Canon has lost the high ISO noise war

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by RichA, Nov 11, 2010.

  1. RichA

    RichA Guest

    RichA, Nov 11, 2010
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. RichA

    MG Guest

    MG, Nov 11, 2010
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. In rec.photo.digital MG <> wrote:
    > Excellent image quality up to ISO settings unthinkable just one camera
    > generation ago


    I don't usually bother to respond to RichA threads, but this does
    remind me of an observation I made recently when looking at some medium
    format cameras. People now complain when a camera system doesn't shoot
    10 fps at a noiseless ISO 6400 and doesn't come with 30+ different
    lenses covering ultrawideangle to extreme telephoto, all with zero
    aberration, instant and spot-on autofocus, perfectly sharp at f/2.8 or
    wider, etc., etc. Oh yeah, and there should be auto-bracketing of at
    least five frames, covering every possible setting, and the shutter
    should be able to do at _least_ 1/4000 second.

    By way of contrast, look at a lot of the best of MF (or even large
    format!) cameras and film of recent history. Very often you got a
    choice of about three, maybe five focal lengths (all prime lenses,
    natch) ranging from moderately wide to moderately tele, none of them
    very fast and all of them manual focus and manual aperture, with film
    topping out around 3200, maybe pushed a little higher, at which point
    you _expected_ a lot of grain. Your top shutter speed was about 1/500
    sec and you got about twelve frames per roll of film, which you had to
    manually advance anyway.

    And yet somehow a lot of great photography got done with medium
    format, and with large format, and with comparable 35mm systems of the
    same era. Conclusion: quit worrying about your equipment and whether
    the new Ultrashot 9000R has better or worse specs than the Maxpix 5GX+.
    It is utterly pointless.


    --
    Oh to have a lodge in some vast wilderness. Where rumors of oppression
    and deceit, of unsuccessful and successful wars may never reach me
    anymore.
    -- William Cowper, 1731 - 1800
    Jeremiah DeWitt Weiner, Nov 11, 2010
    #3
  4. RichA

    RichA Guest

    On Nov 11, 3:39 am, "MG" <> wrote:
    > "RichA" <> wrote in message
    >
    > news:...
    >
    > > Nikon, Pentax and Sony all seem to be superior now.  This new camera
    > > (forgetting the unforgivable sin of going from metal to plastic for
    > > the body) really is out of step with the competition now.

    >
    > >http://dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos60d/page19.asp

    >
    > From the top of page 20http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos60d/page20..asp
    >
    > Excellent image quality up to ISO settings unthinkable just one camera
    > generation ago
    >
    > MG


    True, like most cameras, three of which are now better than Canon.
    Canon never conquered chroma noise.
    RichA, Nov 11, 2010
    #4
  5. In rec.photo.digital Floyd L. Davidson <> wrote:
    > And of course, whenever it was that you got into
    > photography and bought that particular camera is
    > significant because you've never had any need to upgrade
    > since... because that would be utterly pointless, right?


    Of course not. I mostly use an Olympus E3, for what it's worth
    (which is very little). I get some good shots with it, but then I got
    some good shots with the E300 I was using before and still use
    occasionally. Then too, right now I'm using a Minolta X-700 for a
    project, and I'm mooting using a medium-format TLR for another project.
    My point is simply that whining that the such-and-such shoots at _8_
    frames per second whereas the blah-blah-blah shoots at a measly _7_ fps
    and is therefore clearly inferior, a stupid choice, and made by a
    company doomed to the ash heap of history - as many people on this NG
    and elsewhere seem to do - is silly.

    If you personally have a pressing need for some new or unique
    feature, then sure, it makes sense for you. A lot of great stuff has
    been done with view cameras, but they would kind of suck for shooting
    sports. (Watch someone pop up now and point to a great basketball
    action shot done with a view camera or something.) But for the most
    part, we're talking about marginal improvements, which is something a
    lot of folks seem to miss. Maybe you _needed_ the highest fps that
    money could buy, or maybe you said, "oh man, if only I could go from 15
    MP to 18 MP, that would make a huge difference!", and if that was true
    for you, great, go buy it. It is not going to make a difference for
    most people, and the introduction of a 31st lens to the system, or a
    sensor that can resolve 79 lp/mm instead of 73 lp/mm, is not going to
    change that.

