nikon DSLR has less high ISO noise?

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by james, Mar 29, 2009.

  1. james

    james Guest

    Many recent reviews say nikon DSLR has better noise reduction than canon
    DSLR in high ISO photos.

    Why isn't canon doing something about this? This has been going on for more
    than a year.
     
    james, Mar 29, 2009
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. james wrote:
    > Many recent reviews say nikon DSLR has better noise reduction than canon
    > DSLR in high ISO photos.
    >
    > Why isn't canon doing something about this? This has been going on for
    > more than a year.


    Because Canon has been working for the last year on a new noise-free
    sensor that can take a smooth picture of a room full of 50 people
    illuminated by a single candle. ISO equivalent to 480,000.

    --
    lsmft
     
    John McWilliams, Mar 29, 2009
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. james

    Ray Fischer Guest

    james <> wrote:
    >Many recent reviews say nikon DSLR has better noise reduction than canon
    >DSLR in high ISO photos.


    They also say that the difference is quite small.

    >Why isn't canon doing something about this?


    What makes you think that they're not?

    > This has been going on for more
    >than a year.


    Oooo! A whole year! And how long do you think that the development
    cycle is on a new camera? I'd guess that its about two years. But
    most people care more about the number of pixels than about a slight
    difference in noise for low-light photography.

    Too many people think that one particular feature of a camera is the
    most important thing in the world and ignore all the other hundreds of
    features. Camera makers sell to more than just one person in order to
    stay in business.

    --
    Ray Fischer
     
    Ray Fischer, Mar 29, 2009
    #3
  4. james

    Guest

    On Sun, 29 Mar 2009 08:51:24 -0700, in rec.photo.digital "james"
    <> wrote:

    >Many recent reviews say nikon DSLR has better noise reduction than canon
    >DSLR in high ISO photos.
    >
    >Why isn't canon doing something about this? This has been going on for more
    >than a year.


    I believe this is an assessment of the in camera noise reduction for jpegs.
    Shoot raw and everyone has the same control, no? FWIW, I shoot Nikon,
    D70/D200/D300. Just spent most of the morning having to shoot mostly at
    iso1600 due to a totally cloudy sky and general lack of light.
     
    , Mar 29, 2009
    #4
  5. james

    nospam Guest

    In article <THOzl.13723$>, semoi
    <> wrote:

    > How often do most users actually shoot at these high ISOs?


    depends on the user. someone shooting indoor candids, theatre or
    sports might use high iso a lot. someone shooting landscapes probably
    won't.

    > Rather than low noise at high ISOs or ever increasing megapixels
    > manufacturers should try to improve the dynamic range of sensors, which has
    > not budged much compared to other factors.


    actually, they have. recent dslrs have 14 bit a/d converters.

    > Current sensors still have very little latitude for over-exposure.
    > Improving latitude at normal ISOs would benefit all photographers far more
    > than reducing noise at rarely used ultra high ISOs.


    if you blow the highlights, they're gone. if you underexpose by a stop
    you'll have more highlight headroom.
     
    nospam, Mar 29, 2009
    #5
  6. james

    Pete D Guest

    "james" <> wrote in message news:gqo5cn$5su$...
    > Many recent reviews say nikon DSLR has better noise reduction than canon
    > DSLR in high ISO photos.
    >
    > Why isn't canon doing something about this? This has been going on for
    > more than a year.


    For the last year Canon has been assembling
    a crack team of Ninjas so that when the time
    is right they will use this team of crack Ninjas
    to distribute a new camera with improved
    ISO performance.

    Cheers.

    Pete
     
    Pete D, Mar 29, 2009
    #6
  7. james

    Me Guest

    wrote:
    > On Mar 30, 1:51 am, "james" <> wrote:
    >> Many recent reviews say nikon DSLR has better noise reduction than canon
    >> DSLR in high ISO photos.
    >>
    >> Why isn't canon doing something about this? This has been going on for more
    >> than a year.

