40D and D300 high ISO samples

[coldrain]

dpreview has posted a few EOS 40D samples, and from those the high ISO results from the EOS 40D seem to be quite good.
http://www.dpreview.com/gallery/canoneos40d_preview/

Of course, like we are used to with Canon CMOS sensors, we get a lot of chroma noise (which cleans up very well), and almost no luminance noise (which tends to destroy image detail and surface structure).
Also, colour and contrast remain very good, even at ISO 3200 (in my opinion).

To spare dpreview's servers, and to spare everyone to have to go there to have a look I am posting two impressive examples, shot in RAW I think.
ISO 3200, 1/60 sec, f5.6

[coldrain]

Again from dpreview
http://www.dpreview.com/gallery/canoneos40d_preview/

ISO 1600, 1/60 sec, f5.6 (with new EF-S 18-55 f3.5-5.6 IS):

[coldrain]

And now a sample from the Nikon D300, at ISO 6400
http://www.slrclub.com/bbs/vx2.php?id=newproduct&page=1&sn1=&sid1=&divpage=4&sn=off&sid=off&ss=on&sc=off&select_arrange=headnum&desc=asc&no=20929

Looks very much like what the D200 does in its high ISO settings. The saturation is severly lacking, and the lumination noise is to me very disturbing, even when downsized. Again, like with for instance the D200 and D2X(s), the chroma noise seems to have been filtered out mostly (giving very odd separate chroma noise blotches at spots), which also might explain the flatness and saturation.

Of course, this is only one sample, and at ISO 6400 at that. But it may be a pointer to that the D300 might not surpass the 40D in high ISO image quality.

ISO 6400, f2.8, 56mm, 100% crop:

[coldrain]

Downsized photo, where I am not all too impressed with the colour and saturation, and the havoc the luminance noise creates in the blurry background. Still, this is ISO 6400 (!), curious of how ISO 1600 and 3200 will be from the D300.

[TheObiJuan]

Much appreciated, coldrain.
Can't wait to see head to head ISO shots.
Too bad the 40D doesn't have the ISO 6400 option, thus making us do more post work to bring up the underexposed ISO3200.

[Rooz]

if the d300 can truly produce an iso6400 shot like that i will be MORE than happy.

[achuang]

if the d300 can truly produce an iso6400 shot like that i will be MORE than happy.

So would I, because my D70s ISO 1600 shots are noisier than that so they'd be good enough for my purposes.

[timmciglobal]

That's not mk3 ISO 6400 no doubt but I'd say thats leaps improved over D200 which can produce that at ISO 1K. I'd say for ISO 6400 thats an amazing amount of detail retained and if the scale is similar to that of D200 in noise performance (or 30D for that matter) then ISO 1600 will be VERY usable and ISO 3200 will be with cleanup quite easily.

Honestly all the D300 has to do is get close to 30D ISO performance for it to be a huge success especially considering the 40D's ISO performance to me isn't a leap foward.

And as far as the 40D goes, color me unimpressed. It's maybe a hair better then 30D but no where near the mk3's improvement.

Tim

[Glasstream15]

And nowhere near the MK3s cost.

[Speed2]

That's not mk3 ISO 6400 no doubt but I'd say thats leaps improved over D200 which can produce that at ISO 1K. I'd say for ISO 6400 thats an amazing amount of detail retained and if the scale is similar to that of D200 in noise performance (or 30D for that matter) then ISO 1600 will be VERY usable and ISO 3200 will be with cleanup quite easily.

Honestly all the D300 has to do is get close to 30D ISO performance for it to be a huge success especially considering the 40D's ISO performance to me isn't a leap foward.

And as far as the 40D goes, color me unimpressed. It's maybe a hair better then 30D but no where near the mk3's improvement.

Tim



Apple and oranges Tim, compare the mk3's with the d3 if u will but not with the d300 or the 30d or 40d.

[timmciglobal]

The mk3 is the only canon camera with ISO 6400 enabled so yes it's valid to compare it with. It's also got a 51 point AF (same as D3's AF) and many features on the "pro" level.

If anyone wants to post an ISO 3200 30D shot underexposed by a stop and pushed feel free, I'm sure you'll see that for an ISO 6400 shot it's very impressive especially from what the D200 had.

Tim

[coldrain]

Tim, to me the ISO 6400 is pretty unusable.
And yes, it is 6400.

The only things I see in this is that the 40D is not losing in colour and dynamic behavior even to ISO 3200, and the noise it easy to get rid of and even to live with, with well exposed photos.

