Noisy sensors -myth explored

After some time looking in to the whole palava (sp?) on sensor size,
noise etc, I have come to the conclusion that most people do not
understand that for example:
f4 on a 4/3 sensor camera gives the same DOF as _f8_ on a 35mm, or
_f5.6_ on an APS-C sized sensor at the same equivalent focal length.
To reduce the noise from the sensor for the same DOF at the same focal
length (equiv) as that f-stop for a larger sensor camera, then open up
the aperture appropriately and lower the iso, and then for the purposes
of photography (taking photos - remember that?) all is the same.
So posting an iso 400 "test shot" for a E1 which looks bad against an
ISO 400 shot from a D70 is *******ised logic. The ISO 400 shot from a
D70 should be compared with an ISO 200 shot from the E1.
That's why Olympus now make a 4/3 150mm (300mm equiv) f2, and other fast
lenses. Do people think that Olympus are crazy or something?
I've never even seen a reviewer from any of the sites so often
referenced in here mention this. It is relevent, and the same
principles apply to P&S cameras - but which are limited by the fact that
the widest apertures just aren't wide enough, and with some extreme
examples now available - 8mp with tiny sensors - resolution loss from
diffraction almost overlaps the widest aperture, meaning that they are
both effectively useless for any photography where control of DOF is
required, and most unlikely to ever produce pictures that resolve
anywhere near the detail implied by the pixel count. They sometimes get
great reviews - if the reviewer has half a clue, he'll take a photo of a
test chart using Aperture Priority mode, set the f-stop at the optimum
(below where diffraction loss takes it's inevitable toll), and take a
picture that he proclaims as proof that a $500 P&S is as good as a dslr.

For anyone who thinks that Canon has a clear and unassailable lead on
dslr sensor noise, please look at:
http://www.digitalreview.ca/D50test/...0s_1600ISO.jpg

frederick wrote:

Massive snip

For anyone who thinks that Canon has a clear and unassailable lead on
dslr sensor noise, please look at:
http://www.digitalreview.ca/D50test/...0s_1600ISO.jpg

While looking through several hundred images for the one I shot
specifically for the page I earlier took down, I came across dozens of
really poor quality images shot that very morning with the exact same
20D camera. http://www.technoaussie.com/horror.htm is one of them.

I will concede that the 1D MkII images are marginally better with these
errors but neither are the equal to an EOS 5 we had along as a backup
using Agfa 'Optima' 400 ISO film which incidently produced highly
acceptable images.

The images from the little Panasonic FZ20 which were not directly into
the rising sun, are technically better than most of the 20D's images
like the one in the link above.

The bit I'm disappointed about is not so much the poor performance of
the 20D as the fact that the EOS5 as well as Panasonic and Olympus P&S
cameras all produced more consistent, better quality pictures than the
20D or 1D MkII were able to record. For the cost of these things you'd
expect better or at least closer results.

A Nikon D2X is arriving in the morning for evaluation. If this bugger
can take a picture with as much shadow detail as either the Olympus C760
or FZ20 Panasonic while working at the extreme of it's sensor's
capability, I'll jump ship and dump the Canon gear. I'm not holding my
breath waiting. I think there is plenty of life left for film!

Douglas

Stacey wrote:

Scott W wrote:

That is why it is a pretty good idea to have
reviewer who tests under controlled conditions, so you can get an
apples to apple comparision.



Don't you mean a reviewer who is paid by Canon so your brand gets a shining
review so you can feel good about your camera purchase?


That's it, exactly.

No feeling of "buyer's remorse" means the review was good.

Stacey wrote in :

MarkH wrote:


I have never heard it said that it makes no difference if you under
expose by a stop or two when you shoot RAW, where the hell did you
get that idea from?


When you have Canon fans like Scott W posting things like there is no
quality lost shooting at ISO 1600 rather than ISO 100 you wonder how
BS like this gets around? He was talking about shooting 7 stops under
and pulling an image out of it the otherday! Where were you when that
sort of BS was being posted?

