Canon Xsi vs Nikon D90

I bought my first DSLR (Canon Xsi) a few days ago after a lot of reading in the reviews. It will be used mostly to take action pictures (hockey, figure skating, soccer, volley-ball). From what I read, it seams that the best lense for that purpose is the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 or for less $$ the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8.

Since my dauther had a figure skating competition yesterday, I rented the Sigma to give it a try (The Canon was not available) . I had big expectations but was quite disappointed. The pictures are not bad but they are far from what I expected (most of them are quite dark when iso is not at 1600, also the quality and sharpness are disappointing). It just seem that I would have needed more ISO, even with that lense at f/2.8.

The worse thing happened when the guy next to me took many pictures with his Nikon D90 with a 70-300 VR f/4.5-5.6. All of them looked just perfect on his LCD! And he did it with the sports mode of the camera, never bothering about shutter speed, aperture, or iso... That was frustrating...so I tried the sports mode too...but with no better results (and no control of ISO or speed which came out at 1/200 - not fast enough..

My questions are:

1 - How did he do that even on f/5.6 (he also showed me more picutres he took in two different arenas and they were also very good)?

2 - Is it because the Nikon has better iso performance (most of the shots he showed me were at 1600 iso, some at 3200)?

3 - Is it only because of the quality of his LCD wich is much brighter? (so his pictures, when viewed on the computer or printed out will finally look like mines)

Why would I bother buying a 1400$ lens (or even 2000$ for the IS version) if the results are not better (in fact they were even worse) than his with his 700$ lens or so. Maybe I should buy the D90, or go for the T1i from Canon. I still have a few days to change the camera.

Can anybody help me ...

someone with more information about D90 should better be able to say something about it.. But for the T1i, I would say that if you can change your camera now and the difference between XSi and T1i is not much (which I know is not much) you might as well get T1i. Said that T1i would give you upto 12800 ISO (although in expanded mode) but still base max ISO would be atleast 3200.

although D90 is a better camera than even the T1i in most cases. And therefore pricier.

But if you'd like to go with T1i, you can easily choose and IS lens of about 200 or 300mm, that should get what you want.

T1i has:
3 extra megapixels (15mp vs 12mp)
Up to 3200 ISO expanded to 12800 (XSi was 1600)
Full HD video capture at 20fps, 720p at 30fps
3 Inch hi-res LCD screen
Creative Auto which found in 50D and 5D mark ii
The same 3.4fps.
The same 9 points AF.
The same body

---

my personal experience with T1i so far is that, in one line -- very impressive low light performances (compared to my previous dSLR i.e. Oly E-410)

although I haven't used nikon D90, but as far as I know, it is a better camera than both T1i and XSi.

Its surely not the camera and ISO is not the issue nor the answer to the problem. Because his ISO on a 5.6 lens would never compare to less ISO using a 2.8. Aperture is more vital to cleaner pictures than ISO. Maybe your focusing was off. Try using different AF points Also, How dim is the shots? Can you post some of waht you got on here? If your unsure how, make a flickr account and copy and paste the URL or link address onto the text here.

I have the Xsi and I get amazing pictures. Sorry to say but I think it is human error. First off, try to stay away from auto modes... they will not always do what you want them to do. Also, if your shooting Jpeg, get familiar with the picture style system (google: canon picture style) and adjust it to its max sharpness and add more or less color (saturation) as you desire as well as contrast. Take some practice shots outside of some moving things like cars... even in the mid afternoon to say like 5 or 6 pm when light is getting weak (not super dark though, not sure your area and the time of sun set) Or maybe a family member running around in the house under the normal room light conditions for practice. I think you probably missed your focus on the subject. Good luck.
--
Quickly shooter, draw your lens or prepared to get shot.

If you would like to exchange... you can go for it... but know that ISO is not the problem. Any pro would tell you. And you found that out just comparing to the guy next to you that if he was using 5.6 lens and you had 2.8..... Your light intake would have been equal to him using his higher ISO but your pictures using 2.8 should have been cleaner than his 5.6. It is something else... you wont get better results from a different camera if what ever you did wrong continues. Show some examples.

TabishX said:

someone with more information about D90 should better be able to say something about it.. But for the T1i, I would say that if you can change your camera now and the difference between XSi and T1i is not much (which I know is not much) you might as well get T1i. Said that T1i would give you upto 12800 ISO (although in expanded mode) but still base max ISO would be atleast 3200.

although D90 is a better camera than even the T1i in most cases. And therefore pricier.

