Dslr Noise

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by SteveJ, Jun 6, 2004.

  1. SteveJ

    SteveJ Guest

    In using a PS camera I have found out that above 200 ISO noise creeps up and
    is very noticeable at the 400ISO setting but at times it has to be used at
    that speed to get a picture or none at all.
    I know in going over facts given from users of the Digital SLRs is that the
    noise is much much lower but I am trying to get some idea on the real
    difference.
    The Nikon 5700 ( which is better than the 8700, noise )
    starts to be almost unusable at the 400 ISO setting, how does this compare
    to the DSLR,s ? is the D70s noise at the setting of 1600 ISO better than
    the 5700s noise at 100, or 200 or 400 ISO? This might determine if I go this
    route or keep the 5700 and live with the noise.
     
    SteveJ, Jun 6, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. On Sun, 06 Jun 2004 04:18:50 GMT, "SteveJ" <> wrote:

    >In using a PS camera I have found out that above 200 ISO noise creeps up and
    >is very noticeable at the 400ISO setting but at times it has to be used at
    >that speed to get a picture or none at all.
    >I know in going over facts given from users of the Digital SLRs is that the
    >noise is much much lower but I am trying to get some idea on the real
    >difference.
    >The Nikon 5700 ( which is better than the 8700, noise )
    >starts to be almost unusable at the 400 ISO setting, how does this compare
    >to the DSLR,s ? is the D70s noise at the setting of 1600 ISO better than
    >the 5700s noise at 100, or 200 or 400 ISO? This might determine if I go this
    >route or keep the 5700 and live with the noise.
    >
    >


    The noise on the Nikon D70 is really superb. It tends to look like
    grain in all but the highest ISO's.

    The photo in the link below was shot at 1600 ISO (highest setting). I
    did run it through Noise Ninja with the D100 settings which seem to do
    a pretty good job of filtering the "ugly" noise.

    "I'm the luckiest man in the world. I have a cigarette
    lighter and a wife...and they both work!"
     
    Cadillac_Jones, Jun 6, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. SteveJ

    Phil Wheeler Guest

    Don't know the D70, but with my Canon I alway use ISO 400, often use 800
    and have used 1600 when needed. Sometimes need to clean the image later
    (e.g., NeatImage) later, though.

    I can see no diff between ISO 100 and ISO 400, none.

    You might want to check the reviews at dpreview to see how the D70
    compares to the 10D/300D re noise vs. ISO

    Phil

    SteveJ wrote:

    > In using a PS camera I have found out that above 200 ISO noise creeps up and
    > is very noticeable at the 400ISO setting but at times it has to be used at
    > that speed to get a picture or none at all.
    > I know in going over facts given from users of the Digital SLRs is that the
    > noise is much much lower but I am trying to get some idea on the real
    > difference.
    > The Nikon 5700 ( which is better than the 8700, noise )
    > starts to be almost unusable at the 400 ISO setting, how does this compare
    > to the DSLR,s ? is the D70s noise at the setting of 1600 ISO better than
    > the 5700s noise at 100, or 200 or 400 ISO? This might determine if I go this
    > route or keep the 5700 and live with the noise.
    >
    >
    >
     
    Phil Wheeler, Jun 6, 2004
    #3
  4. "SteveJ" <> wrote in message news:<KWwwc.50803$eY2.21196@attbi_s02>...
    > In using a PS camera I have found out that above 200 ISO noise creeps up and
    > is very noticeable at the 400ISO setting but at times it has to be used at
    > that speed to get a picture or none at all.
    > I know in going over facts given from users of the Digital SLRs is that the
    > noise is much much lower but I am trying to get some idea on the real
    > difference.


    As you've discovered, the driving force behind noise is pixel or
    sensor pitch. In general, the large the distance between individual
    digital sensors on the film plane, the lower the noise level.

