New camera with LOW CCD noise required

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by scott, Jun 24, 2004.

  1. scott

    scott Guest

    Hi,

    I'm sorry if this is my second post on this subject, but the first one
    hasn't come up in the group for several hours now.

    Basically, I want to get a new camera. I love my Canon PowerShot A40 but I
    would like more pixels and less noise at higher ISO settings.

    I was very tempted by the Canon PowerShot S1 but in reviews it says the
    noise levels are higher than average for Canon - this is certainly not what
    I want!

    Any recommendations for cameras that can take images at ISO 200 without
    making the colours all speckly?

    I went to Wimbledon on Monday and took a load of action shots at ISO 100 and
    200, 1/1000s in overcast and sunny conditions, and a lot of them look very
    speckly. I really have to use it at ISO 50 to get nice smooth images, but
    that's useless for high speed action shots.

    Thanks for any ideas.

    Scott
    scott, Jun 24, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. scott

    Mark Weaver Guest

    "scott" <> wrote in message
    news:QNFCc.349$765.12@newsfe5-win...
    >
    > Any recommendations for cameras that can take images at ISO 200 without
    > making the colours all speckly?
    >
    > I went to Wimbledon on Monday and took a load of action shots at ISO 100

    and
    > 200, 1/1000s in overcast and sunny conditions, and a lot of them look very
    > speckly. I really have to use it at ISO 50 to get nice smooth images, but
    > that's useless for high speed action shots.


    Compact cameras with small sensors are all going to start to exhibit some
    noise above ISO 100 -- you need a digital SLR to get clean, high-ISO
    performance. BUT ... there are some very effective noise reduction software
    packages you might try on your current ISO 200 images. My current favorite
    is the 'Helicon' noise filter -- and there's a 'free for personal use'
    version you can download here:

    http://helicon.com.uahttp://helicon.com.ua

    If you haven't tried it before, you may be surprised with the results.

    Mark
    Mark Weaver, Jun 24, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. scott

    scott Guest

    Mark Weaver wrote:
    > "scott" <> wrote in message
    > news:QNFCc.349$765.12@newsfe5-win...
    > >
    > > Any recommendations for cameras that can take images at ISO 200
    > > without making the colours all speckly?
    > >
    > > I went to Wimbledon on Monday and took a load of action shots at
    > > ISO 100 and 200, 1/1000s in overcast and sunny conditions, and a
    > > lot of them look very speckly. I really have to use it at ISO 50
    > > to get nice smooth images, but that's useless for high speed action
    > > shots.

    >
    > Compact cameras with small sensors are all going to start to exhibit
    > some noise above ISO 100 -- you need a digital SLR to get clean,
    > high-ISO performance.


    Hmm, it's a real shame there isn't anything inbetween. Looking at the SLR
    models they seem to go up to ISO 800 or 1600 with less noise than I get at
    ISO 200 !!! The Canon EOS 300d looks pretty good for the money, but I don't
    know whether I can justify spending double the amount over the PowerShot S1.

    http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos300d/page14.asp

    Seems to show the difference quite well, I think mine is even worse than the
    Sony shown on the right. That 300D certainly seems a lovely piece of kit
    for the price, might need to think about whether it will be worth it for me
    though.

    > BUT ... there are some very effective noise
    > reduction software packages you might try on your current ISO 200
    > images. My current favorite is the 'Helicon' noise filter -- and
    > there's a 'free for personal use' version you can download here:
    >
    > http://helicon.com.uahttp://helicon.com.ua
    >
    > If you haven't tried it before, you may be surprised with the results.


    Yes, that seemed to work pretty well on my images without blurring the
    details too much. The only thing missing is the option to batch process
    folders, but that seems to be coming in the Pro version.
    scott, Jun 24, 2004
    #3
  4. Bay Area Dave, Jun 24, 2004
    #4
  5. scott

    scott Guest

    scott, Jun 24, 2004
    #5
  6. scott wrote:

