The Bounty Bar Kid Posted November 12, 2014 Share Posted November 12, 2014 So I want to be able to take better pictures but I'm on a budget as I'm saving for a house atm. My current camera canon eos 450d has an iso limit of 1600. Would I be better off getting the speedlite 430ex ii flash to enable myself to take better low light photos or getting a better camera with a higher iso limit. In that case I'd be selling my 450d body and buying a used one off eBay. My limit for that would be about £500. That includes the sale of my 450d body. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paddy78 Posted November 12, 2014 Share Posted November 12, 2014 Higher iso usually means more noise so maybe not ideal? What are you taking photos of? If it's close up, then a flash would be beneficial. If it's over 10m then obviously a flash is pretty useless. Have you thought about a tripod and longer exposure? That comes with other problems and no good really if you want to take shots of anything moving. Better body isn't always the answer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ts743 Posted November 12, 2014 Share Posted November 12, 2014 (edited) ISO performance is better, even on a modest upgrade such as the 550D - but stretching the limit of the cameras ISO performance isn't ideal or desirable. You don't mention what lenses you are using, which is a far more significant factor when dealing with low light photography than your body, as is technique. Additionally, if considering a flash unit, the Canon ones are very expensive and not really necessary unless you take photographs for a living (reliability). You can buy Speedlite copies very cheaply, and the performance is fantastic. I own several along with some wireless triggers - lighting possibilities are endless. http://www.amazon.co...N/dp/B009APY9TO And as Paddy says, what are you taking pictures of? Might help us help you... Edited November 12, 2014 by ts743 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisS Posted November 12, 2014 Share Posted November 12, 2014 Tripod sounds like what you need, always try for the lowest ISO/ASA you can. If it's sport your photographing you'll need to practising 'panning'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
350zedd Posted November 12, 2014 Share Posted November 12, 2014 As others have said BBK you need to tell us what type of low light photography you intend to do and what lenses you intend to use. If you are thinking of buying a flash then do this as ts743 said, " You can buy Speedlite copies very cheaply, and the performance is fantastic. I own several along with some wireless triggers - lighting possibilities are endless." Yes, these units are superb, very cheap and can be used off camera creatively. By the way, do you shoot raw or jpeg?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Bounty Bar Kid Posted November 12, 2014 Author Share Posted November 12, 2014 Cheers for the help peeps. I shoot raw, and have the following lenses... Ef 50mm f1.8 Ef 70-300 f4-5.6 Ef-s 15-85 f3.5-5.6 I already have a tripod. But sometimes it's not useful to get it out all the time. I like going to the zoo alot and to museums. It's there that I have issues. When it's dark and its close up stuff. Sometimes I do night time photography. I'll put some of my shots up. Sometimes I like night time sports photography like the le mans 24hrs race. I understand that the higher iso brings more noise, I just wasn't sure if the newer cameras handled it better and would be of more use. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tricky-Ricky Posted November 12, 2014 Share Posted November 12, 2014 Personally I would buy a new lens with a better aperture and use a tripod and flash, but it kind of depends on what sort of pics you like to take? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Bounty Bar Kid Posted November 12, 2014 Author Share Posted November 12, 2014 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tricky-Ricky Posted November 12, 2014 Share Posted November 12, 2014 I have those lenses, but I sold a 350d body and bought a 550d body, I also sold my 17-70f2.6 but kind of regret it now as the difference between that and the f3.5 is quite a lot, and although I now have plenty of ISO I seldom use it, but then I don't really do a lot of low light. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ts743 Posted November 12, 2014 Share Posted November 12, 2014 (edited) I don't see any problems with your pictures... Some have an exposed sky and an under-exposed land area, for example. Nothing will fix this other than external lighting or using HDR technique from multiple exposures... For museum photography, you might benefit from an external flash, should yield good results. Your 50mm 1.8 is a reasonably fast lens, either use a longer exposure with a tripod or employ the use of a flash Edited November 12, 2014 by ts743 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
