The Lure of Full Frame cameras

Oh dear.

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear.

I think I might be falling for an old flame!? One that I thought I had finished with years ago. And one that, in this very blog, I vowed and declared I didn't care about anymore.

But I bumped into her recently, and we've kinda reacquainted. I've started seeing her off-and-on again. And I have to admit that it's been thrilling. I'm enjoying it. More than I maybe would like to admit. And now I can't stop thinking about her. And dreaming... and hoping....

Ok, so if you've read the title of this blog post, you'll know where this is going. I have recently switched systems (as is my want) over to the Sony SLT range - more specifically the Sony SLT a57. The decision to move to Sony was largely due to the fact that I have some very nice Minolta glass, and the full-frame Sony a99 'on-loan'. So a very full and comprehensive kit was just begging to be made. 

I've had the a99 for probably a year now, and never really explored its capabilities. For a few reasons. First, I had my main kit - the Olympus OM-D E-M1 micro four thirds system that I was enjoying using, so the Sony just sat in my cupboard, unloved. Second, I had actually lost interest in photography over this last year for various reasons (covid lockdowns being prime among them). And third, I had talked myself into this 'smaller is better' frame of mind that had disregarded full frame as an option in my workflow. Yeah, I know...

When I decided to leave the micro four thirds platform and go to the Sony SLT system, of course I dusted off the Sony a99 so I could start getting used to the Sony eco-system. I had used it briefly about a year ago, when Sony unofficially discontinued their A-Mount line. I wrote a memorial for the system, and used the a99 at Coal Creek Falls (you can read that post here). I loved using the camera for that brief period, and even suggested in later posts that I was sorely tempted to look at full-frame again. But then 'reality' took over, and micro four thirds consumed my attention.

But that was then... 

Rapahoe Beach poles. Sony a99 with Minolta 17-35mm f/3.5 G. f/11 @ 1 sec, ISO 50

My first time using the Sony a99 in a 'serious' landscape shoot rocked my world and blew my mind. No - really! Very few cameras have managed to do this to me over the course of my 35+ years in this hobby/profession - and I've used a lot of cameras.

The 24 megapixel full frame sensor in the Sony a99, shot at ISO50, creates beautiful files that are sharp and contrasty, with a nice 'pop' to them, and yet they also have a very filmic quality. They actually remind me of the files I got from the Fuji X-trans sensors, but better!

As can be seen from the image on the right, the RAW file was deliberately underexposed to retain information in the highlights. I figured that I could recover 'some' detail in the shadows later in post, but if I had to let some areas remain black I would.

I was amazed at not only how much detail I could pull out of the shadows with the full frame sensor, but how clean the shadow areas were afterwards. With micro four thirds, or even APS-C, I would expect to have to do some noise-reduction cleanup afterwards. But not with the ISO 50 files on the a99. Even after cranking the shadow recovery up to 100%, the shadow areas that remained were super-clean! And yes, I'm impressed. And yes, if that's one of the benefits of shooting with full-frame sensors, then count me in!

Motukiekie Beach, Low tide. Sony a99 with Minolta 17-35mm f/3.5 G. f/11 @ 2.5 secs, ISO 50

My next outing with the a99 - to Motukeikie Beach - pushed the sensor in the a99 even further. Both the highlights and shadows needed full-recovery to get the image above. And once again, I'm super-impressed with the final result.

There's no way I thought I was going to recover all the shadow detail in this file - let alone do it 'cleanly'. And yet the 24MP sensor on the a99 has done just that - with flying colours!

The a99 is also a fantastic camera to use out in the field. It has the best articulating screen I've ever used - no contest. Not even close.

It's solid and weather-sealed without being a brick, has dual card slots, and a plethora of on-camera buttons that make changing settings an absolute breeze.

Yeah, ok, I'm gushing. It's embarrassing. But it's also almost hard not to. I think this might just be my perfect landscape camera - of all time! Wow!

