D80 noise versus Rebel XTi noise at 1600 ISO

Discussion in 'Digital SLR' started by RichA, Oct 12, 2006.

  1. RichA

    RichA Guest

    RichA, Oct 12, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  2. RichA

    frederick Guest

    frederick, Oct 12, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  3. RichA

    RichA Guest

    Interesting, certainly not what I saw. I wonder if those test charts
    are RAW?
    Another thing, skin is definitely Nikon's high ISO enemy. The kind of
    noise it has at high ISO is brutal on skin tones that are underexposed,
    compared to the Canon.
    RichA, Oct 12, 2006
  4. RichA

    Bill Guest

    Conclusions? Rich didn't have any conclusions, nor any comparative
    data, nor any equalized testing criteria, and the crops could be from
    anything regardless of his claims (since he is known for providing
    false data and still has false images and claims on his site).

    As usual, Rich is just being a troll and tossing out crap to get
    people to discuss things so he can sit back and watch the antics. This
    is known as being a troll or an instigator. I really don't understand
    why people still respond to the twit.

    And anyone who has read the numerous reviews of the Nikon D80 and
    Canon XTi already know Rich is not adding anything what-so-ever and
    his crops are contrary to what respected sites have already concluded,
    to wit I offer this quote from DPreview in their ISO conclusions:


    "At ISO 1600 the D80's gray patch looks the cleanest, followed by the
    EOS 400D and DSLR-A100."
    Bill, Oct 12, 2006
  5. RichA

    frederick Guest

    There is bugger all difference between any of the 10mp aps-c dslrs.
    Without NR they're all noisier than the 6 and 8mp cameras. The canon is
    the only one with a different sensor - yet there seems much more
    difference between a D80 and an a100. It all looks like a test of NR
    and/or demosaicing algorithms in-camera or out of camera rather than
    sensor noise, so it's only perhaps of interest to those few who would
    shoot jpeg at high iso and use in camera NR rather than shoot raw and
    pp. If you're fussy enough to bother comparing ex-camera jpegs with
    such a fine-toothed comb, then you should probably be shooting raw anyway.
    frederick, Oct 12, 2006
  6. RichA

    RichA Guest

    B.S. Which images? Name them, or slink off like the last one who said
    this and was called on it.
    All I did was shoot pictures under real-world conditions. If you
    like, I can send you about
    six JPEG images from both cameras, including Nikon RAWs. Would you
    like them?
    What does "cleanest" mean, exactly?
    RichA, Oct 12, 2006
  7. RichA

    THO Guest

    THO, Oct 12, 2006
  8. RichA

    RichA Guest

    A few, at least. Noise is always front and centre in discussions about
    RichA, Oct 12, 2006
  9. That's not what I see. I see the D80 image has been averaged the most
    to reduce noise. Look at the detail in the hair and crown.
    Not even close, yet they should be. The D80 ISO 100 image shows
    more detail, and as ISO goes up, that detail goes away.
    Not in the Sonly or Canon. A different raw converter would
    show different results. So what we are seeing is not true
    sensor performance, but raw converter averaging.

    Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark), Oct 12, 2006
  10. RichA

    RichA Guest

    RichA, Oct 12, 2006
  11. RichA

    Bill Guest

    I agree there is less detail, and sharpness is a point of contention
    in other shots.

    But the question is noise at 1600 using the default settings, and in
    that regard the Nikon is equal to or better than the Canon.

    It's a very minor point though as both are very good and Nikon has
    improved the high ISO performance to similar levels of the Canon
    models. Canon doesn't really have the big edge in high ISO they once
    had, which I think is a good thing for everyone involved.

    Megapixel counts and ISO performance is the same, which may explain
    their sudden jump into other features like a sensor cleaner, and dust
    reference imaging in order to stay ahead of the competition in the
    "features war".
    Bill, Oct 12, 2006
  12. RichA

    Bill Guest

    Dang it...how many user IDs do you have?
    Slink off? I don't think so.

    Perhaps you think people are not familiar with Google Groups and the
    archiving of newsgroup posts?