    --
    Oh to have a lodge in some vast wilderness. Where rumors of oppression
    and deceit, of unsuccessful and successful wars may never reach me
    anymore.
    -- William Cowper, 1731 - 1800
    Jeremiah DeWitt Weiner, Nov 11, 2010
    #5
  6. RichA

    Charles Guest

    My point is simply that whining that the such-and-such shoots at _8_
    frames per second whereas the blah-blah-blah shoots at a measly _7_ fps
    and is therefore clearly inferior, a stupid choice, and made by a
    company doomed to the ash heap of history - as many people on this NG
    and elsewhere seem to do - is silly.

    It is a silly forum (my apologies to the non-brain-deceased here). Many
    posters have probably never take any decent shots (let alone great ones),
    and don't own the cameras that they are lauding/bashing; and the beat goes
    on. Internetbating as opposed to masturbating ... is that more socially
    acceptable?
    Charles, Nov 11, 2010
    #6
  7. In article
    <>,
    RichA <> wrote:

    > Nikon, Pentax and Sony all seem to be superior now. This new camera
    > (forgetting the unforgivable sin of going from metal to plastic for
    > the body) really is out of step with the competition now.
    >
    > http://dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos60d/page19.asp


    Look at the fuzzy colored balls in the sewing kit. The Canon 60D has
    more chroma noise but it maintains far more color details than others.

    I'd say that the Canon 60D wins with the Canon 50D and Nikon D7000 being
    tied for a very close second. Filtering color noise in post processing
    is as easy as clicking a slider control. Nothing will bring back the
    lost details of the Pentak K-5. And what Sony are you looking at that
    isn't complete crap?
    --
    I will not see posts or email from Google because I must filter them as spam
    Kevin McMurtrie, Nov 12, 2010
    #7
  8. RichA

    John A. Guest

    On Thu, 11 Nov 2010 18:36:28 -0500, "Charles"
    <> wrote:

    >
    >My point is simply that whining that the such-and-such shoots at _8_
    >frames per second whereas the blah-blah-blah shoots at a measly _7_ fps
    >and is therefore clearly inferior, a stupid choice, and made by a
    >company doomed to the ash heap of history - as many people on this NG
    >and elsewhere seem to do - is silly.
    >
    >It is a silly forum (my apologies to the non-brain-deceased here). Many
    >posters have probably never take any decent shots (let alone great ones),
    >and don't own the cameras that they are lauding/bashing; and the beat goes
    >on. Internetbating as opposed to masturbating ... is that more socially
    >acceptable?


    In a way you're right; one manufacturer may be behind at any moment,
    but they do tend to leapfrog. And yes, in the grand scheme of things
    they don't leapfrog by much, but all this incremental progress is
    cumulative.

    One wonders, though, if the manufacturers would continue to leapfrog
    each other so quickly if the customers didn't engage in such
    hyperbole. If not, well, we all benefit from it, in having that much
    better a camera awaiting us the next time we have to replace a broken
    one if nothing else.
    John A., Nov 12, 2010
    #8
  9. RichA

    Bruce Guest

    RichA <> wrote:
    >
    >Nikon, Pentax and Sony all seem to be superior now.



    Based on what, exactly?
    Bruce, Nov 12, 2010
    #9
  10. RichA

    Whisky-dave Guest

    On Nov 11, 11:15 pm, Dudley Hanks <> wrote:
    >  RichA <> wrote:
    > >On Nov 11, 3:39=A0am, "MG" <> wrote:
    > >> "RichA" <> wrote in message

    >
    > >>news:....

    >
    > >> > Nikon, Pentax and Sony all seem to be superior now. =A0This new camera
    > >> > (forgetting the unforgivable sin of going from metal to plastic for
    > >> > the body) really is out of step with the competition now.

    >
    > >> >http://dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos60d/page19.asp

    >
    > >> From the top of page 20http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos60d/page20=

    > >.asp

    >
    > >> Excellent image quality up to ISO settings unthinkable just one camera
    > >> generation ago

    >
    > >> MG

    >
    > >True, like most cameras, three of which are now better than Canon.
    > >Canon never conquered chroma noise.

