More on Canon Rebel XT noise at high ISO - 2 main new data points

I went to another camera store earlier this afternoon mainly
to look at the Canon 430 external flash, which I did buy.

While I was there, I talked to the manager, whom I know well
and trust, about the (apparent) noise I'm seeing with my XT.
Like most everyone else, he was incredulous, then strongly
suggested that my particular camera was defective, as his
experience was 100% the opposite.

Since I had my camera around my neck, I asked if I could try
one of his, that he knew to be working correctly. "Sure, have
at it!". So, I pumped off about 30 shots, some with the built-
in Speedlite and some available light, across subjects with a
lot of detail and both light and dark backgrounds (the latter
to better pick up any inherent noise).

When I got home, I took another series of pictures with my own
camera, then loaded the whole mess onto all 3 of my PCs. One
of my PCs is quite old, still running Win 98, with a 17" CRT
with brightness and contrast cranked down because my wife says
the glare hurts her eyes. The 2nd one is my old Win XP SP1
machine, also with a 17" CRT that I know is showing images too
dark. Finally, I put them on my new Win XP SP2 box with a 21"
Samsung LCD which I know is properly calibrated for both
brightness/contrast and RGB. Please don't go off on the
monitors, just yet, OK?

By this time of day (4:15PM EST), my fav store manager had
left for the holiday weekend, so I'll talk to him on Monday.
But, the bottom line is this, 2-fold:

1) /Both/ camera's, my "defective" one and his "working" one
showed the /same/ amount of noise at /all/ ISO from 100 to
1600 on /all/ 3 of my PCs. Naturally, no noise is readily
apparent until ISO 400 on both cameras.

2) Despite being careful on Programmed Auto in both flash and
available light, some of the pics I took with the store's
camera and pics I took in my house with my own, are a stop or
2 underexposed. Please don't debate this yet, either. The more
the underexposure, the higher the noise. Well, Duh?! I already
knew that, and that explains the extra noise I got Wednesday
at the WPC Museum - but which I've already explained I
understand.

I /will/ investigate this further, you can trust. But, so far,
it still looks like the medium 5.5 MP images saved on both
cameras with the highest quality (least JPEG compression)
/all/ show about the same amount of noise.

As I do not understand RAW, and do not have Canon's RAW
converter on my PC to avoid invalidating the store's return
policy, I cannot evaluate that. Suffice to say that there /is/
a problem with the Rebel XT - from my perspective.

Now, you can all write me off as just another
nutbag/troll/incompetant/inexperienced/closed minded/asshole
if you like. But, as the saying goes "I don't know anything
about art, but I know what I like." And, I recognize noise
when I see it, as well as I understand what makes it worse.

Calm, rationale, non-insulting comments are welcomed. Insults
to me or my intelligence will be ignored. And, please
everyone, have a very Happy New Year!

--
ATM, aka Jerry

"I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death
your right to say it." - Evelyn Beatrice Hall under the
pseudonym Stephen G. Tallentyre

"All Things Mopar" wrote in message
...
I went to another camera store earlier this afternoon mainly
to look at the Canon 430 external flash, which I did buy.

While I was there, I talked to the manager, whom I know well
and trust, about the (apparent) noise I'm seeing with my XT.
Like most everyone else, he was incredulous, then strongly
suggested that my particular camera was defective, as his
experience was 100% the opposite.

Since I had my camera around my neck, I asked if I could try
one of his, that he knew to be working correctly. "Sure, have
at it!". So, I pumped off about 30 shots, some with the built-
in Speedlite

There is no such thing as a built-in Speedlite. It's a frickin' pop-up
flash. The Canon external flash units are Speedlites.

When I got home, I took another series of pictures with my own
camera, then loaded the whole mess onto all 3 of my PCs. One
of my PCs is quite old, still running Win 98, with a 17" CRT
with brightness and contrast cranked down because my wife says
the glare hurts her eyes. The 2nd one is my old Win XP SP1
machine, also with a 17" CRT that I know is showing images too
dark. Finally, I put them on my new Win XP SP2 box with a 21"
Samsung LCD which I know is properly calibrated for both
brightness/contrast and RGB. Please don't go off on the
monitors, just yet, OK?

By this time of day (4:15PM EST), my fav store manager had
left for the holiday weekend, so I'll talk to him on Monday.
But, the bottom line is this, 2-fold:

1) /Both/ camera's, my "defective" one and his "working" one
showed the /same/ amount of noise at /all/ ISO from 100 to
1600 on /all/ 3 of my PCs. Naturally, no noise is readily
apparent until ISO 400 on both cameras.

2) Despite being careful on Programmed Auto in both flash and
available light, some of the pics I took with the store's
camera and pics I took in my house with my own, are a stop or
2 underexposed.

Known issue on Digital Rebel and Rebel XTs. Use + EC.


Now, you can all write me off as just another
nutbag/troll/incompetant/inexperienced/closed minded/asshole
if you like.

Yes, most here have.

