New camera with LOW CCD noise required

Also, the Kodak DX7630 (6.1) or the DX7440 (4.0).

"RobbH" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 21:06:14 +0100, scott wrote:

Hmm, it's a real shame there isn't anything inbetween. Looking at the
SLR
models they seem to go up to ISO 800 or 1600 with less noise than I get
at
ISO 200 !!! The Canon EOS 300d looks pretty good for the money, but I
don't
know whether I can justify spending double the amount over the PowerShot
S1.

There are choices between the extremes, but of course they are
compromises.
As has been pointed out, Digital SLRs are the best choice for high
sensitivity and low noise. But there are some digital P&S cameras that
will do better than your A40 at less than half the price of the 300d.

Two that I have some experience with are the Olympus C4000 and the Kodak
(gasp!) DX6490. Each has its shortcomings, but either one can capture
respectable images at ISO 400. Not noise free, but often the noise is
sufficiently subtle that no processing is necessary. At other times, a
quick trip through Helicon, Noiseware, or (except for the quick part) Neat
Image will help.

I recommend the reviews at Imaging Resource:

http://www.imaging-resource.com/

Check out the sample images for various cameras, particularly the ISO
series. You might find a camera that meets your needs.

On the other, if you're sold on a DSLR, go for it!

On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 01:19:16 GMT, "RSD99"
wrote:


Anybody know of any other image clean-up programs that really work well, besides Neat
Image?




Here's an excellent review and comparison of many of the more
popular noise-reduction packages out there (but not all), it's where
I learned about my most recent favorite.

http://www.michaelalmond.com/Articles/noise_print.html

I used to like Neat Image a lot (v4.0 has some very nice features
and capabilities), but Noise Ninja seems to be much better as well
as much faster with more options and control. Including an un-do
brush mode for when you need to add detail back in from over-zealous
filter settings for the brunt of the photo. (I wish they had picked
a more respectable name for their product though, I feel foolish
just suggesting others look at it, as-if I'm telling them to go play
the latest x-box game for pre-teens.)

Noise Ninja is he http://www.picturecode.com/

I've tested most every noise-reduction program out there because
low-light, available-light, and night-sky photos are an obsession
with me. All I have is a CCD chip camera at the moment and the
problem hounds me like a nightmare at times (even though the camera
is reportedly the best in its class for that inherent problem). I
tend to always boot up Noise Ninja first whenever needing to repair
noise now.

Helpful Hint: You can still use the beta 8 version of 2.0 if you set
your system date back when installing and then registering with the
provided (now expired) beta code they have on the beta page (set it
back to 1 day before expiration date), and remember to set it back
to that same date before each use.

Thanks for the info and URLs ... looks like I'll have plenty of "things" to read and play
with this week-end!

Skip M wrote:
"scott" wrote in message
news:FmHCc.371$765.205@newsfe5-win...
Mark Weaver wrote:
"scott" wrote in message
news:QNFCc.349$765.12@newsfe5-win...

Any recommendations for cameras that can take images at ISO 200
without making the colours all speckly?

I went to Wimbledon on Monday and took a load of action shots at
ISO 100 and 200, 1/1000s in overcast and sunny conditions, and a
lot of them look very speckly. I really have to use it at ISO 50
to get nice smooth images, but that's useless for high speed action
shots.

Compact cameras with small sensors are all going to start to exhibit
some noise above ISO 100 -- you need a digital SLR to get clean,
high-ISO performance.

Hmm, it's a real shame there isn't anything inbetween. Looking at
the SLR models they seem to go up to ISO 800 or 1600 with less noise
than I get at ISO 200 !!! The Canon EOS 300d looks pretty good for
the money, but I don't know whether I can justify spending double
the amount over the PowerShot S1.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos300d/page14.asp

Seems to show the difference quite well, I think mine is even worse
than the Sony shown on the right. That 300D certainly seems a
lovely piece of kit for the price, might need to think about whether
it will be worth it for me though.