    > Hi,
    >
    > I'm sorry if this is my second post on this subject, but the first one
    > hasn't come up in the group for several hours now.
    >
    > Basically, I want to get a new camera. I love my Canon PowerShot A40 but I
    > would like more pixels and less noise at higher ISO settings.
    >
    > I was very tempted by the Canon PowerShot S1 but in reviews it says the
    > noise levels are higher than average for Canon - this is certainly not what
    > I want!
    >
    > Any recommendations for cameras that can take images at ISO 200 without
    > making the colours all speckly?
    >
    > I went to Wimbledon on Monday and took a load of action shots at ISO 100 and
    > 200, 1/1000s in overcast and sunny conditions, and a lot of them look very
    > speckly. I really have to use it at ISO 50 to get nice smooth images, but
    > that's useless for high speed action shots.
    >
    > Thanks for any ideas.
    >



    You need an EOS 300D. It does exactly what you want. DK
    David Kilpatrick, Jun 24, 2004
    #6
  7. scott

    RSD99 Guest

    Actually, the EOS 1D Mark II would probably be the best camera currently available for
    that application ... but it's also priced like it!
    RSD99, Jun 25, 2004
    #7
  8. scott

    Skip M Guest

    "scott" <> wrote in message
    news:FmHCc.371$765.205@newsfe5-win...
    > Mark Weaver wrote:
    > > "scott" <> wrote in message
    > > news:QNFCc.349$765.12@newsfe5-win...
    > > >
    > > > Any recommendations for cameras that can take images at ISO 200
    > > > without making the colours all speckly?
    > > >
    > > > I went to Wimbledon on Monday and took a load of action shots at
    > > > ISO 100 and 200, 1/1000s in overcast and sunny conditions, and a
    > > > lot of them look very speckly. I really have to use it at ISO 50
    > > > to get nice smooth images, but that's useless for high speed action
    > > > shots.

    > >
    > > Compact cameras with small sensors are all going to start to exhibit
    > > some noise above ISO 100 -- you need a digital SLR to get clean,
    > > high-ISO performance.

    >
    > Hmm, it's a real shame there isn't anything inbetween. Looking at the SLR
    > models they seem to go up to ISO 800 or 1600 with less noise than I get at
    > ISO 200 !!! The Canon EOS 300d looks pretty good for the money, but I

    don't
    > know whether I can justify spending double the amount over the PowerShot

    S1.
    >
    > http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos300d/page14.asp
    >
    > Seems to show the difference quite well, I think mine is even worse than

    the
    > Sony shown on the right. That 300D certainly seems a lovely piece of kit
    > for the price, might need to think about whether it will be worth it for

    me
    > though.
    >
    > > BUT ... there are some very effective noise
    > > reduction software packages you might try on your current ISO 200
    > > images. My current favorite is the 'Helicon' noise filter -- and
    > > there's a 'free for personal use' version you can download here:
    > >
    > > http://helicon.com.uahttp://helicon.com.ua
    > >
    > > If you haven't tried it before, you may be surprised with the results.

    >
    > Yes, that seemed to work pretty well on my images without blurring the
    > details too much. The only thing missing is the option to batch process
    > folders, but that seems to be coming in the Pro version.
    >
    >
    >

    Scott, if you want more from your camera than it is currently able to give,
    I have a feeling that, in the long run, a DSLR will be worth the investment.
    Not only do they offer lower noise levels, but the optics that are available
    are better than nearly anything in a point and shoot. You'll find yourself
    trying out compact after compact, not being completely satisfied, and then
    end up buying a DSLR, anyway, I'll bet. I could be wrong, but...

    --
    Skip Middleton
    http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
    Skip M, Jun 25, 2004
    #8
  9. scott

    RobbH Guest

    On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 21:06:14 +0100, scott wrote:

    > Hmm, it's a real shame there isn't anything inbetween. Looking at the SLR
    > models they seem to go up to ISO 800 or 1600 with less noise than I get at
    > ISO 200 !!! The Canon EOS 300d looks pretty good for the money, but I don't
    > know whether I can justify spending double the amount over the PowerShot S1.


    There are choices between the extremes, but of course they are compromises.
    As has been pointed out, Digital SLRs are the best choice for high
    sensitivity and low noise. But there are some digital P&S cameras that
    will do better than your A40 at less than half the price of the 300d.

    Two that I have some experience with are the Olympus C4000 and the Kodak
    (gasp!) DX6490. Each has its shortcomings, but either one can capture
    respectable images at ISO 400. Not noise free, but often the noise is
    sufficiently subtle that no processing is necessary. At other times, a
    quick trip through Helicon, Noiseware, or (except for the quick part) Neat
    Image will help.

