noise levels Canon g6 -Oly 8080

anyone that knows how those camereas compare to each other regarding to
image noise? thinking of "real" iso values, seems like G6 is 320 at 200 and
640 at 400....

In article ,
"-T-" wrote:

anyone that knows how those camereas compare to each other regarding to
image noise? thinking of "real" iso values, seems like G6 is 320 at 200 and
640 at 400....

www.dpreview.com has noise analysis and sample photos in their reviews.


http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canong6/page14.asp
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olym...0wz/page15.asp

Hop to the next page to see actual night photos.

The one thing missing is temperature sensitivity. Some are very bad in
warm climates. On a hot summer night, my old Oly 4040 would take a
picture of pure snow at 1/4 second, ISO 400.

In message ,
Kevin McMurtrie wrote:

www.dpreview.com has noise analysis and sample photos in their reviews.

Using the camera's arbitrary exposure, and arbitrary ISO values.

The real test would be with manual exposure, normalizing the exposure in
the output.

We need comparisons of two cameras shooting the same light at the same
aperture and shutter speed, not two cameras set to the same "ISO
number". The files should then be "leveled" so that the average level
is the same, for comparing noise. Of course, this leaves a choice of
"ISO values" to compare, but those could be done in slices in the
graphic.
--


John P Sheehy

In article ,
wrote:

In message ,
Kevin McMurtrie wrote:

www.dpreview.com has noise analysis and sample photos in their reviews.

Using the camera's arbitrary exposure, and arbitrary ISO values.

The real test would be with manual exposure, normalizing the exposure in
the output.

We need comparisons of two cameras shooting the same light at the same
aperture and shutter speed, not two cameras set to the same "ISO
number". The files should then be "leveled" so that the average level
is the same, for comparing noise. Of course, this leaves a choice of
"ISO values" to compare, but those could be done in slices in the
graphic.

If you're looking for the best photo quality with low sensor
illumination, I don't think you'd want a point'n'shoot. None of them
are very good. They use strong software noise filtering which does
severe damage to the details of a photo. Simply comparing noise levels
won't work. You'll have to compare error levels to a very clean
reference photo. Trees, grass, roof shingles, and bricks are common
victims of noise filtering.

The Canon 20D is probably today's champion when it comes to image
quality with low sensor illumination. How much light hits the sensor
depends on what lens you put on it.

In article ,
wrote:

In message ,
Kevin McMurtrie wrote:

www.dpreview.com has noise analysis and sample photos in their reviews.

Using the camera's arbitrary exposure, and arbitrary ISO values.

The real test would be with manual exposure, normalizing the exposure in
the output.

We need comparisons of two cameras shooting the same light at the same
aperture and shutter speed, not two cameras set to the same "ISO
number". The files should then be "leveled" so that the average level
is the same, for comparing noise. Of course, this leaves a choice of
"ISO values" to compare, but those could be done in slices in the
graphic.

If you're looking for the best photo quality with low sensor
illumination, I don't think you'd want a point'n'shoot. None of them
are very good. They use strong software noise filtering which does
severe damage to the details of a photo. Simply comparing noise levels
won't work. You'll have to compare error levels to a very clean
reference photo. Trees, grass, roof shingles, and bricks are common
victims of noise filtering.

The Canon 20D is probably today's champion when it comes to image
quality with low sensor illumination. How much light hits the sensor
depends on what lens you put on it.

In article ,
wrote:

In message ,
Kevin McMurtrie wrote:

www.dpreview.com has noise analysis and sample photos in their reviews.

Using the camera's arbitrary exposure, and arbitrary ISO values.

The real test would be with manual exposure, normalizing the exposure in
the output.

We need comparisons of two cameras shooting the same light at the same
aperture and shutter speed, not two cameras set to the same "ISO
number". The files should then be "leveled" so that the average level
is the same, for comparing noise. Of course, this leaves a choice of
"ISO values" to compare, but those could be done in slices in the
graphic.

If you're looking for the best photo quality with low sensor
illumination, I don't think you'd want a point'n'shoot. None of them
are very good. They use strong software noise filtering which does
severe damage to the details of a photo. Simply comparing noise levels
won't work. You'll have to compare error levels to a very clean
reference photo. Trees, grass, roof shingles, and bricks are common
victims of noise filtering.

The Canon 20D is probably today's champion when it comes to image
quality with low sensor illumination. How much light hits the sensor
depends on what lens you put on it.

In article ,
wrote:

In message ,
Kevin McMurtrie wrote:

www.dpreview.com has noise analysis and sample photos in their reviews.

Using the camera's arbitrary exposure, and arbitrary ISO values.

The real test would be with manual exposure, normalizing the exposure in
the output.

We need comparisons of two cameras shooting the same light at the same
aperture and shutter speed, not two cameras set to the same "ISO
number". The files should then be "leveled" so that the average level
is the same, for comparing noise. Of course, this leaves a choice of
"ISO values" to compare, but those could be done in slices in the
graphic.

If you're looking for the best photo quality with low sensor
illumination, I don't think you'd want a point'n'shoot. None of them
are very good. They use strong software noise filtering which does
severe damage to the details of a photo. Simply comparing noise levels
won't work. You'll have to compare error levels to a very clean
reference photo. Trees, grass, roof shingles, and bricks are common
victims of noise filtering.

The Canon 20D is probably today's champion when it comes to image
quality with low sensor illumination. How much light hits the sensor
depends on what lens you put on it.

In message ,
Kevin McMurtrie wrote:

If you're looking for the best photo quality with low sensor
illumination, I don't think you'd want a point'n'shoot. None of them
are very good. They use strong software noise filtering which does
severe damage to the details of a photo. Simply comparing noise levels
won't work. You'll have to compare error levels to a very clean
reference photo. Trees, grass, roof shingles, and bricks are common
victims of noise filtering.

I forget about those cameras sometimes. I was thinking more along the
lines of RAW data, actually. And of course, a test that included detail
at various levels of resolution would be even better than a grey card.

The 20D has very low noise at high ISOs, and manages to show detail very
well through whatever noise is there, but that may be because the
anti-aliasing filter in the 20D is a tad too weak; I can make it do
color moire at will, although I have never seen it in any "real"
pictures I've taken:

http://www.pbase.com/jps_photo/image/37173876

This is an LCD laptop screen, from about 5 feet away with a very sharp
90mm lens.
--


John P Sheehy

In article , -T- says...
anyone that knows how those camereas compare to each other regarding to
image noise? thinking of "real" iso values, seems like G6 is 320 at 200 and
640 at 400....

If I'm not mistaken, the G6 uses a 7MP 1/1.8" CCD, while the 8080 uses
an 8MP 2/3" CCD. Therefore the pixels of the 8080 are bigger, so noise
levels should be lower.
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Olympus_405080/
Olympus 5060 resource - http://myolympus.org/5060/
Olympus 8080 resource - http://myolympus.org/8080/