20d ISO800 noise

[wintoid]

I've read a lot about the 20d performing well at high ISO, with really low noise levels. I'm starting to wonder whether I'm doing something wrong, or losing my objectivity. I'd appreciate any comments about the noise levels in this image. It was shot in RAW at ISO800 f8.0 1/250 using a 20d and 24-85mm lens at 85mm, and lit by 550ex. The exposure is unadjusted, although the white balance has been adjusted.

Here's the whole image at 10%

http://simon.pietroni.co.uk/smallkatie.jpg

Here's a 100% crop showing a non-shadowy part of the image

http://simon.pietroni.co.uk/smallkatie_100percent.jpg

here's a 100% crop showing a more shadowy part of the image

http://simon.pietroni.co.uk/smallkatie_100percent-001.jpg

Does this look to be particularly good performance at ISO 800? Seems kind of grainy to me.

[drisley]

First of all cute pictures.
Second of all, are you kidding? That is fantastic performance at ISO800!!
Even the 100% crops look great!
However, most importantly the full image (#1) is clean as clean can be, that is what counts, as does the output when printed.
The amount of noise at 100% view is not really important.
Print that picture off at 4x6, 5x7, or 8x10, and I can guarantee you wont see any noise. :wink:

[CyberDyneSystems]

Yeah.. I think you need to see some "bad" or "averadge" noise levels from an ISO800 photo if you are concerned about it here.

Like Drisley says.. this is FANTASTIC ISO 800 performance.

[drisley]

This sort of reminds me of something.
I've been on the internet since the old 14k modems.
I've gradually upgraded to 28k, 56k, then 1Mb DSL, and now 3Mb DSL.
The speed now is tremendous.

The other day I was at my friend's place. He has a 14yr old daughter who has always used high speed cable internet. She was sitting at the computer complaining about how slow their internet connection is (they have 8Mb cable) :shock:

[maderito]

I'm curious -- what RAW conversion software and settings did you use? If you didn't adjust settings - what were the default values? Have you looked at the JPEG embedded in the RAW file?

[wintoid]

Thanks for the comments, I'm thinking about them.

Actually Drisley, it's your shots that look so noise free to me that I have myself doubting my own pictures. I also think that the 20d "does" noise differently to the 300d. It's sort of peppered rather than smooth (does that make any kind of sense?). Perhaps I just liked the way the 300d did noise. I'd never go back, mind you, absolutely LOVE my 20d. I'd say over 80% of my shots are now in focus and properly exposed, which was NOT the case with the 300d.

I believe my 20d is set to not record a JPG file at all. I used my registered copy of Capture 1 SE, which has been doctored to use the 1DMK2 conversion algorithms until Phase One sort out support for the 20d. I'm aware that sounds dodgy but it looks significantly better than DPP or Photoshop to me.

[wintoid]

Oh just remembered, I bumped the saturation by 10% in C1SE, which is normal for me as I like that look.

[timmyquest]

Your joking....right?!


Thats good timing...
http://www.photography-on-the.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=312973#312973

[drisley]

Timmy, your "rant" in that link is bang on in my opinion. Exactly what I'm thinking.

Wintoid, I can say that my ISO1600 volleyball pictures dont look nearly as clean at 100% as your images above.
The main reason is because I slightly underexposed and compensated in Raw conversion.
However, when reduced to web output, or printed, they will look super clean.
I'm totally impressed with your second crop of the eye. I would have guessed ISO200 if someone asked me.
And you are right, the 20D does produce a different noise pattern than the 300D. I totally agree. It took me some getting used to as well.
But when I took the ISO1600 shots, I realized that in fact the noise pattern was much better, as it looks alot more like film grain and less like sensor noise (as is the case of the 300D). So when printed, the look is much more appealing and natural.
And, when all else fails, use the awesome noise reduction software out there like Noise Ninja 2. That is my favourite. I even used it on a few volleyball shots because of my exposure compensation in software. And there is almost NO loss of detail. It works exceptionally well with 20D files.

Keep this in mind too. A small amount of noise can actually give the illustion of a sharper picture, especially when printed. That is why some advanced shapening software actually ADD noise to the picture in the "print" sharpening algorithms. So noise isn't all bad.

[friscomgm]

Does this look to be particularly good performance at ISO 800? Seems kind of grainy to me.

:shock: :shock: :shock: :shock:

Are you kidding me? Looks as good as the lowest setting on the D70 IMO.

8)

[Jesper]

There's nothing wrong with your 20D. I get about the same with my 10D.

If you want even less noise, you could try one of the many noise reduction software packages, like Noise Ninja (http://www.picturecode.com/), Neat Image (http://www.neatimage.com/) or Noiseware (http://www.imagenomic.com/). These work amazingly well to remove noise but retain the detail in your images.

Have a look at Michael Almond's Noise Reduction Tool Comparison (http://www.michaelalmond.com/Articles/noise.htm).

[wintoid]

Thanks to all for the feedback.

Timmy, I'm not whining, just trying to understand.

Oh, and I'm not kidding, for those who asked :D