Canon 20D - ISO 100 performance?

Hey all,

In RPD, I noticed the following comment (specific attribution not
necessary):

"...[Poster was] irritated with Canon for sacrificing ISO 100
performance in the 20D/350D..."


Sorry to say that I've not been following 20D discussions closely
enough to understand what was 'sacrificed'. Could someone please post
a susinct summary of what the basis of this complaint is?


Thanks,

-hh

-hh wrote:
|| Hey all,
||
|| In RPD, I noticed the following comment (specific attribution
|| not necessary):
||
|| "...[Poster was] irritated with Canon for sacrificing ISO 100
|| performance in the 20D/350D..."
||
||
|| Sorry to say that I've not been following 20D discussions
|| closely enough to understand what was 'sacrificed'. Could
|| someone please post a susinct summary of what the basis of
|| this complaint is?
||

Its not a Nikon?

--
--
"Nobody can make you feel inferior without your permission." --
Eleanor Roosevelt

-hh wrote:
Hey all,

In RPD, I noticed the following comment (specific attribution not
necessary):

"...[Poster was] irritated with Canon for sacrificing ISO 100
performance in the 20D/350D..."


Sorry to say that I've not been following 20D discussions closely
enough to understand what was 'sacrificed'. Could someone please post
a susinct summary of what the basis of this complaint is?

Succinctness is not a characteristic of such "discussions". Try
reloading your newsreader with more posts and read the existing threads.

--
John McWilliams

In article .com,
says...
Hey all,

In RPD, I noticed the following comment (specific attribution not
necessary):

"...[Poster was] irritated with Canon for sacrificing ISO 100
performance in the 20D/350D..."


Sorry to say that I've not been following 20D discussions closely
enough to understand what was 'sacrificed'. Could someone please post
a susinct summary of what the basis of this complaint is?


Thanks,

-hh

Basically the ISO 100 noise is slightly higher than the ISO 100 noise of
the 300D/10D. This is due to the smaller pixel pitch on the 20D and
350D.

The difference in noise is smaller, and Canon users should be thankful
for having a ISO 100 in the first place. Most of the cameras using
Sony's 6 megapixel CCD start at ISO 200.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird

"Brian Baird" wrote in message
.. .
In article .com,
says...
Hey all,

In RPD, I noticed the following comment (specific attribution not
necessary):

"...[Poster was] irritated with Canon for sacrificing ISO 100
performance in the 20D/350D..."


Sorry to say that I've not been following 20D discussions closely
enough to understand what was 'sacrificed'. Could someone please post
a susinct summary of what the basis of this complaint is?


Thanks,

-hh

Basically the ISO 100 noise is slightly higher than the ISO 100 noise of
the 300D/10D. This is due to the smaller pixel pitch on the 20D and
350D.

The difference in noise is smaller, and Canon users should be thankful
for having a ISO 100 in the first place. Most of the cameras using
Sony's 6 megapixel CCD start at ISO 200.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird

The noise is even higher between iso100 and 200 than on a D60. Indeed,
shooting RAW, the D60 keeps up with the 20D in most respects image-wise up
to iso800 and even surpasses it on colour (I like the D60 colours). Added to
which the 20D jpeg images are softer (to reduce noise) than the D60 and less
saturated. Exposure on the D60 is much more forgiving. For flowers etc I
prefer the D60. Overall speed is another issue with the 20D streets ahead. I
also find that the D60 is often more accurate in focus (albeit slower) for
lenses greater than f2.8. Canon 3 years ago really did do rather well with
the D60 - that it still stands up against today's offerings.

-hh wrote:

Hey all,

In RPD, I noticed the following comment (specific attribution not
necessary):

"...[Poster was] irritated with Canon for sacrificing ISO 100
performance in the 20D/350D..."

Whatever the right answer, it would appear that the "natural" neutral
gain ISO of various sensors is not at ISO 100, and for most "consumer"
sensors it would appear to be somewhere between 100 and 400. So it's
not surprising at all if some cameras are noisier at 100 than at 200.

And frankly it is totally meaningless in most (a very heavy most) cases.
Just make a large print (8x12) of a well exposed image and this will
bear out from ISO 100 to 400 (even 800) for most DSLR's.

Cheers,
Alan.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

Brian Baird wrote:

Basically the ISO 100 noise is slightly higher than the ISO 100 noise of
the 300D/10D. This is due to the smaller pixel pitch on the 20D and
350D.

The difference in noise is smaller, and Canon users should be thankful
for having a ISO 100 in the first place. Most of the cameras using
Sony's 6 megapixel CCD start at ISO 200.


Thanks for the susinct respose, Brian.


Now to verify that I understand this correctly from a "big picture"
perspective, what this suggests is that the traditional paradigm of
film that "lower ISO always results in finer grain" is functionally not
equivalently true for digital...correct?

If I've indeed gotten this correct, I have to admit to having missed
this one until now. Thanks.


-hh

Brian Baird wrote:

The difference in noise is smaller, and Canon users should be thankful
for having a ISO 100 in the first place. Most of the cameras using
Sony's 6 megapixel CCD start at ISO 200.

I wonder why the Sony-CCD cameras don't at least give you the option of
going to 100 ISO if you really want to. Would the results be too
horrible to bear, or are they worried about comparisons against other
cameras that do provide this capability, or what?

In message .com,
"-hh" wrote:

Now to verify that I understand this correctly from a "big picture"
perspective, what this suggests is that the traditional paradigm of
film that "lower ISO always results in finer grain" is functionally not
equivalently true for digital...correct?

The grain size is immutable in a digital sensor; all that can vary is
its intensity, and characteristics.
--


John P Sheehy

"LCD" wrote in message
...
The noise is even higher between iso100 and 200 than on a D60. Indeed,
shooting RAW, the D60 keeps up with the 20D in most respects image-wise up
to iso800 and even surpasses it on colour (I like the D60 colours). Added
to which the 20D jpeg images are softer (to reduce noise) than the D60 and
less saturated. Exposure on the D60 is much more forgiving. For flowers
etc I prefer the D60. Overall speed is another issue with the 20D streets
ahead. I also find that the D60 is often more accurate in focus (albeit
slower) for lenses greater than f2.8. Canon 3 years ago really did do
rather well with the D60 - that it still stands up against today's
offerings.


I agree that Canon did very well with the D60 several years ago, I still
use mine quite regularly. Also, the saturation and general image impact
of the D60 is often more pleasing to me. However, one or two other
comments you made I do not agree with.

The 20D is behind the D60 (in how clean the image is) at ISO 100, but
by 200 they are essentially even, and at 400 the 20D has a slight lead.
At 800 the 20D simply shines, often showing images that are very close
to the D60 at 200. I use ISO 1600 on the 20D far more often than I
dared use 400 on the D60.

As far as exposure goes I have found the 20D to exceed the accuracy
of the D60.

Also, for focus accuracy, it is basically a tie for me, unless using an f2.8
or faster lens. And the 20D just blows the D60 away in focus speed
and low light focus ability.

C!