Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digicam Help > General Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Sep 9, 2010, 11:57 AM   #11
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Decatur, GA
Posts: 2,053
Default

Noise hate it unless your trying to show how fast someone is running then a little is ok but for me I HATE it if I make an image I want to share and it has noise

dave
Photo 5 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 9, 2010, 11:10 PM   #12
Senior Member
 
Tullio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 7,370
Default

So far, it appears that the general consensus is that... "noise is bad". Most people dislike it (including myself). However, I must say that I've seen some pretty horrible images where people try to remove noise as much as possible and as a result, the image lacks details, presents some real bad noise reduction artifact, looks plasticly, etc. Honestly, I prefer noise to all the above. Maybe I can only show it on my computer (or on the web or send to someone on an email) but at least it looks real.
__________________

Tullio
Tullio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 9, 2010, 11:41 PM   #13
Senior Member
 
VTphotog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Extreme Northeastern Vermont, USA
Posts: 4,234
Default

The problem with noise is more a case of how much, and what kind you can live with. Excess noise reduction is (to my eye) worse than leaving the noise. I took an awful lot of pictures with Kodak Tri-X (ASA 400 B&W print film) that has characteristic large grain patterns, and like the look, but if I were to present one as if it had been taken by a digital camera, the first thing most people would criticize would be 'noise'.
Scans I have done of color negatives have shown up some really ugly grain or noise that I would probably not consider acceptable from my digital cameras, but they still print nicely.

brian
VTphotog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 9, 2010, 11:46 PM   #14
Senior Member
 
shoturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Frankfurt AM
Posts: 11,348
Default

over any point and shoot 4/3 or m4/3 has a greater level of noise tolerance. With point and shoots most will accept the noise they produce at 800iso and it would be ok. But would not be consider worth keeping in the dslr or 4/3 world.

With 4/3 or m4/3 which is the same size sensor. Depending on the brand 1600-2000 iso is about max. So they do handle noise better.

But there is a interesting. While the older 4/3 and m4/3 do not handle noise as well above 1600iso. The current olympus sensor in the epl-1 actually out performs aps-c sensors in noise and detail retention upto 1600iso. You can clearly see it on image resources image comparison page.

So you need to define where do you want to define noise acceptance at.

Quote:
Originally Posted by iowa_jim View Post
Do m4/3 uses have greater tolerance for noise because they must?
__________________
Super Frequent Flyer, no joke. Ex Patriot and loving it.
Canon Eos 60D, T1i/500D, Eos1, Eos 630, Olympus EPL-1, and a part time Pentax K-X shooter.

Last edited by shoturtle; Sep 9, 2010 at 11:53 PM.
shoturtle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 9, 2010, 11:55 PM   #15
Senior Member
 
shoturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Frankfurt AM
Posts: 11,348
Default

I am with the school, noise is okay if it means getting the shot vs not.
__________________
Super Frequent Flyer, no joke. Ex Patriot and loving it.
Canon Eos 60D, T1i/500D, Eos1, Eos 630, Olympus EPL-1, and a part time Pentax K-X shooter.
shoturtle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 10, 2010, 12:01 AM   #16
Super Moderator
 
Hards80's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Cleveland, OH
Posts: 9,046
Default

i shoot landscapes and such mostly, so the less noise i can get, the better.

but if shooting street scenes, some black and whites, noise is far more tolerable and can actually add. but i do prefer a little grain to excessive NR which destroys detail.
__________________
MyFlickr
Hards80 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 10, 2010, 9:09 AM   #17
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,572
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by shoturtle View Post
over any point and shoot 4/3 or m4/3 has a greater level of noise tolerance. With point and shoots most will accept the noise they produce at 800iso and it would be ok. But would not be consider worth keeping in the dslr or 4/3 world.

With 4/3 or m4/3 which is the same size sensor. Depending on the brand 1600-2000 iso is about max. So they do handle noise better.

But there is a interesting. While the older 4/3 and m4/3 do not handle noise as well above 1600iso. The current olympus sensor in the epl-1 actually out performs aps-c sensors in noise and detail retention upto 1600iso. You can clearly see it on image resources image comparison page.

So you need to define where do you want to define noise acceptance at.
DXOMark.com's Sensor Ratings shows that, with the noteable exception of the Panasonic GH1, all 4:3 sensors do about equally well. That is to say, not as well as most APS-C sensors. You can also use DXOMark.com's Compare Sensors to compare up to three individual cameras at a time. I just did that for many of the 4:3 and m4:3 cameras and found that, again with the noteable exception of the Panasonic GH1, all 4:3 cameras do about the same on the SNR 18% test. That is to say, again, not as well as most APS-C cameras.
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 10, 2010, 9:21 AM   #18
Senior Member
 
shoturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Frankfurt AM
Posts: 11,348
Default

look at image resources photo samples of the epl-1 vs the nex's, d90, canon 7d and so on. It is quite telling what oly had done with their sensor in the epl-1. The Panny's do not fare as well in the 800iso and above range.
__________________
Super Frequent Flyer, no joke. Ex Patriot and loving it.
Canon Eos 60D, T1i/500D, Eos1, Eos 630, Olympus EPL-1, and a part time Pentax K-X shooter.
shoturtle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 10, 2010, 9:57 AM   #19
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,572
Default

DxOMark.com: Olympus EPL1 vs. Nikon D90 vs. Canon 7D
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 10, 2010, 11:24 AM   #20
Super Moderator
 
Hards80's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Cleveland, OH
Posts: 9,046
Default

Well there is a difference between sensor performance and output. What the EPL1 was able to do was combine a lighter AA filter with a better jpeg engine compared to other cameras using the same sensor, with the end result jpeg output being better striking a good balance of NR and detail retention.
__________________
MyFlickr
Hards80 is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:30 AM.