera, but am researching an upgrade.

Budget???

What I shoot. People, landscapes, action, anything really.

I have been considering the 70D, and salivating over the 7DMII, and the thread dedicated to it . I'm not sure if I would be in over my head with the latter.

Just looking for opinions from folks who can give me some good advice!

Instead of changing cameras, change software.

If you dislike high ISO noise, control it with Imagenomic Noiseware noise reduction software. The "community edition" may still be usable for free, and even the cost of the full program is far less than a new camera body.

sharod wrote in post #17297269
Want to stay with a crop camera.

Significant image quality upgrade equals larger sensor, unfortunately.

Some you get by just buying a newer model.

Now this is out of the camera. As stated above, a lot can be done in post processing too.

Ok, first off, apologies. I completely missed the ISO part in the title.

The T4i is newer than my 60D, and I believe it has a newer sensor. Your camera is quite useable at ISO 6400, if you expose and process adequately. I use LR 5.7, but LR 4.x can do the same thing. This was shot at ISO 6400 with a 60D. If you want better than this, you'll need a full-frame camera. The 60D, and by inference your T4i, get a bit unmanageable at ISO 12,800. Up to 6400, Canon's last 5 years or so of crop cameras produce excellent results.

sharod wrote in post #17297269
Just what the title suggests!!!

Want to stay with a crop camera.

I have a T4i. I enjoy that camera, but am researching an upgrade.

Budget???

What I shoot. People, landscapes, action, anything really.

I have been considering the 70D, and salivating over the 7DMII, and the thread dedicated to it . I'm not sure if I would be in over my head with the latter.

Just looking for opinions from folks who can give me some good advice!

Heya,

The T4i has pretty decent ISO handling ability. ISO 3200 is easily useable. ISO 6400 with some clean up. ISO 12800 is mostly just for "I need the shot anyways." But 1600~3200 is totally doable. Less than that doesn't even need clean up. It's a pretty good sensor all things considered.

The 70D is maybe just under 1 stop better in ISO. That's not really a significant leap. You have to consider that there's more to ISO than performance, there's also the "look." Some ISO patterns are nicer and more tolerable. Some are more obvious and obnoxious. Look at examples to figure that part out as it's fairly preferential. The 7D2 is pretty close to this too, while again a total upgrade, it may not be significant enough in ISO for your needs.

Ultimately if you want really high ISO performance, there's the 6D. Or a non-Canon.

Instead of looking for an upgrade, instead, look to improve understanding of your tool & craft. High quality ISO is not a big deal if you expose properly. Underexposed, high ISO shows up really badly. Focus on never underexposing and you'll notice you can use higher ISO no problem. Also, improve your post processing of noise, you can get away with several stops of ISO higher than your comfort zone likely if you just learn to process it differently from RAW (see TeamSpeed, he's an ISO processing guru; search him). The image quality and AF and stuff of your T4i is plenty good. You're not going to get much of an upgrade from a newer crop. Even the 7D2, while better, is not significantly better (IQ wise; AF wise yes it's a huge tier better).

Shooting landscape, a new crop will do zero in this department.
Shooting people, well, again, a new crop will not offer much of anything.
Shooting action, well, a better AF system will help, but really, unless you're shooting extreme action, I'm willing to bet you can simply learn to use your current AF system better and get the results you want.

Shooting action is more than just the camera; having a lens that focuses as fast as it's told is a big deal. Your current lenses are not super fast at focusing. Try a USM prime or zoom for action and you'll feel like you have a whole new system (eg; 70-200 F4L, 85 F1.8, 200 F2.8L, etc).

You honestly could use better glass before a newer body based on what you have and just talking about "general" shooting.

I can shoot birds in flight with a T4i, so I imagine you can simply learn to use your camera better. Not that this is a cop out. I'm honestly just trying to save you money. Something tells me that you are not surpassing your cameras abilities, but vise verse.

Don't let the holiday sales make you think you have to buy stuff.

Very best,

I certainly agree with Malveaux above. Crop cameras at 6400 need some pre-planning and post-processing. The shot I posted above was captured at +4/3 EC, a necessity for getting results at this level.

One thing not mentioned yet is that your 18-135 is quite slow. I am sure it is f/5.6 by 85mm. An EF 85mm f/1.8 would allow you to drop your ISO from 6400 to 640 (3-1/3 stops) while keeping the same shutter speed. Have you looked at upgrading your lenses?

Wow, lots of great info!!!

I have been using Noiseware for several years. It is a great tool when you need it!!

I have been looking to upgrade my lenses. Not sure what I want. I mainly use my 18-135 STM, so any suggestions are always welcome!

Okay, here is what I shot this morning. EXIF intact. Please feel free to critique!!!

EDIT ADDED: I shot these at 400 ISO, not high, I know. But previous high ISO's have been unacceptable to me.

RAW

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/pWjV​1L

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/qdPh​ww

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/qdSD​2r

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/pgTk​bo

Heya,

The RAW looks best to me as it is for that exposure and virtually noise free. The others just look processed.

Practice shooting at ISO 1600. Consider you want to expose to the right if able, to help shoot at this ISO, if you need to. Granted, don't shoot at high ISO just for the sake of it, other than to learn how to use it and get what you want in terms of exposure and it's relation to the shutter. A scene like that shouldn't need high ISO, as it's static, and you should be able to land it at a low shutter with an IS lens easily. But even a wee bit of ISO alleviates that.

Higher ISO would matter when you need to keep a certain shutter speed to avoid motion blur. And ISO hardly shows up at all in a well exposed image. This is why it's critical to simply get very good at exposing well, and even slightly exposing to the right of the histogram, so that you can get more room for the ISO to barely show up even at higher levels. Higher ISO in dark photos, and under exposed photos, is where high ISO will look dreadful.

