 |
 | 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 / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / October 2006D80 noise versus Rebel XTi noise at 1600 ISO
JPEGs. http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/68412683 http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/68412661 This situation is a bit sad because the D80 is 100x better in-terms of ergonomics. It is a much more comfortable camera to shoot with and hold. > JPEGs. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > ergonomics. It is a much more comfortable camera to shoot with and > hold. http://www.dcview.com.tw/article/newreadarticle.asp?id=4860 The reviewer there reached a different conclusion. > > JPEGs. > > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > http://www.dcview.com.tw/article/newreadarticle.asp?id=4860 > The reviewer there reached a different conclusion. Interesting, certainly not what I saw. I wonder if those test charts are RAW? Another thing, skin is definitely Nikon's high ISO enemy. The kind of noise it has at high ISO is brutal on skin tones that are underexposed, compared to the Canon. >>> JPEGs. >>> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > noise it has at high ISO is brutal on skin tones that are underexposed, > compared to the Canon. There is bugger all difference between any of the 10mp aps-c dslrs. Without NR they're all noisier than the 6 and 8mp cameras. The canon is the only one with a different sensor - yet there seems much more difference between a D80 and an a100. It all looks like a test of NR and/or demosaicing algorithms in-camera or out of camera rather than sensor noise, so it's only perhaps of interest to those few who would shoot jpeg at high iso and use in camera NR rather than shoot raw and pp. If you're fussy enough to bother comparing ex-camera jpegs with such a fine-toothed comb, then you should probably be shooting raw anyway. >> JPEGs. >> > http://www.dcview.com.tw/article/newreadarticle.asp?id=4860 > The reviewer there reached a different conclusion. Conclusions? Rich didn't have any conclusions, nor any comparative data, nor any equalized testing criteria, and the crops could be from anything regardless of his claims (since he is known for providing false data and still has false images and claims on his site). As usual, Rich is just being a troll and tossing out crap to get people to discuss things so he can sit back and watch the antics. This is known as being a troll or an instigator. I really don't understand why people still respond to the twit. And anyone who has read the numerous reviews of the Nikon D80 and Canon XTi already know Rich is not adding anything what-so-ever and his crops are contrary to what respected sites have already concluded, to wit I offer this quote from DPreview in their ISO conclusions: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond80/page18.asp "At ISO 1600 the D80's gray patch looks the cleanest, followed by the EOS 400D and DSLR-A100." > >> JPEGs. > >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > anything regardless of his claims (since he is known for providing > false data and still has false images and claims on his site). B.S. Which images? Name them, or slink off like the last one who said this and was called on it. > As usual, Rich is just being a troll and tossing out crap to get > people to discuss things so he can sit back and watch the antics. This > is known as being a troll or an instigator. I really don't understand > why people still respond to the twit. All I did was shoot pictures under real-world conditions. If you like, I can send you about six JPEG images from both cameras, including Nikon RAWs. Would you like them? > And anyone who has read the numerous reviews of the Nikon D80 and > Canon XTi already know Rich is not adding anything what-so-ever and [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > "At ISO 1600 the D80's gray patch looks the cleanest, followed by the > EOS 400D and DSLR-A100." What does "cleanest" mean, exactly? >> > http://www.dcview.com.tw/article/newreadarticle.asp?id=4860 >> > The reviewer there reached a different conclusion. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> anything regardless of his claims (since he is known for providing >> false data and still has false images and claims on his site). Dang it...how many user IDs do you have? > B.S. Which images? Name them, or slink off like the last one who > said > this and was called on it. Slink off? I don't think so. Perhaps you think people are not familiar with Google Groups and the archiving of newsgroup posts? I posted here about your fake images in this thread: http://groups.google.ca/group/rec.photo.digital.slr-systems/browse_frm/thread/57 0dc9dd0653194c/b5d02570cc8f4730?&hl=en#b5d02570cc8f4730 You responded with a line of bull and then I asked you to explain the pixel discrepency among other things in this thread: http://groups.google.ca/group/rec.photo.digital.slr-systems/browse_frm/thread/57 0dc9dd0653194c/b5d02570cc8f4730?