Greg

Today G.T. commented courteously on the subject at hand

There is no such thing as a built-in Speedlite. It's a
frickin' pop-up flash. The Canon external flash units are
Speedlites.

I thought that's what the manual calls it. But, a better
question is, why the hell do you care, other than to make an
ass of yourself taking me on - again?

When I got home, I took another series of pictures with my
own camera, then loaded the whole mess onto all 3 of my
PCs. One of my PCs is quite old, still running Win 98,
with a 17" CRT with brightness and contrast cranked down
because my wife says the glare hurts her eyes. The 2nd one
is my old Win XP SP1 machine, also with a 17" CRT that I
know is showing images too dark. Finally, I put them on my
new Win XP SP2 box with a 21" Samsung LCD which I know is
properly calibrated for both brightness/contrast and RGB.
Please don't go off on the monitors, just yet, OK?

By this time of day (4:15PM EST), my fav store manager had
left for the holiday weekend, so I'll talk to him on
Monday. But, the bottom line is this, 2-fold:

1) /Both/ camera's, my "defective" one and his "working"
one showed the /same/ amount of noise at /all/ ISO from
100 to 1600 on /all/ 3 of my PCs. Naturally, no noise is
readily apparent until ISO 400 on both cameras.

2) Despite being careful on Programmed Auto in both flash
and available light, some of the pics I took with the
store's camera and pics I took in my house with my own,
are a stop or 2 underexposed.

Known issue on Digital Rebel and Rebel XTs. Use + EC.

What means "+ EC"? Don't know it, didn't get anything
Googling, can't find it in the manual (unless I've blind). I
know what EV is...

Now, you can all write me off as just another
nutbag/troll/incompetant/inexperienced/closed
minded/asshole if you like.

Yes, most here have.

Okey, Dokey by me. You don't mind if I think the same of you,
do you? Such as your smart ass crack at the top?

--
ATM, aka Jerry

"I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death
your right to say it." - Evelyn Beatrice Hall under the
pseudonym Stephen G. Tallentyre

"All Things Mopar" wrote in message
...

2) Despite being careful on Programmed Auto in both flash
and available light, some of the pics I took with the
store's camera and pics I took in my house with my own,
are a stop or 2 underexposed.

Known issue on Digital Rebel and Rebel XTs. Use + EC.

What means "+ EC"? Don't know it, didn't get anything
Googling, can't find it in the manual (unless I've blind). I
know what EV is...

Exposure compensation. I'm a relative newbie to photography and since
you're an experienced photographer I thought you would know what EC is. It
sounds like most of your noise trouble is due to underexposure.

Greg

Today G.T. commented courteously on the subject at hand

Exposure compensation. I'm a relative newbie to
photography and since you're an experienced photographer I
thought you would know what EC is. It sounds like most of
your noise trouble is due to underexposure.

Thank you, Greg. Now please re-reread the relevant portions of
my posts. I have said, repeatedly, that I understand why
underexposure exacerabates any inherent noise. Now, will you
acknowledge that underexposure is /not/ the only cause of noise,
particularly when I'm talking about only 1-2 f/stops? Yes, thank
you.

Since I know that you parlez vous EXIF, all you want to know is
in my example posts, if you can get to them. Or, I would be
happy to E-mail them. But, that's old news right now, since I
got a significant 2nd data point trying the other store's
"good" camera.

--
ATM, aka Jerry

"I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death
your right to say it." - Evelyn Beatrice Hall under the
pseudonym Stephen G. Tallentyre

All Things Mopar writes:

Today G.T. commented courteously on the subject at hand

Known issue on Digital Rebel and Rebel XTs. Use + EC.

What means "+ EC"? Don't know it, didn't get anything
Googling, can't find it in the manual (unless I've blind). I
know what EV is...

He means "use exposure compensation to add (that's the "+" part)
exposure". I don't think his notation is widely used for that, I just
understand it because it's the obvious workaround for the problem (I'm
not very into relying on the auto exposure of my cameras anyway).
--
David Dyer-Bennet, , http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/
RKBA: http://noguns-nomoney.com/ http://www.dd-b.net/carry/
Pics: http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/ http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/
Dragaera/Steven Brust: http://dragaera.info/

Today David Dyer-Bennet commented courteously on the subject
at hand

All Things Mopar writes:

Today G.T. commented courteously on the subject at hand

Known issue on Digital Rebel and Rebel XTs. Use + EC.

What means "+ EC"? Don't know it, didn't get anything
Googling, can't find it in the manual (unless I've blind).
I know what EV is...

He means "use exposure compensation to add (that's the "+"
part) exposure". I don't think his notation is widely used
for that, I just understand it because it's the obvious
workaround for the problem (I'm not very into relying on
the auto exposure of my cameras anyway).

I got that only partially when it was first mentioned, figured
it out on my own later, and got even more knowledgable
yesterday with the camera/flash combo and both user manuals, I
was doing both the camera and flash EC somewhat incorrectly
due to lack of experience with a new toy.

