30D vs 5D Noise

[30D'er]

Hi everyone,

Quick question regarding noise at high ISO's.

I've seen some pics taken by a 5D at high ISO's (1600 - 3200) and with little to no noise reduction PP, the quality seems very very high.

Does the 5D really have such better performance over the 30D? Or have I just not figured out how to use my camera. (Also likely)

Thanks!!

[ghms421]

The 5D is in fact better, but the 30D is no slouch at all. Not at the 5D level, but your comparing two totally different cameras(1.6 vs FF).

[nicksan]

The 5D has about 1 stop better ISO performance than the 30D according to the reports.

I used to have a 30D, and I can tell you that this is true...

Properly exposed ISO1600 on the 5D look like ISO800 shots, maybe even ISO 400 shots on the 30D.

5D is a better low light and ISO performer. That's a fact...

Hi everyone,

Quick question regarding noise at high ISO's.

I've seen some pics taken by a 5D at high ISO's (1600 - 3200) and with little to no noise reduction PP, the quality seems very very high.

Does the 5D really have such better performance over the 30D? Or have I just not figured out how to use my camera. (Also likely)

Thanks!!

[Eoseni]

The 5D has about 1 stop better ISO performance than the 30D according to the reports.

I used to have a 30D, and I can tell you that this is true...

Properly exposed ISO1600 on the 5D look like ISO800 shots, maybe even ISO 400 shots on the 30D.

5D is a better low light and ISO performer. That's a fact...

WOW. Impressive.

I wish I had a 5D. The 20D is equal to the 30D right in this regard? I've a 20D.

[nicksan]

Yes, the 20D and 30D should be the same.
The 20D is every bit as good as the 30D, except the spot metering, but that's for specific situations. You still have Partial metering on the 20D...

There is a $1000+ difference between the 30D and the 5D so that needs to be part of the equation...

The 20/30D are awesome cameras!

WOW. Impressive.

I wish I had a 5D. The 20D is equal to the 30D right in this regard? I've a 20D.

[30D'er]

Good input. Thanks.

Now I don't feel like such a loser!

Of course this means a 5D is in my future...

The 5D has about 1 stop better ISO performance than the 30D according to the reports.

I used to have a 30D, and I can tell you that this is true...

Properly exposed ISO1600 on the 5D look like ISO800 shots, maybe even ISO 400 shots on the 30D.

5D is a better low light and ISO performer. That's a fact...

[Photolistic]

Good input. Thanks.

Now I don't feel like such a loser!

Of course this means a 5D is in my future...

What are you going to do with your name when you get the 5D? Change it to 5D'er?

[Damian75]

I do alot of shooting at hi ISO 1600-3200 doing indoor sports and if you make sure that your shots are slightly overexposed and not at all under the results are quite good I have made 16x20 prints from 3200 iso shot that turned out great.

[Jman13]

Also realize that most of the photos you see of the 5D on forums are of reduced size. Reducing an image for the web will eliminate a HUGE amount of the noise in a shot. So, if you're comparing your full size 30D photos to reduced 5D photos, you'll see a huge difference, while in reality, the difference isn't as big as you might think. It's definitely there, but not HUGE.

[The Hardcard]

Click here to see (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos5d/page21.asp) noise on the 5D measured against the 20D, the 1Ds Mark II, and the Nikon 2Dx.

Granted, it is one way of measuring, done by one reviewer. But all Canon cameras (you can peruse his other reviews for more info) have nearly the same noise measurements. I'd be interested in seeing who says there is a significant difference in noise between the 5D and the 30D.

I suspect it may be because of the way CMOS is more suspectible to noise fluctuations than CCDs. Canon engineers came up with an ingenious way of compensating for CMOS noise that has them crushing the best efforts of CCD makers to reduce noise, even when they should have a better start than Canon.

The CMOS noise issue, combined with Canon's technique to measure and remove CMOS noise results in the noise response on all Canon cameras to be very, very similar in a given period. Thus, all cameras with a DIGIC II have a very, very similar noise response, regardless of pixel size.

In my opinion, noise is not an important reason to choose between various Canon cameras, though it is an important reason to get a Canon camera.

[Neilyb]

I was led to believe the 5D's larger sesors sites warm up more evenly than the smaller 1.6x cameras, thus giving less noticable noise. But I have a 5D and the noise is quite noticable, especially when pulling darker images, if you are not too careful - but definately better than I got on the 350D.

