If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Nikon D200 and Canon 350D/Rebel XT Noise Tests
Hi all,
I've placed on DIMi a new section and started it with noise tests on the Nikon D200 and Canon 350D/Rebel XT. There are also uncompressed TIFFs that you can download to judge noise and/or resolution issues for yourself. The new page is at http:// www.dimagemaker.com/specials/cameras/camtests.php BTW the D200 and 350D tests were done using the same lens, a Tamron 18-200mm XT lens. More tests will be going up this week. Also don't forget the DIMi competitions, there are now three of them running in April. Cheers, Wayne Wayne J. Cosshall Publisher, The Digital ImageMaker, http://www.dimagemaker.com/ Blog and Podcast http://www.digitalimagemakerworld.com/ Personal art site http://www.artinyourface.com/ |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Nikon D200 and Canon 350D/Rebel XT Noise Tests
Hi All,
My apologies but I have placed revised TIFF files for the Canon 350D test up on DIMi and in the article. I discovered a mistake in the creation of the original ones. The Nikon D200 tests were fine. The articles are at http://www.dimagemaker.com/index.php and the TIFF files are at http://www.dimagemaker.com/specials/cameras/camtests.php Again my apologies, but I corrected them as soon as I realised the error. Cheers, Wayne Wayne J. Cosshall Publisher, The Digital ImageMaker, http://www.dimagemaker.com/ Blog and Podcast http://www.digitalimagemakerworld.com/ Personal art site http://www.artinyourface.com/ |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Nikon D200 and Canon 350D/Rebel XT Noise Tests
Paul Furman wrote:
wayne wrote: Hi all, I've placed on DIMi a new section and started it with noise tests on the Nikon D200 and Canon 350D/Rebel XT. There are also uncompressed TIFFs that you can download to judge noise and/or resolution issues for yourself. The new page is at http:// www.dimagemaker.com/specials/cameras/camtests.php The D200 samples are exposed a tad darker according to the histogram but the noise looks about the same to me. Eh? I thought that the noise was considerable more noticable on the 350D, which is surprising to me considering reports elsewhere to the contrary. -- Thomas T. Veldhouse Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Nikon D200 and Canon 350D/Rebel XT Noise Tests
wayne wrote:
Hi All, My apologies but I have placed revised TIFF files for the Canon 350D test up on DIMi and in the article. I discovered a mistake in the creation of the original ones. The Nikon D200 tests were fine. The articles are at http://www.dimagemaker.com/index.php and the TIFF files are at http://www.dimagemaker.com/specials/cameras/camtests.php Again my apologies, but I corrected them as soon as I realised the error. I just checked the 800 ISO tiffs & the D200 is a lot darker than the rebel sample. It looks like you matched the zoom this time. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Nikon D200 and Canon 350D/Rebel XT Noise Tests
Paul Furman wrote:
Again my apologies, but I corrected them as soon as I realised the error. I just checked the 800 ISO tiffs & the D200 is a lot darker than the rebel sample. It looks like you matched the zoom this time. I would like to know the details of the conversion. Was the original in RAW format? How was the conversion handled? Were any settings applied in post processing (i.e. automatic exposure adjustments, levels, etc)? Details that DO matter before noise can be discussed. -- Thomas T. Veldhouse Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Nikon D200 and Canon 350D/Rebel XT Noise Tests
In message ,
"Thomas T. Veldhouse" wrote: Paul Furman wrote: Again my apologies, but I corrected them as soon as I realised the error. I just checked the 800 ISO tiffs & the D200 is a lot darker than the rebel sample. It looks like you matched the zoom this time. I would like to know the details of the conversion. Was the original in RAW format? How was the conversion handled? Were any settings applied in post processing (i.e. automatic exposure adjustments, levels, etc)? Details that DO matter before noise can be discussed. This is one of the reasons I call for RAW comparisons (RAW, not conversions). The D200 image looks darker overall, but it also has more contrast. There is no difference in contrast in the RAW files; RAW files are records of photons captured, plus or minus noise. "Properly" converting RAW files distorts the capture in many ways; some colors have saturation boosted, which can boost noise; different transfer curves are used by default, noise reduction is applied; etc, etc. I am interested in the RAW capture, only. JPEGs are for people who like to trade quality for speed and efficient storage, but you can never see what the camera captured in the RAW data from its JPEG, or an arbitrary RAW conversion in software. -- John P Sheehy |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Nikon D200 and Canon 350D/Rebel XT Noise Tests