    I recommend the reviews at Imaging Resource:

    http://www.imaging-resource.com/

    Check out the sample images for various cameras, particularly the ISO
    series. You might find a camera that meets your needs.

    On the other, if you're sold on a DSLR, go for it!
    RobbH, Jun 25, 2004
    #9
  10. scott

    RSD99 Guest

    Unfortunately .... I "tried" it.

    Here is a copy of my personal notes and reactions ... YMMV

    = = = = =
    06/24/2004

    Regarding Halicon Noise Filter:

    Downloaded, installed and tried this software on this date.

    The program is "not ready for prime time."

    (1) It does NOT accept TIF files for input, and images must be converted to JPEG or BMP
    format;

    (2) **Crashed** (refused to load and then acted if it was corrupted) when trying to load a
    medium sized image ... 25,559,256 bytes ... 4087 pixels by 6252 pixels ...
    RWD_1930s_002.bmp/tif/png

    (3) After crashing in step 2, above, the program could be restarted, but could NOT be
    operated ... it stalled when trying to load any kind of JPEG or BMP file!

    Sad ... because it just might offer something in addition to the capabilities of Neat
    Image.

    = = = = =
    PS - The image used loads quite nicely in a whole list of other programs ... in any of the
    file types. It was converted to JPEG and BMP using Adobe PhotoShop ... so the conversion
    *should* not be a problem. Halicon kept telling me that the BMP file was corrupted
    (something like "bad identifier") ... and then just plain stalled when trying the JPG
    file(s).

    = = = = =

    Anybody know of any other image clean-up programs that really work well, besides Neat
    Image?
    RSD99, Jun 25, 2004
    #10
  11. scott

    Don R Guest

    Also, the Kodak DX7630 (6.1) or the DX7440 (4.0).

    "RobbH" <> wrote in message
    news:155aya1r5ggqb.13ux6hcs5202l$...
    > On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 21:06:14 +0100, scott wrote:
    >
    > > Hmm, it's a real shame there isn't anything inbetween. Looking at the

    SLR
    > > models they seem to go up to ISO 800 or 1600 with less noise than I get

    at
    > > ISO 200 !!! The Canon EOS 300d looks pretty good for the money, but I

    don't
    > > know whether I can justify spending double the amount over the PowerShot

    S1.
    >
    > There are choices between the extremes, but of course they are

    compromises.
    > As has been pointed out, Digital SLRs are the best choice for high
    > sensitivity and low noise. But there are some digital P&S cameras that
    > will do better than your A40 at less than half the price of the 300d.
    >
    > Two that I have some experience with are the Olympus C4000 and the Kodak
    > (gasp!) DX6490. Each has its shortcomings, but either one can capture
    > respectable images at ISO 400. Not noise free, but often the noise is
    > sufficiently subtle that no processing is necessary. At other times, a
    > quick trip through Helicon, Noiseware, or (except for the quick part) Neat
    > Image will help.
    >
    > I recommend the reviews at Imaging Resource:
    >
    > http://www.imaging-resource.com/
    >
    > Check out the sample images for various cameras, particularly the ISO
    > series. You might find a camera that meets your needs.
    >
    > On the other, if you're sold on a DSLR, go for it!
    >
    Don R, Jun 25, 2004
    #11
  12. scott

    Just Helping Guest

    On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 01:19:16 GMT, "RSD99" <>
    wrote:

    >
    >Anybody know of any other image clean-up programs that really work well, besides Neat
    >Image?
    >
    >
    >


    Here's an excellent review and comparison of many of the more
    popular noise-reduction packages out there (but not all), it's where
    I learned about my most recent favorite.

    http://www.michaelalmond.com/Articles/noise_print.html

    I used to like Neat Image a lot (v4.0 has some very nice features
    and capabilities), but Noise Ninja seems to be much better as well
    as much faster with more options and control. Including an un-do
    brush mode for when you need to add detail back in from over-zealous
    filter settings for the brunt of the photo. (I wish they had picked
    a more respectable name for their product though, I feel foolish
    just suggesting others look at it, as-if I'm telling them to go play
    the latest x-box game for pre-teens.)