&hl=en#b5d02570cc8f4730 Please note that you NEVER RESPONDED to my inquiries. By the way I don't have the default option of not archiving this post, so everyone will see it through Google just like the one above. Moving along to your current images: PART I: Canon 30D at 1600 ISO.jpg It's not from a 30D (pixel size is proof), it's not 1600 ISO (not enough grain), there is no exit to back it up, and based on my own use of a 17-40 which I own, it looks like the FOV angle is not from a 17-40 as you claimed. More likely a 24mm or 28mm lense. PS - I saw someone else asking about the 30D pixel size in a comment on your site a few days ago, but you removed their comment. Why is that? PART II: Rebel XTi 1600 ISO.jpg Where's the exif and original image so we can compare? PART III: Nikon D80 1600 ISO.jpg Where's the exif and original image so we can compare? Are these images real? How can we believe you? >> As usual, Rich is just being a troll and tossing out crap to get >> people to discuss things so he can sit back and watch the antics. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > six JPEG images from both cameras, including Nikon RAWs. Would you > like them? Yes I would like to see them, as we all would. Please post them on your website along side the others with full exif data so we can all compare them fairly. And no you're not getting my email address so you can send it off to spammers. I'm not as think as you dumb I am. :-) >> And anyone who has read the numerous reviews of the Nikon D80 and >> Canon XTi already know Rich is not adding anything what-so-ever and [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > What does "cleanest" mean, exactly? Read the link I posted...it's all there for your learning pleasure. Or would you prefer to banter the definition of "cleanest" until you think it matches your own definition? Take your time thinking about a response... > PART I: > Canon 30D at 1600 ISO.jpg [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > of a 17-40 which I own, it looks like the FOV angle is not from a > 17-40 as you claimed. More likely a 24mm or 28mm lense. Well spotted Bill. Rich, your comments will be appreciated. I see you have changed one of the links: http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/57655520 .. it now says it is a 5D... (O: But this one: http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/57631694 still says 30D (I've saved the page and images, just so you can't pretend..) Even though you stripped off the EXIF data, the original image is 4368 x 2912 pixels. That would make it a 5D image, not a 30D. Two 'errors'? Gee whiz, what a coincidence. Did you lie - sorry I mean "err", of course - about the ISO too? Please explain the errors, and also why you would *deliberately* remove the EXIF data? We are all ears. Your credibility is about where it deserves to be, I suspect... If we don't get a satisfactory response, I think this will deserve a separate posting. Perhaps a little proviso should be attached to your future 'observations' - "errors and omissions expected" (O; > >> > http://www.dcview.com.tw/article/newreadarticle.asp?id=4860 > >> > The reviewer there reached a different conclusion. [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > You responded with a line of bull and then I asked you to explain the > pixel discrepency among other things in this thread: If a shot had a pixel discrepancy, it could have been due to straightening with the program I use. It doesn't manipulate the actual shape of the images, just "rights" the horizon and you then have to crop the borders by a certain amount. http://groups.google.ca/group/rec.photo.digital.slr-systems/browse_frm/thread/57 0dc9dd0653194c/b5d02570cc8f4730?&hl=en#b5d02570cc8f4730 > Please note that you NEVER RESPONDED to my inquiries. Because anything other than noting a pixel descrepancy is nonsense. > By the way I don't have the default option of not archiving this post, > so everyone will see it through Google just like the one above. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > of a 17-40 which I own, it looks like the FOV angle is not from a > 17-40 as you claimed. More likely a 24mm or 28mm lense. You were absolutely right here though. The camera dealer handed me a 5D, back forward and told me it was a 30D. I didn't check the front, just shots some frames. When I checked the EXIF, it was confirmed as a 5D and I changed the label on the pbase image. > PS - I saw someone else asking about the 30D pixel size in a comment > on your site a few days ago, but you removed their comment. > Why is that? Because I corrected the label (see above) and the comment would then have had no reference. In hindsight, it makes alot of sense since my criticisms at the time dealt with poor edge definition, something the full frame 5D causes with the 17-40L. > PART II: > Rebel XTi 1600 ISO.jpg > > Where's the exif and original image so we can compare? Will deliver it. Also note that I equalized the imaged because of the extremes in light and dark areas in the store. I'll post the images verbatim and let people work on them by themselves. > PART III: > Nikon D80 1600 ISO.jpg > > Where's the exif and original image so we can compare? As above. > Are these images real? > How can we believe you? You will. > >> As usual, Rich is just being a troll and tossing out crap to get > >> people to discuss things so he can sit back and watch the antics. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > And no you're not getting my email address so you can send it off to > spammers. I'm not as think as you dumb I am. I don't do that. Nor do I post images that don't belong to me and claim they are mine. I think what happens is the people on the group start believing the B.S. from sour old a.s----s like Randall and Helen and when they see some of the images they get it into their heads that I couldn't have taken them. My suggestion to all these crybabies is to stop taking their ownership of certain brands so seriously, so that anything negative said against these brands is an "aspersion" cast against them. It really is childish. > >> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond80/page18.asp > >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Take your time thinking about a response... That the article clearly states the D80 has more high ISO noise than the Rebel XTi? I did. > If a shot had a pixel discrepancy, it could have been due to > straightening with the program I use. It doesn't manipulate the > actual > shape of the images, just "rights" the horizon and you then have to > crop the borders by a certain amount. It's not a minor pixel discrepancy, the number of megapixels is 12.7mp which is not a simple program or straightening "error". The pixel size is completely different and is in fact the exact size for a 5D. That's not an error. > Because anything other than noting a pixel descrepancy is nonsense. There was a lot more to question than just the pixels. http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/57631694 The image size is wrong for the 30D - original size is 4368x2912 which is the 5D file size at 12.7 megapixels (30D is 3504x2336 8.2mp). There is no exif data and we have no idea if the image was processed or not. And finally the JPG image size is way too big at 6.5MB which is the filesize from a 5D. We're not stupid, we know it's not a 30D image. > You were absolutely right here though. The camera dealer handed me > a > 5D, back forward and told me it was a 30D. I didn't check the > front, That's an excuse which doesn't work. The 5D and 30D are different enough that anyone with a bit of experience should notice it and then question the model name on the front. While the backs are both similar, the upper housing is different, the mode dial is very different, and the viewfinders are like night and day. That's not a simple mistake either...you'd have to be blind to not notice the difference in the viewfinders. > Will deliver it. Also note that I equalized the imaged because of > the > extremes in light and dark areas in the store. I'll post the images > verbatim and let people work on them by themselves. What's to deliver? Just post the images. > That the article clearly states the D80 has more high ISO noise than > the Rebel XTi? > I did. Now you're avoiding your own topic again. We're not talking about the other values, just 1600 ISO like in the subject line. > > If a shot had a pixel discrepancy, it could have been due to > > straightening with the program I use. It doesn't manipulate the [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > That's an excuse which doesn't work. It'll have to do since that is what he said it was when he gave it to me. I remember at the time being surprise the "30D" had an L-lens on the front and not a cheap kit lens. It also explains why the field of view seemed as wide as it did at 17mm..because it really was functioning at 17mm and not 26mm as it would have with the 30D. I also remember being surprised by it's weight but I just thought it was the 17-40L which I was not used to using. > The 5D and 30D are different enough that anyone with a bit of > experience should notice it and then question the model name on the > front. While the backs are both similar, the upper housing is > different, the mode dial is very different, and the viewfinders are > like night and day. Maybe viewfinders, but the bodies are similar in size and configuration. Never having seen a 30D in the flesh, there was no way I could know offhand. > That's not a simple mistake either...you'd have to be blind to not > notice the difference in the viewfinders. The 30D had just arrived in that store and I'd never even looked though one, how would I know the difference in viewfinders? > > Will deliver it. Also note that I equalized the imaged because of > > the [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Now you're avoiding your own topic again. We're not talking about the > other values, just 1600 ISO like in the subject line. I thought 1600 qualifies as "high ISO?" "RichA" <rander3127@gmail.com> wrote in message <massive snipping of stuff Rich won't talk about> >> That's not a simple mistake either...you'd have to be blind to not >> notice the difference in the viewfinders. > > The 30D had just arrived in that store and I'd never even looked > though > one, how would I know the difference in viewfinders? Gee I dunno Rich...you must be blind. Anyway, you're just wasting my time... > "RichA" <rander3127@gmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Anyway, you're just wasting my time... Run Bill, Run. "RichA" <rander3127@gmail.com> wrote in message > Run Bill, Run. Just waiting for you to address the points earlier in this thread which you have now avoided for the THIRD time. And to also post the original noise test images like you said you would. Waiting patiently... Just to rub it in: 1. Why is THIS image still labelled 30D? http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/57631694 (Check the pixel size of the original image - it's a 12Mp image.) 