But if you'd like to go with T1i, you can easily choose and IS lens of about 200 or 300mm, that should get what you want.

T1i has:
3 extra megapixels (15mp vs 12mp)
Up to 3200 ISO expanded to 12800 (XSi was 1600)
Full HD video capture at 20fps, 720p at 30fps
3 Inch hi-res LCD screen
Creative Auto which found in 50D and 5D mark ii
The same 3.4fps.
The same 9 points AF.
The same body

---

my personal experience with T1i so far is that, in one line -- very impressive low light performances (compared to my previous dSLR i.e. Oly E-410)

although I haven't used nikon D90, but as far as I know, it is a better camera than both T1i and XSi.

Click to expand...

--
Quickly shooter, draw your lens or prepared to get shot.

Luc Giroux said:

I bought my first DSLR (Canon Xsi) a few days ago after a lot of reading in the reviews. It will be used mostly to take action pictures (hockey, figure skating, soccer, volley-ball). From what I read, it seams that the best lense for that purpose is the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 or for less $$ the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8.

Since my dauther had a figure skating competition yesterday, I rented the Sigma to give it a try (The Canon was not available) . I had big expectations but was quite disappointed. The pictures are not bad but they are far from what I expected (most of them are quite dark when iso is not at 1600, also the quality and sharpness are disappointing). It just seem that I would have needed more ISO, even with that lense at f/2.8.

The worse thing happened when the guy next to me took many pictures with his Nikon D90 with a 70-300 VR f/4.5-5.6. All of them looked just perfect on his LCD! And he did it with the sports mode of the camera, never bothering about shutter speed, aperture, or iso... That was frustrating...so I tried the sports mode too...but with no better results (and no control of ISO or speed which came out at 1/200 - not fast enough..

My questions are:

1 - How did he do that even on f/5.6 (he also showed me more picutres he took in two different arenas and they were also very good)?

2 - Is it because the Nikon has better iso performance (most of the shots he showed me were at 1600 iso, some at 3200)?

3 - Is it only because of the quality of his LCD wich is much brighter? (so his pictures, when viewed on the computer or printed out will finally look like mines)

Why would I bother buying a 1400$ lens (or even 2000$ for the IS version) if the results are not better (in fact they were even worse) than his with his 700$ lens or so. Maybe I should buy the D90, or go for the T1i from Canon. I still have a few days to change the camera.

Can anybody help me ...

Click to expand...

it also depends on operator experience !
I can get great low light action pics from the XSi and a cheap $200 lens !

• an action night time pic example with the 55-250IS at f4 (ISO 1600 pushed)

Luc,

I doubt this is what you want to hear but changing the camera body will not likley help you. Okay, the guy with the D90 beside you had brighter pictures. He had a lense with a smaller aperture and as a result used a higher ISO. But ISO isn't the issue. You had a lense that is two stops faster (4x the amount of light was entering) yet you indicate your images were dark. If there is a problem with your camera body all you images will appear dark (not just the ones at this venue) so the camera body isn't likely faulty. If you go to a Nikon D90 or even the uber expensive Nikon D3x and do the same things you did at that even, you will end up with the same results. Even going to a T1i as another poster suggested is a waste of time and money at this point. That will only allow you to boost your ISO to a higher level and get lower quality, dark images if you don't know what you were doing wrong in the first place.

Here is what I would suggest. Post a couple of pictures (with the full exif) so that we can take a look and see. I am certain some insight will be gained by doing that.

Just out of curiosity, We know you used the XSi and the sigma 70-200 2.8 but nothing else. What aperture were you using, what shutter speeds? what mode were you in (Av, Tv, M) what focal length did you use? Was any negative EC dialed in? Were you using the built in flash?

In my search for the quest of photographic knowledge (I am a beginner), I came across an article and I wished I had saved it. It went into the reality behind photography. It discussed how good of a photographer Ansel Adams was and what he was able to accomplish in many of his photos in the 40s and 50s. With no fancy equipment, lenses, or any of the ease of use things we now have cannot produce the results he got on those cameras.

The main focus to the article is that technology cannot replace talent, it can only enhance it. It talked about 1000s of people going to sites of his photos to try and reproduce the images. Most, if not all, cannot reproduce them even with exact GPS coordinates to take the photos.