The D300 has a big loss in saturation/colour and dynamic behavior at ISO 6400. It is like the life is sucked out of the image. And the ugly detail munching luminance noise that is similar to the D200 is more intrusive (and less correctable), so, if Nikon uses the same noise reduction at ISO 3200 and ISO 1600, it may not reach the level of the 40D, even if you find the 40D to not be a huge step ahead.
On the other hand, if they don't use that same kind of noise reduction, the results may well be surprisingly good.

Yes, we have to yet see ISO 3200 and ISO 1600 from the D300, totally right.

And no, you can really not compare the D300 with an MK III, not from the live view, AF performance, sensor, throughput or what not.

Just because it has a 51 point AF sensor, doesnt make it comparable to the mk III, Nikon has never produced an AF system that copes as well with sports like the EOS 1/3 series. So, just counting AF points is like just counting megapixels... tests and time will have to show what the AF system is capable of, not the AF point count.

The diagonal AF sensor of the 40D may well be a bigger jump in AF performance, again, testing and time will tell.

Anyway... I am impressed with the colour and dynamics of the high ISO 40D results (when they are exposed correctly), and we have to wait to see if the D300 can match that.

[timmciglobal]

What about the dynamic range doesn't impress you? Tone down that show to expose her face and not the camera and you've got an amazing amount of detail left I think. Her face comes threw quite well, the jacket probably HAS a patern to it since that isn't showing in her shirt/neckerchiefe/his pants. Clearly the picture was exposed for the dark cameras to be ligher and the person's face is really close to blown out.

Here is same shot with -25 brightness in CS2 (that's it) and while I agree it's not perfect I'd say it's printable though obviously at the end of what you'll want to do to get a shot (and it's ISO 6400, that's H1 on the D300)

http://pictures.divergentservices.com/d300iso6400.jpg

For the sake of comparison, here is 30D shot from Christmas ISO 1600 +2 stops. CS2 converted straight from raw file, default sharpening no other changes with default NR enabled.

http://pictures.divergentservices.com/30diso6400.jpg

I know you hate nikon but let's be realistic here for ISO 6400 these shots aren't bad. They can be cleaned up and worked with to produce printable results (no, I wouldn't shoot a wedding at ISO 6400) but if it was "miss the shot" or shoot ISO 6400 I'd use that if the results come close especially once you consider taking that image RAW PP'ing it and applying NR.

Tim

[AdamW]

Okay, can y'all clear this up for me: what's the difference between luminance noise and croma noise? I'd really like to see examples, too.

Thanks...

[timmciglobal]

Here are the two 100% crops btw

30D ISO 1600 +2 push 30D

http://pictures.divergentservices.com/30diso6400crop.jpg

D300 ISO 6400

http://pictures.divergentservices.com/d300iso6400crop.jpg

Tim

[Rooz]

Tim, to me the ISO 6400 is pretty unusable.
And yes, it is 6400..

unusable for what though ? :confused: i think thats perfectly acceptable, in fact downright excellent, for the purposes of using it. ie: emergency only. anyone who thinks that they can shoot iso6400 and try and get a 100% crop result from a $2k camera is kidding themselves.

[timmciglobal]

BTW just so I don't get the "oh but your comparing a crap lens..." my shots were taken with 35 1.4L rented last year for christmas from rentglass.com

Tim

[Speed2]

Okay, can y'all clear this up for me: what's the difference between luminance noise and croma noise? I'd really like to see examples, too.

Thanks...

Hmm ok i'll give it a shot since tim and coldrain are doin the iso thing. This ain't easy to put simply. The luminance noise is when pixels show different brightness but are of the same colour. An example is that of a grainy looking sky in an high ISO image. All the pixels are blue but with different luminosity. Chroma noise on the other hand is when pixels show different coulours when they all should be of the same colour. One example is that of an underexposed image brightened up during pp. Quite often both types of noises are present simultaneously. If i'm not quite right i'm sure i'll be corrected...hope this helps. Its as easy as i can put it i think. No examples, that i can think of sorry

[erichlund]

Is is just me, or is anyone else going to notice that someone took a flash shot from off to the right of the D300 shot. The D300 was shot w/o flash, hence the area below Nikon on the D3 is in shadow, but the girls face basically got blown. These events are such cluster .... (well, you know), that it's impossible to get a shot under controlled conditions. This certainly wasn't, and so says nothing to me.

You certainly can't compare it to the well controlled shot of a bottle. The conditions are not conducive to a fair conclusion.

[timmciglobal]

Pretty much dead on. "Film" has more lumi noise and digital sensors traditionally have more chroma noise.