My 'new' Sony a57 has a lot to live up to. And of course, it doesn't. Not even close. Not that it doesn't also take some great images. Because it does. And the sensor is also pretty pliable - for a 16MP APS-C sensor. But it's not a patch on the mighty a99 - poor wee thing.

So I'm getting an a99 - right? I mean, I've just said it's my perfect landscape camera. What am I waiting for?

There are three reasons I won't be getting the Sony a99 anytime soon. Price, price and... price. Even on the used market here in NZ, an a99 body goes for a ridiculous amount of money. Around $3000NZ. And you can double that for a used a99ii! That's just stupid money. Even for my most favouritist camera😢 (and yes, I made that word up).

So no, I won't be getting one anytime soon. Or probably ever! "But what about the one you've got on-loan"? I hear you say. Jolly good question. I'm glad you asked. Two things about that give me considerable pause. First, the a99 I have on-loan is 'on-loan'. Obviously. I'm not going to create a system around a camera that doesn't even belong to me. And second, it's had a pretty hard life. The command wheel has fallen off and it's permanently stuck on Aperture Priority (fortunately), and the control dials are a little sticky and 'unresponsive'. They work, but not consistently. Lord only knows what the shutter count on the camera is? I shudder to think. If this was my 'main' camera, these things alone would drive me nuts. Even if it turns out that I can keep the a99 as my forever camera, I'd be looking for a 'better' unit. And I simply can't afford the asking price. I guess that's it for full frame then?

Not so fast there buddy. All, perhaps, is not lost. Full-frame cameras - both DLSR and mirrorless, have been around for quite a while now. Long enough so that the earlier models are appearing regularly on the used market - for 'reasonable' prices.

Cameras like the Sony a7ii and a7Rii - 24MP and 42MP respectively - are coming up regularly for around the $1400 to $1800 range. Which, while still not 'cheap', is a little more affordable than a used a99. And I'm betting that image-wise the quality from the a7ii's 24MP sensor will be as good, if not better, than the a99's. No - handling won't be quite the same. The a7ii only has one card slot, is probably half the weight and size of the a99, and doesn't have the same articulation on its LCD screen. And apparently the battery life on the earlier A7 range is abysmal. But I could live with all that. Ultimately it's the IQ that matters most.

So yes, I've been looking up information on the Sony a7ii range, keeping my eye out, and dreaming that one may be in my future. And then, just to mix things up a bit, there's the 'dark horse' in the race....

My desire for full-frame digital began in about 2008, when I got the original full-frame DLSR, the Canon 5D. It too was an eye-watering price for a camera when it was first released. I waited three years for it to come down from eye-watering to just plain ridiculous before I jumped in and got one. I was shooting weddings with a 30D at the time, and moving to the full frame 5D was a huge jump in quality.

The Canon 5D was another one of those 'wow' moment cameras for me, although I ended up having something of a love-hate relationship with it.

Even though I used to shoot 'professionally' I've always looked after my gear. There's never a scratch on them (unless I purchased them pre-scratched 😆) and I'm not the sort of photographer who throws my gear around because they are 'just tools'. Yes, they are tools. But they also happen to be very expensive tools. So I look after them. Imagine, then, my surprise when my pristine 5D just stopped working one morning before a wedding! Failed logic board (apparently). I was gutted. And a bit burnt from the experience.

I was still paying it off, and couldn't really afford to get it fixed (it was about 3 months out of warranty). So I used my backup 30D for the wedding, and then promptly changed to Nikon (the amazing D300). It wasn't until the next wedding season that I managed to get the 5D fixed, and then I ended up going for a swim with it in a river! Never a good idea. One completely dead 5D!

