Nikon D80/200 - Canon 30d

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by frederick, May 28, 2007.

  1. frederick

    newsmb Guest

    What are you talking about? The D200 actually preserves *more* detail,
    even at higher ISO's. With any decent NR software you should be able
    to get results that are at least as good. While we're on the subject,
    you're arguing out of both sides of your mouth. On the one hand the
    resolution edge enjoyed by the Nikon is "irrelevant", but the alleged
    extra noise by the Nikon at high ISOs -- which is not noticeable in
    anything other than large prints and 100% crops, is easily fixable in
    software, and is entirely a function of heavier in-camera NR by Canon
    -- is a huge deal to you. Please make up your mind.

    Anyway, if you want a full explanation see:

    http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/dslr-comparison/index.htm

    The truth is that cameras with similar-sized sensors and similar pixel
    counts will generate about the same level of sensor noise.

    The "exceptions" are APS-format lenses and a very small number of low-
    volume specialty lenses, which combined account for less than 1% of
    Nikon AI F-mount lenses out there. My Tamron SP 90mm macro that I
    bought back in 1989 works perfectly well. Not having to buy a new one
    saved me $500, thank you.
    Yes, but that means having to carry one around with you.

    You mean the banding issue that affected only a very small number of
    cameras early in the D200 production run? That only showed up in
    severely overexposed images? That Nikon fixed quickly and free of
    charge? That banding issue?

    The D200 lets you choose. Go into Shooting Menu -> JPEG Compression.

    Anyway, I am not here to trash Canon or to say that the D200 is
    perfect. I've already said the cameras are very similar. I'd much
    rather be out shooting photos.
     
    newsmb, Jun 2, 2007
    #21
    1. Advertisements

  2. The M1 cannot: not enough ground pressure. Anyway, an M1
    doesn't do too well with hit-and-run camera destruction: it's
    a bit too visible among the other cars on the road.
    But take a cheap one, because it'll not degrade the image,
    but protect the lens.

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Jun 3, 2007
    #22
    1. Advertisements

  3. You claim: D200 images + (Noise Ninja or NeatImage) are as
    good or better than 30D images. Right?
    Does it? Oh, you mean these 10.5023% extra pixels in each
    dimension?
    Which is why dpreview writes:
    | The biggest difference from ISO 800 upwards is the effect Nikon's
    | noise reduction has on detail, becoming gradually more blurred as
    | sensitivity increases, in this respect Canon has it.
    and
    | With noise reduction turned off the D200 image exhibits more
    | detail and with only a slight increase in noticeable noise, at ISO
    | 3200 however noise dominates the image.
    http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond200/page21.asp
    You are right, you _should_. However, there also _should_ be
    no poverty and there _should_ be no wars.

    Again you compare "D200 + NR-software" against "30D", where you
    _should_ compare "D200" versus "30D" (where you loose) and you
    _should_ compare "D200 + NR-software" with "30D + NR-software",
    where, again, you'll loose, especially at high ISO values.
    Which is only fair, seeing you compare apples and oranges.
    You cite Rockwell, you _really_ should read him:
    http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/mpmyth.htm

    Yes, 8 to the alleged 10 MPix is completely irrelevant.
    And if your alleged extra 10.5023% pixels are completely drowned in
    noise or smoothed away by denoising --- as they are with ISO 3200
    on the D200, they are not only irrelevant but not even measurably
    'better' in any way you care to name.
    Oh, the noise is a fact.
    Unlike the alleged 10 MPix, which are not even visible then
    as an improvement ...
    Show me the alleged software that _fixes_ that, instead of
    simply ameliorating the worst damage done by noise, like
    Noise Ninja or NeatImage do.

    Free hint: You can try to guess information that is not there,
    but you cannot divine it. Once the noise is indistinguable from
    the data, you cannot get more data. And the more the noise hides
    the data, the more information you loose. You can average (loose
    information density) or try and substract the guestimated noise
    (loose information quality) or go somewhere inbetween.
    Is it?
    It couldn't be that Canon uses a CMOS sensor --- which is a
    completely different technique to the CCD sensor of the D200 ---
    and it couldn't be that a completely different technique just
    _might_ have a different type and strength of noise!

    After all, you are claiming that the input is essentially the same.

    Funny, though, that the D200 _with_ it's NR on, blurs the image much
    more than Canon, to get the same amount of noise (i.e. Nikon has a
    heavier in-camera NR). Next funny thing: with Nikons NR
    mostly turned off (as much as the camera allows) at ISO 3200
    it has _much_ more noise than Canon and the noise itself
    overshadows the signal.
    Your claims are wrong, thus all your logic based on it is
    worthless. Hence you believe I cannot make up my mind, when
    in fact, there is no problem at all.

    Oh, you poor selective reader.
    "Resolution and noise have almost nothing to do with real
    image quality". Didn't even read the first word.
    Resolution. That alleged 10 MPix, you know?
    In other words, if you grab J. Random Lens, it might work, or
    might not work. If you want a special lens, it's very much
    hit and miss.