[nicksan]

All reviews aside, all I can say is that I had a 30D and now have a 5D and the differences are there.

Obviously the 5D is not going to work miracles so if you blow them up 100% and pixel peep then you will see noise for sure. But the noise is finer therefore when viewed at regular size it is not as noticeable.

At least that's what I see...

Otherwise I guess I spent $1000 more on nothing. (well I did get FF sensor and 12MP)

[Tee Why]

I've used both for a whole day to see if I can see the difference. I personally don't see much if any when shooting RAW and processing the shots in my normal manner in RSP or DPP.

[Eoseni]

All reviews aside, all I can say is that I had a 30D and now have a 5D and the differences are there.

Obviously the 5D is not going to work miracles so if you blow them up 100% and pixel peep then you will see noise for sure. But the noise is finer therefore when viewed at regular size it is not as noticeable.

At least that's what I see...

Otherwise I guess I spent $1000 more on nothing. (well I did get FF sensor and 12MP)

Nicksan, good for you that you see the improvements, but I think what you paid for mostly would be, as you said, the FF and the 12MP and other things.

In the end, your clients are likely going to choose your most powerful and emotional images, not the sharpest or most noiseless ones. Noise can be used artistically too, and be a plus. PS has a noise addition filter. And I've seen images with lots of noise, and they do make a good impact in right situations. My point is it's probably not on the radar of how people choose images for the most part.

[Steiglitz]

I was led to believe the 5D's larger sesors sites warm up more evenly than the smaller 1.6x cameras, thus giving less noticable noise. But I have a 5D and the noise is quite noticable, especially when pulling darker images, if you are not too careful - but definately better than I got on the 350D.


Your 5D is not the rule, but an exception.....your 5D is perhaps faulty because I've had the 20D/30D 1D Mark II, and now 5D's and the lower noise of the 5D is often very noticably.

[Steiglitz]

Click here to see (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos5d/page21.asp) noise on the 5D measured against the 20D, the 1Ds Mark II, and the Nikon 2Dx.

Granted, it is one way of measuring, done by one reviewer. But all Canon cameras (you can peruse his other reviews for more info) have nearly the same noise measurements. I'd be interested in seeing who says there is a significant difference in noise between the 5D and the 30D.

I suspect it may be because of the way CMOS is more suspectible to noise fluctuations than CCDs. Canon engineers came up with an ingenious way of compensating for CMOS noise that has them crushing the best efforts of CCD makers to reduce noise, even when they should have a better start than Canon.

The CMOS noise issue, combined with Canon's technique to measure and remove CMOS noise results in the noise response on all Canon cameras to be very, very similar in a given period. Thus, all cameras with a DIGIC II have a very, very similar noise response, regardless of pixel size.

In my opinion, noise is not an important reason to choose between various Canon cameras, though it is an important reason to get a Canon camera.

I'll say it...I have a 30D, had two 1D Mark II's and now 3 5D's, and let me tell you that the 5D provides lower noise then the 30D and 1D Mark II...often VERY noticable.

If you think all the Canon DSLR's are nearly the same in noise then you have been mislead....betwee the 20D/30D and the 1D Mark II's there is very little difference...but between the 5D and all other Canon DSLR's the difference is very noticable and very, very noticably at ISO 1600 and faster.

[Steiglitz]

I've used both for a whole day to see if I can see the difference. I personally don't see much if any when shooting RAW and processing the shots in my normal manner in RSP or DPP.

Most of the noise is created at the time the raw image is created in the camera....and since even jpg's start from a raw image, jpgs have just a tad more noise then raw because of the noise introduced during in-camera conversion from raw to jpg....what I'm trying to say is that in regard to noise levels, it matters very little if you shoot jpg or raw.

[Steiglitz]

I've used both for a whole day to see if I can see the difference. I personally don't see much if any when shooting RAW and processing the shots in my normal manner in RSP or DPP.

Whole day? That it pitifully little time to determine a difference in noise between two camera models. I've shoot 10's of thousands of images on each, and I assure you that the differences in noise are often there, and very noticable especially at ISO 800 and faster. On average, the 5D images are no less then 1 full stop lower in noise then same images taken with a 30D and 1D Mark II...this is no small thing.

[nicksan]

Yes, good for me. But I don't think I am "seeing" things...there IS a difference. That cannot be refuted!

Oh yes, the FF and 12MP is pretty good also!

Nicksan, good for you that you see the improvements, but I think what you paid for mostly would be, as you said, the FF and the 12MP and other things.