Lastly, don't pixel peep ISO. Nothing will make you happy doing this. Nothing.

****

As for your original image. I'm not sure why you shot at F11. Your 1 second exposure time wasn't necessary. That's a flat surface, virtually no depth of field needed here, especially at 18mm. At 18mm, F5.6 would have had all the depth of field, and more, that you would need for a long distance. You could have opened up even wider, to F3.5 or F4, at 18mm on that lens. Let's say F4 for simplicity, and sharpness. That's 3 stops faster than F11. That's 3 more stops of light, so you can get less ISO, and faster shutter speed. ISO 400 is nothing, so let's keep that. Instead, you go from 1 second to about 0.12seconds shutter. Or, you could have went to ISO 100 and shot at 1/2 second shutter.

So again, I don't think you need a new camera at all. I think you need to simply look at how you're exposing.

Very best,

Nice. Like the last one best. It is quite obvious you know what you are doing. Perhaps never looking at an ISO 6400 shot at 100% is your best bet. Or at the very least, don't judge them by the 100% view.

Try shooting at 3200 with +2/3 or +1 EC, raw of course. Process a few of those and look at the results at a reasonable size. I've sold prints that were shot at 6400 on my 60D. What looks a bit noisy at 1:1 looks much better as a framed 8x10.

MalVeauX wrote in post #17297422
Heya,

The RAW looks best to me as it is for that exposure and virtually noise free. The others just look processed.

Practice shooting at ISO 1600. Consider you want to expose to the right if able, to help shoot at this ISO, if you need to. Granted, don't shoot at high ISO just for the sake of it, other than to learn how to use it and get what you want in terms of exposure and it's relation to the shutter. A scene like that shouldn't need high ISO, as it's static, and you should be able to land it at a low shutter with an IS lens easily. But even a wee bit of ISO alleviates that.

Higher ISO would matter when you need to keep a certain shutter speed to avoid motion blur. And ISO hardly shows up at all in a well exposed image. This is why it's critical to simply get very good at exposing well, and even slightly exposing to the right of the histogram, so that you can get more room for the ISO to barely show up even at higher levels. Higher ISO in dark photos, and under exposed photos, is where high ISO will look dreadful.

Lastly, don't pixel peep ISO. Nothing will make you happy doing this. Nothing.

Very best,

Thank you. I will go out and put some more work into it. I tend to slightly underexpose, I need to work on that. I am not a pixel peeper I am more of a, if it is pleasing to the eye, it works for me.

GeoKras1989 wrote in post #17297428
Nice. Like the last one best. It is quite obvious you know what you are doing. Perhaps never looking at an ISO 6400 shot at 100% is your best bet. Or at the very least, don't judge them by the 100% view.

Try shooting at 3200 with +2/3 or +1 EC, raw of course. Process a few of those and look at the results at a reasonable size. I've sold prints that were shot at 6400 on my 60D. What looks a bit noisy at 1:1 looks much better as a framed 8x10.

Thank you.

Maybe I just have GAS I need to direct that toward a better lens. I have been looking, just not sure exactly what I want!

You already shoot RAW so that is good. I guess that when you say the first image is RAW, what you mean is that it is the standard LR conversion with no additional adjustments. Judgung by that image you have underexposed by quite a lot, maybe as much as two stops. This is a situation that is seen time and time again, don't like excessive "high ISO noise" so keep it at ISO whatever and consequentially underexpose.

Assuming that you are fixed by the shutter speed and aperture that you were able to use in this case I would have kept them the same and just upped the ISO to 1600. I think that would have been about right for a normal exposure. Personally I would actually go with ETTR and would probably have gone further to ISO 3200 to keep the histogram over to the right hand edge. Given that level of exposure I would think that you would need no special NR tools at all. The standard LR NR would probably have been fine. I would much rather shoot ETTR using ISO 3200 than have to push an ISO 100 shot by a couple of stops, the 3200 shot would have much much better noise.

When it comes to ETTR, then if you have run out of shutter speed and aperture to maintain the exposure level, then you should always maintain the exposure with added ISO. It is though important to only use the whole stop ISO values that are produced using analogue amplifers, before the image is digitised. For the same reason using the expanded ISO settings is not recommended, as both these and the intermediate values are produced in camera by digital multiplication. If you are going to add brightness digitally then you might as well do it in your RAW processing application than in the camera as you will have more control over the results.

Alan

BigAl007 wrote in post #17297453
You already shoot RAW so that is good. I guess that when you say the first image is RAW, what you mean is that it is the standard LR conversion with no additional adjustments. Judgung by that image you have underexposed by quite a lot, maybe as much as two stops. This is a situation that is seen time and time again, don't like excessive "high ISO noise" so keep it at ISO whatever and consequentially underexpose.
Alan

The first pic is SOOC.

{slowly raises her hand} Guilty as charged

sharod wrote in post #17297434
Thank you.

Maybe I just have GAS I need to direct that toward a better lens. I have been looking, just not sure exactly what I want!

I'd suggest picking up a used nifty fifty and go from there. I had never used anything other than a terrible 3.5-5.6 kit lens before getting one of those. They take indoor shooting from frustrating, noisy, hi-ISO, and harsh flash (with the built-in one) to pleasant, even with the limitations of the nifty. It's a lot of fun to have a fast lens, and since it's cheap, you can start with the nifty and decide if you want something longer or shorter for a more expensive lens. You can get a couple of nice sub-2.8 primes (or even the 17-55) for less than switching to a 5D2 or 6D, and probably get better results.