    If I wanted that, I'd buy Sigma lenses, thank you very much.
    So? Any old FD macro will work very well as a macro on an
    EOS camera.
    If you want red eyes, use inbuilt flash.

    How many centimeters does that AF assist lamp work?
    Of course that banding issue. The one that Nikon claims to
    have fixed, although it didn't only show up in high key
    photograpy (you know, high key, something professionals do).
    Oh, they _finally_ managed to do the right thing?
    Oh, I just didn't like the "the D200 is soooo professssional and
    soooo much better than the 30D, which is a 'consumer camera',
    having scene modes" and all that.

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Jun 3, 2007
    #23
  4. frederick

    ASAAR Guest

    Read (or think) a bit more. This has nothing to do with pressure.
    It's not about using weight to crush. It's about using the weight
    to use the ground's abrasive surface to grind the camera. The tank
    has the ability to pivot one of its treads about a point (assuming a
    good, experienced driver). Cars don't do the pivot dance - they
    just keep rolling (they just keep rollin'), they just keep rolling,
    aloooong.
     
    ASAAR, Jun 4, 2007
    #24
  5. frederick

    newsmb Guest

    The dpreview guys are so far out to lunch, especially when it comes
    to noise, that their opinions don't matter to me one iota.


    The CCD vs. CMOS argument does not exactly work in your favour.

    See:

    http://www.shortcourses.com/how/sensors/sensors.htm
    http://www.dalsa.com/markets/ccd_vs_cmos.asp
    http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/question362.htm
    http://www.dalsa.com/shared/content/Photonics_Spectra_CCDvsCMOS_Litwiller.pdf


    I agree with Rockwell 100% on this issue. The D200's slightly higher
    resolving power is not particularly meaningful in real-world
    photography. You're the one who's engaging in pixel-peeping here, not
    I. I was merely pointing out that you can't have it both ways. If
    you're going to say that resolution is "irrelevant" then you should
    apply the same logic to noise.

    Once more from the top. THE VAST MAJORITY of AI series and later F-
    mount lenses WILL WORK. Nikon is pretty good about documenting which
    ones will not. There is nothing random about it.

    Except mine works for general photography with aperture-priority, 2D
    matrix metering and TTL flash all working perfectly.

    I did a quick google search of "D200 banding" and could find zero
    evidence that it continues to be a problem, or that it was ever at all
    a serious issue.


    I did not write that.
     
    newsmb, Jun 5, 2007
    #25
  6. frederick

    frederick Guest


    Perhaps there is someone from Nikon reading these forums.
    Since posting this, the same reputable dealer (not grey market) is
    offering the D200 body for about US$150 less than when I posted this,
    and throws in a ~$200 Mb200 battery pack at no cost.
     
    frederick, Jun 5, 2007
    #26
  7. So how about D200 versus 30D WITHOUT (Noise Ninja or NeatImage)?

    And -- even more interesting --- D200 images + (Noise Ninja or
    NeatImage) versus 30D + (Noise Ninja or NeatImage)?

    After all, comparing apples and apples or oranges and oranges is
    a good idea.
    Ah.
    So what makes your oppinions more valuable than dpreview's
    oppinions? After all, dpreview has been doing that stuff for
    years and years with well over a hundred cameras. (Which doesn't
    make them right, but at least increases the chance they know what
    they talk about.)
    What are your references?
    Very nice.
    You have now conclusively proven that Canons CMOS-sensors can
    not exist. You now owe me a new camera.

    If we, instead of theoretical oppinions, go and look at the
    reality, you might find that Canons CMOS sensors have mostly
    colour noise, while Nikons CCDs produce luminance noise ...
    That's because you don't understand.
    Resolution will not be a factor if you print or view
    downscaled images.
    Noise _can_ and _will_ be an issue at the extreme edges of
    camera capabilites, even in smaller images and/or in print.

    Look for example here:
    http://weissel.smugmug.com/photos/160107906-728x728.jpg
    and you can see the noise despite Noise Ninja and downsizing by
    5:1 (i.e. 25 original pixel give one output pixel).
    1:1 extract of the furnance here:
    http://weissel.smugmug.com/photos/160106676-L.jpg
    1:1 extract of the furnance/tent/bellows meeting here:
    http://weissel.smugmug.com/photos/160107212-L.jpg

    Feel free to guess the (effective) ISO.
    Ah, yes, Nikon, where you don't get matrix metering when the
    camera doesn't know how fast the lens is ...