    >
    > Noise?  What noise?
    >
    > Canon pics look great to me...


    If you turned up the volume they wouldn't look so great ;-0
    Whisky-dave, Nov 12, 2010
    #10
  11. RichA

    Whisky-dave Guest

    On Nov 12, 4:39 am, John A. <> wrote:
    > On Thu, 11 Nov 2010 18:36:28 -0500, "Charles"
    >
    > <> wrote:
    >
    > >My point is simply that whining that the such-and-such shoots at _8_
    > >frames per second whereas the blah-blah-blah shoots at a measly _7_ fps
    > >and is therefore clearly inferior, a stupid choice, and made by a
    > >company doomed to the ash heap of history - as many people on this NG
    > >and elsewhere seem to do - is silly.

    >
    > >It is a silly forum (my apologies to the non-brain-deceased here).  Many
    > >posters have probably never take any decent shots (let alone great ones),
    > >and don't own the cameras that they are lauding/bashing; and the beat goes
    > >on.  Internetbating as opposed to masturbating ... is that more socially
    > >acceptable?

    >
    > In a way you're right; one manufacturer may be behind at any moment,
    > but they do tend to leapfrog. And yes, in the grand scheme of things
    > they don't leapfrog by much, but all this incremental progress is
    > cumulative.
    >
    > One wonders, though, if the manufacturers would continue to leapfrog
    > each other so quickly if the customers didn't engage in such
    > hyperbole. If not, well, we all benefit from it, in having that much
    > better a camera awaiting us the next time we have to replace a broken
    > one if nothing else.


    I guess if people brought less cameras, then the manufacturers
    wouldn't develop new cameras at the rate they do. But is that down to
    the number of people buying or the number of cameras each individual
    buys.
    Whisky-dave, Nov 12, 2010
    #11
  12. RichA

    John A. Guest

    On Fri, 12 Nov 2010 05:48:15 -0800 (PST), Whisky-dave
    <> wrote:

    >On Nov 12, 4:39 am, John A. <> wrote:
    >> On Thu, 11 Nov 2010 18:36:28 -0500, "Charles"
    >>
    >> <> wrote:
    >>
    >> >My point is simply that whining that the such-and-such shoots at _8_
    >> >frames per second whereas the blah-blah-blah shoots at a measly _7_ fps
    >> >and is therefore clearly inferior, a stupid choice, and made by a
    >> >company doomed to the ash heap of history - as many people on this NG
    >> >and elsewhere seem to do - is silly.

    >>
    >> >It is a silly forum (my apologies to the non-brain-deceased here).  Many
    >> >posters have probably never take any decent shots (let alone great ones),
    >> >and don't own the cameras that they are lauding/bashing; and the beat goes
    >> >on.  Internetbating as opposed to masturbating ... is that more socially
    >> >acceptable?

    >>
    >> In a way you're right; one manufacturer may be behind at any moment,
    >> but they do tend to leapfrog. And yes, in the grand scheme of things
    >> they don't leapfrog by much, but all this incremental progress is
    >> cumulative.
    >>
    >> One wonders, though, if the manufacturers would continue to leapfrog
    >> each other so quickly if the customers didn't engage in such
    >> hyperbole. If not, well, we all benefit from it, in having that much
    >> better a camera awaiting us the next time we have to replace a broken
    >> one if nothing else.

    >
    >I guess if people brought less cameras, then the manufacturers
    >wouldn't develop new cameras at the rate they do. But is that down to
    >the number of people buying or the number of cameras each individual
    >buys.


    Good question. Do they get more business from one-time or first-time
    buyers or repeat customers? Or rather, do they get a significant
    enough portion of their sales from repeat customers for spurring that
    market to cover research & dev costs and then some? Or is another
    manufacturer leapfrogging them enough to pull away significant numbers
    of first-time buyers?