Which is better? Big argument. Some folks say chroma since your eyes see contrast differences before color differences and chroma noise can be processed using a color logic to difuse or remove the chroma noise to a larger degree. Others (myself included) prefer lumi noise since it has more of a "film noise" look and to me sometimes even adds a false sharpness to a photo that isn't true. It's harder to remove since your eyes are very good at seeing contrast differences and often removing it results in bland photos.

Why the different paths nikon vs canon on noise removal logic? Taste. Both have had shots featured on cover of time magazine and national geographic. Canon is at the side of almost every sporting event, nikon is being used on the space station it's not like one has a total dominance over the other method to noise wise.

Tim

[Rooz]

Chroma noise on the other hand is when pixels show different coulours when they all should be of the same colour.

otherwise known among nikon circles as the "xmas tree light effect"

[No Control]

otherwise known among nikon circles as the "xmas tree light effect"

Affectionately, of course. :D

I personally prefer lumi noise as well, and not just because I like Nikon. It's much more film-like and that's my taste.

[TheObiJuan]

The 20D's ISO 3200 chroma noise was a super easy fix in PS. I was very happy with the shots, the 30D even better, and now the 40D.
I am excited with the improvements we are actively seeing and their effects on the usability of images.

Usable ISO 6400 would make many non-fast lenses worthwhile!

[Rooz]

Affectionately, of course. :D

I personally prefer lumi noise as well, and not just because I like Nikon. It's much more film-like and that's my taste.

historically, i prefer the way canon deals with it. there is better colour retention. nikon tends to lose contrast and the colours are washed out a little. that being said, i have no use for iso1600+ no matter how good it is. i prefer to use a flash. the detail, sharpness and all round photo itself is far better with a speedlight than any iso setting. iso is great for convenience and emergencies or for some pro's who cant use a flash in certain situations.

[coldrain]

historically, i prefer the way canon deals with it. there is better colour retention. nikon tends to lose contrast and the colours are washed out a little. that being said, i have no use for iso1600+ no matter how good it is. i prefer to use a flash. the detail, sharpness and all round photo itself is far better with a speedlight than any iso setting. iso is great for convenience and emergencies or for some pro's who cant use a flash in certain situations.
I agree with Rooz, I personally have no use for very high ISO either. But good high ISO may mean better ISO 800, and that does make a difference.

As I pointed out before, the way the Canon shots retain colour and contrast is what keeps them more uable, in my mind.
Very nice to compare luminance noise to film grain... But Nikon does apply noise reduction, probably to get rid of chroma noise, and the loss of colour/contrast makes the photos life-less.

Yes, the Nikon D300 and 40D photos can not be compared, I did not post them for a side by side comparison. Just to get an idea of what the new cameras may be capable of.

[coldrain]

D300 ISO 1600 looks a whole lot better.

http://www.slrclub.com/bbs/vx2.php?id=newproduct_nikon&page=9&sn1=&sid1=&divpage=5&sn=off&sid=off&ss=on&sc=off&select_arrange=headnum&desc=asc&no=28881

Not all too crazy about the colours and the dynamic range, but the colour and details look a whole lot better than in the ISO 6400 photo.

No 100% crop available though... and no ISO 3200 shot yet.

[VTEC_EATER]

That 14-24/2.8 looks like a freaking monster of a lens. I have no desire to own one, especially on a DX cropped body, but wow, that looks intimidating.


Edit, after going to the link in your post Coldrain, I have to say, ISO 6400 looks amazing to me. I downloaded the photo and threw it into photoshop to turn it into a black and white, and even in B&W (which I feel really shows the luminance noise) it looks cleaner than my D50's ISO 1600, possibly even 800. It didn't matter if I desaturated the image, changed it to monochromatic, or just your regular gray scale, it came out looking great (noise wise, not exposure wise). From what I'm seeing so far, I think Nikon has a winner here.

[erichlund]

Here's that same original photo (http://www.flickr.com/photos/bkmd/1245256834/in/pool-nikon_d300_users/), as later post processed. Not that it has any meaning whatsoever, I just thought the person did a remarkable job with what looked like a pure throw away.

[nqjudo]

Here's that same original photo (http://www.flickr.com/photos/bkmd/1245256834/in/pool-nikon_d300_users/), as later post processed. Not that it has any meaning whatsoever, I just thought the person did a remarkable job with what looked like a pure throw away.

A great recovery indeed.

[timmciglobal]

From those other samples it tells me two things

1) There is a hotlight near her face which is throwing off the rest of the exposure by a lot. That's not dynamic range issues thats lighting issues.

