Noise 300D vs 20D

[markubig]

Hi all -

For those of you who have experience w/ both cameras, is there a significant difference between the 300D and 20D in terms of high ISO noise?

I have a 300D . . . noise is pretty significant at 1600 (and 3200 w/ hack), so I try to stay away from it as much as possible (unless i really need it). Noise at 800 is visible, but tolerable once I run an NR filter on it.

Problem is . . . (and I know it's my fault) . . . there have been times where I start the camera and begin shooting with flash, but I forget that I'm in high ISO (last night it was 800) and all of my shots have noise in them, especially slightly underexposed ones (it didn't occur to me that I was in high ISO when i was getting all the underexposed pics, especially with the farther subjects that I knew were in the flash range). So, anyway, I've been sitting here on the computer running NRs on basically all of last nights photos.

Again, i admit that it's my fault for not checking before I began shooting, but if I had a 20D, would ISO 800 have the same amount of noise, or would it be considerably less? Do a lot of your 20D ISO800-1600 photos require any NR at all?

I'm just frustrated for having to do all this unnecessary PP. Thanks for your help!

[cmM]

i have both cameras, and the noise is lower on the 20d, obviously. You know this whole noise thing differs from situation to situation. Depends on exposure, depends on scene, etc... But the 20D does indeed perform better at higher ISO speeds.

Bottom line,.... God bless Neat Image :-P

[tim]

I find the 20D a lot less noise at high ISO than the 300D I just sold. On the 300D i'd try to stay below 400 where possible, on the 20D ISO 800's ok, and 1600/3200 are usable. I took some ISO 1600/flash shots last night, they came out pretty nice without any noise reduction.

[Kinger]

I do not have experience with the 20D, but it is supposed to be much better at high ISO. The DRebel is capable of high ISO shots if they are exposed properly.


example: http://home.comcast.net/~king247/images/CRW_1433.jpg

[markubig]

I find the 20D a lot less noise at high ISO than the 300D I just sold. On the 300D i'd try to stay below 400 where possible, on the 20D ISO 800's ok, and 1600/3200 are usable. I took some ISO 1600/flash shots last night, they came out pretty nice without any noise reduction.

thanks guys!

Hey Tim, when you say ISO800 on the 20D is ok . . . are u saying that noise is still visible?

Thanks!

[tim]

I haven't done any real testing with the 20D yet, I mean to get around to it some time. I know 100-400 are good enough I don't bother with noise reduction, and at ISO 1600 i'd like to use noise reduction... ISO 800 I guess i'd look at on a photo by photo basis.

I just had a photo (http://www.mrwild.co.nz/Proofs/VivianStreetFire_6Mar05/slides/IMG_7243.html) taken at ISO 400 printed 45cm wide, no noise reduction, and it looks perfect. Most of the others on that page are ISO 1600, but they've been resized down so the noise probably won't show.

[mbze430]

Noise tolerability for me for the 20D is 1600 max + NR. 3200 (H) even with NR is still not useable in alot of the time.

[tacos3]

I upgraded my 300d in November with a 20d. I shoot a lot of indoor music concerts at my church with big christian bands. The light is poor so I shoot mainly ISO 1600. On the 300d, I used Noise Ninja to clean the images up before posting.

With the 20d, there is MUCH less noise to clean up at 1600 and I only clean the images that have noticeable noise at 100-200% crops. I hardly use noise ninja these days. I guess I'll have to try ISO 3200 to see what I get.

Yes there is a big difference. My non scientific estimate is that the 20d shoots about as noisy at 1600 as the 300d does at between 400-800.

Good luck....Darren

[johneric8]

I have both cameras and the 20D is much much better past 400 and up to me..

[phili1]

I had to shoot my grand daughters dance contest and thought that the lighting would be bright enough for me to use ISO 1600, but they kept it low. This gave me 2 problems. 1 - ISO 3200 was needed and the higest shutter spped I had was 1/60 to 1/80 of a sec.

All In all I got some very decent shots, good enough to make a slide show out of it. This is 1 picture I got. I used Noise ninja to remove noise.

[markubig]

Thank you all for your replies . . . i asked the question because I was just so annoyed for having to NR all these pictures. I even had a 20D body in my cart on B&H . . . after I calmed down, i realized that I can't afford this right now, but it's just another check to the "pro" column of my "pros/cons" on upgrading to the 20D

[Persian-Rice]

I was forced to shoot a big hockey tournament with my 10D(1d was stolen) on Friday at ISO 800. I properly exposed every shot and only got some minor colour noise. Colour(Chrominance or whatever it is called) noise is easy to get rid of and wont really hurt image quality. I almost have no noise in my shots.

I think the difference between the 20D and the older stuff is ISO 1600. If you expose properly at 800 there is almost no noise. At 1600, the 10D gets a little noisy, even if you properly expose.

I would say the 20D gives you more flexibility at higher ISO. Its not perfect, because if you underexpose a shot at ISO 800 on a 20D and properly expose at 800 on a 10D, the 10D will be better. I think the 20D just allows you to be off a stop or maybe two if you are lucky, but any more and the noise performance advantage is gone.

[tim]

I just had a quick play with the 20D at all ISO settings, properly exposing the images. The images were shot hand held and of three different scenes: 1) The remains of a fire, 2) Buildings and blue sky with fluffy white clouds, and 3) The inside of a car parking building - all I had to do was turn around to get different scenes :)

ISO 100-400 are very similar, if you pixel peep you might be able to find a little noise, but there's not much. ISO 800 looks almost as good on my 17 inch LCD, at 100% it looks slightly grainer, but there's not much color noise. ISO 1600 is slightly more grainy, and color noise increases, but it's only really noticable if you go to 100%. ISO 3200 is a little further on, a little bit more grain and color noise, but i'm suprised how little extra noise there is. At ISO 3200 you do lose some detail though, which is noticable when you view the image at full screen and even moreso at 100%.

I'll now use ISO 400 as happily as ISO 100, though i'll opt for lower so long as the shutter speed's ok. I'll not hesitate at all to use ISO 800 to get high shutter speeds. For my theatre shooting which i've just started i'll probably try and stick to ISO 1600 if I can, but i'll go to ISO 3200 if I need to and I won't worry too much.

Some time in the near future i'll do some better tests, and post 100% crops and a more full review somewhere.

[Persian-Rice]

It has been argued and proven to a certain extend that the noise on the 20D is actually slightly more then the Rebel or 10D at lower ISO(100-400). The reason is that it does not process as much when at those ISO levels, but due to the fact it uses smaller photosites, more noise will be produced. Its nothing to get worried about or even consider, as not only is it minimal, but its more of a technical fact then something you will be able to see on your average image.

Mind you I would like to see some equally underexposed shots that are lightened in photoshop and then compared.