    >
    > It's simply a different approach from each company as to how noise is
    > handled. IMO the "recent" Nikons have a slight advantage in the noise
    > department, but this comes from more aggressive NR processing and at
    > the cost of fine detail.
    >

    No it isn't - not when raw files are tested.
    High ISO NR level for in-camera jpeg can also be changed. Though I'd
    agree that the default setting high ISO NR level is too high, if that's
    what you mean.


    > In real terms the noise difference is 1 stop at best, but I can always
    > post process noise, so I would rather have the detail thanks.
    >
    > Cheers
    >
    > Rusty
     
    Me, Mar 29, 2009
    #7
  8. wrote:
    > On Sun, 29 Mar 2009 08:51:24 -0700, in rec.photo.digital "james"
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> Many recent reviews say nikon DSLR has better noise reduction than canon
    >> DSLR in high ISO photos.
    >>
    >> Why isn't canon doing something about this? This has been going on for more
    >> than a year.

    >
    > I believe this is an assessment of the in camera noise reduction for jpegs.
    > Shoot raw and everyone has the same control, no?


    No. Sensors and processors have improved markedly over the last ten
    years. Even RAW formats have to be converted to numbers in camera so
    some RAW images are more equal than others.

    --
    John McWilliams
     
    John McWilliams, Mar 30, 2009
    #8
  9. james

    Eric Stevens Guest

    On Sun, 29 Mar 2009 10:55:08 -0700, "semoi" <>
    wrote:

    >How often do most users actually shoot at these high ISOs?
    >Rather than low noise at high ISOs or ever increasing megapixels
    >manufacturers should try to improve the dynamic range of sensors, which has
    >not budged much compared to other factors.
    >Current sensors still have very little latitude for over-exposure.
    >Improving latitude at normal ISOs would benefit all photographers far more
    >than reducing noise at rarely used ultra high ISOs.


    Using a D300, I find I am losing my dislike of shooting at higher ISO.
    I only think once before shooting at 1600. I find the benefits outway
    the problems of larger lens apertures and slower shutter speeds. I
    have been known to shoot at even higher ISO :)



    Eric Stevens
     
    Eric Stevens, Mar 30, 2009
    #9
  10. james

    Ray Fischer Guest

    Timmo <> wrote:
    >So, now all Canon has to do is find out what photographers actually want
    >from their bodies, not what they think they want, bring those products to
    >market and they will be back in the game (afterall, I don't think that
    >anyone doubts Canon's technical/engineering capabilities, just their Yes Men
    >Sales/Marketing Departments who have their heads buried in the sand (or up
    >the CEO's arse)). If I was the CEO, I would make Chuck Westfall Head of
    >Product Planning.


    A few years ago it occurred ot mne that comanies like Canon and Nikon
    could make money by selling firmware updates that added significant
    new features to existing cameras. The firmware hack for the Digital
    Rebel is an example of what they could have done.

    Of course, the executives who run the camera divisions for these
    companies are outdated morons who still haven't yet clued in on the
    computer era and have not chosen to embrace this possibility.

    >Mind you, sometimes I wonder if Canon and Nikon deliberately take turns
    >though.


    As one falls behind the other they get motivated.

    --
    Ray Fischer
     
    Ray Fischer, Mar 31, 2009
    #10
  11. Ray Fischer wrote:

    > A few years ago it occurred ot mne that comanies like Canon and Nikon
    > could make money by selling firmware updates that added significant
    > new features to existing cameras. The firmware hack for the Digital
    > Rebel is an example of what they could have done.


    Oh, the humanity!!!!!

    > Of course, the executives who run the camera divisions for these
    > companies are outdated morons who still haven't yet clued in on the
    > computer era and have not chosen to embrace this possibility.


    Amazing how they've been able to muddle through without your advice.

    --
    lsmft
     
    John McWilliams, Mar 31, 2009
    #11
  12. james

    ASAAR Guest

    On Tue, 31 Mar 2009 01:14:21 +0200, Alfred Molon wrote:

    >> Using a D300, I find I am losing my dislike of shooting at higher ISO.
    >> I only think once before shooting at 1600. I find the benefits outway

    >
    > outweigh


    Wayan Cool, bro.
     