David, you and the others aren't going to tell me that I
should have been instantly capable of use of these techniques
on a camera I wasn't fully trained on at the time I made the
comments I did, are you? If you are, I congratulate you also
on being able to leap up from newbie to expert on your fav
camera(s) to the point where your very first images are
perfect.

Again, for all the lurkers here, I much more highly value the
experience and judgment of people with identical or very
similar equipment to mine, shooting pictures in identical or
similar challenging situations, and at similar points climbing
the learning curve of a new piece of hardware - than I am of
people who spew theory. I understand the theory, but I am
still learning how to put my understanding into practice.

It looks like my Rebel is a keeper, but I will take one more
shot at the WPC museum tomorrow with my latest knowledge to
verify that exposure and noise are acceptable before my
carriage turns into a pumpkin at 9:00 tomorrow night (i.e, at
the end of my 10 day money back guarantee).

--
ATM, aka Jerry

"I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death
your right to say it." - Evelyn Beatrice Hall under the
pseudonym Stephen G. Tallentyre

For the sake of completeness, mainly that someone else may stumble on
this thread looking for useful information...

While I was there, I talked to the manager, whom I know well
and trust, about the (apparent) noise I'm seeing with my XT.
Like most everyone else, he was incredulous, then strongly
suggested that my particular camera was defective, as his
experience was 100% the opposite.

Given that later he establishes that the store-owner's 100% good camera
and his 'bad' one behave identically, what would a normal person infer?

So, I pumped off about 30 shots, some with the built-
in Speedlite and some available light, across subjects with a
lot of detail and both light and dark backgrounds (the latter
to better pick up any inherent noise).

In other words he went looking for noise in dark areas...

1) /Both/ camera's, my "defective" one and his "working" one
showed the /same/ amount of noise at /all/ ISO from 100 to
1600 on /all/ 3 of my PCs. Naturally, no noise is readily
apparent until ISO 400 on both cameras.

Good-oh. No real surprises there.

2) Despite being careful on Programmed Auto in both flash

Oh dear. Here we go back to square one. I've never yet met a
camera/flashgun combo that had infallible auto-exposure. In
particular, and as stated MANY times, if the subject has significant
refelective areas that bounce the flash back at the sensor/s.. You
can't be 'careful' in auto mode. Manual mode, or proper flash
metering, is being careful.

some of the pics I took with the store's
camera and pics I took in my house with my own, are a stop or
2 underexposed. Please don't debate this yet, either.

When should we? It's directly relevant. Even at a single stop
underexposure, noise problems will be exaggerated, and at 400 ISO will
be by far the most significant cause. And on auto mode, he is asking
for wrongly exposed images, especially if there is anything even
remotely challenging in the subject. Like.. chrome and polished
paintwork.

The more the underexposure, the higher the noise.
Well, Duh?! I already knew that, and that explains the
extra noise I got Wednesday at the WPC Museum
- but which I've already explained I understand.

And we do too.

so far, it still looks like the medium 5.5 MP images
saved on both cameras with the highest quality
(least JPEG compression) /all/ show about the same
amount of noise.

Fine. Point being? And why not at least use Tiff files if evaluating
noise.

Suffice to say that there /is/
a problem with the Rebel XT - from my perspective.

Key words - 'from my perspective'.

Another way of saying all this is - 'I'm not prepared to put in the
effort to ensure my images are correctly exposed, even though I shoot
shiny objects in dim environments, namely cars with an on-camera flash
(yes, I'm *serious*). My images come out underexposed and noisy. It's
the equipment's fault. I can't believe that all my cameras and flashes
have this problem to a greater or lesser extent, and that no-one here
will help me. It's certainly not my technique, and don't you *dare*
suggest I'm trying to do something the wrong way. Agree with me and
I'll be your friend. Suggest anything else and get in the neck.'

Now, you can all write me off as just another
nutbag/troll/incompetant/inexperienced/closed minded/asshole
if you like.

Heavens no. Not us. Uh-uh. No way.

But, as the saying goes "I don't know anything
about art, but I know what I like."

The people who say that are BUYING the art, not creating it. I think
he missed the point of the metaphor entirely. (O: (O: (O:

Insults to me or my intelligence will be ignored.

I betcha he doesn't.....

Today Chrlz commented courteously on the subject at hand

[snip the babble]
Fine. Point being? And why not at least use Tiff files if
evaluating noise.

'Cuz the XT doesn't save to TIFF, just JPEG & RAW? 'Course you
knew that, right?

[snip more babble]

--
ATM, aka Jerry

"I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death
your right to say it." - Evelyn Beatrice Hall under the
pseudonym Stephen G. Tallentyre

'Cuz the XT doesn't save to TIFF, just JPEG & RAW?
I'm very surprised to hear that. I personally would never evaluate a
camera on JPG's alone, especially if it was about noise issues. That
would surely be a reason to borrow the owner's software temporarily.

'Course you knew that, right?
No I didn't. So I unreservedly apologise for my error/assumption and
thank you for the correction.



See how easy it is to be civil?