I haven't had a 5D, or a full frame camera, since. But now that they are up to the Mark IV, and Canon have announced that there won't be a Mark V, older bodies have started coming down in price. People are switching to the mirrorless R system, and DSLR's are becoming 'old' tech (and therefore cheaper). You can pick up a 5D MkIII for about the same price as a Sony a7ii. They are, of course, very different shooting experiences. But for someone who grew up with Canon (first film and then DLSR), a move 'back' to the 5D system actually has quite a lot of appeal.

Of course, all of this is simply a 'what if' mental exercise. I still don't actually have the money to make it happen. BUT... (isn't there always a but) I certainly am not counting it out for the future. I have been booked to shoot a wedding this time next year (March 2023), and who knows? I'm doing it on the 'cheap' for somebody I know - but I might just make enough to get back into the world of full frame?

I know I've said ad-nauseam on this blog that you (I) don't need 24 megapixels. Or full frame. Or even APS-C. Especially if, like me, you only print occasionally - and even then, not very large. And indeed, you don't. And I stick by that unequivocally. I still maintain that for 'general' photography, 24MP (and full frame) is overkill.

But (there it is again), what shooting recently with the a99 has shown me, in relation to full frame, is the superior performance that it does bring to the table when post-processing. And how beautifully clean the images are at low ISO's. When dealing with pixels and light-gathering information, we've all known for a long time that bigger equals better. Bigger photosites that is. Which is why a 16MP camera can sometimes produce 'cleaner' images, with less noise, than a 24Megapixel camera. Because their photosites are bigger (sensor size being equal).

I have always introduced myself as a landscape photographer - first and foremost. And as a landscape photographer, I'm often dealing with extremes. Of weather, of light, and of the sensor's dynamic range. It's a constant struggle to fit what you see in front of you, into the camera's range of information. HDR photography was invented for this very reason. And if cameras really are just tools, and if you should always choose the right tool for the job, then as a landscape photography maybe I'm just coming to the realisation that larger, full-frame sensors, really might be the best tool for my job!? Better late than never I guess? 

Nikon D300 wins - this time...

Every year around winter time, I sit back and take stock of my photography gear. Literally. I do a kind of a stock-take, making a list of what I have, and what I use (or more importantly - don't use). I do this for a couple of reasons. First, I'm a bit of a gear horde and love to collect all sorts of cameras and systems I discover throughout the year. And second, I have a very small office space in which to keep all this gear. So an annual stock-take (and clear out) is part of my photography routine.

I decided this time around that I was going to sell off some of my film gear I wasn't using. Especially the 35mm stuff. When I shoot film (and I regularly do), I prefer to shoot my medium format Bronica over 35mm. So a lot of 35mm film equipment was sitting around not being used. Decision number one; sell some 35mm film gear.

Having done that, I then began to ponder over the digital gear I'm currently using (which I also seem to do every year). I don't shoot professionally any more, apart form the occasional wedding for friends. So my gear 'needs' (not wants) have changed over the years. In the last two posts, I've written about the Olympus Pen EP3, and how I still prefer to use a dedicated camera system for photos. But I also suggested that this was a very close thing, and that my iPhone could very easily replace the Pen in the near future. Especially if I can get some money together to upgrade to an iPhone 6s Plus or maybe even iPhone 7.

Anyone who has ever followed any of my ramblings on this blog will also know that I'm not wedded to any particular system. Quite the opposite. As a photography educator, I actually like the fact that I use almost all the systems. So that when I have someone turn up on a workshop with a specific issue, I can usually help them navigate menus and buttons particular to their camera. It does, however, mean that I'm changing systems a lot.

So with some money from the sale of film bodies, I began to ponder over my current Canon digital gear. I love the ergonomics and handling of my Canon 50D, and the Sigma 17-50mm f2.8 is a stellar lens, especially for the price. I have even been buying up a few little bits and pieces over the last few months to add to the kit (some spare batteries and an intervalometer). But I have always been a little unsure about the 15MP sensor that Canon used in the 50D.

