Thanks, Nill. You as well convinced me to get a 20D. I'm still using a 1D - and I will NEVER sell it - but I need a smaller but powerfull camera. I will use it for my family / holiday shots but as well on duties requiring higher res and better image quality at high ISO.
Very nice piece of work --well done and it should silence a lot of the 20D's critics --however Nill --I'd imagine you'd still get stunning shots with a pin-hole camera.
Thanks for posting --again a very nice piece of work.
The Tamron is a great lens and I loved it with the 1D but it's just not wide enough on a 1.6X crop. I'd like to have one "do it all" lens in that range, even if the quality suffers a bit. The 18-125 and the 70-300 DO will cut my travel bag down to 2 lenses instead of 3.
I'm pleasantly surprised by the 18-125mm. Very nice results. However, I'd have brought along a 50mm f/1.8 for the low light stuff. It's amazing what you can do with that lens at ISO 3200 and it's still really small and unobtrusive.
Nil, Can you please post a larger image shot at 3200? what kind of post processing did u do on these images?
The 3200 iso on the 20D is better than on the 10D. However I use 3200 only when there is no other option. 1600 iso is miles ahead in quality than 3200. I feel the images posted here look good only because they are reduced quite a bit. I see ALOT of noise when I use 3200 iso (dark Shadow areas are filled with colorful pixels) Again I only use 3200 in very low light when I dont want to use flash, and the images i get are never keepers.
If I use Flash I choose 400 iso.
Those are converted from RAW straight to html and jpg in BreezeBrowser with autolevels and default USM. No other adjustments... they're basically straight out of the camera.
I'll try to post a full-size version of one of them on my site if I get time today. But bear in mind that what looks noisy at 100% on your screen can still make a "keeper" when printed at 5x7, even more so at 4x6 — and that's even without resort to noise reduction software like Neat Image.
A noisy, reasonably sharp image is IMO almost always preferable to a cleaner blurry one or, worse yet, no image at all.
jmilliron wrote:
...However, I'd have brought along a 50mm f/1.8 for the low light stuff. It's amazing what you can do with that lens at ISO 3200 and it's still really small and unobtrusive.
What? Bring that old thing instead of my newest and shiniest toy? Not a chance. ;-)
Actually I agree that a 50 f/1.8, or better yet a 35 f/2, should go in the bag with this rig as a travel kit. Then I could have been shooting at 1/10 instead of 1/6. ;-)