wrote:
This is one of the reasons I call for RAW comparisons (RAW, not conversions). The D200 image looks darker overall, but it also has more contrast. There is no difference in contrast in the RAW files; RAW files are records of photons captured, plus or minus noise. "Properly" converting RAW files distorts the capture in many ways; some colors have saturation boosted, which can boost noise; different transfer curves are used by default, noise reduction is applied; etc, etc. Would the *same* raw conversion be valid? (honest question, as in, "both images converted with ACR with these settings"?) The reason I ask is that most of us have no way to actually look at the raw data in the raw, so to speak. -- Jeremy | |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Nikon D200 and Canon 350D/Rebel XT Noise Tests
In message ,
Jeremy Nixon wrote: Would the *same* raw conversion be valid? (honest question, as in, "both images converted with ACR with these settings"?) The reason I ask is that most of us have no way to actually look at the raw data in the raw, so to speak. I don't think such a beast exists. Every RAW format has information about how the information should be processed, and/or the developer deals with different cameras in different ways. You just load the RAW into IRIS, subtract the blackpoint (which you may have to determine from a blackframe at the same ISO), select "convert a CFA image" (after choosing the camera from preferences, or one with the same CFA pattern) from the menu, and then white-balance it. Do the same with another camera at the same f-stop and aperture, scale so both are equally bright, and you have as equal a comparison as you're going to get. You need a detailed subject, of course, if you want to see the visibility of detail through the noise, as cameras differ in AA filter strength. For blackframe noise, you just load the file and scale both the same in the output. It is convenient to add or subtract an offset to get the average value of noise the same. For example, most Nikons have black as 0; most Canons have black at 126 to 256. The Canon format has a slight benefit for binning, as binning a blackfframe with both positive and negative noise brings black closer to true black than a mix of half zeros and half positive numbers do (it also helps for removing banding). If it sounds complicated, it's only because it's unfamiliar. -- John P Sheehy |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Nikon D200 and Canon 350D/Rebel XT Noise Tests
wrote:
I don't think such a beast exists. Every RAW format has information about how the information should be processed, and/or the developer deals with different cameras in different ways. Yes, I think you must be right. You just load the RAW into IRIS, Unfortunately, IRIS is Windows-only, so not terribly relevant. -- Jeremy | |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Nikon D200 and Canon 350D/Rebel XT Noise Tests
Jeremy Nixon wrote:
wrote: This is one of the reasons I call for RAW comparisons (RAW, not conversions). The D200 image looks darker overall, but it also has more contrast. There is no difference in contrast in the RAW files; RAW files are records of photons captured, plus or minus noise. "Properly" converting RAW files distorts the capture in many ways; some colors have saturation boosted, which can boost noise; different transfer curves are used by default, noise reduction is applied; etc, etc. Would the *same* raw conversion be valid? (honest question, as in, "both images converted with ACR with these settings"?) The reason I ask is that most of us have no way to actually look at the raw data in the raw, so to speak. There is more to that. If you pick the same ISO, shutter speed and apeture for both cameras and shut off all automatic adjustments in ACR, you still don't have the same thing. You also need to find an equivalent ISO. Unfortunately, brands of cameras are not consistant in this area. Some shoot ISO200 at ISO180 for instance. Thus a close match would be one where exposure compenstated for this ... so, judgement by the histogram is required. -- Thomas T. Veldhouse Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
D200 shot looks noisy to me... | MarkČ | Digital Photography | 24 | November 30th 06 02:41 AM |
Nikon D200 and Canon 350D/Rebel XT Noise Tests | wayne | Digital Photography | 1 | April 4th 06 10:57 PM |
Canon 30D versus the Nikon D200 | Rich | Digital SLR Cameras | 28 | March 30th 06 02:28 PM |
Nikon D200 versus Canon 30D, one question | Rich | Digital SLR Cameras | 57 | March 23rd 06 01:41 AM |
Canon EOS 20D or Nikon D200 | Rick Williams | Digital SLR Cameras | 26 | January 14th 06 10:31 PM |