So what's the 'fact' about 40D noise, Vs. 30D?

Typically the rule use to be if you had more megapixels in the same area the pixels would be smaller and you would get more noise.

So even if the 40D is exactly the same as the 30D noise wise than its an accomplishment because you get more Pixels without more noise.

The 1D Mark III Has slightly better noise performance than the 40D even though they are both 10 MP, but the 1D Mk III has larger pixels because it is a 1.3 x compared to the 40Ds 1.6x sensor. All of Canons current camera releases arent showing in drastic improvements in noise compared to thier previous relaeses, but they are maintaining the same noise performance with increased pixel count and decreased pixel size.

The DiGic 3 processor in the 40D and 1D3 has allowed Canon to increase pixel counts without increasing the noise. If they were to put the Digic 3 in the 30D with its 8Mp sensor you would probably see lower noise than what it currently produces.

sadowsk2 wrote in post #3970208
MadProFF - Low light conditions are where you're going to see noise creep up... Shots with siginificant lighting won't expose either systems true noise performance... Hence, I think my shots are very representative of how the noise performance is on the two cameras... For those who shoot in low light and truely need the high ISO (wedding halls, banquet halls, churches, etc) there is no difference...

Jon-Doh - I think you meant to say that the tradeoff was regarding smaller PHOTOCELLS as they jammed more megapixels onto basically the same sized sensor as the 30D as the sensor size itself didn't change apperciably from the 30D

No, actually I meant the sensor size is smaller. The Canon 40D's smaller sensor renders pixel at 5.7 microns compared to the 30D's 6.4 microns. The smaller size picks up more noise, however, the noise is offset by other factors.

What I do like about what the 40D did was changing all focusing points to cross type sensors and shooting at 6.5 fps in 14 bits (thanks to the speed of the new DIGIC III chip). For all the great specs on the d300 it can only shoot at 2.5 fps in 14 bit. It's the 14 bit mode, which increases dynamic range substantially, coupled with the 40D's greater light gathering abilities that keeps noise comparable to the 30D.

sadowsk2 wrote in post #3970080
KeithR - I'm sorry but the 40D won't touch the 5D in terms of noise... Its no better than the 30D...

Hi there.

That's your opinion, mine differs. In my use of the 40D so far (that's "use", not "testing") I am unequivocally seeing smoother backgrounds, less chroma noise and cleaner, more detailed images at the ISOs I routinely shoot at (typically between 400 and 1600), than I got from my 30D.

Without in-camera NR, just to save the question.

Keith, how is the detail compared to the 5D and 30D? I'm curious if the more aggressive noise suppression software is causing any loss in detail. Thanks.

MaDProFF wrote in post #3969391
Though Sando, if ISO noise is your main interest, means you are shooting low light, or need higher shutter speeds in low light?
the AF system is notably better and especially at low light, but then if you manually focus, the VF is bigger and brighter too, means you can see MF better in low light through the VF , Maybe these upgraded features would be of some use?

I dont find a problem in low-light with the 30D though? Can't say I've ever had trouble focusing at all. If I ever do though, I'll use my 580 EXII's IR focus light.

My friend has a 5D and I must say that the high-ISO noise performance isnt sooooo much better than the 30D, but the difference is that the detail from the 5D is so much better.

IMO the 5D at ISO 1600 is roughly equivalent to ISO 800 on the 40D or 30D... You get about a stop of superior noise control...

Jon_Doh wrote in post #3970906
Keith, how is the detail compared to the 5D and 30D? I'm curious if the more aggressive noise suppression software is causing any loss in detail. Thanks.

I'm not seeing any suggestion of more aggressive noise suppression, John - and as an ex Nikon D200 owner I know what exactly that looks like...

All I can say is that - shooting the same kinds of birds in the same places and in the same conditions and camera settings as I do with the 30D (typically at 400 ISO to ensure a good shutter speed), and processing them in an identical way - the backgrounds are smoother and more creamy, the fine detail in the birds is excellent and the colours really pop.

We're talking pretty subtle differences, to be sure - the 30D is a great camera (I have no 5D point of reference I'm afraid) - but I have a thing about detail, and I'm seeing very satisfying results from the 40D.

For example, I routinely NR 400 ISO 30D images - not specifically for noise, but to smooth out the BG - and I'm not seeing any need to do this with my 40D images.

sadowsk2 wrote in post #3976983
IMO the 5D at ISO 800 is roughly equivalent to ISO 1600 on the 40D or 30D... You get about a stop of superior noise control...

According to that comparison my 30D has better noise control than a 5D

I think you mean, that the 5D at 1600, is like a 30D at 800.

McMADCAT- Ooops... you're right!!! Its early here!

I'll re-edit that post for clarification!

C'mon guys, how often do you shoot at ISO 1600 and 3200 anyways? And if you do, are those really the "money shots" ? Let's be real here, ISO 800 the VERY MOST when using images commercially or for print. Just my 2 cents...

gcl.photography wrote in post #3977436
C'mon guys, how often do you shoot at ISO 1600 and 3200 anyways? And if you do, are those really the "money shots" ? Let's be real here, ISO 800 the VERY MOST when using images commercially or for print. Just my 2 cents...

I dont know how many weddings you've ever shot but trust me, ISO1600 and ISO3200 'money-shots' get used.

Food for thought...

People have claimed that the high ISO noise performance of the 1D Mark III is as good or better than the 5D. Interestingly, the pixel size on the sensor is about the same size as the pixel size on the 30D's sensor. Also, the new 1Ds Mark III also has similar pixel size.

High ISO can have a really big place for "money shots" when used correctly. I've been in an underground coal mine on several occasions and wished very much that a smoother iso 1600 was available to me (10d at the time). Had I been able to use iso 3200, I'd have gotten several more shots that, though grainy, would simply not have been possible. And no, you don't really want to use lots of high intensity lights down there what with possible explosions and all, though you can sometimes get away with using a flash if done carefully. ISO 3200 would have created some additional money shots for me for sure.

gcl.photography wrote in post #3977436
C'mon guys, how often do you shoot at ISO 1600 and 3200 anyways? And if you do, are those really the "money shots" ? Let's be real here, ISO 800 the VERY MOST when using images commercially or for print. Just my 2 cents...

Try bird photography in light-challenged woodland with a long lens then get back to us.

Thank you Keith.