Canon released the 50D towards the end of 2008, when the megapixel wars were in full swing. Many of the camera lines were being 'updated' simply with a slightly higher resolution sensor, and companies pushed the limits of the technology so they could be the first to release cameras with more megapixels. With the 15.1MP sensor in the 50D, I think Canon pushed it too far too soon. It's known as a fairly 'noisy' sensor, exhibiting some noise even at ISO 100.

Of course noise is somewhat subjective. Photographer's tolerance levels to noise in an image will vary widely. I actually have a fairly large tolerance for noise in an image. I still shoot film after all. But I do think that Canon pushed the 15.1MP sensor out before it was ready. I may be wrong, but I think the 50D and 500D are the only cameras that use the 15.1MP sensor? That probably says a lot right there!?

So if the Canon 50D isn't for me, then what is? What do I need as a predominantly landscape-based photographer (with the occassional wedding thrown in)? A quick google search for 'best' landscape cameras all came back with the same specification - full frame. This is born out by most of the Youtube landscape photographers I follow. The common theme is either a Canon 5D Mk4 or Nikon D850 (or Sony A7III). All full-frame cameras. And all horrendously expensive! Not only in terms of bodies, but also lenses. That Canon 'L' glass might be nice, but it sure ain't cheap! So that would be a 'no' for going full frame then - right?

Hang on - don't dismiss full frame so quickly just because of price. Full frame has been around for quite a while now, and maybe the bargain of the decade is the Canon 5D Mk1 - the original full frame classic. OK, it's only 12.8 megapixels, as opposed to the 5D Mk4's eye-watering 30.4 megapixels. But I've argued dozens of times on this blog that 12 megapixels is the 'sweet spot' for sensor size IMHO. And the 5D's 12MP's are on a full-frame sensor! So for someone like me, who hardly ever crops their images, 12MP is seriously more than enough. Seriously.

The other good news with the 5D Mk1 is that enough time has passed since its introduction (2005) that it is now an absolute bargain on the secondhand market for a full frame camera. Bodies in good condition can be had for around $450NZ and sometimes even cheaper. That's a fairly achievable entry point for full frame camera goodness! So I started looking around for a 5D body, and even put in a couple of bids on Trademe (NZ's answer to eBay).

Never one to shy away from a complete system change (as mentioned earlier), at the same time as I was looking at Canon 5D bodies on the used market, I also looked in to other options at roughly the same price. The Fuji system has always interested me, so I looked at a couple of XT-1's. Sony has also intrigued with the A7's, but unfortunately even the A7 original goes for more than I was willing to pay. And that's when I saw it. A low-ball auction price for a used, but not abused, Nikon D300.

Me and the Nikon D300 / Canon 5D association go way back. We have history together. Unresolved history.

Long story short, back in 2010 I was using a Nikon D300 system after my Canon 5D (that I was still paying off but was out of warranty) died on me. The information in the viewfinder stopped working and was going to require an electrical circuit board replacement. Wedding season was fast approaching - I had a few weddings already booked - and I needed a new camera. I started my digital journey with the Nikon D70 and had even shot my first wedding season with it. So when I needed a new camera to replace my 5D I decided to try Nikon again, with the D300. I loved that camera, but eventually did manage to get the Canon 5D fixed, so I had a tough decision to make (which I wrote about here).

Long story short (again), I went with the Canon 5D. But it was a decision I rather regretted. Fast-forward eight years, and it looks like it's a decision I can reverse this time around. Having initially convinced myself that I 'needed' a Canon 5D full frame for landscape photography, it was the D300 that was calling the loudest. And that price! It was almost insanely low. So I ended up bidding on the D300, thinking it would go much higher than my bid. But it didn't. I won it for $176.00NZ - body only - with just shy of 30,000 shutter actuations (the D300's shutter is rated for 150,000)! That's just crazy talk!