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Jun 6, 2007
    #27
  8. Actually colour and monochromatic noise have the same source:
    intensity variations between different sites. The reason we end up
    with colour variations is because we use bayer sensors. There is no
    fundamental distinction between the two types.
     
    achilleaslazarides, Jun 6, 2007
    #28
  9. frederick

    Paul Furman Guest

    6400 on a Canon 20D based on the banding. The exif says 3200 & confirms
    it's a 20D.
    That's why you get a D200.
    Here's an ISO 1600 shot from my D200 Metering perfectly with a 20 year
    old lens:
    http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=Misc/photography/iso1600
     
    Paul Furman, Jun 6, 2007
    #29
  10. frederick

    newsmb Guest


    Do whatever you will. I DON'T CARE. None of this makes one iota of
    difference in real photography.

    Apparently, a basic understanding of the state of sensor technology.


    I used to host the now-defunct www.digital-sucks.com

    What are yours?

    I have pointed to some major electronics websites that cast serious
    doubt on your contention that the Canon has a less-noisy sensor. given
    that as a rule CMOS sensors are *more* noisy than CCDs.

    I have also pointed to Ken Rockwell's tests, which pretty much confirm
    that any differnces in noise are attributable to stronger aliasing by
    the Canon.

    I have nothing further to say on the subject.
     
    newsmb, Jun 7, 2007
    #30
  11. True enough, since no Foveon sensor is being used.
    Ah, but there is a difference if the noise in the resulting
    image is stronger in the luminance domain (L of LAB) or in the
    chrominance domain (A and B of LAB). The noise even *looks*
    different. (And film grain again looks different, as well.)

    I cannot prove that different sensor characteristics cause that,
    but I can show that the images produced by said cameras show
    these different types of noise.

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Jun 8, 2007
    #31
  12. OK, but I think it's obvious that "difference" in my post means
    "difference in origin", while in your post it means "difference in
    appearance". I do not think you did not realize that.
    Well, as I said, there really is no difference in origin. As I already
    said, the reason the resulting images are different is the demosaicing
    process, as far as I can tell. Did you actually try comparing how
    images from nikon and canon cameras look if converted using a
    processor that treats images from different cameras in a similar way
    (eg dcraw)?

    For that matter, can you even think of a plausible explanation of how
    the origin of colour noise differs from that of luminance noise? If
    not, why not just say "oh I see, I didn't know"? What's the problem?
     
    achilleaslazarides, Jun 8, 2007
    #32
  13. I see. Would you care to define "real photography"?

    Or is that your way of saying "you were right, but I won't
    admit it"?
    You have a basic understanding?

    Then you will surely be able to follow the factual data given
    below to their conclusions.

    You surely have also read and understood
    http://www.canon.co.jp/Imaging/cmos/technology-e/noise_reduction.html
    and friends then.
    Used to host? As in "provide the internet infrastructure for"?
    Or did you provide content? If so, what type of content?

    And when would that site have existed?
    I happen to have 2 eyes that happen to function well enough to
    provide my working brain with facts. I also happen to use
    digital camera on quite insane effective ISO settings.
    Don't be so meek. If I take everything these websites say as
    a fact (and ignore that they even disagree among themselves in
    parts), then Canons cameras cannot have a CMOS sensor.
    Given the fact that they produce the low amount of noise they do.

    At this point I have 2 choices:
    a) believe the experiments, in spite of the theory --- this is
    what scientist do, though they might take a very close look
    at the experiments to check their validity.
    b) believe the theory, in spite of the experiments --- this is a
    popular choice of fanatics and extremists and creationists
    everywhere, though even the Roman Catholic Church by now
    agrees that Gallileos theses were not heretical and all that.

    Well, then ...
    .... let's try what happens if I present facts (which
    obviously have zero influence on "real photography", as "real
    photography" can even be done with a pinhole camera and ISO 5
    chemical film, which is much worse than any DSLR can manage.)

    D200:
    ISO Gain Read Noise
    (electron/ (electrons)
    12-bit DN)
    100 7.98 10.0
    200 4.0 8.1
    400 2.0 7.7
    800 1.0 7.4
    1600 0.5 7.4

    Full Well capacity at ISO100: 32,680 electrons
    Source:
    http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/evaluation-nikon-d200/index.html
    That means:
    ISO 100 200 400 800 1600
    RN in DN 1.25 2.03 3.85 7.4 14.8
    (DN is the Data Number, the value between 0 and 4095, the camera
    reports. RN in e- divided by gain is thus RN in DN.)
    That site attests the D200 to be operating at "near perfect levels"
    for the sensor, and "for high signals, noise is dominated by
    photon statistics." (and hence the well capacity), but the read
    noise should be lower.

    The data also indicates that the maximum usable ISO for RAW is 800,
    since at 1600 you are just multiplying the signal by 2 (compared to
    800) and thus cutting away a full stop for highlights. (Of course,
    if you want/need in-camera JPEGs, that's a different story.)


