Dslr Noise

"SteveJ" <steve.TakeThisOut@comast.net> 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...

<a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sigmasd10/page13.asp" target="_blank">http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sigmasd10/page13.asp</a>

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.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Dslr Noise 

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.
 >
 >
 ><!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Dslr Noise 

"Georgette Preddy" <georgette_preddy DeleteThis @yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1067e702.0406060712.7dc52e39@posting.google.com...

<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...
 >
<font color=purple> > <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sigmasd10/page13.asp</font" target="_blank">http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sigmasd10/page13.asp</font</a>>
 >

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.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Dslr Noise 

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.
 >> Stay informed about: Dslr Noise 

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
 >> Stay informed about: Dslr Noise 

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.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Dslr Noise 

In article <10c6ohasivu614e.DeleteThis@news.supernews.com>, Jim Townsend
<not.DeleteThis@real.address> 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.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Dslr Noise 

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
 >> Stay informed about: Dslr Noise 

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" <georgette_preddy DeleteThis @yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1067e702.0406060712.7dc52e39@posting.google.com...
 > "SteveJ" <steve DeleteThis @comast.net> 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...
 >
<font color=purple> > <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sigmasd10/page13.asp</font" target="_blank">http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sigmasd10/page13.asp</font</a>>
 >
 > 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.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Dslr Noise 

"PTRAVEL" <ptravel88-usenet.RemoveThis@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<2ih1nuFnajv1U1.RemoveThis@uni-berlin.de>...
 > "Georgette Preddy" <georgette_preddy.RemoveThis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
 > news:1067e702.0406060712.7dc52e39@posting.google.com...
 >
 > <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...
  > >
<font color=green>  > > <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sigmasd10/page13.asp</font" target="_blank">http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sigmasd10/page13.asp</font</a>>
 >
 > 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.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Dslr Noise 

 > 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.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Dslr Noise 

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



"Mark Weaver" <weaver.DeleteThis@nospam-corvusdev.com> wrote in message
news:ssSdnU7xeZqSz17dRVn-ig@comcast.com...
 > 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
 >
 ><!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Dslr Noise 

Kibo informs me that georgette_preddy.TakeThisOut@yahoo.com (Georgette Preddy)
stated that:

 >"SteveJ" <steve.TakeThisOut@comast.net> 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
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Dslr Noise