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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Sep 10, 2010, 12:30 PM   #21
Senior Member
 
JustinThyme's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Princeton, NJ
Posts: 361
Default

Im with the same consensus as many.
no or low noise is preferable but noise or no shot Ill take the noise and deal with it the best I can but there is a cutoff point. If its so noisy you cant get any of the detail out of it and NR has to be applied so aggressivley that the image is severely altered the shot isnt worth having.
JustinThyme is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 10, 2010, 2:28 PM   #22
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

I see a lot of soft/blurry photos (caused by motion blur and/or camera shake) posted in the forums, just because the poster was concerned about noise if they increased ISO speed, even though they don't have any intention of printing the images at larger sizes. IOW, they're basing their objection to noise on reviewing images at 100% size, versus the print/viewing size they'll use for the images.

Personally, I don't mind using ISO 3200 or higher at the print sizes I typically use with most current dSLR models.

A bit of noise (or loss of detail from noise reduction) can be much better than soft/blurry images due to blur from subject movement or camera shake at typical print/viewing sizes. ;-)
JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 10, 2010, 4:41 PM   #23
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 1,241
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TCav View Post
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.
Noise performance scales woth sensor area if all other things remain equal. There is, in theory, 2/3 stop difference between fourthirds and the canon/nikon crop sensors and about 1.33 stops between APS-C and full frame.
__________________
Greg

https://dogsportphoto.smugmug.com/
fldspringer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 10, 2010, 4:46 PM   #24
Senior Member
 
shoturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Frankfurt AM
Posts: 11,348
Default

Personally I shoot action in the dark allot with no flash, so I accept the noise at 3200 and 6400 with my T1i. Now when I get the new 5d when it comes out. I will expect a mark improvement at the same iso. But will most likely be shooting at 12800 or 25600 and accepting the higher noise level with less motion blur. It cames down to what you shot. And what you noise acceptance is.
__________________
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, 8:31 PM   #25
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,544
Default

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_n...of_sensor_size

Quote:
For instance, the noise level produced by a Four Thirds sensor at ISO 800 is roughly equivalent to that produced by a full frame sensor (with roughly four times the area) at ISO 3200, and that produced by a 1/2.5" compact camera sensor (with roughly 1/8 the area) at ISO 100.
__________________
  • 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 13, 2010, 4:17 AM   #26
Senior Member
 
RioRico's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: In mountainous California or Arizona or Guatemala or somewhere.
Posts: 224
Default

As I said above, human visual systems have different noise tolerances based on whether we're seeing lifeforms, or things. And as VTphotog mentioned, even noisy images can print well. That's an important consideration: what you see on a computer screen less than an arm's length from your face, is NOT what you'd see in a print, or on a TV or cine screen, or any other rendering of an image. Presentation is crucial. What looks vivid and striking on a screen may look drab and boring when printed and shown, and vice-versa. And subject always trumps clarity. Some of the most famous and influential photos in history have been, by modern standards, mere blurry blobs.

Noise suppression is a worthy goal. But if it interferes with getting the picture, feh.
__________________
Too many film+digi cams+lenses, oh my -- Pentax K20D, ZX-M, M42's, P&S's, more
The opposite of LIBERAL is not CONSERVATIVE, but ENSLAVED.
RioRico is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 14, 2010, 9:11 AM   #27
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 27
Default

In general I'm in the "no noise" camp, in reality I shoot with a Olympus 590UZ and above ISO 400 comes noise, particularly at the long end of the zoom, unless it is the middle of the day it has to boost ISO to get sufficient shutter speed to avoid motion blur.
So it is a trade off, and we have to live with the results, I know with DSLR's you can shoot at high ISO with low noise, but we don't all use DSLR's.

Though I do get amused at the complaints about poor low light performance and noise with digital cameras, how quickly we forget, remember when we shot film? Those days you had to rip out the half used roll of ASA 100 film and install a faster film if you wanted to shoot in low light without flash, or not get the shot - me I'm happy that I can have the convenience of shooting in so many different situations with just the changing of a few settings, so I figure I can live with a bit of noise.
Ausimax is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 14, 2010, 1:56 PM   #28
Senior Member
 
Tullio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 7,370
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ausimax View Post
...
Though I do get amused at the complaints about poor low light performance and noise with digital cameras, how quickly we forget, remember when we shot film? Those days you had to rip out the half used roll of ASA 100 film and install a faster film if you wanted to shoot in low light without flash...
This is certainly true...we do forget the limitations we used to have during the film days. However, this is true with just about everything. Technology evolves and as it does, so do our expectations. Today you would not buy a LCD TV with poor resolution and bad IQ simply because back in the 70's TVs were big, heavy, with a small screen and lots of ghosts and noise in the image, right?!? We compare today's TVs with today's TVs, irregardless whether they are all better than the old ones or not. For many years my SLR had manual focus (ONLY). Today, MF lenses are more for fun use. When it comes to crucial situations where you want to make sure you get the best pictures possible, you rely on AF.
__________________

Tullio
Tullio 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 6:55 AM.