    The 20D has the following gains and read noises:
    ISO Gain Read Noise
    100 12.4 25.3
    200 6.2 13.5
    400 3.1 7.5
    800 1.5 4.8
    1600 0.8 3.6
    3200 0.4 (none given)

    Full Well capacity @ ISO100: 51,400
    Source:
    http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/digital.signal.to.noise/
    That means:
    ISO 100 200 400 800 1600
    D200 RN in DN 1.25 2.03 3.85 7.4 14.8
    20D RN in DN 2.04 2.18 2.42 3.2 4.5

    Advantage D200 at ISO 100 and 200.
    Advantage 20D at ISO 400, 800 and especially 1600.

    Additionally, the data shows that, as with ISO 1600 on the D200,
    ISO 3200 on the 20D is contraindicated for RAW.

    Looking, however, at the full well capacity, we see a slight
    advantage for the 20D. Noise at bright parts is photon noise.
    Phothon noise is the square root of the photons collected.

    Hence (at ISO 100) D200 20D
    Full Well (electrons): 32,680 51,400
    Noise (electrons): 181 227
    Noise (DN) : 22.7 18.3
    Signal/Noise: 180.5 226.4

    Advantage 20D: 25% better signal/noise ratio.

    Let's assume the sensors are 100% linear (the D200 is not in
    the last 10%, but that's not a real problem). Let's look at
    the noise for ISO 100-1600 over 10 stops of light difference.
    (Sources:
    http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/evaluation-nikon-d200/index.html
    http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/digital.signal.to.noise/
    (full well for D20 estimated to be half for each ISO step)
    Calculate as follows:
    - Take the full well value for 0 stops
    - halve the value for every stop below 0
    - take the photon noise as SQRT of the sensor
    - add the read noise (for the ISO setting) to the
    photon noise, for the total noise.
    - divide the total noise through the electrons in
    the sensor well.
    (- round to 2 digits after the decimal point for
    displaying)
    )

    Stops below full sensor
    ISO 0 -1 -2 -3 -4 -5
    100 200D 173.13 120.32 83.06 56.82 38.41 25.57
    D20 203.96 138.46 92.67 60.93 39.18 24.57

    200 200D 121.88 84.13 57.55 38.90 25.89 16.91
    D20 147.86 101.29 68.60 45.77 29.98 19.19

    400 200D 84.44 57.85 39.18 26.14 17.11 10.94
    D20 106.32 73.30 50.05 33.76 22.41 14.57

    800 200D 58.09 39.40 26.33 17.28 11.08 6.91
    D20 75.63 52.25 35.79 24.23 16.15 10.56

    1600 200D 39.45 26.38 17.32 11.11 6.95 4.20
    D20 53.29 36.77 25.14 16.97 11.27 7.35

    ISO -6 -7 -8 -9 -10
    100 200D 16.69 10.65 6.60 3.96 2.29
    D20 14.97 8.85 5.07 2.83 1.54

    200 200D 10.79 6.70 4.02 2.33 1.32
    D20 11.96 7.24 4.26 2.43 1.35

    400 200D 6.81 4.12 2.40 1.37 0.76
    D20 9.24 5.71 3.43 2.00 1.09

    800 200D 4.20 2.45 1.40 0.78 0.43
    D20 6.76 4.21 2.55 1.45 0.83

    1600 200D 2.45 1.40 0.78 0.43 0.23
    D20 4.69 2.91 1.70 0.99 0.56

    As you can see, even the D20 out-performs the 200D in signal
    to noise in almost every situation, except at ISO 100 in
    darker image areas (-5 stops below full), and they are about
    even at very dark areas (-8 stops below full) at ISO 200.

    *If* we *assume* a head room of 2 stops, then -5 stops is -3
    stops below "medium gray" (i.e. in the shadows), and -8 stops
    is -6 stops below "medium gray" (deep deep shadows).

    Also have a look at
    http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedet...e.summary/low-light-sensitivity-factor-v1.gif
    (Figure 7 of
    http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/digital.sensor.performance.summary/
    ), which "describes the camera performance in shadows or
    darkest parts of an image at high ISO.". The D20 is about
    as good as the 10D (which has larger sensor sites), but a
    factor 3(!) below the 20D. Even the D50 and D70 outperform
    the D200 there, by almost 100% and 70%, respectively.

    Well, if you look above, the only data used is read noise and
    sensor well capacity --- none of which have anything to do
    with aliasing, lenses, blurring, etc.

    That nicely deconstructs that theory.

    Oh, regarding aliasing, look at
    http://astrosurf.com/buil/d70v10d/eval
    and look for MODE 1 and MODE 3 for what Nikon secretly does to
    RAW files ...
    I have to add that you should also have al look at the 20Da,
    which has even less read noise behaviour than the 20D ... and
    basically the same sensor.

    -Wolfgang

    --
    In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know that's a really
    good argument; my position is mistaken,' and then they actually change
    their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really
    do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are
    human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot
    recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion.
    -- Carl Sagan, 1987 CSICOP keynote address
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Jun 8, 2007
    #33
  14. frederick

    newsmb Guest

    newsmb, Jun 9, 2007
    #34
  15. I'd argue *I* am feeding a troll.