    I suspect it's mixed, with the still pixels & video resolution & other
    specs as compared to competitors' offerings attracting first-time
    buyers more, and improvements in noise and such attracting repeat
    customers. The latter may not bring in repeat business every time from
    every customer, but as improvements accumulate an upgrade does get
    more attractive. Sooner or later you start to look at shots that were
    a bit too noisy or at not quite high enough resolution for the crop
    you want, etc. and think "this would have come out a useful shot if
    I'd had that new model."
    John A., Nov 12, 2010
    #12
  13. RichA

    John A. Guest

    On Fri, 12 Nov 2010 08:40:37 +0000, Bruce <>
    wrote:

    >RichA <> wrote:
    >>
    >>Nikon, Pentax and Sony all seem to be superior now.

    >
    >
    >Based on what, exactly?


    The amount of noise at high ISO settings, I would imagine. You did
    look at the comparisons on the page, right?
    John A., Nov 12, 2010
    #13
  14. RichA

    peter Guest

    On 11/11/2010 6:15 PM, Dudley Hanks wrote:
    > RichA<> wrote:
    >> On Nov 11, 3:39=A0am, "MG"<> wrote:
    >>> "RichA"<> wrote in message
    >>>
    >>> news:...
    >>>
    >>>> Nikon, Pentax and Sony all seem to be superior now. =A0This new camera
    >>>> (forgetting the unforgivable sin of going from metal to plastic for
    >>>> the body) really is out of step with the competition now.
    >>>
    >>>> http://dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos60d/page19.asp
    >>>
    >>> From the top of page 20http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos60d/page20=

    >> .asp
    >>>
    >>> Excellent image quality up to ISO settings unthinkable just one camera
    >>> generation ago
    >>>
    >>> MG

    >>
    >> True, like most cameras, three of which are now better than Canon.
    >> Canon never conquered chroma noise.
    >>

    >
    > Noise? What noise?
    >
    > Canon pics look great to me...
    >


    ;-)

    --
    Peter
    peter, Nov 12, 2010
    #14
  15. RichA

    Whisky-dave Guest

    On Nov 12, 2:44 pm, John A. <> wrote:
    > On Fri, 12 Nov 2010 05:48:15 -0800 (PST), Whisky-dave
    >


    > <> wrote:
    > >On Nov 12, 4:39 am, John A. <> wrote:
    > >> On Thu, 11 Nov 2010 18:36:28 -0500, "Charles"

    >
    > >> <> wrote:

    >
    > >> >My point is simply that whining that the such-and-such shoots at _8_
    > >> >frames per second whereas the blah-blah-blah shoots at a measly _7_ fps
    > >> >and is therefore clearly inferior, a stupid choice, and made by a
    > >> >company doomed to the ash heap of history - as many people on this NG
    > >> >and elsewhere seem to do - is silly.

    >
    > >> >It is a silly forum (my apologies to the non-brain-deceased here).  Many
    > >> >posters have probably never take any decent shots (let alone great ones),
    > >> >and don't own the cameras that they are lauding/bashing; and the beat goes
    > >> >on.  Internetbating as opposed to masturbating ... is that more socially
    > >> >acceptable?

    >
    > >> In a way you're right; one manufacturer may be behind at any moment,
    > >> but they do tend to leapfrog. And yes, in the grand scheme of things
    > >> they don't leapfrog by much, but all this incremental progress is
    > >> cumulative.

    >
    > >> One wonders, though, if the manufacturers would continue to leapfrog
    > >> each other so quickly if the customers didn't engage in such
    > >> hyperbole. If not, well, we all benefit from it, in having that much
    > >> better a camera awaiting us the next time we have to replace a broken
    > >> one if nothing else.

    >
    > >I guess if people brought less cameras, then the manufacturers
    > >wouldn't develop new cameras at the rate they do. But is that down to
    > >the number of people buying or the number of cameras each individual
    > >buys.

    >
    > Good question. Do they get more business from one-time or first-time
    > buyers or repeat customers? Or rather, do they get a significant
    > enough portion of their sales from repeat customers for spurring that
    > market to cover research & dev costs and then some? Or is another
    > manufacturer leapfrogging them enough to pull away significant numbers
    > of first-time buyers?


    That info must be out on the interweb somewhere or perhaps
    manufactures
    don't want us to know.

    >
    > I suspect it's mixed, with the still pixels & video resolution & other
    > specs as compared to competitors' offerings attracting first-time
    > buyers more, and improvements in noise and such attracting repeat
    > customers. The latter may not bring in repeat business every time from
    > every customer, but as improvements accumulate an upgrade does get
    > more attractive.