    Noise Ninja is here: http://www.picturecode.com/

    I've tested most every noise-reduction program out there because
    low-light, available-light, and night-sky photos are an obsession
    with me. All I have is a CCD chip camera at the moment and the
    problem hounds me like a nightmare at times (even though the camera
    is reportedly the best in its class for that inherent problem). I
    tend to always boot up Noise Ninja first whenever needing to repair
    noise now.

    Helpful Hint: You can still use the beta 8 version of 2.0 if you set
    your system date back when installing and then registering with the
    provided (now expired) beta code they have on the beta page (set it
    back to 1 day before expiration date), and remember to set it back
    to that same date before each use.
    Just Helping, Jun 25, 2004
    #12
  13. scott

    RSD99 Guest

    Thanks for the info and URLs ... looks like I'll have plenty of "things" to read and play
    with this week-end!
    RSD99, Jun 25, 2004
    #13
  14. scott

    scott Guest

    Skip M wrote:
    > "scott" <> wrote in message
    > news:FmHCc.371$765.205@newsfe5-win...
    > > Mark Weaver wrote:
    > > > "scott" <> wrote in message
    > > > news:QNFCc.349$765.12@newsfe5-win...
    > > > >
    > > > > Any recommendations for cameras that can take images at ISO 200
    > > > > without making the colours all speckly?
    > > > >
    > > > > I went to Wimbledon on Monday and took a load of action shots at
    > > > > ISO 100 and 200, 1/1000s in overcast and sunny conditions, and a
    > > > > lot of them look very speckly. I really have to use it at ISO 50
    > > > > to get nice smooth images, but that's useless for high speed action
    > > > > shots.
    > > >
    > > > Compact cameras with small sensors are all going to start to exhibit
    > > > some noise above ISO 100 -- you need a digital SLR to get clean,
    > > > high-ISO performance.

    > >
    > > Hmm, it's a real shame there isn't anything inbetween. Looking at
    > > the SLR models they seem to go up to ISO 800 or 1600 with less noise
    > > than I get at ISO 200 !!! The Canon EOS 300d looks pretty good for
    > > the money, but I don't know whether I can justify spending double
    > > the amount over the PowerShot S1.
    > >
    > > http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos300d/page14.asp
    > >
    > > Seems to show the difference quite well, I think mine is even worse
    > > than the Sony shown on the right. That 300D certainly seems a
    > > lovely piece of kit for the price, might need to think about whether
    > > it will be worth it for me though.
    > >
    > > > BUT ... there are some very effective noise
    > > > reduction software packages you might try on your current ISO 200
    > > > images. My current favorite is the 'Helicon' noise filter -- and
    > > > there's a 'free for personal use' version you can download here:
    > > >
    > > > http://helicon.com.uahttp://helicon.com.ua
    > > >
    > > > If you haven't tried it before, you may be surprised with the
    > > > results.

    > >
    > > Yes, that seemed to work pretty well on my images without blurring
    > > the details too much. The only thing missing is the option to batch
    > > process folders, but that seems to be coming in the Pro version.
    > >
    > >
    > >

    > Scott, if you want more from your camera than it is currently able to
    > give, I have a feeling that, in the long run, a DSLR will be worth
    > the investment. Not only do they offer lower noise levels, but the
    > optics that are available are better than nearly anything in a point
    > and shoot. You'll find yourself trying out compact after compact,
    > not being completely satisfied, and then end up buying a DSLR,
    > anyway, I'll bet. I could be wrong, but...


    I think you may well be correct with that. And after all, the 300D is only
    about twice the price of a good compact. I've never had a SLR before but
    I've learned so much over the last day or two reading about them. It
    certainly seems that you have far more flexibility.

    Now, I hope someone can confirm whether I'm correct with this: My current
    A40 says it has a zoom of 35-105mm in 35mm terms. The CCD on my A40 though
    is smaller than 35mm film so that is why the actual lens size on the
    camera says something much smaller like 5.4mm or whatever. If I get a 300D,
    according to the reviews, the image sensor is 1.6 times smaller than 35mm
    film. So, if I want to get a lens that will give similar pictures to my
    current A40 I need to get one that is 35-105mm / 1.6 = 22-66mm right? So if
    I buy one that is 28-90mm (the closest one I could find to 22-66) and fit it
    to the 300D, I won't be able to get quite the same wide shots but it should
    zoom in a bit more? What do the actual numbers mean? Is there a good
    website that explains these basics?

