still unsure cant decide

[thelearner]

hi

still cannot decide between nikon d3000 and canon 1000d

reason im unsure

-read bad things about the iso noise - is this just people not using the correct settings? this image on flicker showing the poor noise at 1600 iso scared me but is it just setting the camera settings incorrectly or is the iso noise comments true?

http://www.flickr.com/photos/dsp_cus...os/3890921322/

-the canon 1000d only has 1600 iso (where would i use 3200 iso if i need it) and is the live view really needed and is it as good as it looks on youtube videos or is it slow and awkward to use?

also im interested in trying some studio photography with models, what camera is better suited to this type of photography?

thanks

[Atavar]

Hi there. A standard ISO is about 100/200 where no obvious noise will be present. ISO 1600 is propperly pushing the boundries and at present only high end cameras such as the Nikon D300s, Canon 7D and various full frame cameras can offer clean ISO 1600. The technology will get cheaper and dribble down the market but at the moment £1000 will get you useable ISO 1600. When Digital photography was new, ISO 320 was considered high for clean images, then ISO 500, then ISO 800 last generation. Today 1600 is achevable but only really from the high end models. Wait a few years and you will get it in a starter camera, though.

If you were shooting ISO 1600 film you would have no choice but to accept the results, and unfortunately unless you want to spend mega-bucks you'll be in the same position now. ISO 3200 is an indoor ISO, but again it'll be grainy. How about invest in a good flash gun? the problem of poor lighting is erradicated and they can produce beautiful portraits using bounce flash.

[Steve]

I've never really worked out why people get worked up over high-ISO noise...chances are the following will be true of most amateurs:

1) You'll hardly ever use anything above ISO 400. I can count on the fingers of one hand how many times I have actually needed anything more than ISO 800.

2) You're probably not going to sell the photos you take so how much does it really matter whether a picture is a bit noisy? Sure, for a picture you want to print big then you'll want to keep the noise down as much as possible, but I wouldn't be overly critical of a picture if it had a bit of noise.

As for live view...never really saw the point. Hell, I don't even know if my camera is able to do it! haha

[El_Sid]

High ISO noise is a fact of life but on most modern cameras it's very well controlled and generally less noticeable than the grain that accompanied most high speed films. I have three Canons of various ages and the oldest is very noisy at ISO800 and above while the most recent (40D) only starts to get as bad at the expansion setting of 3200. I also have a Nikon D50 which is I will say is remarkably clean at ISO1600.

Most of the adverse comments you read on many forums are from measurebators who don't have a true grasp of reality and view any deviation from utter perfection at 100% view size as a disgrace...

Most decent RAW converters (it's best to work in RAW at high ISO) come with very able noise control algorithms that do a very good job as long as you remember that it's better to minimise the noise rather than try to eliminate it altogether. Also noise tends to look far worse on screen as this is a fairly low resolution view, usually 72 pixels per inch or thereabouts, compared to a print where both the higher resolution, 200-300ppi typically, and a certain amount of ink bleed tend to smooth out noise to some extent.

the canon 1000d only has 1600 iso (where would i use 3200 iso if i need it) and is the live view really needed and is it as good as it looks on youtube videos or is it slow and awkward to use?

The majority of my pictures tend to be ISO400 or less. My main use of higher settings are either in very low light situations (example) or when using very long lenses hand held. It's worth noting that when using high ISO in fair/good light noise is far less noticeable.

My own limited experience of live view so far suggests that it may be more of a fiddle than I expected but that could just be a lack of practice.

also im interested in trying some studio photography with models, what camera is better suited to this type of photography?

Both are reasonably usable if not ideal though if you use studio flash you may need to buy a separate trigger for the hotshoe as I don't think either has a PC socket for external flash control.

As to which camera that's still your decision but if you intend to use high ISO regularly and don't have a current RAW converter then the Canon may be the better bet as it comes with Canon's DPP software which is considered to be rather better than Nikons rather basic package.

[Barney]

I've never really worked out why people get worked up over high-ISO noise...chances are the following will be true of most amateurs:

1) You'll hardly ever use anything above ISO 400. I can count on the fingers of one hand how many times I have actually needed anything more than ISO 800.

Well that's you, but I regularly go above ISO 800 on my D3 while my GF1 is set to ISO 400 as standard and D300 to ISO sensitivity to a max of ISO 800. I wouldn't be confident in using these levels of ISO if the cameras weren't capable of a lot more. As with cars, raising the top speed invariably improves the low to mid range performance.

2) You're probably not going to sell the photos you take so how much does it really matter whether a picture is a bit noisy? Sure, for a picture you want to print big then you'll want to keep the noise down as much as possible, but I wouldn't be overly critical of a picture if it had a bit of noise.

True, especially when you compare to the grain we used to suffer with high ISO film, but if it were a choice between cameras and all other things being equal, choosing the better ISO range makes perfect sense. If all other things aren't equal, then it comes to which compromise wins.

As for live view...never really saw the point. Hell, I don't even know if my camera is able to do it! haha

Maybe it's time you RTFM then.