    Once the electronics reach a certain small scale, noise becomes very
    difficult to control. Having 8M sensors (called "8MP" since digital
    interpolation is used to record 8M color pixels from 8M monochrome
    sensors) is not necessarily better than having 6M, since noise can
    easily make the overal signal to noise ratio lower. In other words
    there might be more signal, but much more noise than before too, which
    may very possibly lower the optical resolution of the camera when
    compared to the same model with only 6M sensors.

    Point and shoot cameras have physically tiny sensor planes, a short
    few millimeters edge to edge. So P&Ss are very susceptible to high
    noise from tight sensor pitches. Several new models have suffered
    terribly at the hands of this phenomenon, like the Fuji SCCD 6MP
    sensor, and Sony's new 8MP sensor, both of which are quickly gaining a
    reputation for sometimes producing lower real optical resolution than
    the 3MP and 5MP models they replaced--at best the overall optical
    improvement is tiny. More pixels doesn't necessarily mean more
    optical detail is shown within them.

    DSLRs have physically larger sensors, usually about 25mm diagaonally
    sitting inside the traditional 35mm diagonal film chamber. This gives
    them a lot more area to spread out and this lowers noise
    significantly, in general. The Foveon sensors go two steps farther
    still, by layering 3 25mm sensor planes to produce a full color RGB
    3-CCD configuration (3-CMOS, technically). Not only does this give
    full color at every photosite, instead of having to artificailly
    digitally interpolate color, but perhaps more importantly it yields 3X
    as much area to spread out the sensors and lower noise
    dramatically--eliminating noise completely at low ISOs.

    Here is a good noise comparision between the relatively extreme noise
    of the Canon 10D (uses a 25mm, 1 layer monochrome sensor) and the
    Sigma SD10 (uses a 25mm, 3 layer full color sensor). As you can see,
    the Canon is not competitive on noise at ISO 100, in fact, the 1 layer
    6M sensor Canon CMOS shows more noise at ISO 100 than the 3-layer
    10.3M sensor Foveon CMOS at ISO 800...

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

    Less noise from 10.3M sensors @ ISO 800 than 6M sensors @ ISO 100
    represents a real revolution in digital photography, annd it is all
    due to the Sigma having 25% higher sensor pitch even with its 170%
    higher sensor count.
     
    Georgette Preddy, Jun 6, 2004
    #4
  5. Georgette Preddy wrote:

    more out of context nonsense.

    Kindly show what you prate on about, rather than expounding pointlessly
    and endlessly.

    Warning to new folks:

    The person posting under the name of George or Georgette Preddy (and
    other pseudonyms) has an ungrounded but zealous faith that current
    implementation of the Foveon chip is superior to all other chip
    technologies. He will cite portions of reviews to ostensibly support his
    claims, and will repeat, ad naseum, complete lines of out-of-context
    material.

    His claims may well be ignored, or at the very least verified since most
    of them are extreme distortions and some are out and out fabrications."


    Moreover, "Mr." "Preddy" has claimed to be a photographer (pro!), but
    cannot bring himself to post a single picture with EXIF info that he
    shot himself, in spite of repeated requests and challenges to do so.

    Apparently he loathes anything related to Canon and loves everything
    about Sigma cameras and lenses. His "claims" may be ignored, and he is
    doing Sigma, and anyone related to the Foveon chip, no good at all by
    arousing ire, increasing the N/S ratio, and generally spamming this
    newsgroup.

    --
    John McWilliams
     
    John McWilliams, Jun 6, 2004
    #5
  6. SteveJ

    m Ransley Guest

    Re: Dslr Noise Predys Half truth

    And then scroll down to the Conclusion and you will see they say

    " resolution of enlarged images nearly indistinguishable from 6
    megapixel BAYER sensors "

    Now scroll to " cons " and the summation where you realise Sigma is a
    dinosour stuck in da mud.
    Ya see fucktard preddyfile read da dam shit and learn dem ABCs of the
    review, retard.