The d90 is a great camera. It is the best "non-pro" camera for the type of event you are describing. But, it is not magical.

I used to own a Canon (500d/t1i) and now own a D90, and so I am more familiar than most on the performance differances. The d90 gives you around 1.2 to 1.5 stops of extra light. This is a lot, but not as much as a Nikon d700 which is probably 2 stops better than a d90.

But, your lens was 2 full stops faster if he was shooting at 300mm. Which means you images should have been brighter.

Three things come to mind.

1. He was probably not shooting at 300mm, so light gathering was more or less equal.

2. He has a lens with VRII, and so was much more likely to get a clear shot with longer shutter speeds.

3. You were probably not looking at full sized images of either camera. It might have been closer than you think. The 3" 920k pixels can hide a few flaws.

The T1i would not be better. Infact due to pixel density is might be slightly worse than your 450d/xsi.

No matter what camera you have, the faster the lens the better. Even with a d90, a good lens is nice to have. That said, I do most of my sports photography is done with the 70-300vr. I still plan to get the 70-200vr. With stabilization since it makes a difference. In a well lit place, you can often crank the shutter speed so you do not need stabilization. But, I find I often start to bump up against this and can typically not use a tripod.

oh, as for the previous comment that aperture is better than ISO, that is ignorance. Light is light, it does not matter how it is gathered. More sensitive sensor vs larger lens opening are the same. A larger aperture helps with subject isolation because the larger the opening the shallower the depth of field (all other things being equal). If you want really good results, consider a full-frame such as the d700 (best for ISO performance without going really crazy in price) or Canon 5d mk2 (very good)
http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html

On ISO, pay NO (as in ZERO) attention to the BS that is the cameras maximum ISO. This means less than nothing. For example, my 500d had a "maximum" of something like 12800, but was so noisy at 1600 I was having trouble finding keepers (very good at ISO 800 and below). The d90 is perfectly useable at ISO 1600 and better at ISO 3200 than the Canon is at 1600. However to use a photo at ISO 3200 or above, you really need to crank the noise reduction and you will give up some details. But, with my 50mm f1.4 lens, I can take photos which are not perfect but useable in near darkness. I really lust after a d700. I am waiting to see what comes out of PMA here in 4 weeks.

Here is a sports photo from the 70-300vr on a d90, not cropped but reduced in size by roughly 75%.

BigRedNole said:

In my search for the quest of photographic knowledge (I am a beginner), I came across an article and I wished I had saved it. It went into the reality behind photography. It discussed how good of a photographer Ansel Adams was and what he was able to accomplish in many of his photos in the 40s and 50s. With no fancy equipment, lenses, or any of the ease of use things we now have cannot produce the results he got on those cameras.

The main focus to the article is that technology cannot replace talent, it can only enhance it. It talked about 1000s of people going to sites of his photos to try and reproduce the images. Most, if not all, cannot reproduce them even with exact GPS coordinates to take the photos.

Click to expand...

No doubt about. Ansel Adams was a brilliant photographer. And, a good eye for what makes an interesting composition, etc is not universal. And a extremely keen eye is rare in deed. My wife can take my camera and without knowing most of the settings get a better photograph out of it than I can. This was true when I had my canon and now with my Nikon. She did not like the complexity of my older Minolta.

But, I think this has nothing to do with the problem this fella is having. I do not think it is that "he sucks" and the other guy was gifted. Remember the d90 fella was shooting with an "not so fancy" lens and was in one of the beginner modes.

Bjorn_L said:

The d90 is a great camera. It is the best "non-pro" camera for the type of event you are describing. But, it is not magical.

I used to own a Canon (500d/t1i) and now own a D90, and so I am more familiar than most on the performance differances. The d90 gives you around 1.2 to 1.5 stops of extra light. This is a lot, but not as much as a Nikon d700 which is probably 2 stops better than a d90.

Click to expand...

How do you come to the above conclusion? Are you suggesting that somehow nikon cameras can somehow create more light or that Canon cameras automatically diminish the amount of available light? Are you suggesting that if the OP is using a canon, his/her lense at f4, ISO 1600 and shutter speed of 1/320 that the Nikon user would be able to use f5.6, 1600 ISO and shutter speed of 1/320 and get the same exposure (without and EC applied)? Cameras/lenses don't make light (beyond built in flashes).