2. Why did you strip the EXIF data off it? Run, Rich, Run. > "RichA" <rander3127@gmail.com> wrote in message > > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Waiting patiently... > Just to rub it in: > > 1. Why is THIS image still labelled 30D? > http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/57631694 > > (Check the pixel size of the original image - it's a 12Mp image.) Changed to 5D. > 2. Why did you strip the EXIF data off it? I didn't. I assume the program I used did. But it's good you mentioned that. When I first saw the image, I was surprised to see that much edge distortion, considering the lens was stopped down one stop. But, since it was the 5D and not 30D, it makes a whole lot more sense. > > Just to rub it in: > > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > I didn't. I assume the program I used did. Oh. *You* didn't. ?? Can I suggest you rephrase that - you claim you didn't do it intentionally, but somehow, some unnamed program that you used did it without your knowledge. Which program *was* that Rich? Given you assure us that the images are unprocessed, and it is the *original* we are referring to, your credibility is on the line here. Have you had time yet to find a program that will strip exif and be believable in it's use? Why would you post an original image for demonstarting some point, and yet not even check the EXIF details? > But it's good you > mentioned that. When I first saw the image, I was surprised to see > that much edge distortion, considering the lens was stopped down one > stop. But, since it was the 5D and not 30D, it makes a whole lot more > sense. Perhaps you need to take a LOT more care with your highly scientific visits to camera stores, and subsequent un-controlled posting of images, with no workflow details and lame excuses. > > > Just to rub it in: > > > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > you post an original image for demonstarting some point, and yet not > even check the EXIF details? If I remember, it was PSP 9 and the files were initially saved as TIFFs. > > But it's good you > > mentioned that. When I first saw the image, I was surprised to see [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > visits to camera stores, and subsequent un-controlled posting of > images, with no workflow details and lame excuses. Workflow? Like taking the image verbatim out of the camera, saving it as a TIFF, reconverting to JPEG and posting it? Yeah, truly "invasive" work that should be documented. > You were absolutely right here though. The camera dealer handed me a > 5D, back forward and told me it was a 30D. I didn't check the front, > just shots some frames. When I checked the EXIF, it was confirmed as a > 5D and I changed the label on the pbase image. Ha ha ha. Oh you bloody trolling twerp. You expect belief? Later that day: Dealer: "Here Rich, try this Hasselblad" Little innocent Rich: "Oh wow, thanks" (Rich later checks EXIF - Woolworths use-once-then-throw-away) > > You were absolutely right here though. The camera dealer handed me a > > 5D, back forward and told me it was a 30D. I didn't check the front, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Ha ha ha. > Oh you bloody trolling twerp. You expect belief? Lets see some pictures. >> Ha ha ha. >> Oh you bloody trolling twerp. You expect belief? > > Lets see some pictures. Of what? A bloody trolling twerp? Look in the mirror nitwit. > I offer this quote from DPreview in their ISO conclusions: > > http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond80/page18.asp > > "At ISO 1600 the D80's gray patch looks the cleanest, followed by the > EOS 400D and DSLR-A100." That's not what I see. I see the D80 image has been averaged the most to reduce noise. Look at the detail in the hair and crown. Not even close, yet they should be. The D80 ISO 100 image shows more detail, and as ISO goes up, that detail goes away. Not in the Sonly or Canon. A different raw converter would show different results. So what we are seeing is not true sensor performance, but raw converter averaging. Roger >> I offer this quote from DPreview in their ISO conclusions: >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Not even close, yet they should be. The D80 ISO 100 image shows > more detail, and as ISO goes up, that detail goes away. I agree there is less detail, and sharpness is a point of contention in other shots. But the question is noise at 1600 using the default settings, and in that regard the Nikon is equal to or better than the Canon. It's a very minor point though as both are very good and Nikon has improved the high ISO performance to similar levels of the Canon models. Canon doesn't really have the big edge in high ISO they once had, which I think is a good thing for everyone involved. Megapixel counts and ISO performance is the same, which may explain their sudden jump into other features like a sensor cleaner, and dust reference imaging in order to stay ahead of the competition in the "features war". >>> I offer this quote from DPreview in their ISO conclusions: >>> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > But the question is noise at 1600 using the default settings, and in > that regard the Nikon is equal to or better than the Canon. I disagree. It is not that clear cut. One could smooth the canon image, for example, to reduce the detail to that of the nikon image, and the noise will be suppressed. Roger >> I agree there is less detail, and sharpness is a point of >> contention in other shots. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > canon image, for example, to reduce the detail to that > of the nikon image, and the noise will be suppressed. What if you turned up the sharpness to match the default Canon level or level-matched both cameras? Would that balance things out or would there still be less resolution (detail) in the Nikon image? >>>I agree there is less detail, and sharpness is a point of >>>contention in other shots. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Would that balance things out or would there still be less resolution > (detail) in the Nikon image? Bill, A couple of things: 1) turning up the "sharpness" does not actually improve resolution. It increases accutance, edge contrast. 2) Turning up the "sharpness" would enhance the noise. I'm not trying to imply one is better than another, as I really can't tell. What we can tell is that the manufacturers are trying to hide the noise with smoothing of the images. It seems that all the manufacturers are doing it, even canon. It is a matter of degree. And it also depends on which raw converter one uses, and what the settings on the converter are. The same converter could behave differently on different camera's files. It's kind of a mess and evaluating tiff (the processed raw into tiff files) is not the way to really see what is happening at the sensor. Roger SNIP > I'm not trying to imply one is better than another, as I > really can't tell. What we can tell is that the manufacturers [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > (the processed raw into tiff files) is not the > way to really see what is happening at the sensor. In my view, what we need for a better judgement, is a normalized plot of resolution as a function of ISO. Especially when used with a 'star chart' type of resolution test, all that's needed is to determine if/how the extinction resolution changes. Even when such an ISO sequence is processed differently at each ISO, whether by camera or by Raw processing software, the extinction resolution has so little contrast that the software cannot fake resolution. I have already posted a couple of test target files some time ago, and these files can be used to print a sinusoidal grated (Siemens or Jewell) star chart with a decent inkjet printer: For HP/Canon inkjet printers (3.8MB): <http://www.xs4all.nl/~bvdwolf/main/downloads/Jtf60cy-100mm_600ppi.gif> For Epson inkjet printers (5.3MB): <http://www.xs4all.nl/~bvdwolf/main/downloads/Jtf60cy-100mm_720ppi.gif> Print it at the indicated ppi without printer enhancements on glossy Photopaper which should produce a 100x100mm target, and shoot it with your (digi)cam from a (non-critical) distance like between 25-50x the focal length. Since in this case we are comparing resolution in a single camera over an ISO range, we can just measure the number of pixels across the blur center diameter and normalize that to the best/smallest (lowest ISO) diameter in pixels. Only if different cameras were to be compared for absolute differences in resolution then a correction for output magnification differences should be made, but that is not necessary with a normalized sequence .  SignatureBart > http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond80/page18.asp > > "At ISO 1600 the D80's gray patch looks the cleanest, followed by the > EOS 400D and DSLR-A100." They also said this: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond80/page29.asp Conclusion - Cons * High sensitivity (ISO) noise levels higher than Canon EOS 400D >> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond80/page18.asp >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > * High sensitivity (ISO) noise levels higher than Canon EOS 400D But not at 1600 ISO which is the subject of your original post. Don't try to change the rules or twist the argument away from what you originally started. I agree that the Canon is better at 400-800. But at 1600 the Nikon is better, and at 3200 the Canon isn't even in the running since it can't do 3200. >>>http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond80/page18.asp >>> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > better, and at 3200 the Canon isn't even in the running since it can't > do 3200. There is no point for iso 3200 on ANY current camera. The unity gain ISO is 1600 and below on all current DSLRs. Unity gain = the gain at which one A/D bit = 1 electron. There is no point in digitizing less than 1 electron (you can do that in post processing ;-). Roger > JPEGs. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > ergonomics. It is a much more comfortable camera to shoot with and > hold. And how many former film shooters even care? How many times have most of us loaded ISO 1600 film into our cameras? If we are not going to shoot at ISO 1600, why should we care? > > JPEGs. > > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > us loaded ISO 1600 film into our cameras? If we are not going to shoot > at ISO 1600, why should we care? A few, at least. Noise is always front and centre in discussions about DSLRs. >JPEGs. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >ergonomics. It is a much more comfortable camera to shoot with and >hold. You should be able to shoot at a respectable ISO setting if you use the flash. It's that pop-up thingy on top of the camera. Or reshoot at ISO 400 using the same exposure settings, and let Photoshop correct the underexposed image. Duplicate the layer and change the Mode to Screen, and repeat as needed. (If this was a feeble attempt at a comparison, repeat the test. Only this time, make sure the focal length and exposure settings are the same. Also, post the ENTIRE image, not a crop.) HTH HAND TR > (If this was a feeble attempt at a comparison, repeat the test. Only > this time, make sure the focal length and exposure settings are the > same. Also, post the ENTIRE image, not a crop.) What are you saying, that it wasn't fair? >> (If this was a feeble attempt at a comparison, repeat the test. Only >> this time, make sure the focal length and exposure settings are the >> same. Also, post the ENTIRE image, not a crop.) > >What are you saying, that it wasn't fair? I'm saying it is a silly exersize. To say one camera is less noisy at 1600 than another is ignores the fact that BOTH cameras are noisy at that setting, and neither will give good results. I would have a difficult time shooting ISO 1600 with a digital. I've found I can get better results by bringing out detail from the shadows of an underexposed image than by pushing the camera past ISO 400. TR > ...I've > found I can get better results by bringing out detail from the shadows > of an underexposed image than by pushing the camera past ISO 400. Disagreed. I've tested that and boosting ISO is clearly superior to post-processing a digital underexposure. In fact over exposing with high ISO and darkening in post-processing reduces noise. from a D70: http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=Misc/photography/expose-right SignaturePaul Furman http://www.edgehill.net/1 Bay Natives http://www.baynatives.com > JPEGs. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > ergonomics. It is a much more comfortable camera to shoot with and > hold. Most reviewers have been saying that Nikon finally got noise reduction right with the D80. > JPEGs. > > http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/68412683 > > http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/68412661 Judging the the review Frederick posted: http://www.dcview.com.tw/article/newreadarticle.asp?id=4860 it's the age-old sharpness versus noise trade-off. Canon reduce the noise more, and produce a softer image as a result. David SNIP > it's the age-old sharpness versus noise trade-off. That's right, and it seems to be more prominent in the latest incarnations from various brands. > Canon reduce the noise more, and produce a softer image as a result. That's not what I'm seeing here: <http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond80/page18.asp> Sharpness isn't reduced as much as in the Nikon examples. Maybe you have another example showing the opposite effect? SignatureBart > SNIP [] >> Canon reduce the noise more, and produce a softer image as a result. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Maybe you have another example showing the opposite effect? Agreed. The example quoted is what I first felt when looking at: http://www.dcview.com.tw/article/newreadarticle.asp?id=4860 (The ISO 1600 line of the table labelled "F5.6"). As I don't read Taiwanese, perhaps I'm missing some key comment, though. David SNIP > Agreed. The example quoted is what I first felt when looking at: > > http://www.dcview.com.tw/article/newreadarticle.asp?id=4860 > > (The ISO 1600 line of the table labelled "F5.6"). As I don't read > Taiwanese, perhaps I'm missing some key comment, though. Even a Babelfish translation from Japanese to English doesn't make it very clear what they did, but I think there was a difference in exposure, so they also re-did the test with f/5.0 which leveled the readings a bit (unless I misunderstood the crippled translation). I didn't find the Raw converter they used, and I didn't find the camera / converter noise reduction settings used. More questions than answers, I'm afraid. SignatureBart > SNIP > > it's the age-old sharpness versus noise trade-off. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > <http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond80/page18.asp> > Sharpness isn't reduced as much as in the Nikon examples. In fact this is true. If you look at the Nikon images, you can clearly see more noise reduction in-play. |
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.