Canon versus Nikon noise

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Rich, Apr 26, 2006.

  1. Rich

    Rich Guest

    I don't want to get into who has more noise, just the kind
    of noise seen.
    Does anyone know why the noise from these two types
    of cameras looks different?
    Canon's (30D for e.g.) noise is what might be considered
    typically structured. Coloured, slightly diffuse speckles, generally
    symmetrical in nature.
    Nikon's is far less symmetrical, more or less monochromatic (black).
    Is this a function of the noise produced purely by the sensor, or
    is there a software component, even with RAW files?
    Rich, Apr 26, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. In article <>, Rich
    <> wrote:

    > I don't want to get into who has more noise, just the kind
    > of noise seen.
    > Does anyone know why the noise from these two types
    > of cameras looks different?
    > Canon's (30D for e.g.) noise is what might be considered
    > typically structured. Coloured, slightly diffuse speckles, generally
    > symmetrical in nature.
    > Nikon's is far less symmetrical, more or less monochromatic (black).
    > Is this a function of the noise produced purely by the sensor, or
    > is there a software component, even with RAW files?


    Why don't you buy a camera and find out for yourself?
    Randall Ainsworth, Apr 26, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Rich

    Rich Guest

    As usual, another helpful response for the Canon Queers Brigade.
    How will buying the camera tell me where the noise is coming from or
    why it is
    the way it is? Do they supply you with a complete electronic breakdown
    of sensor
    operation and a shop manual when you buy one?
    Rich, Apr 26, 2006
    #3
  4. Rich

    BD Guest

    >is there a software component, even with RAW files?

    My understanding of RAW is limited, but I believe that RAW is exactly
    what the sensor grabbed/produced, with no software 'interference'.
    Hence the onus on the 'reading' software on the computer to be able to
    read RAW from various manufacturers. So my view would be that it is all
    about the sensor hardware.

    Beyond that - I'd have to understand far more about sensors than I
    really want to if I were to try to answer intelligently - so I'll just
    say "D-auuugh... noise bad!" and leave it at that.

    BD
    BD, Apr 26, 2006
    #4
  5. Rich

    sid derra Guest

    "Rich" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >I don't want to get into who has more noise, just the kind
    > of noise seen.
    > Does anyone know why the noise from these two types
    > of cameras looks different?
    > Canon's (30D for e.g.) noise is what might be considered
    > typically structured. Coloured, slightly diffuse speckles, generally
    > symmetrical in nature.
    > Nikon's is far less symmetrical, more or less monochromatic (black).
    > Is this a function of the noise produced purely by the sensor, or
    > is there a software component, even with RAW files?


    im sorry i can't be more of a help there either, but i would imagine that
    having different sensors (CMOS/CCD) could be where the different originates?
    sid derra, Apr 26, 2006
    #5
  6. Rich

    Rich Guest

    These cameras are like pieces of audio equipment I think.
    Depending on the configuration and quality of the support
    digital and analog circuitry, different results could be obtained
    from a given sensor.
    Rich, Apr 27, 2006
    #6
  7. Rich

    Rich Guest

    On 26 Apr 2006 09:29:58 -0700, "BD" <> wrote:

    >>is there a software component, even with RAW files?

    >
    >My understanding of RAW is limited, but I believe that RAW is exactly
    >what the sensor grabbed/produced, with no software 'interference'.
    >Hence the onus on the 'reading' software on the computer to be able to
    >read RAW from various manufacturers. So my view would be that it is all
    >about the sensor hardware.
    >
    >Beyond that - I'd have to understand far more about sensors than I
    >really want to if I were to try to answer intelligently - so I'll just
    >say "D-auuugh... noise bad!" and leave it at that.
    >
    >BD


    Some noise is worse than others. For instance, a noise reduction
    program like Neat Image (for e.g.) seems to have more trouble dealing
    with Nikon noise than Canon noise.
    -Rich
    Rich, Apr 27, 2006
    #7
  8. In article <>,
    Rich <> wrote:

    > I don't want to get into who has more noise, just the kind
    > of noise seen.
    > Does anyone know why the noise from these two types
    > of cameras looks different?
    > Canon's (30D for e.g.) noise is what might be considered
    > typically structured. Coloured, slightly diffuse speckles, generally
    > symmetrical in nature.
    > Nikon's is far less symmetrical, more or less monochromatic (black).
    > Is this a function of the noise produced purely by the sensor, or
    > is there a software component, even with RAW files?


    http://www.dpreview.com/ usually has noise samples for viewing.