Bjorn_L said:

But, your lens was 2 full stops faster if he was shooting at 300mm. Which means you images should have been brighter.

Three things come to mind.

1. He was probably not shooting at 300mm, so light gathering was more or less equal.

2. He has a lens with VRII, and so was much more likely to get a clear shot with longer shutter speeds.

Click to expand...

Yes, VR/IS would provide an advantage in some situations however but there will be either shutter speed requirements to stop the action or photographer panning skills to get a reasonably clear shot. With hands and feet moving around plus the subject moving around the ice there is a limit to the value of VR/IS....not that is isn't valuable at all but there is a limit to it in the OP's scenario.

Bjorn_L said:

3. You were probably not looking at full sized images of either camera. It might have been closer than you think. The 3" 920k pixels can hide a few flaws.

The T1i would not be better. Infact due to pixel density is might be slightly worse than your 450d/xsi.

Click to expand...

I don't think the OP needs a new camera at this point - from any brand. Additionally, pixel density will have no effect on the exposure of the image. Pixel density will affect other aspect depending on the end usage of the image - but there are positives and negatives.

Bjorn_L said:

No matter what camera you have, the faster the lens the better. Even with a d90, a good lens is nice to have. That said, I do most of my sports photography is done with the 70-300vr. I still plan to get the 70-200vr. With stabilization since it makes a difference. In a well lit place, you can often crank the shutter speed so you do not need stabilization. But, I find I often start to bump up against this and can typically not use a tripod.

oh, as for the previous comment that aperture is better than ISO, that is ignorance. Light is light, it does not matter how it is gathered. More sensitive sensor vs larger lens opening are the same. A larger aperture helps with subject isolation because the larger the opening the shallower the depth of field (all other things being equal). If you want really good results, consider a full-frame such as the d700 (best for ISO performance without going really crazy in price) or Canon 5d mk2 (very good)
http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html

On ISO, pay NO (as in ZERO) attention to the BS that is the cameras maximum ISO. This means less than nothing.

Click to expand...

I whole heartedly agree with this statement - many maximum ISO statements are more marketing than anything else.

Bjorn_L said:

For example, my 500d had a "maximum" of something like 12800, but was so noisy at 1600 I was having trouble finding keepers (very good at ISO 800 and below). The d90 is perfectly useable at ISO 1600 and better at ISO 3200 than the Canon is at 1600.

Click to expand...

Having not owned these two cameras, I guess we either have to take your word or the word/samples availble on the internet. Looking at the imaging-resource comparisons, I don't agree with your summary. I do think the D90 has a slight advantage regarding noise at 1600 vs the T1i at 1600 and I think that the D90 has a VERY slight advantage at 3200 ISO vs the T1i at 3200 ISO but based on their images the 1600 ISO T1i images is better than the D90 3200 ISO image. It is my opinion you are exaggerating.

Bjorn_L said:

However to use a photo at ISO 3200 or above, you really need to crank the noise reduction and you will give up some details. But, with my 50mm f1.4 lens, I can take photos which are not perfect but useable in near darkness. I really lust after a d700. I am waiting to see what comes out of PMA here in 4 weeks.

Here is a sports photo from the 70-300vr on a d90, not cropped but reduced in size by roughly 75%.

Click to expand...

Nice shot.

ShawnCo said:

Bjorn_L said:

I used to own a Canon (500d/t1i) and now own a D90, and so I am more familiar than most on the performance differances. The d90 gives you around 1.2 to 1.5 stops of extra light. This is a lot, but not as much as a Nikon d700 which is probably 2 stops better than a d90.

Click to expand...

How do you come to the above conclusion? Are you suggesting that somehow nikon cameras can somehow create more light or that Canon cameras automatically diminish the amount of available light? Are you suggesting that if the OP is using a canon, his/her lense at f4, ISO 1600 and shutter speed of 1/320 that the Nikon user would be able to use f5.6, 1600 ISO and shutter speed of 1/320 and get the same exposure (without and EC applied)? Cameras/lenses don't make light (beyond built in flashes).

Click to expand...

I'll answer this one since it seems you just do not get it. Snotty attitude of yours aside.

