Professional Web Applications Themes

"Low-Noise ISO Limit" Data added to http://digitalslrinfo.com/ - Photography

I've added another column to the D-SLR specification table at http://digitalslrinfo.com/, The new column is "Low-Noise ISO Limit." Noise levels at higher ISO settings are often a key factor in the decision making process of which camera to purchase. No, I didn't test every one. I went out and read hundreds of reviews, and arrived at a consensus for each model. No real surpises. Fuji and Canon (except for the EOS-300D) lead the pack in terms of acceptablely low noise at higher ISO settings, with the Nikon D100 also doing well....

  1. #1

    Default "Low-Noise ISO Limit" Data added to http://digitalslrinfo.com/

    I've added another column to the D-SLR specification table at
    http://digitalslrinfo.com/, The new column is "Low-Noise ISO Limit." Noise
    levels at higher ISO settings are often a key factor in the decision making
    process of which camera to purchase.

    No, I didn't test every one. I went out and read hundreds of reviews, and
    arrived at a consensus for each model.

    No real surpises. Fuji and Canon (except for the EOS-300D) lead the pack in
    terms of acceptablely low noise at higher ISO settings, with the Nikon D100
    also doing well.


    Steven Guest

  2. #2

    Default Re: "Low-Noise ISO Limit" Data added to http://digitalslrinfo.com/

    Price (body only) would be helpful on the master chart. Hard to remember
    what all those model numbers are.


    Steven M. Scharf wrote: 
    paul Guest

  3. #3

    Default Re: "Low-Noise ISO Limit" Data added to http://digitalslrinfo.com/

    In place of the Market Segment column.

    paul wrote:
     [/ref]
    paul Guest

  4. #4

    Default Re: "Low-Noise ISO Limit" Data added to http://digitalslrinfo.com/

    In article <d1LRd.1112$news.atl.earthlink.net>,
    Steven M. Scharf <net> wrote: 

    It would be interesting to see how well the D100 would do nowadays. Most of
    the D100 reviews date from a time when it was a large fish in a small pool.
    I doubt it would far quite as well if re-tested to current review standards.
    John Guest

  5. #5

    Default Re: "Low-Noise ISO Limit" Data added to http://digitalslrinfo.com/

    In message <d1LRd.1112$news.atl.earthlink.net>,
    "Steven M. Scharf" <net> wrote:
     

    Why would the 300D be any different than the 10D, in this regard?
    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <komm> 
    JPS@no.komm Guest

  6. #6

    Default Re: "Low-Noise ISO Limit" Data added to http://digitalslrinfo.com/


    "paul" <net> wrote in message
    news:net... 

    I hesitated on this, because I don't want to have to constantly be checking
    prices, but your wish is my command, and it has been added. I didn't delete
    the market segment.


    Steven Guest

  7. #7

    Default Re: "Low-Noise ISO Limit" Data added to http://digitalslrinfo.com/


    "Steven M. Scharf" <net> wrote in message
    news:d1LRd.1112$news.atl.earthlink.net... 
    SNIP

    Steven, some small corrections to the Canon EOS-1Ds Mark II entry in
    your specifications table;
    - Mark II instead of III,
    - The camera uses both CF and/or SD cards (simultaneously if desired).
    - It's NP-E3 battery pack is NiMH powered.

    Bart

    Bart Guest

  8. #8

    Default Re: "Low-Noise ISO Limit" Data added to http://digitalslrinfo.com/

    Bart van der Wolf wrote: 
    >
    > SNIP
    >
    > Steven, some small corrections to the Canon EOS-1Ds Mark II entry in
    > your specifications table;
    > - Mark II instead of III,
    > - The camera uses both CF and/or SD cards (simultaneously if desired).
    > - It's NP-E3 battery pack is NiMH powered.
    >
    > Bart[/ref]

    Steven,
    Why do you have the 1D Mark II as a semi-professional camera?
    It is the camera of choice for professional sports and
    wildlife photographers, even above the 1Ds and 1Ds Mark II.
    Sensor size is not the only factor in a professional
    choosing a camera. A professional (or serious amateur)
    photographer who owns both a 1ds Mark II and 1D Mark II
    would choose the 1D Mark II over the larger megapixel count
    any time they are doing fast action photography.
    In the canon line, the 1D series has special features,
    including much longer life (e.g ~150,000 shutter cycles),
    weatherproofing, faster response (the 1D Mark II reportedly
    has the fastest autofocus system available).

