«

I currently have the D60. I bought it about a month before it got
phased out in favor of the 10D. What a downer that was.

With the D60, I find I can get good quality at ISO 100 and 200. At
400 noise begins to be a factor. I can use at 400, but will not get a
smooth creamy result when enlarged to say 8X10 or higher. Anything
above 400 is horrible. I did read some digital noise tests between
the D60 and 10D that showed the different in ISO noise is neglible
between these two cameras. So why go for the 10D, I reasoned.

The Mark 11 is supposed to be greatly improved in the area of ISO
noise at higher ISO speeds. I am close to opting for this camera if
this is true. Now I hear there will be new releases from Canon in
Sept so I want to wait for that...don't want to repeat the D60
mistake.

Would love to hear from some folks who are familiar with the D60 and
now have the Mark 11: On ISO noise and the difference between these
two in this regard. And the same question to the 10D people who have
shot with the D60 and now use the 10D.

Thanks much

Carol R

>From: (Carol R)

>With the D60, I find I can get good quality at ISO 100 and 200. At
>400 noise begins to be a factor.

My wife has a 10D and after testing it for noise I would agree with your
numbers, 200 looks good and 400 doesn't (for good sized prints and our tastes).

>The Mark 11 is supposed to be greatly improved in the area of ISO
>noise at higher ISO speeds.

Just got one of these a couple weeks ago and it's a great camera. Haven't
tested for noise above 320 yet but at 320 it's better than the 10D at 200.

> I am close to opting for this camera if
>this is true. Now I hear there will be new releases from Canon in
>Sept so I want to wait for that.

No way they'll replace the Mark II that quickly (it's still in short supply)
but it would be wonderful if they used the same 8 Mpix sensor in a lower price
camera, either on the Elan body (10D Mark II?) or even better on the EOS-3 body
(3D?). Unless you need the super fast autofocus and frame rate of the Mark II
I'd wait a bit and see if they bring out an 8 Mpix dSLR on one of these cheaper
bodies.

>Would love to hear from some folks who are familiar with the D60 and
>now have the Mark 11: On ISO noise and the difference between these
>two in this regard. And the same question to the 10D people who have
>shot with the D60 and now use the 10D.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/cano...kii/page18.asp and scroll down for
the 'Luminance Noise Graph' ... basically what it says is the Mark II noise at
800 is about the same as the 10D at 400, and the M II at 400 is about the same
as the 10D at 200. At any given ISO the Mark II is better than the other
cameras shown (Nikon D2H, Canon 1Ds, Canon 1D, Canon 10D).

If you want to see a couple of samples look at these I shot yesterday ...
http://members.aol.com/hiltonfotogra...z_crop_usm.jpg (600x400 actual pixels
crop, if the file were printed 30x45" this is what 5x7.5" worth of detail would
look like on my screen)
http://members.aol.com/hiltonfotography/liz.jpg (the full image after
downsampling for the web, the crop was just of the eye area)

http://members.aol.com/hiltonfotography/humm_det.jpg another 100% crop, this
shows how smooth the background is at ISO 250 ... this and the first shot were
taken at 1,000 mm (500 f/4 w/ 2x converter) and this one shows how quickly it
autofocuses, catching a hummer in mid-air.
http://members.aol.com/hiltonfotography/humm.jpg (full frame shot reduced about
5x, the crop was of the head)

I took 11 shots of the hummer and 9 were in focus and sharp.

Any camera that can AF on a hovering hummingbird with a 1,000 mm lens (1,300 mm
equivalent 35 mm FOV) is OK by me

One more and I'll stop bragging about this camera ...
http://members.aol.com/hiltonfotogra...ve_blossom.jpg .. this one prints
beautifully at 12x18", as good as or slightly better than scanned 35mm film.

Bill

> Would love to hear from some folks who are familiar with the D60 and
> now have the Mark 11: On ISO noise and the difference between these
> two in this regard. And the same question to the 10D people who have
> shot with the D60 and now use the 10D.

I have both 10D and D60 and use them in theatre photography where
frequently lighting on stage can be relatively dim. I use the noise
filtering in Adobe camera raw and sometines Neatimage to mitigate the
high iso - low lighting levels noise. I find the 10D to show about half
the noise of the D60: the 10D at 800 has noise range close to what I see
in the D60 at 400, and I can use the 10D at 1600 and get very usable
results (not my first choice but sometimes the only way to get the
shots). I'll really be looking forward to the Mark II (or its
technology in another body) if its noise characteristics are half of the
10D is these low light environments.

Bob Shomler
www.shomler.com
[email via web site]

dy (Bill Hilton) wrote in message news:<>...
> >From: (Carol R)
>
> >With the D60, I find I can get good quality at ISO 100 and 200. At
> >400 noise begins to be a factor.
>
> My wife has a 10D and after testing it for noise I would agree with your
> numbers, 200 looks good and 400 doesn't (for good sized prints and our tastes).
>
> >The Mark 11 is supposed to be greatly improved in the area of ISO
> >noise at higher ISO speeds.
>
> Just got one of these a couple weeks ago and it's a great camera. Haven't
> tested for noise above 320 yet but at 320 it's better than the 10D at 200.