ISO = sensitivity to light. Some cameras have sensors which perform better in low light. This is measured in a number of places. The best place to compare is dxomark.com

Better performance in ISO is means you do not need as much light to create the same exact image. A camera which is 2 stops better in ISO performance, would need 2 stops faster shutter speed to produce the exact same image. Full frame cameras are generally the best. The best two I have personally used are the Canon d700 and Canon 5d mk2.

This has nothing to do with the brand of the camera. There are two Canons I have used which are very good at ISO performance. The 5d mk2 and the 7d. The Pentax k-x is also good. The other canons talked about here are not good. You may believe as you like, but as you pointed out you have not owned these. I have.

Pixel density typically impacts ISO performance. Reduced iso performance in turn impacts light gather of the camera since it limits the other two variables. This is not the only reason these Canons do not do as well. But, when you compare older Canons to the newer ones (excluding the two I mentioned above), you will see the older ones do better at high ISO. For example, the d40 does better than the d50.

So back to your question:

ShawnCo said:

Are you suggesting that if the OP is using a canon, his/her lense at f4, ISO 1600 and shutter speed of 1/320 that the Nikon user would be able to use f5.6, 1600 ISO and shutter speed of 1/320 and get the same exposure (without and EC applied)?

Click to expand...

It depends on the nikon and canon. And ignoring the depth of field changes from f4 to f5.6, if the sensor in that particular canon is a full stop less sensitive, then yes to the above.

ShawnCo said:

Cameras/lenses don't make light (beyond built in flashes).

Click to expand...

No, but seemingly you should do some reading and learn how the different cameras make use of this light and how not all cameras are created equal. It is not just about "making light". it is about making use of light. A camera with good high ISO performance needs less light to achieve the same photo. Go rent a d700 and a lens.

As for the rest. I do not care what you believe or not. You show a rather limited understanding and no experience with any of the cameras talked about and still feel compelled to reply with a poor attitude and insults and leap to conclusions in advance of any explanation. When you do not understand something why not ask first and come to your conclusions afterwards?

Bjorn_L, I don't disagree that better high ISO performance will benefit the user. I think we are in agreement on this. I think we can also agree higher ISO's don't increase the light availble or "give more light". We can also agree that ISO senstivity and ISO performance are two completetly different things. Additionally, I think we can generally agree that the overall performance of the D90 at higher ISO's will be better (if we could take the same picture with the same settings). The D90 has advantages in noise control and dynamic range at higher ISO's which will provide a better result.

Where we we seem to have some differences (as it appears to me) is the definition of "ISO sensitivity". ISO is sensitivity to light and is measurable. I know that you are well aware of DxOMark and their sensor tests. One of the tests they perform is ISO senstivity. If you look at that measurement allow, with the exception of the sensitivity at 100 ISO, the XSi/T1i and D90 ISO sensitivities are practially spot on (interestingly at 1600 ISO the actual ISO's measured by DxO are 1125 for the D90 and 1255 for the T1i making the T1i technically more sensitive). It is reasonable to conclude that at 1600 ISO and a given f stop and shutter speed, the exposures themselves should be fairly close. When you take a look at all the factors that come into play with image quality, yes, the D90 should perform better. It should have lower noise, better dynamic range etc. Given that information I think is where we get to what you are trying to say, the D90 will allow you to use slightly higher ISO's than the XSi/T1i with comparable noise results hence allowing you to use faster shutter speeds etc or the higher ISO with the same shutter speed and get a brighter resulting image. The problem I have with your statement is that you indicate the the nikon will "give you more light" - which it does not - the noise characteristcs and DR of the camera will allow you to use higher ISO (and at that it is debatable how many stops or fractions of a stop) to make the best use of the light available to a better end result.

It is your statement that "The d90 gives you around 1.2 to 1.5 stops of extra light." That I had the largest issue with. I don't dispute that a D90 can outperform the OP's XSi.

Bjorn_L said:

ShawnCo said:

Bjorn_L said:

I used to own a Canon (500d/t1i) and now own a D90, and so I am more familiar than most on the performance differances. The d90 gives you around 1.2 to 1.5 stops of extra light. This is a lot, but not as much as a Nikon d700 which is probably 2 stops better than a d90.

Click to expand...

