Canon 20D noise levels

I hope their as low as promised.
After waiting, and reading about the New Canon 20D, I finally put myself on
a list for the camera.. As I have read from some reviewers, some say that
the noise level at 400-1600 ISO is the same according to their charts, and
from other postings looking at the pictures there seems to be allot of
differences from the two bodies. One from a reviewers with the M&M
displayed, there was almost the same noise level at 1600 ISO on the 20D
verses the 10D at 400 ISO, is there a difference in the first bodies shipped
out to the reviewers?

 

Each and every 20D, whether a preproduction prototype or a full production
camera will have a different amount of noise. Change the temperature,
presto, different noise. Its the nature of the beast (and statistics).

That said, the noise performance of the 20D at 1600 ISO is darned useable,
a useful advance over the 10D or 300D or D70 for that mater. Is it all
Canon marketing suggests--I don't know--only tests on production camers
will tell.

 

I have seen a couple of shots from the 20D floating around taken at ISO 100
and so on that look too noise free for my taste. What I am afraid of with
this is that they will be too clean and end up looking like something from
Bryce or one of the other landscape modeling programs (I am talking about
landscapes here). Other than some slight coloring of the noise at 1600 and
3200 I think I like the look of these best. Probably what I would do with
these is just eliminate the color on the noise so that it looked more like
film grain. BTW you can do that by loading your image in to something like
Photoshop, duplicating the images layer, blurring the copy with G. Blur say
about 4 or 5 and then changing the layer blending mode on the blurred copy
to color, then flatten.

John

 

From: "John Doe"

So stick with your higher-ISO films. You can have all the grain you want. Why
you would want it is anybody's guess.

 

You could always add some noise to the image. If you match the
amplitude and frequency spectrum of the noise from your favourite film,
you can even give the image the "film look". If you just want some
noise, simple white noise will do.

However, I think it's ironic that someone might consider adding
computer-generated noise to make a real photograph not look
computer-generated! I suspect that our perception of the difference
between photographs and computer-generated images will simply get
recalibrated a bit as photographs become less noisy.

Dave

 

Because it makes photos look more real. Film, just about all film has had
some grain I think humans are more accepting of it than anyone realizes. Too
much is bad, but none and you images look like something computer generated.

John

 

You maybe right. Until recently noise/grain has been there and something
most don't even notice unless it is really bad. Try scanning 3200 ISO film
with a cheap scanner and you won't notice anything but the noise. This is
not good, but a little can be nice.

John

 

Now watching US Open tennis on HDTV. Perhaps the SDTV horizontal scan
lines would make it look more like real TV, but I sure don't miss them
Digital is fine with me.

Reminds me of the vinyl vs. CD discussions.

Phil

 

How do you feel about the old images done on 8x10 film? Those are pretty
grain free, I'd be more than happy to see that from a camera the size of a
35mm...

 

You are comparing grapefruit to sugar cubes the HDTV to digital camera
images.

John

 

I am not found of 8x10 film. I do however like 4x5 especially for
landscapes. However film and processing at least around here is hard to come
by and when you do expensive.

John

 

Not much grain in an enlargement from 4x5, either....

 

No, there isn't but just enough.

John

 

From: "John Doe"

Reality doesn't have grain. When I look up at a blue sky I don't see little
black dots all over the place.


A more correct claim might be that film grain makes images look more like you
are used to seeing them as photographs.
Your preference for grain is a result of years of seeing it in your pics. When
it isn't there you feel something is missing, just as vinyl fans took a while
to get used to the lack of noise in digital recordings.
Some of them still haven't.

 

Good point. We will see I should have my 20D next week. So we will see.

John

 

From: "John Doe"

I eagerly await the arrival of mine as well.
Canon is supposed to start shipping them to dealers today (9/13) so we'll see.

 

I don't mind the lack of grain in colour photos... infact I prefer the
clarity of digital over film grain at equivilent ISO's.

Where I do miss the grain is in BnW and will often add a little noise
back in and blend it with an original layer...

Probably just me, but I think it adds a "texture" to the finished
product especially when printed A4 or larger on matte paper. My big
problem is trying to convey that grain on smaller webified examples,
its nearly impossible to get it just right to show the grain yet not
overwhelm the shrunk photos.

Perhaps in 10 years or so as digital photographs become more
entrenched in the high quality art world the perception of grain
almost being a requirement of BnW will be lessened and then grain will
not be seen as an important, even an integral requirement, part of the
photographic style.

After all if you look back at the early adopters of colour film the
"true colours" are way out in comparison to todays "true colour"
films... It seems as tho each channel in the RGB has been "punched"
when the colours are close to the primarys, but any partial mix of the
three is mucky and wrong. (does that make sence?) So now it looks so
naff and dated and just plain wrong... but BnW always looks right

 

That's interesting, because, typically, B&W has less grain than its color
ISO equivalent. If you want texture, try a printing screen, there are some
digital ones available. My wife's:
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com/wishing.html

 

I love that shot and the way it has a texture. Having never really
used film, I forget there is more to the process than the film and
paper and items such as screens and the like can be used over and
above just exposing the paper to the negative.

 

Here's another one, with a little more texture showing, this screen is one I
got from my dad, it dates back to the late '40s.

http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com/CleopatraContemplatesHerFuture.html
(Caution: Nude Warning!)

There are some of these that are available as programs to use digitally, the
one that my wife did is actually a digital image. Funny thing is, although
we have a loving, sharing relationship, she refuses to tell me where she got
the screen, or how she applies it. It sure ain't in Photoshop... :-/