The D300 is a joy to use, and hits my 12 megapixel sweet spot perfectly (at 12.3MP). No, it's not full frame, but I'm not anti APS-C sensors. In fact, I prefer the 1.5x crop of the Nikon sensors over the 1.6x of the Canon. It's just that teeny bit wider. ISO range is comparable to the 5D, as is noise even though it's a smaller sensor.

Of course it hasn't arrived yet, so I'll have to reserve judgment on overall condition til then. But it has only had one owner in its 11 years, so on average he's only taken around 2700 images per year with the camera. That's not heavy use in anyone's language.

Since it was sold body-only, and since it was such a bargain (we'll see), I also had enough money from my film camera sales to buy a general, all-purpose lens. I went straight back to Trademe to find one of my favourite lenses of all time - the Nikkor AF-S DX 18-70mm f3.5-4.5 IF ED!

This is the lens that first came out with the D70. I guess you could call it a D70 'kit' lens? But this ain't no kit lens in the traditional run-of-the-mill 18-55mm kit lens cheapo plastic sense of the definition. This 18-70mm is a cut above. Both optically and in build quality. It has a metal mount, weather sealing, an excellent focal range (27-105mm equivalent), and is fairly 'fast' at f3.5-4.5. It has ED glass, silent and quick internal focusing, and excellent image quality (albeit with a little vignetting apparent wide open at the 18mm end). It ain't perfect, but I love this lens. I snapped one up as soon as I found a decent 'Buy Now' price ($150NZ with free shipping).

Now that I had decided to dive back into the Nikon system, it was full steam ahead with selling my Canon 50D gear. As I write this I have already sold a few items and have just a few more to go. This has facilitated my second (and third) lens purchase(s). Next on the list of 'must-haves' after the Nikkor 18-70mm was a fast prime - the Nikkor 50mm f1.8D. Nikon's version of the nifty fifty (although better built than Canon's version of this lens).

The 50mm prime is often the first lens purchase for someone looking to improve their images on a budget. The fast f1.8 aperture is ideal for low-light, and gives buttery-smooth background bokeh. A great cheap portrait option on APS-C cameras, since the 50mm focal length crops to a mid-telephoto 75mm f1.8 field of view. It may not get a lot of use, but since it's so small and light, it's no big deal to carry it with you on the off chance you may need a small, fast prime lens.

I've said this before, and I'll say it again - I'm not a big telephoto shooter. As a landscape photographer, wide-angle is more important to me (initially at least). So of course my third (and final) lens purchase (for a while at least) needed to be a wide angle landscape lens.

Enter the Tokina SD 11-16mm f2.8 IF DX AT-X Pro. On an APS-C camera like the D300 (which the lens was designed for) it equates to about a 16-24mm full-frame lens. Plenty wide enough. And fast for a wide angle with a constant f2.8 aperture. Looks to me like a perfect astro lens, and I can't wait!

I've been wanting to do some astro photography for a very long time, but have never had the right lens for it. I get the feeling that this has now changed! Tokina even advertises this lens on its website as an astro lens. Wide, fast and sharp! And that's according to the reviews I've read online. I'm a big fan of Tokina lenses on Nikon cameras. They are all very well built, with excellent image quality, and they often produce lenses that sit outside the 'normal' focal ranges of all the other brands. I think I recall reading somewhere that Tokina was started by two ex Nikon engineers who left Nikon because they weren't being allowed to design unusual focal length zooms. That's a story for another time maybe? A review of the 11-16mm f2.8 Tokina will definitely follow once I've had time to play with it.

So there you have it. My switch back - this time around - to the Nikon D300. It should be here any day now. I'll let you know what I think of the actual body once I have it in my hot little hands. Exciting!

Trash the Dress (Camera!)

'Trash the Dress' shoots with brides have been popular in America for a few years now - but they haven't really taken off here in New Zealand. Maybe it's the hard sell of getting a bride to 'trash' her wedding dress (although there are certainly different levels of what constitutes 'trashed'). Maybe we wedding photographers aren't pushing it enough? Or maybe it's just a gimmick?

I've always wanted to do a 'trash the dress' shoot, but have never had any takers. And then, a year ago, I was approached by a woman (Danice) out of the blue, who said she wanted to do a 'trash' sessions with me - even though she isn't getting married! She had seen some images from a shoot done in America, loved the photos, and wanted some of her done in a similar way - just cause it looked 'cool'. She had bought a cheap dress on-line, and was ready to go whenever I was.

Unfortunately, due to a full season last year, the shoot never happened. I lost touch with Danice, and figured that was my chance gone. Recently, however, I met up with her again, and the shoot was back on! A year late - but better late than never, right?!

I had scouted out a forest near where I live (only 10 minutes away), that has a very relaxed walk to an amazing waterfall - everything you could want on a 'trash the dress' shoot. We choose a day that looked clear and sunny on the long range forecast, and the shoot was all go!

The day did indeed dawn clear and bright, and we met in the car park before the walk at 9.30am. I had to collect me kids from school at 3.00pm, which left about 5 hours - including walking time - to get the job done. Plenty of time, with no need to rush.

Danice had a friend do her hair and make-up, and she tagged along with us for the first couple of hours. I had my assistant, Nicky, with me to help carry gear, and position the lighting or reflectors whenever they were needed. I find it's always helpful to have a couple of others along on the shoot - not only as extra hands, but to make everyone feel more 'safe'. I didn't really know Danice - and she didn't know me - so I think it would have been very uncomfortable for us to have been alone in a forest taking photographs. Common sense really.

For a lot of the 'Trash the Dress' shoots, water features quite prominently. Which is why I chose a walk that ended in a waterfall. But you need to build up to getting in the water, not least of all for your models comfort. So I planned on using the forest for the first couple of hours, making our way slowly to our final destination - the waterfall.

Since you've spent quite a bit of time with the bride by then (and presumably prior to the shoot on her wedding day), there should be a great amount of trust between you, so that when you do say "ok, now I want you to jump into the water in your wedding dress", she trusts you enough to actually do it!  :-)

And anyway, using the forest as a setting in which to take amazing images is by no means the poorer option. Even if we'd never made it to the waterfall I would have been happy with the images from the day.

Eventually, though, we did make it to the waterfall - and this is where the real fun began.

We reached the falls around noon, where the position of the sun was less than ideal. Most of the waterfall itself was in brilliant sunlight, and was blowing out on the histogram something crazy! Positioning Danice where I wanted to, meant either shooting her in silhouette, or using flash, reflectors etc. I had bought both flash and reflectors, but it was tricky using them in the middle of a waterfall - so I went to plan 'B' and stuck mainly to the shady spots by the side of the bank. I was still able to get a hint of the falls in the background, but couldn't really use them as the kind of main feature I though I would. But then that's the challenge with any photo shoot. Plans change.

All of the shots from the session have a moody, dark quality to them, which is exactly what I was going for based on the images that I liked from similar shoots overseas. I had a blast, and so did Danice - and we are both very happy with the final result. She's got some photos of herself that she really likes, and I've got some images I can use to promote these types of shoots with prospective clients. Brides who are game enough to create these kinds of images  - because let me tell you, that water was COLD!

And dangerous. The title for this post is 'Trash the Dress', with 'Camera' in brackets. Yep, you guessed it - these 'free' promotional images are going to end up costing me a new camera! The rocks beneath the surface were very slippery, but I had managed to maneuver my way to where I needed to be all day, right up to the end of the shoot. We were getting ready for the final, all-in, immersion style shots, when - on queue, I did. Camera and all. My 5D with battery grip and lens were completely drowned (as was I), and are now totally buggered!

Fortunately (if I'm looking for some kind of silver lining), I had just changed to a new card - although I suspect the card could have taken a dunking and still be alright anyway.