2) The colors at 6400 are pretty damn good considering ISO 400 the colors are pretty close. She's just wearing very muted colors.

Still quite impressed. We'll have to see real photos (the light on her face is horrible) to judge better.

Tim

[coldrain]

I do not at all think there is a hot light. Look at the surrounding area and the refection on the camera, it more looks like a window letting light in than anything else.

And the colour loss is actually very big. Just that there are "muted colours" that hid that a bit... you can see it everywhere, especially on the back wall, and the gold logo on the lens. Not good.

Here is a hand on "review" of the 40D, which says that the 40D's ISO 3200 is quite a bit better than that of the 30D.

** edit:
whoops, sorry Vich

http://digitalrev.com/en/article.php?category_id=12&article_id=217&page

[Vich]

Here is a hand on "review" of the 40D, which says that the 40D's ISO 3200 is quite a bit better than that of the 30D.

Link?
.

[Rooz]

She's just wearing very muted colors.

the question i would have then is...WHY ?

i read some of what thom hogan criticised nikon for...MARKETING. and this is so true now that i think about all this stuff. the iso images they provided in the presentation were absoluetly abysmal images, the models wearing BS colours, no access to the cams at the osaka games. it feels like such a 2nd rate production when you consider how exciting these dslr's are for nikon.

[Vich]

Not sure if it's one already referenced here, but this link (http://www.dpreview.com/gallery/canoneos40d_preview/) has some 40D samples with full-image downloads. This ISO 3200 shot looks very acceptable (full image here) (http://dpreview-img.fotki.com/gallery/canoneos40d_preview/originals/img_0509.jpg).

[michaelb]

http://digitalrev.com/en/article.php?category_id=12&article_id=217&page[/url][/COLOR]


Interesting review here. I think I will be waiting for the 40D instead of picking up a 30D.
Of course, the most significant improvement of the 40D over the 30D is the non-painted hot shoe - finally, no more scuff marks on the hot shot!!! :D

[Speed2]

I found this in the forum of digital grin...thought it was quite funny. Its posted by a gal that looks to be about early to mid 30's.


Maybe Not Important To YOU, Harry, because I know as an older, retired gent you probably get to bed early, and there are no subways in Florida. But, for many of us, we like to shoot in the dark. Without flash. Harry, you're old enough to remember the days of Tri-X and pushing ASA 1600 film to 3200, aren't you? Of course you are. Of the many Canon virtues, is the absolutely un-matched high ISO performance.

I guess I should clarify for you, since to a Nikonian, shooting at "high ISO" means ISO 400 :) Well, I'm talking 1600, 3200! Canon's imaging processor is so good, that well exposed shots at ISO 3200 look amazingly good. Here's one, taken in the NYC subway. Enjoy it, Harry. And if you ever need to shoot underground, or in the dark, I'll be happy to let you borrow my gear. Taken with a Canon 5D, 24-105L aboard, @98mm.

[Rooz]

oh...so you mean to tell me that a $3,500 kit can produce great results ? :eek: i can't believe it !!! :eek:

whats the rest of the exif data for those images btw ?

[fionndruinne]

Amazing, ain't it Rooz?

And Speed2, you maybe should enclose that portion of the post in quotes, just to be quite accurate.

[Rooz]

tis amazing...who would've expected huh ? :p

in all seriousnous though, the 5d is certianly on my radar. if the d300 can't deliver then the 5d will be my next body once a 6d comes out. it hasn't been a great seller as it is so there should be some good deals to be had which suits me just fine thank you. :)

[swgod98]

I found this in the forum of digital grin...thought it was quite funny. Its posted by a gal that looks to be about early to mid 30's.

It is somewhat funny. But, I also find it quite typical of Canon users who think their $h!t don't stink because they have a Canon sensor in their camera. It's really obnoxious when people get ego's like this and quite frankly, I see this particular post as trying to degrade the other person, which is not cool.

[Vich]

It is somewhat funny. But, I also find it quite typical of Canon users who think their $h!t don't stink because they have a Canon sensor in their camera. It's really obnoxious when people get ego's like this and quite frankly, I see this particular post as trying to degrade the other person, which is not cool.Ahhh c'mon. Looks to me like a tongue-n-cheek challenge for a clever retort. I was hoping for one (popcorn and all). Particularly armed with the new Nikon D300 you can do more than just sulk. hehe.

It's humorous how some film users skoff at all Digital shooters. Then the medium formatters might scoff at 35mm shooters. On up to Arizona Highways and modeling runways.