    Whenever I claim something, you ignore or diss it.
    When I show visual examples, the sources are out of their mind.
    When I ask you to compare apples to apples instead of apples to
    oranges, it doesn't matter in "real photography" --- ignoring
    my examples to the contrary.
    When I show you the numbers --- hard, cold facts, derived from
    physics and statistics --- you don't even try to understand
    that they are not measurements, but claim that nobody does have
    any idea how to do noise measurements and that the correct
    instruments "don't tell you anything more than your eyes do"
    (but do so consistently).

    Hello? You just rejected the visual approach!

    Yet your truths are simply based on you claiming them to be true.
    You simply _assert_ them to be true, you don't even offer shreds
    of proof. You do offer sources that disagree with each other,
    you do show links that disclaim facts that you just asserted.

    Of course I have no idea, otherwise your view of the world
    would be wrong, and we cannot have that, can we? CCDs always
    have to have lower noise than CMOS, and thus the D200 must
    have much less noise than the D30, no matter what the reality
    shows, the facts say, the physics proof.

    This is why you snipped away everything else, isn't it?
    You completely missed the fact that that were not noise
    measurements.
    Photon noise is a fact (and I won't regurgitate physics and
    statistics for you, go learn that yourself), well capacity is
    a fact, the resulting noise versus signal is a fact, just like
    gravity.

    You could argue that the read noise or full well capacity were
    mis-measured, which you didn't ... probably for good reason.

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Jun 9, 2007
    #35
  16. frederick

    newsmb Guest

    You'd lose. Again.



    Because you're totally and completely wrong. And I don't have nearly
    as much spare time as you seem to, and I'd rather spend what little I
    have shooting photos. OK?

    I pointed to several *major* electronics sites that state
    unequivocally that CMOS sensors generate *more* noise than CCDs, not
    less.

    I also pointed to Ken Rockwell's site, which had pretty convincing
    tests that demonstrated that differences in noise between the two
    cameras is negligible. There is also an informative and 100% accurate
    explanation of why measuring noise levels quantitatively is extremely
    complicated, and that the software and equipment required to do it
    properly do not even exist.

    You on the other hand have pointed to Canon's marketing page and to
    dpreview -- which basically just regurgitates Canon's marketing
    hyperbole, uses rather dubious methodology, and grossly overstates the
    differences in the images.

    The only other "proof" you have is an obscure astronomy site, whose
    results don't mean what you think they do.


    Because it really doesn't matter. The fact that you're getting all
    pathological over it makes me question your understanding of
    photography. (You know, people used to have these same stupid
    arguments about grain in film, which is also extremely difficult to
    measure, and "THD" in stereo amplifiers).

    No, they're based on reliable, readily-available information that can
    easily be found by anyone who cares to look.

    YOU are going to explain physics and statistics? That should be good
    for a laugh.

    That's totally and comletely false. See above.


    Umm, that's not what the page explaining the methodology says.

    Basically, they take two images shot one right after the other, then
    use ImagesPlus to "subtract" the two images so that all you are left
    with is the noise from both images:

    "Click the subtract button and the subtracted image is created. The
    cross hair statistics tool will show the standard deviation, minimum
    and other statistics. Be sure the minimum is above zero. If not,
    increase the offset and click subtract again in the image math window.
    The standard deviation represents the noise in TWO images. The noise
    in one image is square root 2 less, so divide the standard deviation
    by root 2 (1.4142) and record that value for both images."

    See:

    http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/evaluation-1d2/


    These are simple tests they are using to determine theoretical
    limitations, and have little to do with what the human eye sees in
    real-world photographs. In addition, one of the advantages of CMOS is
    that you can apply NR circuitry onto the sensor itself, so that even
    the RAW files have NR applied to them. In fact there's nothing to stop
    the camera manufacturer from applying NR to RAW files from CCDs for
    that matter. Which is one of the reasons why noise measurements are
    largely meaningless.
     
    newsmb, Jun 9, 2007
    #36
  17. Of course! You, being a troll, cannot ever be wrong.

    I see. I'll start claiming you to be the world expert on
    camera noise then.
    .... that disagree among themselves, but let's ignore that ...
    And from that, in your world, follows that even a full frame CMOS
    sensor with large pixel sizes, well made, will have more noise
    than an el cheapo Point&Shoot camera with a tiny teeny-weeny CCD
    chip and far too many megapixels squeezed upon it.

    In other words, because the average woman is smaller and not as
    strong as the average male, there cannot be *any* woman stronger
    and larger than *any* man.


    Obviously, both conclusions are completely wrong, and irrelevant
    to boot --- we are not talking about CMOS and CCD sensors as such,
    we are talking about a *specific* CMOS sensor and a *specific*
    CCD sensor. I would be delighted if you were able to grasp that
    some day.