How do you come to the above conclusion? Are you suggesting that somehow nikon cameras can somehow create more light or that Canon cameras automatically diminish the amount of available light? Are you suggesting that if the OP is using a canon, his/her lense at f4, ISO 1600 and shutter speed of 1/320 that the Nikon user would be able to use f5.6, 1600 ISO and shutter speed of 1/320 and get the same exposure (without and EC applied)? Cameras/lenses don't make light (beyond built in flashes).

Click to expand...

I'll answer this one since it seems you just do not get it. Snotty attitude of yours aside.

ISO = sensitivity to light. Some cameras have sensors which perform better in low light. This is measured in a number of places. The best place to compare is dxomark.com

Better performance in ISO is means you do not need as much light to create the same exact image. A camera which is 2 stops better in ISO performance, would need 2 stops faster shutter speed to produce the exact same image. Full frame cameras are generally the best. The best two I have personally used are the Canon d700 and Canon 5d mk2.

This has nothing to do with the brand of the camera. There are two Canons I have used which are very good at ISO performance. The 5d mk2 and the 7d. The Pentax k-x is also good. The other canons talked about here are not good. You may believe as you like, but as you pointed out you have not owned these. I have.

Pixel density typically impacts ISO performance. Reduced iso performance in turn impacts light gather of the camera since it limits the other two variables. This is not the only reason these Canons do not do as well. But, when you compare older Canons to the newer ones (excluding the two I mentioned above), you will see the older ones do better at high ISO. For example, the d40 does better than the d50.

Click to expand...

FYI - the D50 was announced in 2006 - the D40 in 2006. The d40 is the newer camera.

Bjorn_L said:

So back to your question:

Bjorn_L said:

Are you suggesting that if the OP is using a canon, his/her lense at f4, ISO 1600 and shutter speed of 1/320 that the Nikon user would be able to use f5.6, 1600 ISO and shutter speed of 1/320 and get the same exposure (without and EC applied)?

Click to expand...

It depends on the nikon and canon. And ignoring the depth of field changes from f4 to f5.6, if the sensor in that particular canon is a full stop less sensitive, then yes to the above.

Bjorn_L said:

Cameras/lenses don't make light (beyond built in flashes).

Click to expand...

No, but seemingly you should do some reading and learn how the different cameras make use of this light and how not all cameras are created equal. It is not just about "making light". it is about making use of light. A camera with good high ISO performance needs less light to achieve the same photo. Go rent a d700 and a lens.

As for the rest. I do not care what you believe or not. You show a rather limited understanding and no experience with any of the cameras talked about and still feel compelled to reply with a poor attitude and insults and leap to conclusions in advance of any explanation. When you do not understand something why not ask first and come to your conclusions afterwards?

Click to expand...

Luc Giroux said:

I bought my first DSLR (Canon Xsi) a few days ago after a lot of reading in the reviews. It will be used mostly to take action pictures (hockey, figure skating, soccer, volley-ball). From what I read, it seams that the best lense for that purpose is the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 or for less $$ the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8.

Click to expand...

Could be a fine lens for that, won't say it's the only possible good lens (see example reply)

Luc Giroux said:

Since my dauther had a figure skating competition yesterday, I rented the Sigma to give it a try (The Canon was not available) . I had big expectations but was quite disappointed. The pictures are not bad but they are far from what I expected (most of them are quite dark when iso is not at 1600, also the quality and sharpness are disappointing). It just seem that I would have needed more ISO, even with that lense at f/2.8.

Click to expand...

quite dark not @ iso 1600, sharpness disappointing... It's a bit vague to me what exactly went wrong. Could be a dozen things, for instance: focussing with 200mm and f/2.8 is much harder than a sunny landscape with the kitlens.

So I too want to ask you to post some examples of the different things that went wrong, please with info like: focal length, ISO, Aperture, shuttertime (mostly in the EXIF of the file) and perhaps an indication of what was focussed on (which focuspoint) and what focusmode you used.

Luc Giroux said:

The worse thing happened when the guy next to me took many pictures with his Nikon D90 with a 70-300 VR f/4.5-5.6. All of them looked just perfect on his LCD! And he did it with the sports mode of the camera, never bothering about shutter speed, aperture, or iso... That was frustrating...so I tried the sports mode too...but with no better results (and no control of ISO or speed which came out at 1/200 - not fast enough..
My questions are:

1 - How did he do that even on f/5.6 (he also showed me more picutres he took in two different arenas and they were also very good)?

Click to expand...

Experiance and knowledge?