    Its nice to rub your face in your link

    Preddy the used car salesman he is, the looser, wannabe, shit stain, on
    rec photo digital.
     
    m Ransley, Jun 6, 2004
    #6
  7. SteveJ

    Lionel Guest

    Kibo informs me that (Georgette Preddy)
    stated that:

    >"SteveJ" <> wrote in message news:<KWwwc.50803$eY2.21196@attbi_s02>...
    >> In using a PS camera I have found out that above 200 ISO noise creeps up and
    >> is very noticeable at the 400ISO setting but at times it has to be used at
    >> that speed to get a picture or none at all.
    >> I know in going over facts given from users of the Digital SLRs is that the
    >> noise is much much lower but I am trying to get some idea on the real
    >> difference.

    >
    >As you've discovered, the driving force behind noise is pixel or
    >sensor pitch. In gener[*SLAP!*]


    Steve, please ignore the Preddiot-troll, he makes this rubbish up, & it
    bears no relationship to the physics of the world that the rest of us
    live in.

    Sensor noise is a function of area of each pixel on the image sensor.
    The more pixels per square inch (or cm), the noisier the image will be.
    Digicams tend to be noisier than DSLRs because they usually have similar
    numbers of pixels on a smaller chip. Going to a camera with a bigger
    sensor will give you a cleaner picture.
    For example, I currently own two Canon digital cameras. One's a little
    3.3MP (ie; the same resolution as the Preddiot's beloved SD9) S30
    digicam, & the other is a 6.3MP 10D. The S30 is fairly clean at ISO
    50-100, but gets noisy very quickly, maxing out at ISO 800, which is
    very, very noisy. The 10D flawless at ISO 100, & still produces saleably
    clean shots through to ISO 400. After that, noise becomes more visible,
    but well-exposed shots look reasonable through to ISO 1600. At ISO 3200,
    the noise is pretty bad, but still better than the S30 at ISO 800.

    --
    W
    . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
    \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
    ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
     
    Lionel, Jun 6, 2004
    #7
  8. SteveJ

    dylan Guest

    Don't believe this rubbish

    Read PP May 2004 DSLR review of 10D, D70,SD10,*ist, S2 Pro.

    On the SD10 .. " at ISO 400 and above the noise generated is obtrusive, so
    they're best left for emergenices only"
    and on the EOS 10D..." The image quality of the EOS 10D just takes the
    honours here. It can reslove exceptional detail and at low ISO settings
    noise levels are extremely low. Cranking up the 'effective film speed'
    increases the noise, but it still out perfroms the opposition"


    "Georgette Preddy" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > "SteveJ" <> wrote in message

    news:<KWwwc.50803$eY2.21196@attbi_s02>...
    > > In using a PS camera I have found out that above 200 ISO noise creeps up

    and
    > > is very noticeable at the 400ISO setting but at times it has to be used

    at
    > > that speed to get a picture or none at all.
    > > I know in going over facts given from users of the Digital SLRs is that

    the
    > > noise is much much lower but I am trying to get some idea on the real
    > > difference.