    Similarly, the Kodak DCS cameras. I believe their
    use is primarily by professionals in studios where
    there is plenty of light.

    The Nikon 2H is also in Nikon's pro line.

    The Fuji S2, S3 Pro I don't know enough about, but you
    might want to check on the intended market.

    Your logic for pro versus semi-pro is inconsistent if
    solely based on megapixel count (the 1Ds at 11 mpixels
    but not the kodaks at 14 mpixels), and is inconsistent
    with the build of the cameras (e.g. ruggedized) and
    the manufacturer's intended market.

    Thus, I think you should drop the semi-pro as all the
    cameras there are pro series.

    The 2 things I would like to see added, and which tell
    a lot about the imaging capability are the full well
    capacity of the chip and the read noise. In practice,
    some parameter like megapixels * square root full well
    capacity is a good single indicator of sensor performance.
    Unfortunately, manufacturers do not generally publish
    this info. I've derived and gotten from others some
    of this data, and a few specifications are published.
    You can see it at:
    http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/digital.signal.to.noise
    http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/does.pixel.size.matter

    Otherwise, nice job.

    Roger
    http://www.clarkvision.com

    Roger Guest

  9. #9

    Default Re: "Low-Noise ISO Limit" Data added to http://digitalslrinfo.com/

    Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) wrote:

     


    Look up "agenda".


    --
    -- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
    -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
    -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
    -- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.
    Alan Guest

  10. #10

    Default Re: "Low-Noise ISO Limit" Data added to http://digitalslrinfo.com/

    "Steven M. Scharf" <net> wrote:
     

    As a daily user of the D70 AND D100 I can tell you that your noise rating
    for these two is wrong. The D70 has a very definite edge over the D100 at
    ISO800 or ISO1600. Not only is there less noise but it has a more
    'filmlike' appearance, thus more acceptable noise quality. I think you
    need to reverse the ratings on these two.
    Bubbabob Guest

  11. #11

    Default Re: "Low-Noise ISO Limit" Data added to http://digitalslrinfo.com/

    I have looked at this linked site several times. For the life of me, I
    can't seem to find a column, page, or line that talks about ISO at all,
    let alone noise and ISO limits. Where did you hide it?

    MitchAlsup@aol.com Guest

  12. #12

    Default Re: "Low-Noise ISO Limit" Data added to http://digitalslrinfo.com/


    <com> wrote in message
    news:googlegroups.com... 

    Sixth column of the first Specification table?
    Maybe you need to refresh the cached page on your computer?

    Bart

    Bart Guest

  13. #13

    Default Re: "Low-Noise ISO Limit" Data added to http://digitalslrinfo.com/

    com wrote: 

    I take it to be the "Low Noise and Accurate Color ISO Limit" column which is
    the 6th column in from the left in the table (that appears after the table
    of Contents on the opening page) called the 'D-SLR Specification Table'.
    And it contains only an ISO number, and no 'talk'. ;-)

    hth

    --
    Nigel


    Siggy Guest

  14. #14

    Default Re: "Low-Noise ISO Limit" Data added to http://digitalslrinfo.com/

    Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) <net> wrote:
     

    Previous discussions here reveal that he feels it is, though he also
    seems to buy into the idea that more megapixels is always better, too.

    --
    Jeremy | com
    Jeremy Guest

  15. #15

    Default Re: "Low-Noise ISO Limit" Data added to http://digitalslrinfo.com/

    Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) <net> wrote:
     
     

    Very interesting.
    Could you add to your diagrams the correct error bars for your
    measurements? Looking at "Canon 1D Mark II Signal to Noise compared
    to film" for example, you have some ISO 100 measurements above the
    theoretical maximum. Unless you have miscalculated the theory,
    your error is at least as large as that or the theory is wrong
    (e.g. the camera does some dark magic denoising the image).

