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
|
|||
|
|||
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). |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
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). There is little dispute that Canon's CMOS produces the cleanest ISO images. I wouldn't dispute, however, that the D200 has a build that I wish Canon would emulate. -- Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by MarkČ at: www.pbase.com/markuson |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
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). You'll get used to the feel of the 30D; you'll never be happy with the crap images from the Nikon. No contest. Canon. Colin D. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
High ISO noise CCD's vs CMOS
ColinD 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 !!! 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). You'll get used to the feel of the 30D; you'll never be happy with the crap images from the Nikon. No contest. Canon. Colin D. Looking at those two images, the little $599 Nikon kicked the $1200 Canon's a--. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
High ISO noise CCD's vs CMOS
RichA wrote:
ColinD 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 !!! 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). You'll get used to the feel of the 30D; you'll never be happy with the crap images from the Nikon. No contest. Canon. Colin D. Looking at those two images, the little $599 Nikon kicked the $1200 Canon's a--. You're talking out of yours ... Colin D. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
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 !!! 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. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
High ISO noise CCD's vs CMOS
ian wrote:
"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? True. Although in spite of my whining, I have yet to even experience my first sensor-dust speck on my 5D, much less any trouble with other seals. Would I prefer 1D type sealing? Absolutely. Is it life or death? No. Should Canon provide it anyway...on a $3K DSLR? No question. -Gaskets are super-cheap. Nikon proves that. 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. I've had excellent flash performance with my 5D and the 580EX. Improvement over my 10D w/ 550EX is significant. Still not perfect, but it's an improvement. With full frame, I've had to get back in the habit of flipping down the built-in wide screen on the flash...but it works well. -- Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by MarkČ at: www.pbase.com/markuson |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
D80 - high ISO noise | frederick | Digital SLR Cameras | 19 | November 2nd 06 08:01 PM |
ISO 200000 ? | Gene F. Rhodes | Digital Photography | 113 | February 4th 06 04:58 PM |
Noise levels as a function of pixel size | Alfred Molon | Digital SLR Cameras | 19 | December 18th 05 05:51 PM |
Canon 20D noise reduction at high ISO's | Winston | Digital Photography | 0 | February 17th 05 08:50 PM |
Canon 20D noise reduction at high ISO's | Winston | Digital Photography | 0 | February 17th 05 08:50 PM |