    So your links are very nice, but not relevant.
    Your point was:
    | If you run the D200 image (especially the RAW file) through Noise
    | Ninja or NeatImage you can get results at least as good as what the
    | 30D produces.
    (Message-ID: <>)

    That implies one of two things:
    a) (Noise Ninja or NeatImage) are not improving the results and
    the D200 images are already as good as the 30D images.
    b) The images of the D200 are inferior in noise to the 30D images,
    by a margin not larger than what (Noise Ninja or NeatImage)
    can correct.
    True?

    And I cannot see you mention (Noise Ninja or NeatImage) unless
    they do have an effect on the perceived noise, so "a)" is out.
    True?

    Now you claim the difference is negligible.
    True?

    So why do you bother at all with (Noise Ninja or NeatImage)?
    Why do you fear comparing the D200 and the 30D, when _both_
    use noise supression software --- or when _both_ do not?
    Wrong. There is a claim by Ken Rockwell that the instruments
    do not tell you _anything_ your eye won't see anyway; the
    only reason for the instruments is repeatability.
    So what was Ken(s company) trying to sell? Hot air?
    After all, they ought to know their products better than
    _you_ do.
    Unproven claim.
    Ken told us on his pages that the best instruments cannot tell
    you more than your eye, and I have eyes (and a calibrated monitor)
    and can see the images just fine, thank you very much.

    And so can you, otherwise your D200 + (NN or NI) claim would
    be you talking out of your hindside.
    I don't need them to understate or overstate the differences,
    I have my own eyes.
    Clarkvision is an "obscure astronomy site"? HUH! Try auditioning
    as a clown, some day. Especially "astronomy" should give gales
    of laughter.
    Well, if _you_ know so much, why don't you go and show us
    what they mean?
    And because it really doesn't matter, you state:
    | If you run the D200 image (especially the RAW file) through Noise
    | Ninja or NeatImage you can get results at least as good as what the
    | 30D produces.
    You're the guy comparing apples and oranges, you're the guy who
    thinks generalities apply to every situation. I'd be honored
    if you would question my understanding of photography, it'd be
    a seal of approval. And since you know absolutely nothing
    about my photography, completely in character, too.
    I just go with Ken there. If it's only a few images I have to
    compare, I'll be perfectly happy to compare them visually.

    Please do show me the link where your claim:
    | If you run the D200 image (especially the RAW file) through Noise
    | Ninja or NeatImage you can get results at least as good as what the
    | 30D produces.
    1. I only studied that stuff for years, so what do I know?
    2. Try reading. It's really educating. I said I *won't*.
    While your would provoke gales of laughter, right?
    I have not yet found a single shred of proof for
    | If you run the D200 image (especially the RAW file) through Noise
    | Ninja or NeatImage you can get results at least as good as what the
    | 30D produces.
    (Message-ID: <>)
    You simply asserted that one.

    And may I remind you of your harping on the superior resolution
    of the D200 and then giving a link to Ken Rockwell ... the text
    starting with the claim that resolution does not matter?

    "Totally and completely false", indeed.
    You should read that page again, with open eyes.

    There is no visible noise measured. What is measured --- and
    checked against the mathematical model --- is the repetability
    of readouts (noise in the mathematical-statistical sense) and
    the maximum well size.
    True. But you already rejected the visual approach.

    If you had actually read my posts, you would know that Nikon
    does exactly that ... and still comes off worse. Now, what
    would that tell you?

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Jun 10, 2007
    #37
  18. frederick

    newsmb Guest

    This will be my absolute, hope-to-die last post on this topic and I
    will let people decide for themselves who the troll is. OK?

    The typical troll tactic is to continuously escalate the debate into
    something other than what is at issue through inflammatory straw man
    argumentation that prompts a less than amicable response. You have
    repeatedly attributed arguments to me which I have not made.

    I am sorry if my retorts seem glib and dismissive at times, but I lose
    my patience very quickly with people who put words in my mouth.
    No, from that I treat with a certain degree of scepticism any claims
    from a manufaturer that its CMOS sensor has less noise than a CCD
    sensor of a similar size and pixel density. It's not the same as
    saying it doesn't happen or it can't be done.

    Furthermore, that is a slippery slope tactic on your part - another
    variation of the straw man fallacy. You are attributing a position to
    me more extreme than the one I am arguing . Nowhere did I write what
    you allege above or anything like it.

    See above.
    Let's not rewrite history. You are arguing that the Canon CMOS sensor
    itself is less noisy, and I am arguing that the differences between
    the images of the two cameras is (1) entirely attributable to stronger
    NR by the Canon and (2) insignificant in real-world photography. I
    pointed to the electronics pages as grounds for my scepticism over
    your claim.
    Yes. Links that explain the technology and the relative strengths and
    weakness of each type of sensor are "irrelevant".
    More or less. And admittedly this is a qualitative judgement on my
    part based on what I have been able to do with Noise Ninja and ISO1600
    shots from my D200.