    And another question, is the way the lenses fit to the camera standard? Is
    it the same for all SLRs or does each manufacturer have their own type,
    meaning I have to buy Canon lenses for it? How likely is it that the
    standard will change in a few years time?
    scott, Jun 25, 2004
    #14
  15. scott

    adm Guest

    "scott" <> wrote in message
    news:pN_Cc.905$...

    > You'll find yourself trying out compact after compact,
    > > not being completely satisfied, and then end up buying a DSLR,
    > > anyway, I'll bet. I could be wrong, but...

    >
    > I think you may well be correct with that. And after all, the 300D is

    only
    > about twice the price of a good compact. I've never had a SLR before but
    > I've learned so much over the last day or two reading about them. It
    > certainly seems that you have far more flexibility.
    >
    > Now, I hope someone can confirm whether I'm correct with this: My current
    > A40 says it has a zoom of 35-105mm in 35mm terms. The CCD on my A40

    though
    > is smaller than 35mm film so that is why the actual lens size on the
    > camera says something much smaller like 5.4mm or whatever. If I get a

    300D,
    > according to the reviews, the image sensor is 1.6 times smaller than 35mm
    > film. So, if I want to get a lens that will give similar pictures to my
    > current A40 I need to get one that is 35-105mm / 1.6 = 22-66mm right? So

    if
    > I buy one that is 28-90mm (the closest one I could find to 22-66) and fit

    it
    > to the 300D, I won't be able to get quite the same wide shots but it

    should
    > zoom in a bit more? What do the actual numbers mean? Is there a good
    > website that explains these basics?


    You are basically correct. There's about a 1.6x effect on the Canon 300D,
    and about 1.5x on the Nikon D70, which is another camera you should
    seriously research if you are in the market for a 300D.

    From what you are describing, your best bet is probably to buy either of
    these cameras with the "kit" lens. The Nikon can be had with a very high
    quality 18-70mm lens for a good price. I'm not sure what the Canon kit lens
    is, but it's similar. These kit deals are probably the best bargain if you
    don't already have lenses.
    >
    > And another question, is the way the lenses fit to the camera standard?


    Yes - but see next answer....

    > Is it the same for all SLRs or does each manufacturer have their own

    type,

    Both Canon and Nikon have their own lens mount (as do many others).

    > meaning I have to buy Canon lenses for it?


    Not neccesarily. You can also buy aftermarket lenses from Tokina, Sigma,
    Tamron etc.....


    >How likely is it that the standard will change in a few years time?


    Almost unthinkable. Both manufacturers have so much invested in terms of
    money and installed base.

    If you want a dSLR, you won't go far wrong with Canon or Nikon (or Pentax or
    Konica-Minolta....) What's more, Canon and Nikon lenses hold their value
    well too.

    The other thing is that once you buy into one camera brand and aquire a
    collection of lenses, you are pretty much stuck there unless you want to
    sell them all and buy new ones. However - some other manufacturers (like
    Kodak for example) do offer bodies with Canon or Nikon mounts.
    adm, Jun 25, 2004
    #15
  16. scott

    Skip M Guest

    "scott" <> wrote in message
    news:pN_Cc.905$...
    > Skip M wrote:
    > > "scott" <> wrote in message
    > > news:FmHCc.371$765.205@newsfe5-win...
    > > > Mark Weaver wrote:
    > > > > "scott" <> wrote in message
    > > > > news:QNFCc.349$765.12@newsfe5-win...
    > > > > >
    > > > > > Any recommendations for cameras that can take images at ISO 200
    > > > > > without making the colours all speckly?
    > > > > >
    > > > > > I went to Wimbledon on Monday and took a load of action shots at
    > > > > > ISO 100 and 200, 1/1000s in overcast and sunny conditions, and a
    > > > > > lot of them look very speckly. I really have to use it at ISO 50
    > > > > > to get nice smooth images, but that's useless for high speed