    I wonder how these people see the purchase of cameras.
    I think most people expect a camera to last an amount of time (years)
    and won;t consider an upgrade until then or the camera breaks. This
    senerio isn't so true for those reading this NG and similar, we might
    decide on upgrades depending on how good the latest temptation is to
    us. Which could be in as little as 6 months.

    > Sooner or later you start to look at shots that were
    > a bit too noisy or at not quite high enough resolution for the crop
    > you want, etc. and think "this would have come out a useful shot if
    > I'd had that new model."


    I don't think this is true for the majority, who could probably get
    better pictures by reading the manual or taking it off auto.
    Whisky-dave, Nov 12, 2010
    #15
  16. RichA

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Wed, 10 Nov 2010 16:39:50 -0800 (PST), RichA <> wrote:
    : Nikon, Pentax and Sony all seem to be superior now. This new camera
    : (forgetting the unforgivable sin of going from metal to plastic for
    : the body) really is out of step with the competition now.
    :
    : http://dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos60d/page19.asp

    The show stopper for me would be that they dropped AF microadjustment on the
    60D. (At least DP Review said they did; I haven't read the manual.) Obviously
    that doggie is aimed at the yokelry and not at the serious photographer.

    I recently bought a 7D, and a rather expensive Canon lens to go with it. My
    first shoot was a near disaster, because I stupidly believed the manual's
    assertion that AF microadjustment was needed only in rare cases (and that such
    an obvious body/lens combination wouldn't be one of them). I was so upset that
    my wife dragged me out on a test photo shoot, where her T2i (and my 50D)
    decisively outshone my new 7D. When I finally settled down and did some
    calibration shots, I found that it took a +9 (out of +20) AF correction to get
    the sharpness to where it should be. Further tests with both cameras showed
    that some of my older lenses, including two Sigmas, were a lot sharper than I
    thought they were, once the proper correction was made. Believe me when I tell
    you that my days of buying any interchangeable-lens camera without AF
    microadjustment are over.

    Bob
    Robert Coe, Nov 12, 2010
    #16
  17. Robert Coe <> wrote:

    > I recently bought a 7D, and a rather expensive Canon lens to go with it. My
    > first shoot was a near disaster, because I stupidly believed the manual's
    > assertion that AF microadjustment was needed only in rare cases (and that such
    > an obvious body/lens combination wouldn't be one of them).


    It's not "obvious body/lens combinations" by type. It's
    THIS body (serial number 12345) with THAT lens (serial number
    67890) that needs to be looked at.

    > the sharpness to where it should be. Further tests with both cameras showed
    > that some of my older lenses, including two Sigmas, were a lot sharper than I
    > thought they were, once the proper correction was made.


    THIS lens and THAT body didn't harmonize well, then.

    > Believe me when I tell
    > you that my days of buying any interchangeable-lens camera without AF
    > microadjustment are over.


    It does make a difference at these high megapixel numbers,
    doesn't it?

    -Wolfgang
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Nov 12, 2010
    #17
  18. On Fri, 12 Nov 2010 12:02:48 -0500, Robert Coe <> wrote:

    >On Wed, 10 Nov 2010 16:39:50 -0800 (PST), RichA <> wrote:
    >: Nikon, Pentax and Sony all seem to be superior now. This new camera
    >: (forgetting the unforgivable sin of going from metal to plastic for
    >: the body) really is out of step with the competition now.
    >:
    >: http://dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos60d/page19.asp
    >
    >The show stopper for me would be that they dropped AF microadjustment on the
    >60D. (At least DP Review said they did; I haven't read the manual.) Obviously
    >that doggie is aimed at the yokelry and not at the serious photographer.
    >
    >I recently bought a 7D, and a rather expensive Canon lens to go with it. My
    >first shoot was a near disaster, because I stupidly believed the manual's
    >assertion that AF microadjustment was needed only in rare cases (and that such
    >an obvious body/lens combination wouldn't be one of them). I was so upset that
    >my wife dragged me out on a test photo shoot, where her T2i (and my 50D)
    >decisively outshone my new 7D. When I finally settled down and did some
    >calibration shots, I found that it took a +9 (out of +20) AF correction to get
    >the sharpness to where it should be. Further tests with both cameras showed
    >that some of my older lenses, including two Sigmas, were a lot sharper than I
    >thought they were, once the proper correction was made. Believe me when I tell
    >you that my days of buying any interchangeable-lens camera without AF
    >microadjustment are over.
    >
    >Bob