    Here is a photo I took last week.

    http://gallery.plcom.net/public/DSC_1450.jpg?width=800

    It took about 5 minutes with Noise Ninja and Bibble Pro to filter out
    the noise from the RAW file -- which wasn't too terrible in the
    original JPEG I may add. And don't even bother with the 100% crops;
    the server compresses the jpegs and I really don't care if anyone
    thinks it's "soft" or "noisy".

    And yes, that is my own gallery on my own server (Apache::Gallery is
    way kewl, btw). I do prefer taking photos to these ridiculous
    flamewars. :)
    Yes. I like to remove noise sometimes, I admit. But some people prefer
    to preserve detail. To each his own.
    Like I said. I like to remove noise sometimes.
    I do not fear it. I pointed to Ken Rockwell's tests which do exactly
    that -- at least the no-NR bit.

    Beyond that I don't think it can be resolved scientifically by two
    adversaries over the Net.
    And they wouldn't be trying to sell anyone anything, would they?
    They don't exactly treat it with a critical eye.


    Well, then we have to agree to disagree here. You see big differences
    and I see very similar 100% crops that have no bearing on real-world
    photgraphy.

    Photographically, nothing.

    Beyond that, well, you got me there. I studied this stuff too, a
    *very* long time ago, but gave it up eventually. :)

    But is it not a measurement of the "statistical" read noise of the
    resulting images at various ISOs and not of the sensor itself?

    Anyway, feel free to insert your insult below; I earned it in this
    case. :D

    No, I am treating your claims with scepticism (as you are with mine)
    and you are attributing to me generalities I am not making.

    I don't care if you believe me.
    I'm not harping on the resolution thing; you are once again putting
    words in my mouth. I agreed a couple of posts ago it didn't matter in
    real world photography.

    I just found it positively rich the way you say it's irrelevant, then
    expend so much time and energy gazing at 100% crops of ISO3200 test
    images looking for noise.

    I understand that.
    Once, again, I did no such thing.
    Oh, you mean the dpreview test where the Nikon images are underexposed
    by about half a stop relative to the Canon's? That in itself would
    skew the results, wouldn't it? Not to single out dpreview, but that's
    the problem with these comparisons in general. There are enough subtle
    differences in the way the cameras handle exposure, contrast and
    colour rendition -- as well as a different approach towards noise
    reduction -- that it is rarely a simple matter of "better" or "worse".
    And zooming in necessarily means that you don't judge how the camera
    renders the entire image as a whole, which in the end is the only
    thing that really matters (at least to me). It's the classic case of
    not seeing the forest for the trees.

    This is it for me. This thread is completely counterproductive. I hate
    these "my-gear-is-better-than-your-gear" flamewars and purposely avoid
    the online forums for this exact reason. I think all the stuff out
    there is great. Canon, Nikon, Pentax, Olympus, Panasonic, Sony and the
    others. People should just find one they like and not worry about any
    of this crap we're discussing.

    And I maintain that noise IS largely meaningless. In the film world
    photographers still use Kodak's Tri-X decades after much sharper,
    finer-grained film came along. Why? Because black and white
    photographers are infinitely more concerned with contrast, tonal range
    and half-tone separation than they are with grain and resolution. The
    grain was part of the image and no one worried about it. And now
    digital comes along and people go berzerko over noise, which is much
    less obtrusive than grain ever was. Go figure.
     
    newsmb, Jun 11, 2007
    #38
  19. Fine with me.
    I have? Where?
    I can live with that. However, in that case I'll take your links
    as "I have some doubts", not as "proof that it cannot be", the
    latter being what I understood you to indicate with these links.
    That, however, may well have been a misunderstanding on my part.
    Reductio ad absurdum is the phrase you were looking for. I take
    (what I understand to be) your position and show that the logical
    conclusion of that position is obviously wrong.
    I am arguing that the 20D and 30D sensor is less noisy than
    the D200 sensor --- not "the Canon CMOS sensor". There is no
    single "Canon CMOS sensor".
    Re (1): I understand that Canon RAW files have no NR beyond the
    scope of a single pixel (i.e. no blurring or averaging,
    though dark frame substraction is applied if available)
    According to
    http://www.astrosurf.com/buil/d70v10d/eval.htm
    Nikon, at least on the D70, does run a median filter,
    i.e. a multi-pixel averaging, over the RAW file.

    That being said, I doubt that Canon does a stronger
    NR (eating resolution), especially when we come to RAW.


    Secondly, have another look at
    http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos30d/page20.asp
    . Ignore the text, just look at the images (not the
    black or grey stripes), especially at
    http://a.img-dpreview.com/reviews/CanonEOS30D/Samples/ISO/d200_iso0100_crop.jpg
    versus
    http://a.img-dpreview.com/reviews/CanonEOS30D/Samples/ISO/d200_iso0800_crop.jpg
    (Nikon D200 at 100 and 800 ISO). You'll see that at
    800 ISO the Nikon _does_ smoothing (look at the hair,
    and the right part of the crown).