    action
    > > > > > shots.
    > > > >
    > > > > Compact cameras with small sensors are all going to start to exhibit
    > > > > some noise above ISO 100 -- you need a digital SLR to get clean,
    > > > > high-ISO performance.
    > > >
    > > > Hmm, it's a real shame there isn't anything inbetween. Looking at
    > > > the SLR models they seem to go up to ISO 800 or 1600 with less noise
    > > > than I get at ISO 200 !!! The Canon EOS 300d looks pretty good for
    > > > the money, but I don't know whether I can justify spending double
    > > > the amount over the PowerShot S1.
    > > >
    > > > http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos300d/page14.asp
    > > >
    > > > Seems to show the difference quite well, I think mine is even worse
    > > > than the Sony shown on the right. That 300D certainly seems a
    > > > lovely piece of kit for the price, might need to think about whether
    > > > it will be worth it for me though.
    > > >
    > > > > BUT ... there are some very effective noise
    > > > > reduction software packages you might try on your current ISO 200
    > > > > images. My current favorite is the 'Helicon' noise filter -- and
    > > > > there's a 'free for personal use' version you can download here:
    > > > >
    > > > > http://helicon.com.uahttp://helicon.com.ua
    > > > >
    > > > > If you haven't tried it before, you may be surprised with the
    > > > > results.
    > > >
    > > > Yes, that seemed to work pretty well on my images without blurring
    > > > the details too much. The only thing missing is the option to batch
    > > > process folders, but that seems to be coming in the Pro version.
    > > >
    > > >
    > > >

    > > Scott, if you want more from your camera than it is currently able to
    > > give, I have a feeling that, in the long run, a DSLR will be worth
    > > the investment. Not only do they offer lower noise levels, but the
    > > optics that are available are better than nearly anything in a point
    > > and shoot. You'll find yourself trying out compact after compact,
    > > not being completely satisfied, and then end up buying a DSLR,
    > > anyway, I'll bet. I could be wrong, but...

    >
    > I think you may well be correct with that. And after all, the 300D is

    only
    > about twice the price of a good compact. I've never had a SLR before but
    > I've learned so much over the last day or two reading about them. It
    > certainly seems that you have far more flexibility.
    >
    > Now, I hope someone can confirm whether I'm correct with this: My current
    > A40 says it has a zoom of 35-105mm in 35mm terms. The CCD on my A40

    though
    > is smaller than 35mm film so that is why the actual lens size on the
    > camera says something much smaller like 5.4mm or whatever. If I get a

    300D,
    > according to the reviews, the image sensor is 1.6 times smaller than 35mm
    > film. So, if I want to get a lens that will give similar pictures to my
    > current A40 I need to get one that is 35-105mm / 1.6 = 22-66mm right? So

    if
    > I buy one that is 28-90mm (the closest one I could find to 22-66) and fit

    it
    > to the 300D, I won't be able to get quite the same wide shots but it

    should
    > zoom in a bit more? What do the actual numbers mean? Is there a good
    > website that explains these basics?
    >
    > And another question, is the way the lenses fit to the camera standard?

    Is
    > it the same for all SLRs or does each manufacturer have their own type,
    > meaning I have to buy Canon lenses for it? How likely is it that the
    > standard will change in a few years time?
    >
    >

    There is an 18-55 available with the 300D as a kit, but a better alternative
    is to buy the 28-105 USM, a much better lens.
    Each camera mfr has its own lens mount, i.e. Canon won't fit a Nikon which
    won't fit a Minolta, which won't fit a Pentax. BUT! there are third party
    mfrs like Tamron, Tokina and Sigma that make lenses for all of the major
    camera mfr's lens mounts, so you do have options, if of varying quality.
    It's doubtful of Canon's mount will change in the foreseeable future, they
    took way too much flak the last time they did it, and they seem to have
    designed in some flexibility.
    If you want to continue this conversation, we could do it by email, mine
    is valid...

    --
    Skip Middleton
    http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
    Skip M, Jun 26, 2004
    #16
    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. Miguel Gonzalez

    Tech Ques: About 1-ccd, 3-ccd, sensor filters, etc

    Miguel Gonzalez, Jun 3, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    2,240
    Dave Haynie
    Jun 6, 2004
  2. Brian C. Baird

    Canon 1Ds Mark II - Noise? What noise?

    Brian C. Baird, Sep 21, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    485
    Brian C. Baird
    Sep 21, 2004
  3. Jason Sommers
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    484
    Jason Sommers
    Jan 19, 2005
  4. Don and Liz Campbell

    Digital camera vs Video camera CCD

    Don and Liz Campbell, Feb 27, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    281
    Jim Waggener
    Feb 27, 2005
  5. RichA
    Replies:
    15
    Views:
    803
    Chris Malcolm
    Feb 21, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page