    >
    > As you've discovered, the driving force behind noise is pixel or
    > sensor pitch. In general, the large the distance between individual
    > digital sensors on the film plane, the lower the noise level.
    >
    > Once the electronics reach a certain small scale, noise becomes very
    > difficult to control. Having 8M sensors (called "8MP" since digital
    > interpolation is used to record 8M color pixels from 8M monochrome
    > sensors) is not necessarily better than having 6M, since noise can
    > easily make the overal signal to noise ratio lower. In other words
    > there might be more signal, but much more noise than before too, which
    > may very possibly lower the optical resolution of the camera when
    > compared to the same model with only 6M sensors.
    >
    > Point and shoot cameras have physically tiny sensor planes, a short
    > few millimeters edge to edge. So P&Ss are very susceptible to high
    > noise from tight sensor pitches. Several new models have suffered
    > terribly at the hands of this phenomenon, like the Fuji SCCD 6MP
    > sensor, and Sony's new 8MP sensor, both of which are quickly gaining a
    > reputation for sometimes producing lower real optical resolution than
    > the 3MP and 5MP models they replaced--at best the overall optical
    > improvement is tiny. More pixels doesn't necessarily mean more
    > optical detail is shown within them.
    >
    > DSLRs have physically larger sensors, usually about 25mm diagaonally
    > sitting inside the traditional 35mm diagonal film chamber. This gives
    > them a lot more area to spread out and this lowers noise
    > significantly, in general. The Foveon sensors go two steps farther
    > still, by layering 3 25mm sensor planes to produce a full color RGB
    > 3-CCD configuration (3-CMOS, technically). Not only does this give
    > full color at every photosite, instead of having to artificailly
    > digitally interpolate color, but perhaps more importantly it yields 3X
    > as much area to spread out the sensors and lower noise
    > dramatically--eliminating noise completely at low ISOs.
    >
    > Here is a good noise comparision between the relatively extreme noise
    > of the Canon 10D (uses a 25mm, 1 layer monochrome sensor) and the
    > Sigma SD10 (uses a 25mm, 3 layer full color sensor). As you can see,
    > the Canon is not competitive on noise at ISO 100, in fact, the 1 layer
    > 6M sensor Canon CMOS shows more noise at ISO 100 than the 3-layer
    > 10.3M sensor Foveon CMOS at ISO 800...
    >
    > http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sigmasd10/page13.asp
    >
    > Less noise from 10.3M sensors @ ISO 800 than 6M sensors @ ISO 100
    > represents a real revolution in digital photography, annd it is all
    > due to the Sigma having 25% higher sensor pitch even with its 170%
    > higher sensor count.
     
    dylan, Jun 6, 2004
    #8
  9. SteveJ

    Mark Weaver Guest

    My sense is that DSLRs are roughly two stops faster -- e.g. noise at 1600 on
    a DSLR is comparable to 400 on a compact.

    Mark
     
    Mark Weaver, Jun 6, 2004
    #9
  10. SteveJ

    PTRAVEL Guest

    "Georgette Preddy" <> wrote in message
    news:...

    <snip>

    As you can see,
    > the Canon is not competitive on noise at ISO 100, in fact, the 1 layer
    > 6M sensor Canon CMOS shows more noise at ISO 100 than the 3-layer
    > 10.3M sensor Foveon CMOS at ISO 800...
    >
    > http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sigmasd10/page13.asp
    >


    Once again, Preddy doesn't actually read the articles that he cites. If he
    had, he would have read this:
    "However, it's not all rosy for the SD10, what the crops above don't show is
    what happens to the color patches as ISO increases. The EOS 10D manages to
    maintain both the hue and saturation of the distinct red, green and blue
    patches all the way through to ISO 1600, at ISO 3200 all the patches are
    affected by the high noise level, noticably the blue patch is turning
    purple. The SD10 gradually loses both saturation and hue accuracy as
    sensitivity is increased, up to ISO 400 things appear to be acceptable, at
    ISO 800 it's borderline with the red patch taking quite a lot of yellow /
    green, at ISO 1600 noise levels in the color patches is quite strong."

    Reading . . . it's fundamental. Of course, what's fundamental to George is
    lying.

    Rough way to end the thread, isn't George?





    > Less noise from 10.3M sensors @ ISO 800 than 6M sensors @ ISO 100
    > represents a real revolution in digital photography, annd it is all
    > due to the Sigma having 25% higher sensor pitch even with its 170%
    > higher sensor count.
     
    PTRAVEL, Jun 6, 2004
    #10
  11. SteveJ

    Jim Townsend Guest

    Phil Wheeler wrote:


    > I can see no diff between ISO 100 and ISO 400, none.


    I find the same with my 10D.. With images of ISO 400 and
    under, I have to check the EXIF data to see what it was shot at.
    You can't tell by looking. ISO 800 begins to show noticeable
    noise.

    However.. When it comes to processing, it doesn't take
    much contrast and sharpness enhancement to bring out the
    grain. You have much more latitude with ISO 100 and 200.
     
    Jim Townsend, Jun 6, 2004
    #11
  12. In article <>, Jim Townsend
    <> wrote:

    > Phil Wheeler wrote:
    >
    >
    > > I can see no diff between ISO 100 and ISO 400, none.