Who's to say I have "clients"? :)
I don't have the power to predict what each person is looking for in a photo. I do agree that some noise that is "added" creatively can add "character" to the photo. But who's to say that is what MOST PEOPLE like? I am not sure I agree with you here.

People choose images that move them, yes, I think I tend to agree here. But wouldn't you say if the same image was nice and sharp in the RIGHT WAY, most would PROBABLY choose that over a grainy and noisy photograph?

What you are saying sounds like people would prefer Vinyl over CD. I think there are some people who do. But the technology is undeniable!

It all depends on the situation I think...



In the end, your clients are likely going to choose your most powerful and emotional images, not the sharpest or most noiseless ones. Noise can be used artistically too, and be a plus. PS has a noise addition filter. And I've seen images with lots of noise, and they do make a good impact in right situations. My point is it's probably not on the radar of how people choose images for the most part.

[nicksan]

THANK YOU!!!
:):):):)
I'll say it...I have a 30D, had two 1D Mark II's and now 3 5D's, and let me tell you that the 5D provides lower noise then the 30D and 1D Mark II...often VERY noticable.

If you think all the Canon DSLR's are nearly the same in noise then you have been mislead....betwee the 20D/30D and the 1D Mark II's there is very little difference...but between the 5D and all other Canon DSLR's the difference is very noticable and very, very noticably at ISO 1600 and faster.

[Eoseni]

Yes, good for me. But I don't think I am "seeing" things...there IS a difference. That cannot be refuted!

Oh yes, the FF and 12MP is pretty good also!



Who's to say I have "clients"? :)
I don't have the power to predict what each person is looking for in a photo. I do agree that some noise that is "added" creatively can add "character" to the photo. But who's to say that is what MOST PEOPLE like? I am not sure I agree with you here.

People choose images that move them, yes, I think I tend to agree here. But wouldn't you say if the same image was nice and sharp in the RIGHT WAY, most would PROBABLY choose that over a grainy and noisy photograph?

What you are saying sounds like people would prefer Vinyl over CD. I think there are some people who do. But the technology is undeniable!

It all depends on the situation I think...

Nicksan, I agree with you. However, noiselessness remains a distant second or third, to emotional impact of an image FOR MOST PEOPLE...even those who love LPs!

[nicksan]

I guess you speak for the people then!;)

Nicksan, I agree with you. However, noiselessness remains a distant second or third, to emotional impact of an image FOR MOST PEOPLE...even those who love LPs!

[Eoseni]

I speak from my experience of people... and that's how we function from day to day don't we, from judgments of people. I hate to come across as too opinionated though, so Nicksan, I may be wrong...but like Monk says...but I'm not! LOL.

[StealthLude]

Ive also seen it first hand, 5D low light ISO peformance is just AMAZING...

I cane belive some of the shots that come off the camera... so clean and little to no noise at high iso like 1600 or 3200.

[Phil Light]

I'm going to have to completly support everything nicksan is saying. I also moved from a 30D to a 5D and to me, the difference is obvious. I am not knocking the 30D, it is a tremendous camera, but the 5D wins the IQ contest hands down. I posted the first 1600 ISO image I took here (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showpost.php?p=2535227&postcount=13). See what you think. I wish I still had my 30D so I could post comparisons, but I need no more convincing personally. The only question is, is the difference enough to make it worth the extra $$$ to you.

[Steiglitz]

I speak from my experience of people... and that's how we function from day to day don't we, from judgments of people. I hate to come across as too opinionated though, so Nicksan, I may be wrong...but like Monk says...but I'm not! LOL.

Nope, this is how we don't "function".

Better to draw conclusions from first hand knowledge...otherwise it's like that old childhood game called "telephone"....by the time the "secret" gets around 10-20 kids, the message has changed, and reliability falls.

If you're parroting what others have said, then DON'T come accross as opinionated...better to preface your remarks with "I have heard...", or "I read..", or "It is alledged that blah, blah....". To draw conclusions with little or no first hand knowledge is a bit dicey, yea? But those like Nicksan and myself can speak with more authority as we have used both cameras tons; I know that I have, that's for sure.

This is the difference between using the Passive Voice and the Affirmative Voice.

[Steiglitz]

I guess you speak for the people then!;)


...this response was for Tim Wee...not Nicksa....my bad fingers......

I disagree...if an image shows low noise, nobody will "notice" the absense of noise, but if the image is very noisy, then it can distract, and people will notice it.