BUT ... there are some very effective noise
reduction software packages you might try on your current ISO 200
images. My current favorite is the 'Helicon' noise filter -- and
there's a 'free for personal use' version you can download he

http://helicon.com.uahttp://helicon.com.ua

If you haven't tried it before, you may be surprised with the
results.

Yes, that seemed to work pretty well on my images without blurring
the details too much. The only thing missing is the option to batch
process folders, but that seems to be coming in the Pro version.



Scott, if you want more from your camera than it is currently able to
give, I have a feeling that, in the long run, a DSLR will be worth
the investment. Not only do they offer lower noise levels, but the
optics that are available are better than nearly anything in a point
and shoot. You'll find yourself trying out compact after compact,
not being completely satisfied, and then end up buying a DSLR,
anyway, I'll bet. I could be wrong, but...

I think you may well be correct with that. And after all, the 300D is only
about twice the price of a good compact. I've never had a SLR before but
I've learned so much over the last day or two reading about them. It
certainly seems that you have far more flexibility.

Now, I hope someone can confirm whether I'm correct with this: My current
A40 says it has a zoom of 35-105mm in 35mm terms. The CCD on my A40 though
is smaller than 35mm film so that is why the actual lens size on the
camera says something much smaller like 5.4mm or whatever. If I get a 300D,
according to the reviews, the image sensor is 1.6 times smaller than 35mm
film. So, if I want to get a lens that will give similar pictures to my
current A40 I need to get one that is 35-105mm / 1.6 = 22-66mm right? So if
I buy one that is 28-90mm (the closest one I could find to 22-66) and fit it
to the 300D, I won't be able to get quite the same wide shots but it should
zoom in a bit more? What do the actual numbers mean? Is there a good
website that explains these basics?

And another question, is the way the lenses fit to the camera standard? Is
it the same for all SLRs or does each manufacturer have their own type,
meaning I have to buy Canon lenses for it? How likely is it that the
standard will change in a few years time?

"scott" wrote in message
news
You'll find yourself trying out compact after compact,
not being completely satisfied, and then end up buying a DSLR,
anyway, I'll bet. I could be wrong, but...

I think you may well be correct with that. And after all, the 300D is
only
about twice the price of a good compact. I've never had a SLR before but
I've learned so much over the last day or two reading about them. It
certainly seems that you have far more flexibility.

Now, I hope someone can confirm whether I'm correct with this: My current
A40 says it has a zoom of 35-105mm in 35mm terms. The CCD on my A40
though
is smaller than 35mm film so that is why the actual lens size on the
camera says something much smaller like 5.4mm or whatever. If I get a
300D,
according to the reviews, the image sensor is 1.6 times smaller than 35mm
film. So, if I want to get a lens that will give similar pictures to my
current A40 I need to get one that is 35-105mm / 1.6 = 22-66mm right? So
if
I buy one that is 28-90mm (the closest one I could find to 22-66) and fit
it
to the 300D, I won't be able to get quite the same wide shots but it
should
zoom in a bit more? What do the actual numbers mean? Is there a good
website that explains these basics?

You are basically correct. There's about a 1.6x effect on the Canon 300D,
and about 1.5x on the Nikon D70, which is another camera you should
seriously research if you are in the market for a 300D.

From what you are describing, your best bet is probably to buy either of
these cameras with the "kit" lens. The Nikon can be had with a very high
quality 18-70mm lens for a good price. I'm not sure what the Canon kit lens
is, but it's similar. These kit deals are probably the best bargain if you
don't already have lenses.

And another question, is the way the lenses fit to the camera standard?

Yes - but see next answer....

Is it the same for all SLRs or does each manufacturer have their own
type,

Both Canon and Nikon have their own lens mount (as do many others).

meaning I have to buy Canon lenses for it?

Not neccesarily. You can also buy aftermarket lenses from Tokina, Sigma,
Tamron etc.....


How likely is it that the standard will change in a few years time?

Almost unthinkable. Both manufacturers have so much invested in terms of
money and installed base.

If you want a dSLR, you won't go far wrong with Canon or Nikon (or Pentax or
Konica-Minolta....) What's more, Canon and Nikon lenses hold their value
well too.

