Photography - High ISO noise CCD's vs CMOS

PhotoBanter.com (http://www.photobanter.com/index.php)

- Digital SLR Cameras (http://www.photobanter.com/forumdisplay.php?f=21)

- - High ISO noise CCD's vs CMOS (http://www.photobanter.com/showthread.php?t=68644)

High ISO noise CCD's vs CMOS

Ok, I'm in the market for my first DSLR (upgrade from 35 mm SLR and
Nikon 5700).

I've been looking at reviews on the Sony A100, Nikon D80/D200 and Canon
30D.

These are both 1600 ISO (see reviews for more detailed information
about conditions etc).

http://www.steves-digicams.com/2006_...s/IMG_8337.JPG

http://www.steves-digicams.com/2006_...s/DSC_3490.JPG

What a HUGE difference !!!

I see so many people say only if you shoot high ISO is it a concern.
Unless your shooting with lights in a studio can't any one use high ISO
at times?

If you can get 2 (or so) stops lower on every lens and get the same
picture, why not take it? You'll pay a small fortune for 2 stops on a
lens.

Are there other compromises in going higher ISO (even in the low range)
besides noise. Do you lose color accuracy etc.

I really favor Nikon for feel and operation. But this ISO noise has me
leaning towards canon CMOS. I also see numerous comments that Canon IS
is better than Nikon VR. So that to me is worth probably another stop.

So the canon seems to have like a 3 stop advantage over Nikon.

I have no investment in lens (my 35mm was a Pentax and I'd never use
those boat anchor manual focus lens again).

High ISO noise CCD's vs CMOS

"mswlogo" wrote in message
oups.com...

So the canon seems to have like a 3 stop advantage over Nikon.

Problem solved - buy Canon.

High ISO noise CCD's vs CMOS

Thanks for catching this. The summary info in the review was a little
short on info. The photos were not a fair comparison. By the way the
site where those photo's come from (Steves Digicam) highly favors the
Nikon D200.

But I think it is true that the Canon is at least 1 stop better, and I
keep reading excuses.

One is (only if you shoot high ISO). But if you can shoot one stop
better which often happens for what ever reason, that seems huge. Other
folks have said the Nikon is more conservative on in camera noise
reduction, but I've seen reviews do everything raw and still have
higher noise.

Build no question, the D200 is more solid. How it operates is purely a
matter of taste.
But I just can't get paste this ISO thing and I have not typically shot
high ISO because it was so bad on my 5700.

That's why I asked is there other reasons to keep your ISO low.

wrote:
mswlogo wrote:
Ok, I'm in the market for my first DSLR (upgrade from 35 mm SLR and
Nikon 5700).

I've been looking at reviews on the Sony A100, Nikon D80/D200 and Canon
30D.

These are both 1600 ISO (see reviews for more detailed information
about conditions etc).

http://www.steves-digicams.com/2006_...s/IMG_8337.JPG

http://www.steves-digicams.com/2006_...s/DSC_3490.JPG

What a HUGE difference !!!

Did you look at the exif? The Canon photo is at 1/250s f/2.8 while the
Nikon at 1/100s f/7.1. (There is no ISO in the Nikon's exif data). Also
the sharpness in the Nikon is set to "hard", which seems a less than
intelligent thing to do when shooting at ISO 1600.

There is a difference between the two cameras in terms of noise (I
spent some time trying the 20D and the D200 when I was deciding), but
it's by no means as much as you'd think from these two samples.

High ISO noise CCD's vs CMOS

"mswlogo" wrote in message
ups.com...

As far as build quality goes the 20D and 30D are more than adequate unless
you are demanding weather sealing. EOS 5D owners jump in here?

As for higher ISO the alternative is spending more on lenses with a larger
maximum aperture. That usually means brighter viewfinder and better low
light focusing. I know the eos 20D can make use of F2.8 or wider lenses.
An extra set of autofocus sensors come into play. 2 vertical ones. My one
gripe with canon equipment is the tendency of flash system to underexpose.
Nikon is said to be superior in this regard.