Unfortunately - and here we have a word of warning - my house and contents insurance doesn't cover me for the full cost of replacement because the gear was not listed separately on our insurance policy. The insurance will only pay out a maximum of $2000NZ on camera equipment if it isn't listed separately! It's going to cost me a lot more than that to replace the 5D, with lens and grip - so I guess I won't?

Will this facilitate a move back to Nikon (I do miss the D300)?  Or do I simply get a 40D/50D style body and new lens? What about a 1D mk II for roughly the same price? Or a Nikon D2x and use my wife's 70D as a backup when I shoot weddings? These are all possibilities I suppose? Got to get 2k from the insurance company first though...

Canon 5D at ISO 1600

This weekend I'm off to Christchurch to attend Promise Keepers - a christian men's event that runs from friday through to saturday night. It will be the fourth time I've attended the event (there are different speakers and a new theme every year), although this time it will be very different - I'm one of the official photographers for the event!

I'm very excited about this because I think that it will be a: challenging, b: rewarding and c: fun (hopefully). In preparation for shooting the event, I've read up a little on concert/stage photography (although there are conflicting views and it's nothing I couldn't have figured out for myself), and bought a manfrotto monopod head to use with my 5D and 70-200mm f4 L.

Of course I'm taking the 5D, as well as the 20D with an assortment of lenses. There will be no flash during the presentations, but I'll take one anyway since I may get to use it during the breaks for group shots etc. I will also need to take my laptop for burning CD's and maybe for some quick editing? The event organisers would like as many images as possible supplied immediately - although there may also be the option of taking the files away and working on them for supply at a later date.

I know the venue reasonably well, and am happy that there will be plenty of room for me to work in. I can probably get as close to the stage as I like without actually getting on it(!) - so I may not even need to use the 70-200mm a lot? I'm actually thinking of using my 50mm f1.8 on the 20D (giving me a 75mm f1.8 effectively) for stage shots when the presenters are doing their thing, together with the 20-35mm f3.5/4.5 on the 5D for wide angle shots of the crowd, band etc? Then of course there's the 28-135mm IS lens on the 5D if I want a 'one lens fits all' kind of approach - and finally the 70-200mm f4L on either the 5D or 20D, depending on how much 'reach' I need?

Canon 5D @ ISO 1600

Having never really pushed the 5D in terms of high ISO's, I figured I had better do an 'experiment' before next weekend to see how comfortable I would be shooting at max ISO (which is 1600 for both the 5D and 20D without using the 'extra' high setting to go to 3200 on the 5D).

I simply focused on a dark area of my daughters bedroom - giving me both highlight and shadow detail - and made a shot at all the different ISO settings, up to the 1600 max. I then gave all the files identical processing in terms of sharpening, levels and curves adjustments, and then zoomed in to 100% to examine the results.

Without going in to too much detail, I'm very happy with the high ISO results the 5D gives, and won't have any worries shooting all weekend maxed out at 1600 if I have to.

The results above probably don't show up all that well on the internet - they probably all look much of a muchness? Even clicking on them for a bigger look probably doesn't help much - although you're more than welcome to do so :-)   Yes, there's noise there - of course there is. But it's not horrible, and there is still lots of detail as well. This is, after all, a full-frame sensor with a very large pixel size, so the detail isn't turning to mush (like it will with many compact digitals).

So really, what it does say, is that the high ISO performance of the 5D (and also the 20D which is said to be comparable in all the reviews I've read), is very good - and nothing to worry about. No, it won't be as good as the 5D MkII, or recent 7D, or even the new 60D - but it's good enough for me. Especially if I put the really good images through a noise reduction program later on when I can edit at my leisure. But even without it, they will be fine.

ISO 1600 should be enough to give me shutter speeds of around 125th sec when under the bright stage lights, especially if I can use the 50mm f1.8. It will be a different story when I turn around and shoot the crowds, but the monopod should help me to get steady shots - even around 15th or 10th of a second. Hopefully I can get the crowd to stay still for that long?  :-)