The other thing is that once you buy into one camera brand and aquire a
collection of lenses, you are pretty much stuck there unless you want to
sell them all and buy new ones. However - some other manufacturers (like
Kodak for example) do offer bodies with Canon or Nikon mounts.

"scott" wrote in message
news
Skip M wrote:
"scott" wrote in message
news:FmHCc.371$765.205@newsfe5-win...
Mark Weaver wrote:
"scott" wrote in message
news:QNFCc.349$765.12@newsfe5-win...

Any recommendations for cameras that can take images at ISO 200
without making the colours all speckly?

I went to Wimbledon on Monday and took a load of action shots at
ISO 100 and 200, 1/1000s in overcast and sunny conditions, and a
lot of them look very speckly. I really have to use it at ISO 50
to get nice smooth images, but that's useless for high speed
action
shots.

Compact cameras with small sensors are all going to start to exhibit
some noise above ISO 100 -- you need a digital SLR to get clean,
high-ISO performance.

Hmm, it's a real shame there isn't anything inbetween. Looking at
the SLR models they seem to go up to ISO 800 or 1600 with less noise
than I get at ISO 200 !!! The Canon EOS 300d looks pretty good for
the money, but I don't know whether I can justify spending double
the amount over the PowerShot S1.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos300d/page14.asp

Seems to show the difference quite well, I think mine is even worse
than the Sony shown on the right. That 300D certainly seems a
lovely piece of kit for the price, might need to think about whether
it will be worth it for me though.

BUT ... there are some very effective noise
reduction software packages you might try on your current ISO 200
images. My current favorite is the 'Helicon' noise filter -- and
there's a 'free for personal use' version you can download he

http://helicon.com.uahttp://helicon.com.ua

If you haven't tried it before, you may be surprised with the
results.

Yes, that seemed to work pretty well on my images without blurring
the details too much. The only thing missing is the option to batch
process folders, but that seems to be coming in the Pro version.



Scott, if you want more from your camera than it is currently able to
give, I have a feeling that, in the long run, a DSLR will be worth
the investment. Not only do they offer lower noise levels, but the
optics that are available are better than nearly anything in a point
and shoot. You'll find yourself trying out compact after compact,
not being completely satisfied, and then end up buying a DSLR,
anyway, I'll bet. I could be wrong, but...

I think you may well be correct with that. And after all, the 300D is
only
about twice the price of a good compact. I've never had a SLR before but
I've learned so much over the last day or two reading about them. It
certainly seems that you have far more flexibility.

Now, I hope someone can confirm whether I'm correct with this: My current
A40 says it has a zoom of 35-105mm in 35mm terms. The CCD on my A40
though
is smaller than 35mm film so that is why the actual lens size on the
camera says something much smaller like 5.4mm or whatever. If I get a
300D,
according to the reviews, the image sensor is 1.6 times smaller than 35mm
film. So, if I want to get a lens that will give similar pictures to my
current A40 I need to get one that is 35-105mm / 1.6 = 22-66mm right? So
if
I buy one that is 28-90mm (the closest one I could find to 22-66) and fit
it
to the 300D, I won't be able to get quite the same wide shots but it
should
zoom in a bit more? What do the actual numbers mean? Is there a good
website that explains these basics?

And another question, is the way the lenses fit to the camera standard?
Is
it the same for all SLRs or does each manufacturer have their own type,
meaning I have to buy Canon lenses for it? How likely is it that the
standard will change in a few years time?


There is an 18-55 available with the 300D as a kit, but a better alternative
is to buy the 28-105 USM, a much better lens.
Each camera mfr has its own lens mount, i.e. Canon won't fit a Nikon which
won't fit a Minolta, which won't fit a Pentax. BUT! there are third party
mfrs like Tamron, Tokina and Sigma that make lenses for all of the major
camera mfr's lens mounts, so you do have options, if of varying quality.
It's doubtful of Canon's mount will change in the foreseeable future, they
took way too much flak the last time they did it, and they seem to have
designed in some flexibility.
If you want to continue this conversation, we could do it by email, mine
is valid...

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com