    Could you then fit a curve --- nice and round like the "Maximum
    Theoretical", not unphysically jaggy as they are right here ---
    through the error bars? It would give a much better feeling just
    how close ISO 100 is to the theoretical maximum ...


    And regarding
    http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/does.pixel.size.matter
    does the "Small Pixel" in "photon Rain" not either deserve
    walls as high as the "Large Pixel" or a comparatively lower
    water level? As it stands, the impression is: "Large Pixel"s
    have a much harder time getting full ...

    -Wolfgang
    Wolfgang Guest

  16. #16

    Default Re: "Low-Noise ISO Limit" Data added to http://digitalslrinfo.com/

    Steven M. Scharf <net> wrote: 

    The 2 graphs
    http://nordicgroup.us/digicam/dslrcriteria/cres.gif
    http://nordicgroup.us/digicam/dslrcriteria/csensorsize.gif
    should be logarithmic, shouldn't they?
    You must quadruple the Megapixel number to double resolution ...
    and the sensor area is mm^2 -> squared, so the same argument
    applies.

    BTW, would you mind stop calling one camera "Canone EOS-20D"?
    It always reminds me of "Danone", a company known here for fruit
    jogurt ...

    -Wolfgang
    Wolfgang Guest

  17. #17

    Default Re: "Low-Noise ISO Limit" Data added to http://digitalslrinfo.com/

    mmm interesting but full of errors and biases





    "Steven M. Scharf" <net> wrote in message
    news:d1LRd.1112$news.atl.earthlink.net... 


    Marli Guest

  18. #18

    Default Re: "Low-Noise ISO Limit" Data added to http://digitalslrinfo.com/

    Wolfgang Weisselberg <com> writes:
     
    > [/ref]

    It's not clear from the text whether the values were calculated from
    raw pixel values or from a processed (e.g. TIFF) image. In the latter
    case, there may be some noise reduction going on in the processing.

    --
    -Stephen H. Westin
    Any information or opinions in this message are mine: they do not
    represent the position of Cornell University or any of its sponsors.
    westin@graphics.cornell.nospam.edu Guest

  19. #19

    Default Re: "Low-Noise ISO Limit" Data added to http://digitalslrinfo.com/

    cornell.nospam.edu wrote: 
    >> [/ref]
    >
    >
    > It's not clear from the text whether the values were calculated from
    > raw pixel values or from a processed (e.g. TIFF) image. In the latter
    > case, there may be some noise reduction going on in the processing.
    >[/ref]

    The data were converted to 16-bit tiff using a linear conversion.
    There was no noise reduction in the conversion.
    Software = ImagesPlus. You can't work on true raw data as
    it is 12-bit. It must be converted to 16-bit integers.

    The accuracy of the numbers is quite high and the points generally
    agree with theory to about 5%, and over a large range of intensity
    and ISO. The values due to any noise in the
    measurement is not the issue in the scatter of the points.
    The problem is uniformity of the subject. Any slope in intensity
    affects the statistics, and it is very difficult to get
    perfectly uniform intensity. I kept the subject out of focus
    to blur any variations in reflectance on the test target, but
    one still has to deal with light fall off, which exists in
    every lens. I used a longer focal length lens to minimize
    that, and the test subject (macbeth color chart) has small
    enough areas in the field of view that light fall-off is not
    an issue. But then the chart squares are small, and have edges,
    so when out of focus, one must be careful to use only the uniform
    area. Getting better than about 5% uniformity turns out to
    be more difficult. A full field test target and many exposures
    would do a better job, but the work to test and yze becomes
    much greater. The light fall-off when using a large portion of
    the frame must be corrected, and that has errors. One can take
    multiple exposures and subtract an average, but then one is
    dependent on shutter accuracy and reproducibility. All these
    factors add up making it difficult to get better than a few
    percent accuracy without expensive laboratory test equipment.

    Roger

    Roger Guest

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 2
    Last Post: October 29th, 10:07 PM
  2. Replies: 1
    Last Post: July 20th, 08:30 AM
  3. Digital "noise" - effect of shutter speed
    By Neil in forum Photography
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: July 17th, 02:03 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139