 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Film Photography / 35 mm / September 2007Noise is an unexpected issue with new Canon DSLR
So... Looking for cameras to replace my aging (but one) fleet. I had a demonstration today of several cameras with a view to replacements for my mixed brand fleet of DSLRs intending to consider several cameras all of one brand to minimise duplication of lenses and speedlites as much as possible. I'm interested in Canon, Fujifilm and Nikon. One of the issues I'm particularly concerned with is dynamic range. I can put up with a few specs not quite what I'd like for well defined pictures. The other issue is noise in shadow areas at high ISO. I'll also consider "shutter shudder" or vibration at the point of exposure. I loved the silky smooth mirror flip on the 10D and the almost as smooth mirror on the E300 Olympus. What I didn't expect to see from recent model Canon cameras was noise at 100 ISO !!! Could there be something wrong with the demo camera? http://www.ryadia.com/PFF/00D-Canon-image.htm Doug > So... Looking for cameras to replace my aging (but one) fleet. > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > Could there be something wrong with the demo camera? > http://www.ryadia.com/PFF/00D-Canon-image.htm You'll see noise with any digital camera of an area that's light starved as the one you chose to detail. 00==  SignatureJohn McWilliams > You'll see noise with any digital camera of an area that's light starved > as the one you chose to detail. Especially when you increase the exposure after the fact. Doug should put the Canon down before he hurts himself, and stick with the Panasonic (oops, I meant Leica!) that he usually shoots with. On Sep 22, 5:52 am, <annika1...@aol.com> wrote: > > You'll see noise with any digital camera of an area that's light starved > > as the one you chose to detail. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > and stick with the Panasonic (oops, I meant Leica!) that he usually shoots > with. Well blow me down with the breeze from a palm leaf... Look what happened when I did just that! http://www.ryadia.com/PFF/FZ50-Panasonic-image.htm With love from Panasonic, Doug > On Sep 22, 5:52 am, <annika1...@aol.com> wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > With love from Panasonic, > Doug Whatever. Douglas: Those images are hardly comparable except superficially. Signaturejohn mcwilliams > > On Sep 22, 5:52 am, <annika1...@aol.com> wrote: > >> "John McWilliams" <jp...@comcast.net> wrote in message [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > -- > john mcwilliams This is an entirely different topic John. One that's been done to death many times before. The point is that I got a demonstration of a few cameras from a ex- photographer now working at selling Pro gear and it produced the "00D" images full of noise where an identical shot with a 5D, processed the same way (1 stop increase post processing), produces next to none. I'm not the first to detect this either. It's the 1.6 crop sensors doing it, not the rest of the camera. Our resident Photoshop genius seemed to think a FZ50 couldn't produce as good as or better images. From a photographer's point of view, the only difference in the two cameras is that one has a fixed lens and is dog slow at saving RAW files. Otherwise the Little Panasonic creates images every bit the equal to any a 1.6 crop Canon can... Lens quality aside. Add to that the ridiculous notion floating around here that you have "two extra stops" of leeway as the reason for shooting in RAW and the disciples are like sheep... Getting the wool pulled over their eyes. It simply doesn't gell mate. For one, only an uncompressed TIFF file can contain all the data in an image. A Panasonic FZ50 RAW image is considerably larger than a Canon 40D RAW image and is basically a TIFF file. I suppose it's escaped the disciples of EOS that their belief they are processing raw data from the sensor when developing a camera RAW file from a Canon is flawed? The only way to reduce the size of an image file is to throw away data. A Panasonic RAW file is 17 megabyte. It is all that extra data that allows one of it's images to be brought into the same class as a 1.6 crop DSLR. Add to that it's CCD sensor and the sharpness, detail and colour rendition produce better quality images than the mess you get from Canon's 1.6 crop, CMOS sensors. His royal Highness thought he'd be smart and belittle the ability of my fleet of Panasonic's and got caught out. He can't Photoshop out the crap in his images when it gets critical. Doug > For one, only an uncompressed TIFF file can contain all the data in an > image. A Panasonic FZ50 RAW image is considerably larger than a Canon > 40D RAW image and is basically a TIFF file. A TIFF file is _NOT_ the same as a RAW file. The only similarity between the two is the lack of compression or if compression is used it is lossless. If you don't understand the difference between RAW and TIFF then I suggest you do a little more study. > I suppose it's escaped the disciples of EOS that their belief they are > processing raw data from the sensor when developing a camera RAW file > from a Canon is flawed? The only way to reduce the size of an image > file is to throw away data. Only if the compression is lossy compression. Lossless compression doesn't throw away any of the data, instead it stores it more efficiently. As proof, ZIP files are frequently 1/2 the size of the original, yet when unzipped, you can do a binary compare with the original and it will match perfectly. Canon compressed RAW files use the same principle - compress the data without losing any data. Lossless compression can typically only get compression rates of the order of 1.5-2:1 whereas lossy compression (JPG) will compress to around 5-10:1 - sometimes much more. >A Panasonic RAW file is 17 megabyte. It is > all that extra data that allows one of it's images to be brought into > the same class as a 1.6 crop DSLR. Bollocks. It is all that uncompressed data that means it takes an eternity to save a Pana RAW file, but it contains no more data than a compressed RAW from a DSLR. > Our resident Photoshop genius seemed to think a FZ50 couldn't produce > as good as or better images. From a photographer's point of view, the > only difference in the two cameras is that one has a fixed lens and is > dog slow at saving RAW files. Otherwise the Little Panasonic creates > images every bit the equal to any a 1.6 crop Canon can... Lens quality > aside. Here we go again! Another series of D-Mac's comparison tests using different settings and different processing. Why not post the RAW files from two identical images taken with both cameras at the same settings? You won't because it will prove you're full of sh.t. > For