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
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
More on Canon Rebel XT noise at high ISO - 2 main new data points
"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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
More on Canon Rebel XT noise at high ISO - 2 main new data points
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 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
More on Canon Rebel XT noise at high ISO - 2 main new data points
"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 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
More on Canon Rebel XT noise at high ISO - 2 main new data points
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 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
More on Canon Rebel XT noise at high ISO - 2 main new data points
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..... |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
More on Canon Rebel XT noise at high ISO - 2 main new data points
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 |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
More on Canon Rebel XT noise at high ISO - 2 main new data points
Today Chrlz commented courteously on the subject at hand
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..... -- 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 |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
More on Canon Rebel XT noise at high ISO - 2 main new data points
'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? |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
More on Canon Rebel XT noise at high ISO - 2 main new data points
Today Chrlz commented courteously on the subject at hand
'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. Well, being the dummy that I am, I never shoot in anything but JPEG and always have. And, I never save anything in JPEG and always have. For my purposes as a documentary photographer of cars, that has worked admirably for me through film and 3 digitals. So, while I wanted RAW for later once I figure out how to use it, and new the XT has it, I wasn't at all interested in TIFF. At least one reason is that the files cannot be compressed if EXIF is desired, which makes them way bigger than they are worth. If you want to evaluate noise in the lab or using some mathematical routine in your fav graphics editor, you may be right about TIFF vs. JPEG. But, as the old saying goes "I don't know anything about art, but I know what I like" - meaning, I can recognize noise when I see it, no matter what format the picture is saved in. 'Course you knew that, right? No I didn't. So I unreservedly apologise for my error/assumption and thank you for the correction. You and I will get along better, Chris, as well and me and everyone else here, if we start off with the assumption that the other guy isn't a dummy, ask reasonable, polite, and intelligent questions, and wait patiently for an answer. Frankly, I was quite suprised not to find TIFF. And, I was also surprised not to find any 4:3 sizes. But, I've already figured that out. I just zoom out/stand farther back about 20- 25% and use a PSP 9 crop preset on the 5.5 MP images I shoot. That way, I am assured of not chopping anything off my main subject and I have plenty of pixels to crop without reducing the resolution I want. Problem solved. See how easy it is to be civil? Yes. And, I would have apologized by now to those that I offended if I'd have been treated even moderately well here. But, what happened yesterday is things went very rapidly downhill, so I had little incentive to be civil. -- 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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Using Canon 70-200L F2.8 with X2 Converter | Bill Hilton | 35mm Photo Equipment | 7 | October 24th 05 11:27 PM |
Canon G6 or Digital Rebel or Nikon D70 | NewsBirdie | Digital Photography | 19 | December 31st 04 10:48 PM |
CANON - The Great Innovator (was: CANON – The Great Pretender) | Steven M. Scharf | Digital Photography | 104 | September 3rd 04 01:01 PM |
CANON - The Great Innovator (was: CANON – The Great Pretender) | Steven M. Scharf | 35mm Photo Equipment | 92 | September 3rd 04 01:01 PM |
Canon EOS Digital Rebel - Questions? | John Doe | Digital Photography | 26 | August 26th 04 10:36 PM |