Canon Digital Rebel XT (350D) vs XTi (400D), noise comparison? Options

[Gregory]

I have used a 350D for just over a year. it's ok except for the unusable LCD screen, the dark viewfinder and the noise in high ASA modes.

The 400D has a much improved LCD screen. All it needs to convince me to upgrade is a higher signal/noise ratio for 800/1600 ASA modes.

I photograph a lot of bird and animal images and many times in limited light. This morning, I came across a squirrel and took 80+ shots. Some of them turned out quite well but some could have been better if I'd used a higher ASA with a correspondingly higher shutter speed. 1/60th is a little slow for quick animals like squirrels. For many of the USA people reading this, you're probably thinking 'so what. it's just a squirrel!', but over here in Hong Kong, they're rare. I've only seen two squirrels in the 18 years that I've lived here.

I was shooting at 400ASA. Obviously, 800ASA would have been better giving me shutter speeds of around 1/100th but 800ASA on the 350D is rather noisy and grainy.

So if anyone has compared the 350D to the 400D in terms of noise at 800 and 1600, I've love to hear about it. Otherwise, I'll just have to put up with the limitations of the 350D until the upgrade for the 5D is released.

regards,
Gregory

This post has been edited by Gregory: Sep 18 2006, 02:06 AM

[oldcsar]

Then I suggest you wait.

http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Canon400D/page4c.shtml

As you can see, the 400d's performance on the high ISO is slightly worse than the 350d. Though, I believe that it's still competitive with other cameras in its price range. If you shoot a lot of high iso with deep shadows in the scene, then this might be a noticeable disadvantage to your low-light photography. The review also compares "real life" noise comparison. Unfortunately, it's a daylight shot, so there isn't a way to see how much the chroma noise rears its head in deep shadows until more reviews pop up.

This post has been edited by oldcsar: Sep 18 2006, 02:24 AM

[Gregory]

thank you. that was a revealing comparison.

This post has been edited by Gregory: Sep 18 2006, 02:24 AM

[Gregory]

I think I frequently confuse graininess and noise and I'm beginning to wonder... is it the graininess of the high-ASA images or the noise that I'm concerned with? I think it's probably the graininess. at 800, the image becomes significantly grainy, losing quite a lot of detail, taking on a very 'mosaic' texture.

does this make sense to anyone else?

This post has been edited by Gregory: Sep 18 2006, 09:07 AM

[John Sheehy]

As you can see, the 400d's performance on the high ISO is slightly worse than the 350d.

That may just be the metering, though. The 400D is purported to more conservative in exposure than the 350D. I have a 400D, and it is meters just like my 20D, which is alleged to meter at 1.25x the stated ISO. Earlier Canon cameras tend to meter the other way; liberal exposure (exposing to the right for you).

The real test is to set both the 350D and 400D to the same manual settings and ISO 1600, and shoot the same scene and lighting (tripod-mounted lens is best here). Then, convert them with the same tonality in the output. What we're really interested in is low-light performance, not at "ISO 1600" which may very well be metered ISO 2000 vs 1280, or even 1000 (which is what the 10D and 300D meter for at "1600").

[cookielida]

Then I suggest you wait.

http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Canon400D/page4c.shtml

As you can see, the 400d's performance on the high ISO is slightly worse than the 350d. Though, I believe that it's still competitive with other cameras in its price range. If you shoot a lot of high iso with deep shadows in the scene, then this might be a noticeable disadvantage to your low-light photography. The review also compares "real life" noise comparison. Unfortunately, it's a daylight shot, so there isn't a way to see how much the chroma noise rears its head in deep shadows until more reviews pop up.

Take into consideration these are JPEG shots and not RAW - there may well be an in-camera more noise reduction for 400D due to the smaller and more pixels - RAW shooters can disregard this comparison, with all due respect...