Noisy sensors -myth explored

So... You all think the 20D is a low noise camera, do you?
I suppose the Panasonic and Olympus sensors are pretty bad at high ISO
too, eh? Well maybe for a tech-head the specs might say so but what
about a photographer who takes photographs? would he/she know the
difference? For that matter, would he/she actually give hoot about the
deceptions we all refer to as "product specifications" that we must base
our purchase decisions on?

How too, do you handle the situation when you suddenly discover the
serious limitations of your digital SLR masterpiece, when you start to
use it for traditional, highly creative photography where lighting and
shadow become the picture's prime ingredient but the digital
masterpiece's sensor has some serious short comings when capturing the
two extremes which no one told you about?

Maybe I've lost the plot here but I'd have thought a 20D (read 1D II as
well) would be better at recording detail under adverse lighting
conditions than a lowly P&S camera like the Olympus C760 or Panasonic
FZ20. Surprise, surprise! http://www.technoaussie.com/hmm-detail.htm

How is it that the so named "reviewers" at Pbase and the like never
mentioned the strong points of the Panasonic or the weak points of the
20D? The fact that digital cameras cannot record the contrast range of
film, is the reason these examples of extreme contrast have failed.

Douglas

Ryadia babbles like a moron:

Maybe I've lost the plot here but I'd have thought a 20D (read 1D II as
well) would be better at recording detail under adverse lighting
conditions than a lowly P&S camera like the Olympus C760 or Panasonic
FZ20. Surprise, surprise! http://www.technoaussie.com/hmm-detail.htm

Absolutely no way to reproduce any of their results. They don't even
provide their raw images for independent analysis. Even worse, the
exposure data at that page is:

FZ20: ISO 200 f/2.8 @ 0.17s
20D: ISO 400 f/8 @ 0.20s

Equivalent 20D exposure for ISO 200:

20D: ISO 200 f/5.6 @ 0.20s

ie, the FZ20 was given two stops more light. When the author(s)
thereafter write that "these P&S cameras are pulling light from
nowhere" (or somesuch) they are clearly joking.

Ryadia wrote:
So... You all think the 20D is a low noise camera, do you?
I suppose the Panasonic and Olympus sensors are pretty bad at high ISO
too, eh? Well maybe for a tech-head the specs might say so but what
about a photographer who takes photographs? would he/she know the
difference? For that matter, would he/she actually give hoot about the
deceptions we all refer to as "product specifications" that we must base
our purchase decisions on?

How too, do you handle the situation when you suddenly discover the
serious limitations of your digital SLR masterpiece, when you start to
use it for traditional, highly creative photography where lighting and
shadow become the picture's prime ingredient but the digital
masterpiece's sensor has some serious short comings when capturing the
two extremes which no one told you about?

Maybe I've lost the plot here but I'd have thought a 20D (read 1D II as
well) would be better at recording detail under adverse lighting
conditions than a lowly P&S camera like the Olympus C760 or Panasonic
FZ20. Surprise, surprise! http://www.technoaussie.com/hmm-detail.htm

How is it that the so named "reviewers" at Pbase and the like never
mentioned the strong points of the Panasonic or the weak points of the
20D? The fact that digital cameras cannot record the contrast range of
film, is the reason these examples of extreme contrast have failed.

Douglas

I notice from the EXIF data that the FZ20 photo was exposed about 4 EV
higher then the Canon, the FZ20 sky is blown out the Canon is not, this
is not really testing the shadow detail. 4 stops under exposed
compared to the FZ20 is going to make it pretty hard to compare the
two.

Scott

Scott W wrote:
Ryadia wrote:
So... You all think the 20D is a low noise camera, do you?
I suppose the Panasonic and Olympus sensors are pretty bad at high ISO
too, eh? Well maybe for a tech-head the specs might say so but what
about a photographer who takes photographs? would he/she know the
difference? For that matter, would he/she actually give hoot about the
deceptions we all refer to as "product specifications" that we must base
our purchase decisions on?

How too, do you handle the situation when you suddenly discover the
serious limitations of your digital SLR masterpiece, when you start to
use it for traditional, highly creative photography where lighting and
shadow become the picture's prime ingredient but the digital
masterpiece's sensor has some serious short comings when capturing the
two extremes which no one told you about?

Maybe I've lost the plot here but I'd have thought a 20D (read 1D II as
well) would be better at recording detail under adverse lighting
conditions than a lowly P&S camera like the Olympus C760 or Panasonic
FZ20. Surprise, surprise! http://www.technoaussie.com/hmm-detail.htm

How is it that the so named "reviewers" at Pbase and the like never
mentioned the strong points of the Panasonic or the weak points of the
20D? The fact that digital cameras cannot record the contrast range of
film, is the reason these examples of extreme contrast have failed.