OK, That's the where. Now what about an explanation of why any would
believe such ridiculous statements? Clearly ISO 1600 will be noticeably
worse that ISO 100 and shooting 7 stops under might still allow an image,
but it will be absolute ****.

Anyone that tries to claim that a D-SLR can't match a P&S on the basis that
the D-SLR fails to live up to the incorrect assertions that it makes no
difference if shooting a couple of stops under exposed is still an idiot.



--
Mark Heyes (New Zealand)
See my pics at www.gigatech.co.nz (last updated 25-June-05)
"There are 10 types of people, those that
understand binary and those that don't"

"Steven M. Scharf" wrote in message
news

There are similar examples of such stupidity in almost every debate on any
subject you can think of. Medical studies are famous for such crap. I.e.,
there was one medical study that concluded that caffeine caused
miscarriages, then when on to state "the women who had (miscarriages) were
significantly older than the control subjects, were more likely to have
been born outside the Nordic countries...and were more likely to have had
previous pregnancies and previous (miscarriages)." These four huge
differences made the entire study completely bogus, but the authors tried
to include the differences in the control groups as a mere footnote.

Mercifully, the page with the stupidity about noisy sensors has been taken
down. I guess that the author was pretty embarassed once the errors were
pointed out.

Can't blame him. Got to wonder just what he was thinking when a pack of
morons like us can tear it to shreds so quickly.

Stacey napisał(a):
Don't you mean a reviewer who is paid by Canon so your brand gets a shining
review so you can feel good about your camera purchase?
TROLL WARNING...

pls do not feed him!

--
..........Marek Mollin "rogus".........
...http://rogus.atspace.com/da/ad.jpg..
.............coming soon...............
...............Pozdrawiam..............

TAFKAB wrote:

Can't blame him. Got to wonder just what he was thinking
when a pack of morons like us can tear it to shreds so quickly.

Yet you have uninformed people, like the original poster, that do not
have the critical thinking skills to understand bogus stuff like this.
How many other people read a website like that and actually believe it?

"Scharf-DCA" wrote in message
oups.com...
TAFKAB wrote:

Can't blame him. Got to wonder just what he was thinking
when a pack of morons like us can tear it to shreds so quickly.

Yet you have uninformed people, like the original poster, that do not
have the critical thinking skills to understand bogus stuff like this.
How many other people read a website like that and actually believe it?

Tons. And you can add sites like CNN, ABC News, etc to the list. Trouble is,
there's so many variables it's not so easy to spot the BS sometimes.

Well, I'm off to complete my own test comparing scanned 6x7 chromes with
the 20D. I'll post the results in the near future. In the meantime, I'll
continue to repeat the age-old mantra: "when data does not conform to
theory, it must be disposed of."

"Scharf-DCA" wrote:

TAFKAB wrote:

Can't blame him. Got to wonder just what he was thinking
when a pack of morons like us can tear it to shreds so quickly.

Yet you have uninformed people, like the original poster, that do not
have the critical thinking skills to understand bogus stuff like this.
How many other people read a website like that and actually believe it?


There must be some people who read *your*
DSLR website and actually believe it.

God help them.

MarkH wrote:

Stacey wrote in :

MarkH wrote:


I have never heard it said that it makes no difference if you under
expose by a stop or two when you shoot RAW, where the hell did you
get that idea from?


When you have Canon fans like Scott W posting things like there is no
quality lost shooting at ISO 1600 rather than ISO 100 you wonder how
BS like this gets around? He was talking about shooting 7 stops under
and pulling an image out of it the otherday! Where were you when that
sort of BS was being posted?

OK, That's the where. Now what about an explanation of why any would
believe such ridiculous statements?

Because they don't understand any of this and WANT to believe their camera
is capable of miracles!


Clearly ISO 1600 will be noticeably
worse that ISO 100 and shooting 7 stops under might still allow an image,
but it will be absolute ****.


Exactly. Yet this guy is constantly posting his -pro Canon- matra to the
pleasure of other Canon users. Like I said, no one seems to mind when this
sort of total BS boosterism is posted but if someone even thinks there
might be another valid choice of camera or that another choice might be
better at a specific task, they are called a troll?

--

Stacey