one, only an uncompressed TIFF file can contain all the data in an > image. A Panasonic FZ50 RAW image is considerably larger than a Canon > 40D RAW image and is basically a TIFF file. What an idiot! Dude, I already busted your dumb a.s on this back in March when I wrote: ============================ The RAW files from the Panasonic (oops, I meant "Leica") that you own are 20MB because they contain additional info like a very large embedded JPG. So this isn't really a true RAW file, but is actually RAW+JPG. Kind of a waste of space if you ask me, not unlike yourself. > The RAW files from the Panasonic (oops, I meant "Leica") that you own > are 20MB because they contain additional info like a very large > embedded JPG. So this isn't really a true RAW file, but is actually > RAW+JPG. > > Kind of a waste of space if you ask me, not unlike yourself. Kinda like DNG. Rita On Sep 22, 4:44 pm, Rita ? Berkowitz <ritaberk2O04 @aol.com> wrote: > > The RAW files from the Panasonic (oops, I meant "Leica") that you own > > are 20MB because they contain additional info like a very large [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Kinda like DNG. DNGs are typically smaller than the raw files they were converted from. Some people use DNG to save space. http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/articles/dng/benefits.htm#filesize -- Barry Pearson http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/photography/ >> > The RAW files from the Panasonic (oops, I meant "Leica") that you own >> > are 20MB because they contain additional info like a very large [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >from. Some people use DNG to save space. >http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/articles/dng/benefits.htm#filesize I find the main advantage of DNG is the way is acts as a container for RAW conversion settings in addition to image data. When I get white balance, exposure comp., black levels, curves, etc. optimized for a conversion file it's all saved in the DNG file (without changing any of the image data). "Not quite a full size crop due to the area cropped." Typical. > > So... Looking for cameras to replace my aging (but one) fleet. > [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > -- > John McWilliams Hi John... >From CCD sensors the noise resembles film grain and is easily fixed (if you feel the need to). From CMOS sensors the noise is more splattered, horrible looking and not easily fixed due to it's random nature and attenuation. In the past I've been able to almost totally remove shadow noise from D70 @ ISO 400 images but this latest issue with 1.6 crop Canon's in particular, is a long way from fixable. Doug > From CMOS sensors the noise is more > splattered, horrible looking and not easily fixed due to it's random > nature and attenuation. In the past I've been able to almost totally > remove shadow noise from D70 @ ISO 400 images but this latest issue > with 1.6 crop Canon's in particular, is a long way from fixable. Hey, D-Mac, here's a pic I took a few minutes ago with the Fabulous 40D. I'm still lookin for the noise. http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/85997078/original Now please stop polluting the newsgroups with all your wrong information. Go place your order for the 40D right now. You know you want to. Just between you and me, I doubt that Helen is gonna buy you one. It must suck knowing that I have gotten better shots in the last 10 minutes with my Fabulous 40D than you have EVER shown us. LOL! Sucks to be a Panasonic Punk like you, D-Mac! >> From CMOS sensors the noise is more >> splattered, horrible looking and not easily fixed due to it's random [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > minutes with my Fabulous 40D than you have EVER shown us. > LOL! Sucks to be a Panasonic Punk like you, D-Mac! Still believe in the easter bunny too do you? > I had a demonstration today of several cameras with a view to > replacements for my mixed brand fleet of DSLRs intending to consider > several cameras all of one brand to minimise duplication of lenses > and speedlites as much as possible. No noise problems with the old Mk III, the damn thing practically sees in the dark. I'm sure 90% of this has to do with the Nikkor's totally awesome light gathering properties, but the sensor is so sweet and the slight noise at ISO 3200 has a pleasing quality to it just like film grain. You can't go wrong with the old Mk III. I can't wait to see what the new D3 is capable of. Rita >> I had a demonstration today of several cameras with a view to >> replacements for my mixed brand fleet of DSLRs intending to consider [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > of. > Rita It's an odd thing Rita. The rep was surprised to see what happens with one stop of post process exposure correction. I use this method to discover if I can and how much I can use in post processing to "fix" images outside the dynamic range of the camera. All this bullshit about having 2 stops to play with using RAW sort of crumbles in a heap when you see what issues one stop of correction produces. A 5D image and you wouldn't see much (if any) increase in noise in doing this but the 1.6 crop sensors all seem to do it. Scratch Canon's consumer cameras with 1.6 crop sensors off my list. I really need to be looking at their Professional range but the focus thing is disturbing me. Next week my favourite camera rep promises to bring a 1D Mk III (out of stock this week) and "Show me what a 'real; camera can do" - his words not mine! Considering the cost, I might not be using them for this year's Santa concessions to be sure but they're still cheaper than their predecessor. I could probably get another season out of the FZ50s for that. In any event I won't be deciding until I have a D3 in my hands. I ordered a couple just in case. I can easily swap to a Mk III if I need to. The real intrigue (for me at any rate) is the image quality of my Fuji s5 exceeds all the Canon images I have thus far sampled. It may well come to pass that I buy more Fujifilm cameras! Any guesses on the camera which took the noisy image? Doug Wow!!! What a great emulation of film. The sensor is reacting just like modern day films with larger clumpier grain in the shadow areas and much finer grain in the highlights. My guess would be that only the Canon 40D would have software that is advanced enough to pull this off. Any other DSLR (inluding my K10D) would give that cold harsh constant grain size that is typical of DSLR's. Kudo's to Canon for having a DSLR that mimics the warm feeling of film. George > So... Looking for cameras to replace my aging (but one) fleet. > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Doug |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.