Luc Giroux said:

2 - Is it because the Nikon has better iso performance (most of the shots he showed me were at 1600 iso, some at 3200)?

Click to expand...

I don't think the ISO performance as such (like noise) are visible enough on an LCD screen.

Luc Giroux said:

3 - Is it only because of the quality of his LCD wich is much brighter? (so his pictures, when viewed on the computer or printed out will finally look like mines)

Click to expand...

Can make a slight difference, but it should not be like 'looks good on the LCD but looks awfull on PC' (and probably isn't)

Luc Giroux said:

Why would I bother buying a 1400$ lens (or even 2000$ for the IS version) if the results are not better (in fact they were even worse) than his with his 700$ lens or so.

Click to expand...

Good question! It's not just the lens, it's technique too (but we are supporting you, that can make a difference).

Luc Giroux said:

Maybe I should buy the D90, or go for the T1i from Canon. I still have a few days to change the camera.

Click to expand...

I don't think this is the problem.

--
All in my humble opionion of course!

If I seem to talk nonsense or you can't understand me, it's probably my English

ShawnCo said:

It is your statement that "The d90 gives you around 1.2 to 1.5 stops of extra light." That I had the largest issue with. I don't dispute that a D90 can outperform the OP's XSi.

Click to expand...

Not quite right. You are confusing signal, SNR and noise-reduction.

The Canon 500d/t1i, according to DXOMark has marginally better signal. But, when they measure SNR the Canon falls short. Meaning that the Canon has a signal strength closer to what was expected, but the noise quotient was too high.

A sensor has a base ISO. It is not actually possible to increase "sensitivity". What they do is amplifiy the signal. Depending on the strength of the signal and the quality of the amplification you get a new stronger signal, but with "some" noise. The amount of noise varies from camera to camera and sensor to sensor. To avoid needless complexity it is enough to say that different sensors tolerate different levels of ISO differently.

Ultimately none of that matters, what matters is this: When you set your camera to ISO 1600 how useable is the image. With the 450d (that the OP owns), not so much. With the d90, his buddy was using, it is entirely useable. Stop making up stuff on your misunderstandings in theory, go rent them. A rental is not too expensive. But then again, since I believe you own a 7d, that would be akin to a Porsche owner render a VW.

The facts are simple. Every camera has some ISO level at which the noise level goes too high. Different people tolerate these levels differently. Some of it has to do with the intended use, etc... But the noise remains if it bugs you or not. Visible, image degrading noise, arsises in the 500d at 1600iso. It arises in the d90 at 3200iso. The 500d/t1i is noiser at 1600 than the d90 is at 3200. There is a full stop+ advantage weither you have an issue with it or not. This is born out in the dxo ISO test results.

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng/Image-Quality-Database/Compare-cameras/ (appareil1) 319%7C0 (appareil2) 294%7C0 (appareil3) 329%7C0 (onglet) 0 (brand) Canon (brand2) Nikon (brand3) Canon

In this SNR not the meaningless signal is used.
Low light ISO
Canon 7d 809 (good)
Nikon d90 977 (very good, best in any APS-C camera)
Canon 500d/t1i 663 (ok)
Canon 450/xsi 692 (ok)

Unfortunately this is not based on which ISO level you can use, which is subjective, but on the signal to noise ratio (SNR) expressed in DB. (according to DXOMark). Still it gives us the best (thus far) method of comparing cameras ISO performace objectively. My numbers were based on subjective comparisons, and so are not as reliable but are still entirely valid means of comparison. especially since I included a 20% margin of error since my perception of noise might not match everyones.

I have used all four of these cameras and owned the d90 and 500d. And the difference between the dxomark of 663 to 977 translates in to somewhere between 1.2 and 1.5 stop advantage based on my subjective testing. Enough to clearly see. I did not use any noise measurement tool like DXOMark uses. I used 18-55vr and 18-55is kit lens and experimented a little. Not entirely scientific which is why I use a range instead of a hard and fast rating like dxomark does. But, the advantage is there. With the 500d, 800iso was as high as I could reliably go relatively noise free. With the d90 it was 1600. With 3200 being close but not quite to my tastes, unless I turned on NR. Which is an option of course. Since the 450d and the 500d are fairly close, I am assuming the same levels in advantage applies. I think this is a reasonable assumption. It is possible, that even with NR disabled that the d90 uses some low level of it since the same sensor in the d300s produces a lower score of 787, which is still better than all other than the 7d. And this is without factoring in the other issues you brought up such as dynamic range and color depth. I left those alone since I figured they would not help with the scenario they were trying to solve.

