ISO test shots

I've read around the forums that one of the advantages that the 20D/30D have over the Rebel is less noise at the higher ISO settings. I was just wondering if anyone has anyone has done any compairson shots of the same scene/settings/lens that show the difference between the entry level Rebel and the next step up in the canon line.

Dont have any test shots but I know I am having a way better time with my 30D with regard to noise at hight ISO than I ever did with my XT. Actually Way better time all around with the 30D!

don't have that comparison, but heres the origianl rebel vs the sony f828. shows you where canon was 2 years ago, and I'm sure soeone else can show how far they've improved since

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Byte size: ZERO | PHOTOBUCKET ERROR IMAGE

I don't have any showing the Rebel. I did do a series of tests one night when I was bored and looking for something to shoot. I compared the 20D, 1DMKII and 5D. I did all ISO levels but only at one constant f-stop which resulted in varying shutter speeds. These were not inordinately long shutter speeds. You can see them here

I assume dpreview has iso shots of every camera - if its just been shot of a grey card, should be able to compare across right?

If you are talking about the rebel XT (and not the older one) then you are incorrect, 350D/Rebel XT have the same amount of noise as 20D/30D if not less (I've seen one review where they concluded that the 350D had a _TAD_ less noise than the 20D).

I never really had many problems with noise with the XT but whrn I got the 30D It was noticably better. Maybe the new software onboard or something, dont know.

You can see a noise comparison between the 350D and the 20D here. According to this review:

I have got both, I think the 30D is better.

There is very little if any difference in quality between the 20/30D and the XT sensors. Any difference will not be seen on your prints.

Agreed

I'm still shooting to original 300d, which seems really grainy to me at the higher iso settings. Overall the camera has been great, and I've learned a lot with it. I may just be trying to talk myself into buying a new camera, but this point is one of the things that really bugs me about it.

The images on dpreview gives me something to compare. Thanks to everyone for all the info & links.

I don't think their is a noticable diff in noise performance between the 300D and the 30D.
I've had the 300D, 350D, 30D, and the 1D Mark IIN, and the noise level is very similar.

Your exposure, settings, RAW vs. JPEG, and post processing probably will make a much bigger difference than which of the canon bodies you have. You can see the dpr's site for the noise level tests.

Conducting my own tests I found the 30D to go up to iso 500 without a noticable difference from iso 100, after that i could see the difference although quality still remained very good.

I have in the past taken portraits with the 350D at iso 1600, and must say I think the results were better than what I can remember in my 35mm days when trying out iso 400 films. I never went beyond iso 200 after that with film. (only ever used c41 - colour neg)

At one time I did actually think that the 350D was a little better than the 30D at first but after comparing them I would have to say they are very similar.

MrWills wrote:
I have got both, I think the 30D is better.

Agreed! I also have both and the 30D is better no doubt.