High ISO noise CCD's vs CMOS

mswlogo wrote:
But I just can't get paste this ISO thing and I have not typically shot
high ISO because it was so bad on my 5700.

You've answered your own question then: Get the Canon.

Cheers.

High ISO noise CCD's vs CMOS

mswlogo wrote:

Ok, I'm in the market for my first DSLR (upgrade from 35 mm SLR and
Nikon 5700).

I've been looking at reviews on the Sony A100, Nikon D80/D200 and Canon
30D.

These are both 1600 ISO (see reviews for more detailed information
about conditions etc).

http://www.steves-digicams.com/2006_...s/IMG_8337.JPG

http://www.steves-digicams.com/2006_...s/DSC_3490.JPG

What a HUGE difference !!!

I see so many people say only if you shoot high ISO is it a concern.
Unless your shooting with lights in a studio can't any one use high ISO
at times?

If you can get 2 (or so) stops lower on every lens and get the same
picture, why not take it? You'll pay a small fortune for 2 stops on a
lens.

Are there other compromises in going higher ISO (even in the low range)
besides noise. Do you lose color accuracy etc.

I really favor Nikon for feel and operation. But this ISO noise has me
leaning towards canon CMOS. I also see numerous comments that Canon IS
is better than Nikon VR. So that to me is worth probably another stop.

So the canon seems to have like a 3 stop advantage over Nikon.

I have no investment in lens (my 35mm was a Pentax and I'd never use
those boat anchor manual focus lens again).

The point about the exposure times and f/stop being different
has nothing to do with noise, because the light levels between
the two different scenes are probably different. It is all
a matter of the total amount of photons received in each
exposure. (A laboratory with fixed lighting would make
for better tests.)

Noise in DSLR camera images is greatly affected by raw converter
software, so the only true way to understand the noise is a proper
noise analysis on raw data that has not gone through a raw
converter.

Examples:
Procedures for Evaluating Digital Camera
Sensor Noise, Dynamic Range, and Full Well Capacities;
Canon 1D Mark II Analysis
http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/evaluation-1d2

The Nikon D50 Digital Camera:
Sensor Noise, Dynamic Range, and Full Well Analysis
http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedeta...tion-nikon-d50

The factors that will influence the noise between different cameras
is directly related to quantum efficiency, fill factor,
pixel size, and at the low intensity end, read noise
(and for long exposures, thermal noise).

CCD quantum efficiencies tend to be slightly higher than
CMOS sensors, so the advantage there is the Nikon (by perhaps
10%).

Fill factors are essentially 100% by the use of micro-lenses
over the detectors (CCD or CMOS), so no advantage to either.

Read noise: Canon's CMOS has 4 electrons on good cameras like the
20D (and by extension 30D; same sensor). CCDs are typically
7 to 15 electrons (the D50 above is ~ 7.5 electrons.
So the CMOS has an advantage of ~2x at the very lowest signals,
not the main things you see in the steves-digicams.com images
which are much brighter.

That leaves the major factor in noise: the pixel size.
The important factor is delivering photons, and to do that,
you need aperture. See:

The f/ratio Myth and Digital Cameras
http://www.clarkvision.com/photoinfo/f-ratio_myth

The D200 has 6.1 micron pixels versus the 30D at 6.4 micron
pixels, so a small difference (actually area is the important
factor: 37.2 versus 40.1 square microns, again not much
difference).

There should be a slight advantage to the 30D but it should be
small. (I would choose the camera based on other factors.)

I will be evaluating a 200 in the next couple of months.

Other sensor data are located in Tables 1-3 at:
The Signal-to-Noise of Digital Camera images
and Comparison to Film
http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedeta...ignal.to.noise

Roger

Roger

High ISO noise CCD's vs CMOS

Gosh - you sounded just like me when you said that.