    ASAAR, Mar 31, 2009
    #12
  13. james

    Eric Stevens Guest

    On Tue, 31 Mar 2009 01:14:21 +0200, Alfred Molon
    <> wrote:

    >In article <>, Eric Stevens
    >says...
    >
    >> Using a D300, I find I am losing my dislike of shooting at higher ISO.
    >> I only think once before shooting at 1600. I find the benefits outway

    >
    >outweigh


    Yep.

    Blame my fingers. :)

    >
    >> the problems of larger lens apertures and slower shutter speeds. I
    >> have been known to shoot at even higher ISO :)
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> Eric Stevens
    >>




    Eric Stevens
     
    Eric Stevens, Mar 31, 2009
    #13
  14. james

    Eric Stevens Guest

    On 31 Mar 2009 02:53:38 GMT, (Ray Fischer) wrote:

    >Timmo <> wrote:
    >>So, now all Canon has to do is find out what photographers actually want
    >>from their bodies, not what they think they want, bring those products to
    >>market and they will be back in the game (afterall, I don't think that
    >>anyone doubts Canon's technical/engineering capabilities, just their Yes Men
    >>Sales/Marketing Departments who have their heads buried in the sand (or up
    >>the CEO's arse)). If I was the CEO, I would make Chuck Westfall Head of
    >>Product Planning.

    >
    >A few years ago it occurred ot mne that comanies like Canon and Nikon
    >could make money by selling firmware updates that added significant
    >new features to existing cameras. The firmware hack for the Digital
    >Rebel is an example of what they could have done.
    >
    >Of course, the executives who run the camera divisions for these
    >companies are outdated morons who still haven't yet clued in on the
    >computer era and have not chosen to embrace this possibility.
    >
    >>Mind you, sometimes I wonder if Canon and Nikon deliberately take turns
    >>though.

    >
    >As one falls behind the other they get motivated.


    I was able to download an update for my Nikon D70 which brought it up
    to the spec of the D70s.

    So, what's new?



    Eric Stevens
     
    Eric Stevens, Mar 31, 2009
    #14
  15. james

    Pete D Guest

    "Eric Stevens" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On 31 Mar 2009 02:53:38 GMT, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
    >
    >>Timmo <> wrote:
    >>>So, now all Canon has to do is find out what photographers actually want
    >>>from their bodies, not what they think they want, bring those products to
    >>>market and they will be back in the game (afterall, I don't think that
    >>>anyone doubts Canon's technical/engineering capabilities, just their Yes
    >>>Men
    >>>Sales/Marketing Departments who have their heads buried in the sand (or
    >>>up
    >>>the CEO's arse)). If I was the CEO, I would make Chuck Westfall Head of
    >>>Product Planning.

    >>
    >>A few years ago it occurred ot mne that comanies like Canon and Nikon
    >>could make money by selling firmware updates that added significant
    >>new features to existing cameras. The firmware hack for the Digital
    >>Rebel is an example of what they could have done.
    >>
    >>Of course, the executives who run the camera divisions for these
    >>companies are outdated morons who still haven't yet clued in on the
    >>computer era and have not chosen to embrace this possibility.
    >>
    >>>Mind you, sometimes I wonder if Canon and Nikon deliberately take turns
    >>>though.

    >>
    >>As one falls behind the other they get motivated.

    >
    > I was able to download an update for my Nikon D70 which brought it up
    > to the spec of the D70s.
    >
    > So, what's new?


    Huge upgrade that, lets see you use the infra red remote from the back of
    the camera though or well a tethered remote for that matter.
     
    Pete D, Mar 31, 2009
    #15
  16. james

    ASAAR Guest

    On Tue, 31 Mar 2009 16:52:10 +0200, Alfred Molon wrote:

    >>> outweigh

    >>
    >> Wayan Cool, bro.

    >
    > Interesting that a meaningless one-word post attracts so many responses.