    Doncha just love that phase focusing inaccuracy. What a shame that idiots
    don't realize that walking away with 5 in-focus shots out of 100 taken in
    20 minutes is much much slower than 100 in-focus shots out of 100 taken in
    20 minutes. But do keep enjoying your "faster" phase focusing.

    LOL!
    Superzooms Still Win, Nov 12, 2010
    #18
  19. RichA

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Fri, 12 Nov 2010 14:24:34 -0600, Superzooms Still Win <>
    wrote:
    : On Fri, 12 Nov 2010 12:02:48 -0500, Robert Coe <> wrote:
    :
    : >On Wed, 10 Nov 2010 16:39:50 -0800 (PST), RichA <> wrote:
    : >: Nikon, Pentax and Sony all seem to be superior now. This new camera
    : >: (forgetting the unforgivable sin of going from metal to plastic for
    : >: the body) really is out of step with the competition now.
    : >:
    : >: http://dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos60d/page19.asp
    : >
    : >The show stopper for me would be that they dropped AF microadjustment on the
    : >60D. (At least DP Review said they did; I haven't read the manual.) Obviously
    : >that doggie is aimed at the yokelry and not at the serious photographer.
    : >
    : >I recently bought a 7D, and a rather expensive Canon lens to go with it. My
    : >first shoot was a near disaster, because I stupidly believed the manual's
    : >assertion that AF microadjustment was needed only in rare cases (and that such
    : >an obvious body/lens combination wouldn't be one of them). I was so upset that
    : >my wife dragged me out on a test photo shoot, where her T2i (and my 50D)
    : >decisively outshone my new 7D. When I finally settled down and did some
    : >calibration shots, I found that it took a +9 (out of +20) AF correction to get
    : >the sharpness to where it should be. Further tests with both cameras showed
    : >that some of my older lenses, including two Sigmas, were a lot sharper than I
    : >thought they were, once the proper correction was made. Believe me when I tell
    : >you that my days of buying any interchangeable-lens camera without AF
    : >microadjustment are over.
    : >
    : >Bob
    :
    : Doncha just love that phase focusing inaccuracy. What a shame that idiots
    : don't realize that walking away with 5 in-focus shots out of 100 taken in
    : 20 minutes is much much slower than 100 in-focus shots out of 100 taken in
    : 20 minutes. But do keep enjoying your "faster" phase focusing.

    I must not have made myself clear, Supy. Once I took the trouble to do the
    necessary calibration, the new lens was very sharp. And so were a couple of
    other lenses that I had thought were OK but not great. Throughout the process,
    the focusing was reliable - reliably poor before calibration, reliably good
    now. ;^)

    Bob
    Robert Coe, Nov 12, 2010
    #19
  20. RichA

    RichA Guest

    On Nov 12, 3:40 am, Bruce <> wrote:
    > RichA <> wrote:
    >
    > >Nikon, Pentax and Sony all seem to be superior now.

    >
    > Based on what, exactly?


    The tests, whose link you didn't quote.
    RichA, Nov 12, 2010
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. just44

    kodak 14n noise at high iso

    just44, Mar 5, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    299
  2. Winston

    Canon 20D noise reduction at high ISO's

    Winston, Feb 17, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    12
    Views:
    533
    Kevin McMurtrie
    Feb 22, 2005
  3. Larry R Harrison Jr

    D70 ISO 200 Noise vs EOS 300D ISO 100

    Larry R Harrison Jr, Jul 17, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    421
  4. Cynicor

    ISO noise vs. long exposure noise

    Cynicor, Aug 27, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    518
    Dirty Harry
    Aug 27, 2005
  5. james

    nikon DSLR has less high ISO noise?

    james, Mar 29, 2009, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    21
    Views:
    2,092
    Bob Larter
    Apr 1, 2009
Loading...

Share This Page