Douglas

I notice from the EXIF data that the FZ20 photo was exposed about 4 EV
higher then the Canon, the FZ20 sky is blown out the Canon is not, this
is not really testing the shadow detail. 4 stops under exposed
compared to the FZ20 is going to make it pretty hard to compare the
two.

Scott

Correction the FZ20 got 3 stops more light not 4, still a big
difference.

Scott

Holy Crap! This is some of the funniest stuff I've seen in a long while! A
camera comparison that provides a direct comparison using different ISOs,
different exposure values, and different image capture variables.
Surprisingly, the results from each camera are, well, different.

Funny, funny ****.

"Ryadia" wrote in message
...
So... You all think the 20D is a low noise camera, do you?

On 7/6/05 6:03 PM, in article , "Ryadia"
wrote:

So... You all think the 20D is a low noise camera, do you?
I suppose the Panasonic and Olympus sensors are pretty bad at high ISO
too, eh? Well maybe for a tech-head the specs might say so but what
about a photographer who takes photographs? would he/she know the
difference? For that matter, would he/she actually give hoot about the
deceptions we all refer to as "product specifications" that we must base
our purchase decisions on?

How too, do you handle the situation when you suddenly discover the
serious limitations of your digital SLR masterpiece, when you start to
use it for traditional, highly creative photography where lighting and
shadow become the picture's prime ingredient but the digital
masterpiece's sensor has some serious short comings when capturing the
two extremes which no one told you about?

Maybe I've lost the plot here but I'd have thought a 20D (read 1D II as
well) would be better at recording detail under adverse lighting
conditions than a lowly P&S camera like the Olympus C760 or Panasonic
FZ20. Surprise, surprise! http://www.technoaussie.com/hmm-detail.htm

How is it that the so named "reviewers" at Pbase and the like never
mentioned the strong points of the Panasonic or the weak points of the
20D? The fact that digital cameras cannot record the contrast range of
film, is the reason these examples of extreme contrast have failed.

Douglas

The sky is blown out in the P&S camera shot, and the P&S shot was made with
several stops more light. What again is this supposed to prove?
I am not either defending Canon or trying to trash P&S cameras but the
conclusions on this page are not supported by the examples.
Chuck W.

Scott W wrote:



I notice from the EXIF data that the FZ20 photo was exposed about 4 EV
higher then the Canon, the FZ20 sky is blown out the Canon is not, this
is not really testing the shadow detail. 4 stops under exposed
compared to the FZ20 is going to make it pretty hard to compare the
two.

Scott


Correction the FZ20 got 3 stops more light not 4, still a big
difference.

Scott

Prey tell Scott...
How many stops of additional exposure lattitude is claimed to be
available for a 20D by shooting RAW and decoding the image in Photoshop
or similar?

As I understand the banter in these groups; If you shoot RAW you
effectively get exposure latitude which allows you to correct under or
over exposure during decoding of the raw data. If your statement is to
have any merit, you have no exposure lattitude at all with RAW files.
Which is it Scott?

If there is any truth in the fable: "shoot raw and have a two stops of
adjustment up your sleeve", the difference in EI of the 2 cameras should
not matter and should be correctable with Adobe Camera Raw or whatever
decoder you use. In any event the Canon sensor should have captured
data. Unfortunately it didn't capture enough data to carry out any
exposure compensation during decoding. That image is all there is.

The Panasonic has no RAW data capture facilities, and only captured
highly compressed JPG data (expect blown highlights this way) yet still
had all the shadow information in an otherwise blacked out region. The
Canon image should have had clear data where there is none at all.

Douglas

"C Wright" wrote in message
. ..
On 7/6/05 6:03 PM, in article , "Ryadia"
wrote:

So... You all think the 20D is a low noise camera, do you?
I suppose the Panasonic and Olympus sensors are pretty bad at high ISO
too, eh? Well maybe for a tech-head the specs might say so but what
about a photographer who takes photographs? would he/she know the
difference? For that matter, would he/she actually give hoot about the
deceptions we all refer to as "product specifications" that we must base
our purchase decisions on?

How too, do you handle the situation when you suddenly discover the
serious limitations of your digital SLR masterpiece, when you start to
use it for traditional, highly creative photography where lighting and
shadow become the picture's prime ingredient but the digital
masterpiece's sensor has some serious short comings when capturing the
two extremes which no one told you about?