    >
    > I find the same with my 10D.. With images of ISO 400 and
    > under, I have to check the EXIF data to see what it was shot at.
    > You can't tell by looking. ISO 800 begins to show noticeable
    > noise.
    >
    > However.. When it comes to processing, it doesn't take
    > much contrast and sharpness enhancement to bring out the
    > grain. You have much more latitude with ISO 100 and 200.


    There's a difference between 100 and 400 on the 10D, but you really
    have to get some magnification to see it.
     
    Randall Ainsworth, Jun 6, 2004
    #12
  13. SteveJ

    SteveJ Guest

    That's the kind of answer I was looking for, 1600 DSLR = 400 P&S camera.



    "Mark Weaver" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > My sense is that DSLRs are roughly two stops faster -- e.g. noise at 1600

    on
    > a DSLR is comparable to 400 on a compact.
    >
    > Mark
    >
    >
     
    SteveJ, Jun 7, 2004
    #13
  14. "PTRAVEL" <> wrote in message news:<>...
    > "Georgette Preddy" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >
    > <snip>
    >
    > As you can see,
    > > the Canon is not competitive on noise at ISO 100, in fact, the 1 layer
    > > 6M sensor Canon CMOS shows more noise at ISO 100 than the 3-layer
    > > 10.3M sensor Foveon CMOS at ISO 800...
    > >
    > > http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sigmasd10/page13.asp

    >
    > Once again, Preddy doesn't actually read the articles that he cites.


    The noise samples speak for themselves, Canon is tremendously noisey
    at ISO 100 compared to the Sigma--just look at the unchangable factual
    samples.

    > If he
    > had, he would have read this:
    > "However, it's not all rosy for the SD10


    That was so Canon didn't put him out of business. Same reason Phil
    said he wanted to do a color resolution test but was unable to publish
    one--Canon would've aggressively pulled their dollars from his site
    forever, ending his business. He always throws a bone to
    Canon/Nikon/Fuji when he shows how a competitor eats their lunch.
     
    Georgette Preddy, Jun 7, 2004
    #14
  15. SteveJ

    johnJ Guest

    Georgette Preddy wrote:
    > The noise samples speak for themselves, Canon is tremendously noisey
    > at ISO 100 compared to the Sigma--just look at the unchangable factual
    > samples.
    >
    >
    > That was so Canon didn't put him out of business. Same reason Phil
    > said he wanted to do a color resolution test but was unable to publish
    > one--Canon would've aggressively pulled their dollars from his site
    > forever, ending his business. He always throws a bone to
    > Canon/Nikon/Fuji when he shows how a competitor eats their lunch.


    To those unfamiliar with George/Georgette Preddy, please ignore his
    postings. If you read other postings by him you will find that
    he, for some reason, has a fetish against Canon. He is also
    extraordinarily pro Sigma/Foveon.
     
    johnJ, Jun 7, 2004
    #15
  16. Lionel <> wrote in message news:<>...
    > Kibo informs me that (Georgette Preddy)
    > stated that:
    > Sensor noise is a function of area of each pixel on the image sensor.
    > The more pixels per square inch (or cm), the noisier the image will be.


    That is called pixel or sensor pitch, exactly what I said.

    Old 1 layer CCD/CMOS's are terrible in this respect, you can only jam
    so many monochrome sensors into one layer, which is why they have
    tremendously high noise compared to Foveon images.

    > Digicams tend to be noisier than DSLRs because they usually have similar
    > numbers of pixels on a smaller chip. Going to a camera with a bigger
    > sensor will give you a cleaner picture.
    > For example, I currently own two Canon digital cameras. One's a little
    > 3.3MP (ie; the same resolution as the Preddiot's beloved SD9)


    A 3MP Bayer only has a tiny 0.7MPs after color interpolation. Hardly
    enough for a simple snapshot. The monstrous (biggest of all DSLRs)
    Foveon Pro 10M has a mere 500% more full color MPs. The S602 shown
    here has a tiny 3MP Bayer sensor...

    http://www.pbase.com/image/23420444

    Here is the difference put another way...

    http://www.pbase.com/pennychallenge

    The Simga SD9/SD10 are the only two DSLRs built that can read the date
    on a penny with a 1 yard wide FOV, the Canon 10D can't even see that a
    date field is present let alone read the digits.
     