    My English professor told me that it's a mechanism for coping with
    the existential despair engendered by a forum that functions less as
    a community that fosters the sharing of photographic knowledge and
    growing of friendships than as a place to spend an inordinate amount
    of time jousting with trolls, play the fanboy, nitpick and push
    agendas. So when the opportunity comes to play with puns or share
    some meaningless fun, it's a time-out, our version of last century's
    Christmas Truce, where all are welcome to join in - even mortal,
    virtual enemies that have FX, DX or 4/3 chips, be they Bayer or
    Foveon, on our shoulders.
     
    ASAAR, Mar 31, 2009
    #16
  17. james

    Eric Stevens Guest

    On Tue, 31 Mar 2009 22:23:53 +1100, "Pete D" <> wrote:

    >
    >"Eric Stevens" <> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >> On 31 Mar 2009 02:53:38 GMT, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
    >>
    >>>Timmo <> wrote:
    >>>>So, now all Canon has to do is find out what photographers actually want
    >>>>from their bodies, not what they think they want, bring those products to
    >>>>market and they will be back in the game (afterall, I don't think that
    >>>>anyone doubts Canon's technical/engineering capabilities, just their Yes
    >>>>Men
    >>>>Sales/Marketing Departments who have their heads buried in the sand (or
    >>>>up
    >>>>the CEO's arse)). If I was the CEO, I would make Chuck Westfall Head of
    >>>>Product Planning.
    >>>
    >>>A few years ago it occurred ot mne that comanies like Canon and Nikon
    >>>could make money by selling firmware updates that added significant
    >>>new features to existing cameras. The firmware hack for the Digital
    >>>Rebel is an example of what they could have done.
    >>>
    >>>Of course, the executives who run the camera divisions for these
    >>>companies are outdated morons who still haven't yet clued in on the
    >>>computer era and have not chosen to embrace this possibility.
    >>>
    >>>>Mind you, sometimes I wonder if Canon and Nikon deliberately take turns
    >>>>though.
    >>>
    >>>As one falls behind the other they get motivated.

    >>
    >> I was able to download an update for my Nikon D70 which brought it up
    >> to the spec of the D70s.
    >>
    >> So, what's new?

    >
    >Huge upgrade that, lets see you use the infra red remote from the back of
    >the camera though or well a tethered remote for that matter.
    >

    Lets see you do that kind of thing with a firmware upgrade on ANY
    camera.



    Eric Stevens
     
    Eric Stevens, Apr 1, 2009
    #17
  18. james

    Bob Larter Guest

    ASAAR wrote:
    > On Tue, 31 Mar 2009 16:52:10 +0200, Alfred Molon wrote:
    >
    >>>> outweigh
    >>> Wayan Cool, bro.

    >> Interesting that a meaningless one-word post attracts so many responses.

    >
    > My English professor told me that it's a mechanism for coping with
    > the existential despair engendered by a forum that functions less as
    > a community that fosters the sharing of photographic knowledge and
    > growing of friendships than as a place to spend an inordinate amount
    > of time jousting with trolls, play the fanboy, nitpick and push
    > agendas. So when the opportunity comes to play with puns or share
    > some meaningless fun, it's a time-out, our version of last century's
    > Christmas Truce, where all are welcome to join in - even mortal,
    > virtual enemies that have FX, DX or 4/3 chips, be they Bayer or
    > Foveon, on our shoulders.

    ^^^^^^

    Aargh! Please don't use the F-word here!



    --
    W
    . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
    \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
    ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
     
    Bob Larter, Apr 1, 2009
    #18
    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. Rich
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    621
  2. Rowan Crowe
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    374
    Lionel
    Apr 8, 2004
  3. RichA
    Replies:
    41
    Views:
    2,334
    RichA
    Oct 14, 2006
  4. Larry R Harrison Jr

    D70 ISO 200 Noise vs EOS 300D ISO 100

    Larry R Harrison Jr, Jul 17, 2005, in forum: Digital Cameras
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    273
  5. Cynicor

    ISO noise vs. long exposure noise

    Cynicor, Aug 27, 2005, in forum: Digital Cameras
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    177
    Dirty Harry
    Aug 27, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page