    I posted here about your fake images in this thread:


    You responded with a line of bull and then I asked you to explain the
    pixel discrepency among other things in this thread:


    Please note that you NEVER RESPONDED to my inquiries.

    By the way I don't have the default option of not archiving this post,
    so everyone will see it through Google just like the one above.

    Moving along to your current images:

    PART I:
    Canon 30D at 1600 ISO.jpg

    It's not from a 30D (pixel size is proof), it's not 1600 ISO (not
    enough grain), there is no exit to back it up, and based on my own use
    of a 17-40 which I own, it looks like the FOV angle is not from a
    17-40 as you claimed. More likely a 24mm or 28mm lense.

    PS - I saw someone else asking about the 30D pixel size in a comment
    on your site a few days ago, but you removed their comment.
    Why is that?

    PART II:
    Rebel XTi 1600 ISO.jpg

    Where's the exif and original image so we can compare?

    Nikon D80 1600 ISO.jpg

    Where's the exif and original image so we can compare?

    Are these images real?
    How can we believe you?
    Yes I would like to see them, as we all would.

    Please post them on your website along side the others with full exif
    data so we can all compare them fairly.

    And no you're not getting my email address so you can send it off to
    spammers. I'm not as think as you dumb I am.

    Read the link I posted...it's all there for your learning pleasure.

    Or would you prefer to banter the definition of "cleanest" until you
    think it matches your own definition?

    Take your time thinking about a response...
    Bill, Oct 12, 2006
  13. RichA

    Bill Guest

    But not at 1600 ISO which is the subject of your original post. Don't
    try to change the rules or twist the argument away from what you
    originally started.

    I agree that the Canon is better at 400-800. But at 1600 the Nikon is
    better, and at 3200 the Canon isn't even in the running since it can't
    do 3200.
    Bill, Oct 12, 2006
  14. There is no point for iso 3200 on ANY current camera. The
    unity gain ISO is 1600 and below on all current DSLRs.
    Unity gain = the gain at which one A/D bit = 1 electron.
    There is no point in digitizing less than 1 electron
    (you can do that in post processing ;-).

    Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark), Oct 12, 2006
  15. I disagree. It is not that clear cut. One could smooth the
    canon image, for example, to reduce the detail to that
    of the nikon image, and the noise will be suppressed.

    Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark), Oct 12, 2006
  16. RichA

    Tom Ross Guest

    You should be able to shoot at a respectable ISO setting if you use
    the flash. It's that pop-up thingy on top of the camera.

    Or reshoot at ISO 400 using the same exposure settings, and let
    Photoshop correct the underexposed image. Duplicate the layer and
    change the Mode to Screen, and repeat as needed.

    (If this was a feeble attempt at a comparison, repeat the test. Only
    this time, make sure the focal length and exposure settings are the
    same. Also, post the ENTIRE image, not a crop.)


    Tom Ross, Oct 12, 2006
  17. RichA

    Bill Guest

    What if you turned up the sharpness to match the default Canon level
    or level-matched both cameras?

    Would that balance things out or would there still be less resolution
    (detail) in the Nikon image?
    Bill, Oct 12, 2006
  18. RichA

    Bill Guest

    What are you saying, that it wasn't fair?
    Bill, Oct 12, 2006
  19. Bill,
    A couple of things: 1) turning up the "sharpness" does not
    actually improve resolution. It increases accutance, edge
    contrast. 2) Turning up the "sharpness" would enhance the noise.

    I'm not trying to imply one is better than another, as I
    really can't tell. What we can tell is that the manufacturers
    are trying to hide the noise with smoothing of the images.
    It seems that all the manufacturers are doing it, even canon.
    It is a matter of degree. And it also depends on which
    raw converter one uses, and what the settings on the converter
    are. The same converter could behave differently on different
    camera's files. It's kind of a mess and evaluating tiff
    (the processed raw into tiff files) is not the
    way to really see what is happening at the sensor.

    Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark), Oct 12, 2006
  20. RichA

    cjcampbell Guest

    cjcampbell, Oct 12, 2006
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.