    Georgette Preddy, Jun 7, 2004
    #16
  17. > The noise samples speak for themselves, Canon is tremendously noisey
    > at ISO 100 compared to the Sigma--just look at the unchangable factual
    > samples.


    Yeah, like those 16x20's I just had done...you can't tell them from
    film. And that piece of shit Smegma you allegedly own would be lucky
    to make a decent 8x10 that didn't look digital.
     
    Randall Ainsworth, Jun 7, 2004
    #17
  18. preddy writes on and on and on.
     
    John McWilliams, Jun 7, 2004
    #18
  19. Georgette Preddy wrote:

    > "PTRAVEL" <> wrote in message news:<>...
    >
    >>"Georgette Preddy" <> wrote in message
    >>news:...
    >>
    >><snip>
    >>
    >>As you can see,
    >>
    >>>the Canon is not competitive on noise at ISO 100, in fact, the 1 layer
    >>>6M sensor Canon CMOS shows more noise at ISO 100 than the 3-layer
    >>>10.3M sensor Foveon CMOS at ISO 800...
    >>>
    >>>http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sigmasd10/page13.asp

    >>
    >>Once again, Preddy doesn't actually read the articles that he cites.

    >
    >
    > The noise samples speak for themselves, Canon is tremendously noisey
    > at ISO 100 compared to the Sigma--just look at the unchangable factual
    > samples.
    >
    >
    >>If he
    >>had, he would have read this:
    >>"However, it's not all rosy for the SD10

    >
    >
    > That was so Canon didn't put him out of business. Same reason Phil
    > said he wanted to do a color resolution test but was unable to publish
    > one--Canon would've aggressively pulled their dollars from his site
    > forever, ending his business. He always throws a bone to
    > Canon/Nikon/Fuji when he shows how a competitor eats their lunch.


    So where are the photos you have made? You know, the full sized ones of
    something other than a test pattern?

    --
    John McWilliams
     
    John McWilliams, Jun 7, 2004
    #19
  20. SteveJ

    G.T. Guest

    johnJ wrote:
    > Georgette Preddy wrote:
    >
    >>The noise samples speak for themselves, Canon is tremendously noisey
    >>at ISO 100 compared to the Sigma--just look at the unchangable factual
    >>samples.
    >>
    >>
    >>That was so Canon didn't put him out of business. Same reason Phil
    >>said he wanted to do a color resolution test but was unable to publish
    >>one--Canon would've aggressively pulled their dollars from his site
    >>forever, ending his business. He always throws a bone to
    >>Canon/Nikon/Fuji when he shows how a competitor eats their lunch.

    >
    >
    > To those unfamiliar with George/Georgette Preddy, please ignore his
    > postings. If you read other postings by him you will find that
    > he, for some reason, has a fetish against Canon. He is also
    > extraordinarily pro Sigma/Foveon.


    Man, I've only been here two days or so and he already tops any troll in
    any of the other groups I subscribe to. I didn't think anyone could top
    Usenet Kook of the Current and Last Century: Mike Vandeman, Phd, of
    alt.mountain-bike fame.

    Greg
     
    G.T., Jun 7, 2004
    #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. Brian C. Baird

    Canon 1Ds Mark II - Noise? What noise?

    Brian C. Baird, Sep 21, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    531
    Brian C. Baird
    Sep 21, 2004
  2. Jason Sommers
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    538
    Jason Sommers
    Jan 19, 2005
  3. Stacey

    Noise about noise...

    Stacey, Feb 16, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    402
    Stacey
    Feb 18, 2005
  4. Cynicor

    ISO noise vs. long exposure noise

    Cynicor, Aug 27, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    547
    Dirty Harry
    Aug 27, 2005
  5. Rich

    Ugly noise versus "good" noise

    Rich, Oct 4, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    373
Loading...

Share This Page