ShawnCo said:

FYI - the D50 was announced in 2006 - the D40 in 2006. The d40 is the newer camera.

Click to expand...

I meant 50d vs 40d, I was talking about Canons. The Canon 40d is better in low light than the much newer 50d.

Thank you guys for all your help

You will find some pictures at this address with some comments:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/46501911@N06/?saved=1
All of them were taken with center AF point.

After reviewing all the pictures on the computer, they are not that bad... but I really need help to get better sharpness...

Still, I am wondering how the guy next to me could take such good pictures with his lens.. I am starting to think that it was really his LCD that was much brighter than mine. Note that he was not able to zoom the pictures on his camera (didn't know how) so in fact, they may have looked better than they really are. After all, his LCD has 920 000 dot and mine has only 230 000.

Cnet's review of the Xsi say : It doesn't stand out for its feature set or design, but the Canon EOS Rebel XSi delivers on performance and photo quality.

I would like to give that camera a chance. All other comments will be appreciated.
Thanks

Was flash used by either you or the guy with the D90 for any of the figure skating photo's?

Flash is not allowed in figure skating competitions.

Okay, so now you posted some examples. Thanks!

I think these photos are not bad, but I agree they are not topnotch either.

But I'm quite sure you can do a lot with just a little tweaking in PP. This can be done in DPP (free with the camera), Lightroom (what I used), PS or PSE (or the ACR that come with these) and so on.

In fact you can do things quite like the picture-style-settings manually (and more controllable) after the fact.
Here are two of your photos which I tweaked a bit in LR:



Scharpness (focus, subjectmovement, camerashake (or lack of)) are fine to me. I'm not the person to ask about 'sharpening', but there is indeed quite some noise visible.
In a larger file I might have done more.



Not too bad either, but indeed a bit dark. This makes sense as there's that much whitish ice. The camera will try to meter for an average grey and decided to expose for that. Again minimal adjustments in PP (postprocessing) will add just enough to make the difference (IMO) between keepers and throwaway photos.

Could tell you more, but hope to get you on a road toward photos you'll like.

and again: yes, LCDscreens and it's settings do make a difference in preview.
--
All in my humble opionion of course!

If I seem to talk nonsense or you can't understand me, it's probably my English

I am new to this blog but try to help you as much as I can. I am in an advanced Photography class and recently purchased the Nikon D90. According to my teacher Nikon and Canon are the best and are used in the olympics ect. He has a Nikon.

http://reviews.cnet.com/4321-6501_7-6623240.html?tag=rtcol ;relnews

This link might help as well. The D90 is priced slightly higher, but so far I am happy with the incredible pictures it takes. Lens mean everything though and I can go up to f22 to increase the depth of field, but with motion that is bad. The right combination with apeture, shutter speed, and ISo will be a big difference when creating excellent shots. maybe get a book on the subject and go from there. I hope this helps.

I don't consider myself to be PP-king, but I've gathered some experience.
So I'd think to 'do' some other photos from your flickr
The darkest:



Manual is often not the best for sports, especially as light changes (even when that's a result of pointing the lens somewhere else!). I would choose Av with widest desireable aperture, so I just KNOW the shortest possible shutterspeed is choosen. Others use Tv for that (my fear will be that I get beyond the widest possible aperture and end up with a slightly overexposed photo).



1/200th is not fast enough to prevent the foot from moving, but I like that partially subject movement. It's a sport! I would have chosen 800ISO (or even 1600)



Again: why manual? Not sharp enough? Don't know, doesn't look that bad. Yes the lower part of the legs (subject movent), but again that adds to the feel of a sport. I did, just for the sake of it, use the plugin 'Focus Magic' for a 'focus' fix (not said that that was wrong with this photo)



Too dark, but very salvable.



These are the hard decisions as a photographer: should I pump up iso another step and have a shorter shuttertime or... Diffcult.

As first PP to learn I'd advice 'levels'. now I did more on these, but levels is a good start and nearly all processing software has it.
--
All in my humble opionion of course!

If I seem to talk nonsense or you can't understand me, it's probably my English