300D review of ISO and Noiseware Community ED. 56k beware.

[IanBMW]

OK These were taken in bright daylight with no editing done to them other than crops and filtering. Pretty self explanatory. Some problems with my test are, I could not do ISO100 because it was too bright outside. My focas is pretty accurate on all of the pictures, and being at 200mm focal length at f/9 any itty bitty variation just wont show up. My camera is hacked, and that is why you see ISO3200. For the absolutly lazy, I figure that up to ISO800 is usable even with portraits up to 8x10. Any Bigger than 8x10 I would not break ISO400. Once I found this out, being 2 min ago I figure that now A stop difference on a lens isn't that big of a deal when I can just bump ISO. I used to be absolutly terrified of anything above ISO100, but now I see the light. You can get a free version of this software at http://www.imagenomic.com , but beware it only does JPEG's at 90% quality. I think you can buy it and allow up to 10image batches for $26. I'm prolly going to buy it. WIthout further ado...
http://www.pbase.com/image/42301783/original.jpg

[IanBMW]

Oh and tell me what you think about my test. Please don't tear me too far down.

[drisley]

I've printed 8x10 and larger images from ISO1600 shots on the 300D and they look perfectly clean.
Looking at a 100% image on a 19" monitor is like smashing your face up to a large poster and looking at every detail, so 100% pixel peeping is not an appropriate way to test.
But, it does look like that software does a nice job.

[IanBMW]

I know, but you know how people are about quality. They want the absolute best even if they prolly won't be able to tell the difference on a print.

[tim]

Nice test, I plan to do something similar for my 20D when I get around to it. Noise reduction works pretty well to remove the color noise, but you lose some detail. At ISO 800 you lose a tiny amount, at 1600 you lose enough for me to avoid it, for me at 3200 only use it if you can't get the shot any other way.

[drisley]

I know, but you know how people are about quality. They want the absolute best even if they prolly won't be able to tell the difference on a print.
Good point and I agree with you 100%. Thanks for taking the time to show the differences the way you did. I know many will find your test very usefull.

A lot of us have only shot digital, and are spoiled by the low noise profiles of today's DSLRs which have lower noise/grain at ISO1600 than film used to have a ASA400.
However, in the days of film, unless we worked in a darkroom, we could only view the final print. There wasn't the luxury of viewing negatives at 100% in photoshop which would be like viewing a gigantic poster with your face only a few inches away.
Sports Illustrated just started using digital in the past few years. Before that they routinely printed images in their magazines, and on the cover, that would make ISO3200 on the DRebel look smooth as silk.
I wouldnt hesitate for a second to use ISO3200 on the 20D, or print out ISO3200 shots without noise reduction. In fact, I routinely do that all the time. Or if I have to use noise reduction, like in the case of a ISO3200 shot that was severly underexposed, I usually reduce it's strength by up to 50%.
A little bit of grain never hurt anybody, and in fact can make your images look sharper. I shot a bunch of ISO1600 and ISO3200 bodybuilding pictures last month that are currently on their way to be printed on huge posters to be used to promote the next local events.

[DocFrankenstein]

Very nice test... and a patient model too!

I'm impressed with the noise reduction. Did you use RAW?

[IanBMW]

No straight Jpeg. I felt RAW conversion would be a little more effort than I was willing to take. Plus there would be more factors, like processing and what software...blah blah...having to either process to jpeg or buy the software to process .tif . Plus I'm starting to use less and less RAW. For me it strips away the fun of taking pictures...too much time in the workflow. Maybe .dng will change this...only time will tell.

[IanBMW]

Good point and I agree with you 100%. Thanks for taking the time to show the differences the way you did. I know many will find your test very usefull.
I wouldnt hesitate for a second to use ISO3200 on the 20D, or print out ISO3200 shots without noise reduction. In fact, I routinely do that all the time. Or if I have to use noise reduction, like in the case of a ISO3200 shot that was severly underexposed, I usually reduce it's strength by up to 50%.
A little bit of grain never hurt anybody, and in fact can make your images look sharper. I shot a bunch of ISO1600 and ISO3200 bodybuilding pictures last month that are currently on their way to be printed on huge posters to be used to promote the next local events.
Thanks for the added info and I couldnt agree more. A little grain does add to alot of pictures. It's funny how everyone strived for less and less grain....and now i'm starting to see photoshop actions popping up to add the grain to mimic film.

[drisley]

It's funny how everyone strived for less and less grain....and now i'm starting to see photoshop actions popping up to add the grain to mimic film.
Absolutely! That is a something I've thought about, and forgot to mention in my rant above. :)

[snibbetsj]

Thanks for the test results, I've seen the same thing in my photos. I bought Noiseware Pro a couple of months ago and it works wonders when you need it.

[GyRob]

Noiseware also does a great job on aircraft shots ,like your test btw.
Rob.