Maybe I've lost the plot here but I'd have thought a 20D (read 1D II as
well) would be better at recording detail under adverse lighting
conditions than a lowly P&S camera like the Olympus C760 or Panasonic
FZ20. Surprise, surprise! http://www.technoaussie.com/hmm-detail.htm

How is it that the so named "reviewers" at Pbase and the like never
mentioned the strong points of the Panasonic or the weak points of the
20D? The fact that digital cameras cannot record the contrast range of
film, is the reason these examples of extreme contrast have failed.

Douglas

The sky is blown out in the P&S camera shot, and the P&S shot was made
with
several stops more light. What again is this supposed to prove?
I am not either defending Canon or trying to trash P&S cameras but the
conclusions on this page are not supported by the examples.
Chuck W.

I dislike stupid, flawed tests and sloppy methodology...

Darrell wrote:
"C Wright" wrote in message
. ..

On 7/6/05 6:03 PM, in article , "Ryadia"
wrote:


So... You all think the 20D is a low noise camera, do you?
I suppose the Panasonic and Olympus sensors are pretty bad at high ISO
too, eh? Well maybe for a tech-head the specs might say so but what
about a photographer who takes photographs? would he/she know the
difference? For that matter, would he/she actually give hoot about the
deceptions we all refer to as "product specifications" that we must base
our purchase decisions on?

How too, do you handle the situation when you suddenly discover the
serious limitations of your digital SLR masterpiece, when you start to
use it for traditional, highly creative photography where lighting and
shadow become the picture's prime ingredient but the digital
masterpiece's sensor has some serious short comings when capturing the
two extremes which no one told you about?

Maybe I've lost the plot here but I'd have thought a 20D (read 1D II as
well) would be better at recording detail under adverse lighting
conditions than a lowly P&S camera like the Olympus C760 or Panasonic
FZ20. Surprise, surprise! http://www.technoaussie.com/hmm-detail.htm

How is it that the so named "reviewers" at Pbase and the like never
mentioned the strong points of the Panasonic or the weak points of the
20D? The fact that digital cameras cannot record the contrast range of
film, is the reason these examples of extreme contrast have failed.

Douglas

The sky is blown out in the P&S camera shot, and the P&S shot was made
with
several stops more light. What again is this supposed to prove?
I am not either defending Canon or trying to trash P&S cameras but the
conclusions on this page are not supported by the examples.
Chuck W.


I dislike stupid, flawed tests and sloppy methodology...




I'll spell it out for you Darell.
The myth about Canon DLSRs is that when you shoot RAW, you get a couple
of stops of exposure latitude you can apply during decoding the data to
an image.

Any exposure difference between these two cameras is a non event if that
fable is true... Which it is not because the sensor didn't capture
enough data for it to be true.

The Panasonic on the other hand has certainly blown the highlights but
it has also recorded data in a area of the picture which is the same
density as the Canon deep shadow area.

If this were film, the negatives would read both the same density on a
densometer but one would have detail and the other not. What is so
different about digital capture in your mind? The page is about
photogrpahy, not digital specifications. The question that page poses is
why can the Panasonic capture detail in an area of equal density to one
which the Canon cannot?

Douglas

doug wrote:
Scott W wrote:



I notice from the EXIF data that the FZ20 photo was exposed about 4 EV
higher then the Canon, the FZ20 sky is blown out the Canon is not, this
is not really testing the shadow detail. 4 stops under exposed
compared to the FZ20 is going to make it pretty hard to compare the
two.

Scott


Correction the FZ20 got 3 stops more light not 4, still a big
difference.

Scott

Prey tell Scott...
How many stops of additional exposure lattitude is claimed to be
available for a 20D by shooting RAW and decoding the image in Photoshop
or similar?

As I understand the banter in these groups; If you shoot RAW you
effectively get exposure latitude which allows you to correct under or
over exposure during decoding of the raw data. If your statement is to
have any merit, you have no exposure lattitude at all with RAW files.
Which is it Scott?

If there is any truth in the fable: "shoot raw and have a two stops of
adjustment up your sleeve", the difference in EI of the 2 cameras should
not matter and should be correctable with Adobe Camera Raw or whatever
decoder you use. In any event the Canon sensor should have captured
data. Unfortunately it didn't capture enough data to carry out any
exposure compensation during decoding. That image is all there is.

The Panasonic has no RAW data capture facilities, and only captured
highly compressed JPG data (expect blown highlights this way) yet still
had all the shadow information in an otherwise blacked out region. The
Canon image should have had clear data where there is none at all.

Douglas

I can easily shoot 2 stop under and still get a good photo, what is
harder is shooting two stop under and then trying to pull out shadow
detail, as this test did. 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.

Scott