    Noise comparison is complicated because is may be masked well by a
    filter that damages the image. It is extremely important to see how
    clear fine details remain in a high ISO image.
    Kevin McMurtrie, Apr 27, 2006
    #8
  9. Rich

    Dave Cohen Guest

    On Wed, 26 Apr 2006 18:42:05 -0700, Kevin McMurtrie wrote:

    > In article <>,
    > Rich <> wrote:
    >
    >> I don't want to get into who has more noise, just the kind
    >> of noise seen.
    >> Does anyone know why the noise from these two types
    >> of cameras looks different?
    >> Canon's (30D for e.g.) noise is what might be considered
    >> typically structured. Coloured, slightly diffuse speckles, generally
    >> symmetrical in nature.
    >> Nikon's is far less symmetrical, more or less monochromatic (black).
    >> Is this a function of the noise produced purely by the sensor, or
    >> is there a software component, even with RAW files?

    >
    > http://www.dpreview.com/ usually has noise samples for viewing.
    >
    > Noise comparison is complicated because is may be masked well by a
    > filter that damages the image. It is extremely important to see how
    > clear fine details remain in a high ISO image.


    It's also somewhat overworked. With film at high iso we got grain, with
    digital is't noise.
    Dave Cohen
    Dave Cohen, Apr 27, 2006
    #9
  10. Rich

    SMS Guest

    Dave Cohen wrote:

    > It's also somewhat overworked. With film at high iso we got grain, with
    > digital is't noise.


    With film, your sensors came on $3 rolls, and could be easily changed.
    There was no advantage in one 35mm camera over another in terms of film
    grain.

    With digital, you've got to be a lot more careful in the initial
    purchase, taking into account noise, banding, and other sensor related
    characteristics, at each ISO setting.

    Canon professional models are a lot less noisy than Nikon professional
    models of equal resolution, due to the big difference in pixel size.
    SMS, Apr 27, 2006
    #10
  11. Rich

    Rich Guest

    Film was the great equalizer. It all came down to camera ergonomics
    and function then.
    And Nikon had the best of the bunch, but it also meant more camera
    companies
    would exist since Pentax, Olympus, Minolta, etc, didn't face huge
    losses. Now, it's down to sensors and Canon seems to be in the lead
    there and clearly in sales.
    Rich, Apr 27, 2006
    #11
  12. At the cheaper end of the market, where I live :eek:p

    One of the principal reasons I chose the D50 over the 350D was the (to my
    eyes) much less obvious noise at high EISO. Don't want a Canon/Nikon
    slugfest, the 350D has points in it's favour also but this issue was an
    important one to me and influenced my decision.

    Nick
    Nick P. Norwood, Apr 28, 2006
    #12
  13. Nick P. Norwood wrote:
    > At the cheaper end of the market, where I live :eek:p
    >
    > One of the principal reasons I chose the D50 over the 350D was the (to my
    > eyes) much less obvious noise at high EISO. Don't want a Canon/Nikon
    > slugfest, the 350D has points in it's favour also but this issue was an
    > important one to me and influenced my decision.
    >

    Both cameras have a lot of points in their favor.

    How did you test for noise?

    --
    John McWilliams
    John McWilliams, Apr 28, 2006
    #13
  14. Rich

    Rich Guest

    What you saw is pretty much what most reviewers have.
    Rich, Apr 28, 2006
    #14
    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. =?Utf-8?B?Q2FuYWRhX0d1eU0=?=

    Certification - MCP versus MCSA versus MCSE

    =?Utf-8?B?Q2FuYWRhX0d1eU0=?=, Aug 24, 2006, in forum: Microsoft Certification
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    747
    =?Utf-8?B?TW9udHJlYWwgTUNTQQ==?=
    Aug 24, 2006
  2. Brian C. Baird

    Canon 1Ds Mark II - Noise? What noise?

    Brian C. Baird, Sep 21, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    503
    Brian C. Baird
    Sep 21, 2004
  3. Rich

    Ugly noise versus "good" noise

    Rich, Oct 4, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    356
  4. Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)

    Sensor noise: Nikon D200 versus Canon S70

    Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark), Sep 18, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    403
  5. Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo

    Re: Mozilla versus IE versus Opera versus Safari

    Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo, May 8, 2008, in forum: Firefox
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    719
    Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo
    May 8, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page