Lets hope so for $4,000. The 10D is worse at ISO 100 than the Sigma
SD10 is at ISO 800...

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sigmasd10/page13.asp

The $8,000 1Ds doesn't fare any better...

http://www.pbase.com/image/31155134/original

In article < >, Georgette
Preddy <> wrote:

> Lets hope so for $4,000. The 10D is worse at ISO 100 than the Sigma
> SD10 is at ISO 800...

The 10D looks better at 800 than your crappy Sigma is at 100.

Bob Shomler <> wrote in message news:<>...
> > Would love to hear from some folks who are familiar with the D60 and
> > now have the Mark 11: On ISO noise and the difference between these
> > two in this regard. And the same question to the 10D people who have
> > shot with the D60 and now use the 10D.
>
> I have both 10D and D60 and use them in theatre photography where
> frequently lighting on stage can be relatively dim. I use the noise
> filtering in Adobe camera raw and sometines Neatimage to mitigate the
> high iso - low lighting levels noise. I find the 10D to show about half
> the noise of the D60: the 10D at 800 has noise range close to what I see
> in the D60 at 400, and I can use the 10D at 1600 and get very usable
> results (not my first choice but sometimes the only way to get the
> shots). I'll really be looking forward to the Mark II (or its
> technology in another body) if its noise characteristics are half of the
> 10D is these low light environments.

Doubtful. Canon CMOS technology has fallen way behind and is
outclassed. Even their biggest sensor pixels are extrememly noisy
compared to current technology...

http://www.pbase.com/image/31155134/original

"Georgette Preddy" <> wrote in message
news: om...
SNIP
> Doubtful. Canon CMOS technology has fallen way behind and is
> outclassed. Even their biggest sensor pixels are extrememly noisy
> compared to current technology...

Wrong again, as usual.

http://img.dpreview.com/reviews/Sigm...luma-noise.gif
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/Sigm...lumi_graph.gif
http://img.dpreview.com/reviews/Cano...ance-graph.gif
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/Cano...lumi_graph.gif

Bart

"Bart van der Wolf" <> wrote in message news:<40f30170$0$21106$>...
> "Georgette Preddy" <> wrote in message
> news: om...
> SNIP
> > Doubtful. Canon CMOS technology has fallen way behind and is
> > outclassed. Even their biggest sensor pixels are extrememly noisy
> > compared to current technology...
>
> Wrong again, as usual.

It's not an opinion...

http://www.pbase.com/image/31155134/original

Randall Ainsworth <> wrote in message news:<100720041729224809%>. ..
> In article < >, Georgette
> Preddy <> wrote:
>
> > Lets hope so for $4,000. The 10D is worse at ISO 100 than the Sigma
> > SD10 is at ISO 800...
>
> The 10D looks better at 800 than your crappy Sigma is at 100.

The 10D is an absolute mess at ISO 800. It's completely unusable at
ISO 400...

http://www.pbase.com/image/31045949/original

It's a very P&S like DSLR in this regard. Even Phil's brilliantly lit
(a bone thrown to his biggest cash cow) ISO 800 Canon 10D demo images
are heinous...

http://img2.dpreview.com/gallery/can...rw_8385_rj.jpg

The 10D is also extrememly noisy at ISO 100, compared to Foveon.
Especially considering you have to underexpose to avoid sharply blown
highlites. But it is an average Bayer DSLR in terms of noise. While
the even more ancient Canon 1Ds is a truly horrid performer with
respect to noise, even for a Bayer, and even at ISO 100...

http://www.pbase.com/image/31155134/original

"Georgette Preddy" <> wrote in message
news: om...
> "Bart van der Wolf" <> wrote in message
news:<40f30170$0$21106$>...
> > "Georgette Preddy" <> wrote in message
> > news: om...
> > SNIP
> > > Doubtful. Canon CMOS technology has fallen way behind and is
> > > outclassed. Even their biggest sensor pixels are extrememly noisy
> > > compared to current technology...
> >
> > Wrong again, as usual.

http://img.dpreview.com/reviews/Sigm...luma-noise.gif
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/Sigm...lumi_graph.gif
http://img.dpreview.com/reviews/Cano...ance-graph.gif
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/Cano...lumi_graph.gif

> It's not an opinion...
>
> http://www.pbase.com/image/31155134/original

A person with normal mental capabilities understands that you cannot compare
a 4064x2704 pixel camera JPEG image with a 2268x1512 pixel RAW processed
image at the pixel level (clue: different output magnification and data
processing).
Also recheck the Luminance charts above (the ones you snipped out of your
response).

Bart