Which DSLR - 1000D, 450D or 500D?

[michaelmorris]

I currently have a Canon 1000D which I use for both astrophotography and terrestrial photography. I'm currently considering getting a second (modified) camera to use solely for astrophotography. I'm restricted to secondhand items due to budget (absolute max £300). I know my capacity for screwing things up, so I won't be talked into trying to modify a camera myself. I recently read Gary Honis's two excellent articles on the noise performance of the 1000D and 450D when compared to the 500D and the 550D.

http://ghonis2.ho8.com/rebelmod500d/rebelmod500dcompare.html

http://ghonis2.ho8.com/RebelMod550D/rebelmod550dcompare.html

Reading both articles it seems to imply that the best camera for low noise is going to be the 500D, followed by the 450D, then the 550D and lastly the 1000D. Are my conclusions correct or have I over-simplified the issue? Does anyone know of any other comparisons of the performance of the 1000D, 450D and/or 500D?

Thanks

[Daniel-K]

my 450d cost me £170 from mpb photographic on ex condition i highly recommend them the noise level is very very low and chip as chips

[michaelmorris]

Well, after more research it seems the brillaint Gary Honis done even more testing and come to a different conclusion.

http://ghonis2.ho8.com//rebelmod550duncooledcomparison.html

http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/DSLRmodifications/message/5535

It looks as though the 450D may be the way to go.

[stan26]

Those second set of results you link to make for some interesting reading, I haven't read this before yet, It does suggest that in terms of overall noise handling on a consistent basis, the 450D wins.

I also find it interesting that Gary says: "Keep in mind that noise performance will also vary among cameras of the same model as can be seen HERE. On that page I analyzed the initial 2-minute dark frame for 30 cameras and the results show that some 500D histograms are better than some 450D histograms but in general the initial exposure histograms are worse for the 1000D."

I think from my experience the above statement is very true, my 500D's modded and un-modded certainly outperformed my old 450D in every way, at any exposure length or any ISO. Of course I haven't gone to the lengths that Gary has in his testing, but comparing like for like sub frames, dark frames with mine certainly and clearly showed a difference.

Very interesting stuff.

James.

[RAC]

One of my 1000d's is better than the other but you only ever notice it in a single stretched sub and not in the final image after stacking.

[russellhq]

Have you considered the 1100D? They seem quite popular.

[michaelmorris]

Have you considered the 1100D? They seem quite popular.

Yes, but the secondhand values are too high, and modified verison rarely seem to come on to the market.

Sent from my HTC Desire C using Tapatalk 2

[JamesF]

I went for the 450D, partly on the basis of the Gary Honis articles. I'm quite happy with it.

James

[JAG007]

Are any of them any good to take photo's of the northern lights?

[JamesF]

Are any of them any good to take photo's of the northern lights?

Have a hunt for lukebl's recent images of the aurora. He may say which camera he was using for those.

James

[AndyEllis]

Gary's article is good, but you must bear in mind that it is a study of noise and not of sensitivity - to put that in context, let's say a 450D has a noise value of 1 and sensitivity of 10 - yes, a 500D may then have a noise value of 2, but it is also more sensitive say 13. On the same scale a 550D would be 3 and 15. If you consider the gap, a 450D is '9' a 500D '11' and a 550D '12'. These are just arbitrary values, but the point stands.

The 550D has improved pixel fill and micro-lensing (a tiny lens over each pixel to focus incident light on the sensitive material).

In essence it is true to say that as the models have been developed, they have been better than previous models. Sometimes the step is small, but sometimes it is more noticeable such as the step between the 500D and 550D or the 400D to the 450D.

Another question is ISO. ISO is handled by adjusting the substrate voltage and gain values in the sensor - steps between ISOs may involve both a voltage change and a gain change or either. This shows when you look at the noise generated at particular ISOs, i.e., ISO 400 may be very low noise ISO 800 high noise and ISO 1600 less noisy than 800... As always, every model is different and tests of different cameras of the same model also give varying results.