350zedd Posted November 12, 2014 Share Posted November 12, 2014 If you want quality pics similar to the type you've posted then you are going to have to get the tripod out every time. Nothing wrong with them and you dont need a fast lens to take them. The middle pic; the camera has exposed for the sky and left the trees dark. Correct this by using a graduated filter, but I don't usually bother with them, and use the grad filter in Lightroom 5. For museum and zoo work, I'd definitely use the flash if possible. Once you start getting into the realm of fast lenses with apertures of f1.4 or f1.8 then you are talking big, big money. I would buy a Speedlite replica for now, as this is your cheapest option, and see how you get on with it. The new cameras do handle noise better but to what level, I can't comment on that, as I use a Nikon D80. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skahigh Posted November 12, 2014 Share Posted November 12, 2014 I have a 450D and agree the ISO performance is pretty poor. When I compared it to a similarly priced Nikon a few years ago (think it might have been the D90) the Nikon was streets ahead. That said, I agree with the others about finding a way to reduce your need for high ISO settings. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ekona Posted November 12, 2014 Share Posted November 12, 2014 So I want to be able to take better pictures but I'm on a budget as I'm saving for a house atm. Lessons. Take some lessons, that'll be a far better use of budget than anything you can throw at body or lenses. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gangzoom Posted November 12, 2014 Share Posted November 12, 2014 (edited) I’ve recent thought about swapping my £300 550D for a £1500 7D Mark II body…but after looking through some of the shots i’ve managed to get with the 450/550D, and some advice from people on the forum I really cannot justify the price difference. So actually I don't think you need to spend £££ to get some decent shots with the gear you have already. I will probably go for a 70D soon, mainly because my 550D is actually starting to finally show signs of wear. For Zoo/Motorsport stuff I love the 450/550D with 70-300 4.5-5.6 IS Lens, just wish the AF system had a more flexibility. Though I don’t do much static night photography so you might see more difference from better ISO body, but these nights shots are all hand held, using 450/550D, not good enough for pro level stuff, but more than good enough for the walls of our little house Edited November 12, 2014 by gangzoom 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ts743 Posted November 12, 2014 Share Posted November 12, 2014 Likewise, I've taken many shots indoors with no lighting, even with the kit 18-55 on my 500D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tricky-Ricky Posted November 12, 2014 Share Posted November 12, 2014 Yeah its always annoying to look back over you past pics and then see you took a better pic two years ago with an older body and a kit lens. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Bounty Bar Kid Posted November 12, 2014 Author Share Posted November 12, 2014 So I want to be able to take better pictures but I'm on a budget as I'm saving for a house atm. Lessons. Take some lessons, that'll be a far better use of budget than anything you can throw at body or lenses. Taken some but I still feel held back. thinking flash is the way forward. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisS Posted November 12, 2014 Share Posted November 12, 2014 thinking flash is the way forward. And then you you might need to start going down the route of two or three flashes with slaves. There is an old book called 'Techniques of Photography by Available Light' by Colin Glanfield If you see a copy in a junk shop,it's a good read. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Bounty Bar Kid Posted November 12, 2014 Author Share Posted November 12, 2014 I'll try and get up an example pic of what I mean by having issues. Sometimes a tripod is a no no. Yesterday at the natural history museum with so many kids on school trips around its just not do-able. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paddy78 Posted November 12, 2014 Share Posted November 12, 2014 Flash might not be the answer for museums as many don't allow flashes... or flashers? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flex Posted November 12, 2014 Share Posted November 12, 2014 Flash might not be the answer for museums as many don't allow flashes... or flashers? did someone mention flashers? Boom! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fodder Posted November 13, 2014 Share Posted November 13, 2014 I'll try and get up an example pic of what I mean by having issues. Sometimes a tripod is a no no. Yesterday at the natural history museum with so many kids on school trips around its just not do-able. I'm no expert and Im not using my camera as much as I'd like due to the ball ache of carrying tripod around etc but I do have friends who do carry their kit with them. They will enjoy places like the natural history museum with the crowds just taking in the exhibits without getting distracted by taking a picture. They will then try and visit at a quiter time when they can set their tripod up and concentrate on the picture and not the exhibit. I know it's not ideal but that way the enjoy the museum for what it's meant without the fuss of all their kit. I also know places like that are never quiet but if you can work along those lines it may just help. Keep the pics coming Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Bounty Bar Kid Posted November 13, 2014 Author Share Posted November 13, 2014 It was fine when visiting museums in Paris & Edinburgh but so far in London it's a bit messy. Going science museum today. Hopefully this is easier. I always carry everything with me. All lenses filters and tripod. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ts743 Posted November 13, 2014 Share Posted November 13, 2014 A monopod could be a decent alternative if you want to travel lighter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.