[Eoseni]

I don't disagree about the 5D's superior noise control, Steiglitz. See my early post above. Sorry, don't mistake my tone. I'm here for contributing, not raising blood pressure. If you are annoyed, sorry. I will be quiet now.

Peace.

[Steiglitz]

No, not annoyed at all...Always glad to read your responses. ;-)

[steveathome]

IMHO the difference in noise is noticeably improved upon, as is the colour reproduction, and all in all image quality. Not to say the 30D is poor, it is not, but just my opinion that the 5D is worth getting over the 30D for an improved image quality.

I wouldn't like to quote how many stops better it is with noise, I think this could vary with different situations.

[Tee Why]

Why would the 5D have better noise control than a 1DMII when they both have the same size pixels and same processing program (Digic II). I thought the whole thing is dependent on processing and pixel density? If Shot in RAW, the noise should be identical between the 1DMII and 5D. If anything since the 5D has a bigger sensor size it should generate more heat and hence more noise than the 1DMII.
Look here, both are 8.2 x 8.2 micrometers in size, which are the biggest least dense in Canon's lineup. Noise is also attributable to the heat built up in the sensor, more pixels mean more heat, hence more noise in theory.
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos5d/page12.asp

Dpreview has a test of the noise and dynamic range of the 20D vs 5D and 20D has a touch more range as well.
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos5d/page22.asp
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos30d/page20.asp

Here is Phil's take on the noise difference between a 30D and the 5D
"Apart from the obvious resolution difference the EOS 30D and EOS 5D produced fairly similar levels of visible noise and also limited softening at ISO 1600 and 3200. The Nikon D200 exhibits more noise above ISO 800 and pretty heavy noise reduction effect at ISO 3200. The D200's noise reduction seems to take care of chroma (color) noise better than Canon giving noise a more film like monochromatic appearance. However on balance it's clear that the EOS 30D comes away with a more usable image (compared to the D200) at ISO 1600 and 3200."

I've had the 1DMIIN for a year and am very familiar with the sensor with a 8.2 x 8.2 micrometer size and while it does return more signal to noise from a high ISO shot that are clipped due to wide dynamics, I don't think the difference is that big. It's there, but not a big deal to me.

[nicksan]

Monk was a little "off-beat" to put it lightly...;)

I speak from my experience of people... and that's how we function from day to day don't we, from judgments of people. I hate to come across as too opinionated though, so Nicksan, I may be wrong...but like Monk says...but I'm not! LOL.

[nicksan]

No raised blood pressure here either...we all have opinions about everything and that's what makes things interesting.

We interpret things differently...else we would be taking the same pics!

I try to always speak from personal experience.

There are soooo many people in the world, it's hard to figure out what people want no matter how you dice things up.

Vinyl vs. CD.
Noise vs. No Noise.
Trane vs. Miles

I don't mind the "disucssions" one bit unless it degrades to the "who's got the biggest sausage" type discussion. (Please excuse me!) ...or the I'm older you're not, therefore I'm better type deals!!!

Proves one thing. We are all passionate about this!!!

I don't disagree about the 5D's superior noise control, Steiglitz. See my early post above. Sorry, don't mistake my tone. I'm here for contributing, not raising blood pressure. If you are annoyed, sorry. I will be quiet now.

Peace.

[sports4ever_34]

Most of the noise is created at the time the raw image is created in the camera....and since even jpg's start from a raw image, jpgs have just a tad more noise then raw because of the noise introduced during in-camera conversion from raw to jpg....what I'm trying to say is that in regard to noise levels, it matters very little if you shoot jpg or raw.

Just to make things clear, I am in no way an expert on this topic (I have an XT) and am not trying to get in on the debate, but I am here to learn. A little while ago I read this at dpreview http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos400d/page18.asp which seems to contradict what Steiglitz said about jpegs having more noise (unless the 30D is different from the XTI in this regard) than raws. According to this the incamera conversion to jpegs actually will reduce noise. If anyone could make better sense of this I would appreciate it.

[Tee Why]

Basically, if you shoot in JPEG, the processing program (Digic II) applies sharpening, saturation, contrast, and even noise reduction. Downside of noise reduction is that you lose detail and things appear softer.

If you shoot RAW, no noise reduction is applied so a RAW image will appear noisier, assuming there is some noise. You can apply noise reduction yourself and generally, if you know what to do, you can do a better job than a standardized program applied in the JPEG version to reduce noise while maintaining the most detail possible.