[Benchista]

I often used to use high ISO film, and I use high ISO on digital even more - normally 1600 or 3200 is about my limit, but I have come to expect good performance there, and sometimes I go higher. I no longer consider 800 as high, but as medium.
As to Live View, I find it useful when using a tripod, particularly in low light, and for macro shots of static subjects. Very useful, actually. Pretty useless handheld. although with a movable screen it might have some uses.

[Mr_P]

I have the Nikon d60 (which I believe the D3000 replaced), and I regularly use it at ISO400. I very rarely have to go higher, apart from last month when I was photographing a Stallion parade in a poorly lit indoor arena. I was really worried, as to achieve the shutter speeds I needed, I had to go to ISO 1600 (at f2.8). The D60 and indeed D3000 are not really designed with this type of usage in mind as they are entry level cameras, and as such do not perform that brilliantly at high ISO's. Im just having to make do with what I have until I can afford something better.

I make sure I shoot in RAW, and do a little noise reduction work in post and they generally seem to come out ok. I am obviously over critical of the shots (mainly because I want a new toy), but a lot of the horse owners have really liked them and brought them from me. Just goes to show that you dont always need the most expensive equipment! [img]/forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[Roy5051]

Is the 1000D on its way out, it doesn't seem to appear in so many dealers adverts lately. May be worth waiting a month or so, it may be replaced.

[thelearner]

thanks for your replies so far, and to conclude i have two final questions....

if you had a choice between the d3000 and 1000d what would you pick (stating your reason)

and cmos or a ccd sensor (stating your reason)

thanks again

[Atavar]

When i had the choice between Nikon and Canon when i started, i compared the two companies line ups as a whole. Think of it as a ladder - if you get into the hobby, you may want to climb the ladder to bigger and better equipment. I was eventually swayed by Nikons F-mount. Any lens they have made in the last fifty years will fit my modern digital camera. Metering may be slightly effected and maybe there won't be auto focus but that's millions of lenses to potentially buy second hand. Canon changed their lens mount a while back and there was a lot of lenses floating about that would not fit a modern digital camera without breaking the mirror. I wasn't impressed by that so went nikon for its upgrade path (still waiting for the D3s but i went from a D40, to D80, second hand D2h and now a D300s) and its backwards compatibility.

[El_Sid]

Try fitting a non-AI lens to most digital Nikons - you might find it a bit tricky...

Pentax probably have the best back compatibility as you can use almost any K-mount, and even M42, lens made on their current models - and have metering too...

Oh and you can get adapters for coupling most common lens fittings to the EOS system so there's millions of possibilities there too... And they all can have aperture priority auto as well as manual metering into the bargain.

[PeteRob]

thanks for your replies so far, and to conclude i have two final questions....

if you had a choice between the d3000 and 1000d what would you pick (stating your reason)

and cmos or a ccd sensor (stating your reason)

thanks again

If you are serious about photography then you will upgrade your camera eventually so nit-picking on specs for an entry model is neither here nor there. The investment you make in lenses will keep you with one manufacturer. So spend a couple of hours in a shop and decide which one suits you best for handling .. and buy it from the shop, they need your support. I made my choice in the days of film when i wanted autofocus. I tried a Canon, a Nikon, a Minolta at the same price point. For me the Canon was way ahead the most intuitive and easy to use and I have found that the "feel" is the same from the 50E I bought then to the 5D I have now (as well - I still use film).

[thelearner]

thanks for the reply, its mad as ive never been so picky over anything haha, i think its just down to wanting to stick to the one manufacturer so i dont have to purchase a whole set of kit again if i swap in the future (which i hope not to :P).

[PeteRob]

Precisely - so choose the one you prefer to use! Reason for saying is that I had my camera gear stolen (a Konica FS1 outfit). With the insurance money I replaced it with a minolta outfit (XGM and X700). I never got comfortable wth the Minoltas - which were good cameras, and it took away a lot of pleasure in actually making pictures.

[Atavar]

Try fitting a non-AI lens to most digital Nikons - you might find it a bit tricky...

I did. 500mm mirror reflector M42 with Nikon converter, meterless used on full manual. Then on D80, now on D300s. Just because something is a bit more difficult it doesn't mean it can't be done.

[IvorETower]

thanks for your replies so far, and to conclude i have two final questions....

if you had a choice between the d3000 and 1000d what would you pick (stating your reason)

and cmos or a ccd sensor (stating your reason)

thanks again

If you're serious about using high ISO in low light situations, try to get a bit more money together and go for a Nikon D5000. I've used mine indoors with no flash at an Awards ceremony at ISO6400.... with the added bonus of low-noise shutter release mode and leaving the LCD turned inwards, hardly anybody was disturbed by the little noise it made (mechanical and digital) and no illumination from the LCD, whereas some of the compacts and camera phones being used were making noises close to an electronic symphony orchestra at times with the mixture of bleeps, whining and flashing etc

[GeoffR]

To follow on from what PeteRob said, if the handling differences between the D3000 and the EOS 1000D are insufficient to aid your decision making, try one of the models further up the range. Nikon do things differently from Canon but, the D3000 has only one command dial where the higher models have two. I would guess that the 1000D has similar differences from the higher models.

It would be expensive to buy one of the entry models to find that when you upgrade the handling doesn't suite you. I hope that makes sense.