    Now compare
    http://a.img-dpreview.com/reviews/CanonEOS30D/Samples/ISO/30d_iso0100_crop.jpg
    versus
    http://a.img-dpreview.com/reviews/CanonEOS30D/Samples/ISO/30d_iso0800_crop.jpg
    versus
    http://a.img-dpreview.com/reviews/CanonEOS30D/Samples/ISO/30d_iso1600_crop.jpg
    (Canon 30D at ISO 100, 800 and 1600). I see _very_ light
    NR at 800, and comparable (to D200 @ ISO800) NR at 1600.

    Again, I _doubt_ that Canon's 30D uses a stronger
    multi-pixel (blurring/detail hurting) NR than the D200,
    I am inclined to believe the opposite is true: the D200
    uses NR earlier, and stronger. (Of course, if you stay in
    the ISO 100-400 range, both cameras should be excellent.)

    Comparing
    http://a.img-dpreview.com/reviews/CanonEOS30D/Samples/ISO/d200_iso3200_crop.jpg
    and http://a.img-dpreview.com/reviews/CanonEOS30D/Samples/ISO/30d_iso3200_crop.jpg
    my eyes tell me that the D200 image is splotchy and
    resolves less (compare the hair, for example) than
    the 30D image at ISO 3200.

    So, no, I don't think that it's a case of Canon simply
    blurring the image more or things like that.

    Re (2): In almost all cases, yes. However, once you have to
    push images several stops --- and I gave an example
    --- noise can very obvious, and significant.
    You did, thoough I understood them as "no, and here is why".
    When it comes to comparing a given, specific sensor of one type
    to a specific sensor of another type, yes, then general relative
    strenghts and weaknesses are irrelevant. If you are to compare,
    um, Xena with Dr. Watson, I know who'd be tying whom into knots,
    even if women are supposedly weaker and all that.

    If we were to construct a new sensor, that would be different.
    I can see some JPEG artifacts (e.g. around the (c)-text and
    the left side of the face), but no noise as noise.

    Let me counter with
    http://weissel.smugmug.com/photos/160107906/800x800.jpg
    which is a 20D shot at effectively ISO 32.000(!).

    Of course noone expects them to point out all the drawbacks
    while hiding the good sides, but they do provide a couple of
    interesting factlets on how they "cheat" the CMOS noise.
    And they handle Nikon and the rest of the world completely
    critical?
    That probably depends entirely on what you define as "real word
    photography". On 4x6", as one extreme example, you certainly
    won't see noise, on large prints (20x30" and above), especially
    images with very high detail, inviting you to look at it closely
    .... there differences may become quite important.
    Really!
    Ignoring for a moment that you, too, care about noise (using
    NoiseNinja, which uses e.g. 100% crops of supposedly identical
    colour (or raw pixels, in Bibble) like that to understand the noise
    it combats), astrophotography was a valid part of photography,
    last *I* looked.
    Huh?
    Do you say that not just the electron-collecting sensor but
    also the read-out circuits and amplifiers and A/D converters
    are measured?

    In that case, yes, of course, as they are the ones producing the
    RAW data ... someone has to do the electron counting, after all.


    It's not a question of belief, this is not religion.
    You are missing a zero there.
    If Nikon cameras underexpose, it would have something to do with
    their metering --- after all, the camera should be the one to
    know how to meter for itself.

    On the other hand, Canon's ISO is 1/3rd of a stop low, so the
    difference is (or would be) 1/6th of a stop, which doesn't matter
    in photography.
    Only if you compare naked sensor to naked sensor, instead of
    camera to camera.
    True. But testing cameras means that *the camera* gets to
    decide how to expose and handle contrast and so on. If the
    camera can't hack it, too bad for the camera.
    You are aware that dpreview offers these type of shots as well.
    Of course.
    I disagree.

    Of course, any decent DSLR will not have 'real' noise problems
    in every day photography, even with ISO 400 and 800.

    But the run-of-the-mill (ultra)compact camera with their tiny
    sensor and too many megapixels crowded on it ... that camera either
    gets very noisy, especially past ISO 200, or uses an ungodly NR,
    rendering skin like plastics.
    .... grainyness is part of the image. It also has a different
    "taste" compared to digital noise. That may be an aquired taste
    (of our society in general), though, which may change over the
    years and decades.
    Film grain does happen in mid-ranges, not near pure black or
    pure white. Digital grain is in the shadows. It is (perceived
    to be) much uglier than the "natural" grain of film.

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Jun 11, 2007
    #39
  20. There are very few exceptions, and they're all rare lenses.

    EF is the current Canon lens system, so of course they all work; but
    Canon cut their entire base off at the knees when they brought it out.
    I'm using Nikon lenses that I've owned since before there *was* an EF
    lens system on my D200, and they work fine.
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Jun 28, 2007
    #40
    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.