Besides; the only people who's $hit don't stink are infants still on breast milk. I resent seeing us Canon users compared with that :mad::p

5D + 24-105L is only $3500 now? Wow!

[swgod98]

I resent seeing us Canon users compared with that :mad::p

Not all, certainly...In fact, only a few (and mostly I see it at dpreview). But, it's enough to be annoying. Maybe that lady was just being "playful" in her own way (I don't know the context in which the post was made), but it just sounded rude.

[Glasstream15]

Well, actually the whole thing was taken out of context, as in not knowing the rest of the thread involved. On that basis, I'm not really sure it should even be here but that is for others to decide. In my view though, defensive or offensive comments are not necessary because of the very limited information we have.

YMMV

[GaryS]

Glasstream15, I love your sig.

[Speed2]

It is somewhat funny. But, I also find it quite typical of Canon users who think their $h!t don't stink because they have a Canon sensor in their camera. It's really obnoxious when people get ego's like this and quite frankly, I see this particular post as trying to degrade the other person, which is not cool.

That in a way is my point. I've watched this in here aslo. So its not just in that forum. Btw what do u think should happen when a nikon person comes into a Canon forum or visa versa. I know ur answer probably, but its not that way, is it? I don't know what goes on in the nikon forums but i can guess. I own a canon, i want specific info on whats works for my Canon not a Nikon so i stay here. If i were to look into buying a Nikon i would go there for my info. There are all sorts of places in DCRP i can get info. But everyone has a right to be here and rightly so. IMO this whole thing just sucks. :(

[swgod98]

Btw what do u think should happen when a nikon person comes into a Canon forum or visa versa.

I actually feel everyone should be able to access all forums. Just because a person doesn't own camera brand X doesn't mean they won't have useful input. But, it's important that people stay open minded and civil.

[Speed2]

I actually feel everyone should be able to access all forums. Just because a person doesn't own camera brand X doesn't mean they won't have useful input. But, it's important that people stay open minded and civil.

And what did i say right after the sentence u posted from me? Its not gonna happen now is it? Frustrating it is. Ignore it maybe? Dunno. I'll see how it goes.
Many other fish in the Sea, if fishing isn't any good in here no more.

[timmciglobal]

Can we get back on topic of coldrain saying everything nikon sucks and me saying everything canon is stripped down good sensor in a glorified paper bag?

:)

Tim

[nqjudo]

Can we get back on topic of coldrain saying everything nikon sucks and me saying everything canon is stripped down good sensor in a glorified paper bag?

:)

Tim

You know something, Tim? Sometimes I think that you are both right and we're all just being taken. :D

[Rooz]

I own a canon, i want specific info on whats works for my Canon not a Nikon so i stay here. If i were to look into buying a Nikon i would go there for my info.

in photography, what works on a canon will work on a nikon and vice versa. sure there are some basic differnces in features etc but the art of photography...the skill of it is exactly the same regardless of the brand. the skill and art of it in fact has barely changed at all since photography was invented. exposure, lighting, compostion, framing, effect, drama, depth of field etc etc etc. if you're not on forums to learn about that then i think you may have missed the point entirely. and the fact is that these things can be picked up in any forum regarldess of manufacturer.

i can look at cw's pics and say "love that composition and technique." i can look at adam's pics and say "love the lighting", i can look at AdamW's pics and say "wow, love that macro", i could keep going on and on and on with so many different members here who's work i love to look at and LEARN from. what you are effectively saying is that i can;t learn anything from these people cos they use a different BRAND than me.

doesn;t that strike you as being a little narrow minded and ridiculous ? :confused:

[timmciglobal]

Not to mention many people who shoot a camera either have shot or do shoot other cameras.

Tim

[XaiLo]

I do! I do! Personally I find brand loyalty to be somewhat of a novelty if brand "X" is not bringing to market products that are worthy of my dollars, I take me and my dollars to brand "Y". While it maybe nice to be supportive of the company chosen, the decision made was based on personal needs and desires. That decision does not become the litmus test by which others should base their descisions. Fact is the end result is based on the user... tactile response, performance, and image quality. And to different people those areas can and do have very different meanings.

Unfortunately for most new comers they don't know enough to make the best decision for themselves (not anyones fault it's just a reality). And likewise those trying to help per se, in a forum type setting such as this don't really know enough about the people that assistance is being offered to. At best it becomes an educated crapshoot. It's human nature to want to validate ones own decision but that should not make one blind. Buying into Canon or Nikon only gives a person the opportunity to capture something special it's up to them to make it a reality. Everything else is just personal preference. "My@2cents.com" :) happy shooting:eek: