20D pics seem to have alot of noise?

[Medic1]

All of my 20D pictures seem to have alot of noise compared to similiar photos from my 300D. I have read through the manual etc. with no luck. Am I missing something here? They don't look too bad at viewable size on a monitor, but once I view them at actual pixels there is considerably more noise than I ever used to get with the rebel. Is it the ISO...I thought this camera was supposed to be superb at ISO 200.

Sorry about the size...100KB is kinda limiting for viewing quality

1/1600
ISO 200 ( I wanted to get the shutter up for high speed passes)
f5.6

[Maxima]

Which ver. of firmware are you currently using?

[Loaded]

will it help changin firmware? I have 1.1.0 and have some similar results. I wont discount the photographer I am using the sigma 24-70exf2.8

[Maxima]

I'm not sure if it'll help or not, but I've heard of people complaining about more noise w/ ver. 2.0.0. I too would like to know if it's related.

[Medic1]

I'm not sure if it'll help or not, but I've heard of people complaining about more noise w/ ver. 2.0.0. I too would like to know if it's related.

Still on 1.1.0.....I didn't see anything really pertaining to my photography style so I never updated the firmware to 2.0.0.

[badrotation]

remember, veiwing them at actual pixels is WAY larger than any print you would make... I think canon says they are like 4 feet across at actual pixel size (I read this somewhere on canons page)


Viewing them at a reasonable size, or on print, you wont see any noise...

[Johnny V]

It's possable what you are seeing is true...I haven't done any tests yet but it seems my original Digital Rebel has less noise than my 350/XT...at least at ISO 800. Maybe I have a noisy XT and a quite Rebel.

[CyberDyneSystems]

Noise on a 20D 200ISO image is virtally non existant with a well exposed image.

Try adding some "plus" exposure compensation next time... you'll want a full stop added for objects in flight .. trust me.. :)

Two more notes..

* Lots of blue sky is a killer for exposing noise...

* High tempratures = more noise... I'm betting it was hot that day ;)

[Medic1]

Thanks CDS.......it was a warm day (34C)......the actual airshow is tomorrow, so I will try bumping up my exposure compensation and see what we get.

This is my second 20D......my camera shop was nice enough to give me an exchange after the last one came with a sandbox on the sensor and I discovered it after shooting 200+ shots and bringing them home to process. I didn't have a problem with the noise then though (with the first 20D). I thought maybe I was just having some bad luck with 20D's, or missing a setting or something.

We'll see how things go tomorrow.....thanks. I'll post back with the results....

[nigelch]

but once I view them at actual pixels

Do you know, I get exactly the same trouble when I blow up Tri-X negs so big I can see the grain...............
The whole idea is you do not view any system at the size that reveals its underlying resolution. That's why you use 5x4 trannies for posters etc.

I shoot book covers with my 20D, and at A4 you cannot distinguish it from a Hasselblad once it has been through the repro and printing process.

N

[lostdoggy]

From looking at the photo is it posible that it is a Dynamic range issue. You have a clear blue sky and the underbelly of the plane. This would stretch the dynamic range of any digital sensor and slide film.

[lancea]

Could you post an unadjusted histogram for the shot? Or at least have a look at it. Are the highlights at the far right? If they are then your shot is exposed to give the least noise. The shot you've posted looks well exposed, but you might have applied some compensation to make it that way.

Looks like exciting stuff! Our air force doesn't have any fighters these days, so that's not something we see here unless our friends are visiting. Hercs and Orions are neat planes, but they don't have quite the same impact ...

[KevC]

Looks like underexposure to me! On my 300D, I have to use EC+1 or else everything's underexposed *shrug*.

[Hellashot]

remember, veiwing them at actual pixels is WAY larger than any print you would make... I think canon says they are like 4 feet across at actual pixel size (I read this somewhere on canons page)

Not using "acutal size" in photoshop. MAYBE if you have it zoomed in far enough to see the pixels as rectangles on your screen. But no one ever has a need to view an image like that for quality purposes.

[Hellashot]

Looks like underexposure to me! On my 300D, I have to use EC+1 or else everything's underexposed *shrug*.

dSLRs underexpose by design. You'll be fine if you leave it as correct exposure and post process.

[Medic1]

Ok Ok........I may have been at this for a year, but I am still a noob when it comes to some things.......thats where all you guys come in!! lol

Exposed +1 stop for todays show.......heres a couple shots from today

[nigelch]

dSLRs underexpose by design.
If you mean that they expose so that there is actual detail in the highlights, then that is what I would call "correct" exposure. It is similar to using incident light readings on film, to effectively peg the highlight exposure.
If that isn't what you mean, please explain.
I set my 20D to 100 ISO, and shoot with studio flash and a digital flashmeter which works to +/- 1/10th stop. Gives superb results where the histograms match shots taken with continuous light and TTL metering, and I certainly wouldn't call it underexposed.
N

[Bob_A]

I don't think there is anything wrong with your camera or images, they just need a bit of tweaking in PS.

[Bob_A]

I hope you don't mind me trying a few things ...

[Medic1]

Try away......

I think the hardest part is knowing that, say, the grass/trees/aircraft were actually not that dark in reality. Makes it hard to adjust the image so that it looks "good" as opposed to "real". Don't get me wrong....that CanHornet1 especially looks great, I just have a hard time making it that way because then it doesn't look as it did when I took the shot. The original I posted is pretty much how the color and saturation of the trees and grass is at this airport, but it certainly makes for a bland picture doesn't it? lol.

Thanks for the adjustments....gives me some ideas.

[robertwgross]

Editing an image like that can be very tricky.

You could try to make it as flat and accurate as possible, or you could try to make it appear the way it appeared in your mind's eye. Yet again, you could try to make it appear the way that the potential viewer would expect it or want it to appear.

Each of those three ways has a different result. It just depends on what you want to accomplish.

---Bob Gross---

[Trumper]

I was'nt at the airshow so i really don't know what the correct image is,all i can say is i prefer the images that HAVE been altered,i would like to know what was done to alter them.Thanks

[Medic1]

I was'nt at the airshow so i really don't know what the correct image is,all i can say is i prefer the images that HAVE been altered,i would like to know what was done to alter them.Thanks

I prefer the altered images as well......I have to break myself out of that habit of making things look as they appeared at the time of the image.

I know there is a big difference between and realistic image (as far as how it really looked at the time) and a good image that appears realistic (as far as how the potential of the image is to appear excellent as for as colour and contrast go.....).

I'm working on it...lol. Gimme some time!!

[Bob_A]

I was'nt at the airshow so i really don't know what the correct image is,all i can say is i prefer the images that HAVE been altered,i would like to know what was done to alter them.Thanks

I just did auto-levels in PS and added a tiny bit of USM. I didn't want to add too much USM (150%, 0.2, 0 I think), because the images were tiny and it's easy to oversharpen them.

[EricKonieczny]

I shoot mainly very low light and am always boosting my ISO. 75% of the time I have my ISO at 400-800. THis photo was taken at IS0 1600 with no flash, handheld.

I know the photo is not a great photo, but the point is that the 20D can produce very good shots with little noise . This has been run through NoiseWare, which helped out, but it still very good for 1600 ISO
http://www.ekreating.com/gallery/photos/normal/052505_BBQ_100.jpg