40D iso 1600

pwm2 wrote in post #4030679
Another thing. Notice the exposure graph. Wth the graph more to the right, there would have been less noise.

Huh? The histogram is pushed up clear to the right. Remember, that is the averaged histogram. If you looked at the RGB you'd probably see the red channel ready to clip, so there is really no room to push it right anymore.

farrukh wrote in post #4030689
Lol, n00b (got it from your title) enjoy your 40d

Wow, I always like seeing people contribute to this forum in such a helpful way.

ISO1600 on my 400d looks the same.
But, noise problem can be easily resolved by using Noiseware.

farrukh wrote in post #4028891
Too much noise there, understandable that 40d got 18 months old sensor from 400d

I believe Canon stated that the sensor was new for the 40D.

RedHot wrote in post #4031308
I believe Canon stated that the sensor was new for the 40D.

Nope, Canon in their white paper clearly states the 40D sensor is the same as the XTi. They only upgraded its light gathering capabilities and coupled it with the new 14 bit DIGIC processor. Bottom line, with the smaller sensor it's going to have more noise, but this gets offset somewhat by the greater light gathering capabilities and the greater DR of the 14 bit processor.

I wish Canon had put the 12 mp sensor of the 5D in the 40D and upgraded autofocusing by adding the 6 hidden sensors like the 5D has, but keeping all cross sensors on the 9 visible points. Those two things along would have made the 40D a contender in its class. 10mp is used in every entry level DSLR on the market. Doing this wouldn't steal any of the 5D's thunder because they could give it the 16mp sensor in the old Mark II along with 14 bit processing. And they could upgrade autofocusing with all cross type sensors or better yet put in the 45 point autofocus of the Mark III. For what the 5D costs they should do this.

Canon has been resting on its laurels and Nikon has blown past them. Hopefully they'll wake up now and the new 5D and 40D replacement will show real improvements.

BTW, the pic that is the subject of this post has way too much noise for a Canon camera. Better than the current crop of Nikons for sure, but not as good as the 30D and 5D.

tom s wrote in post #4030809
ISO1600 on my 400d looks the same.
But, noise problem can be easily resolved by using Noiseware.

Sure you can... even totally clean cellphone images noise at the cost of image detail.

farrukh wrote in post #4030639
According to page 5 on the 40D white paper:

Although the EOS 40D’s single-piece CMOS sensor is based on the Canon EOS Digital
Rebel XTi’s sensor design and manufacturing technology, new processes were incorporated
in the CMOS semiconductor fabrication and microlens-forming process. By improving
light-collecting efficiency, the same ISO range and low noise (S/N ratio) as that of the
EOS 30D were attained even though the pixels on the 30D are larger.

Its the same sensor with diffrent microlenses. but TBH I don't see any noticeable improvement in noise performance with those different microlenses.

The samples images from users and review websites I've seen so far are not better then 350d or 30d. The above sample is even worst then what I have seen from ex-350d and 30d and those are over 3 year old tech cameras. I was expecting a 2007 release camera to be noticeable improvement in terms of noise and DR especially after seeing 1DMK3 impressive ISO performance.

Offtopic: Soon (probably at the next PMA show in jan-feb) Nikon d90 will come with nice features and probably improved new Nikon sensor with EXPEED so Canon will have to put effort in 450d sensor and leaving 40d as an underdog. It seems 40d successor will come sooner then the normal cycle unless Canon forcefully persist with their 18 month cycle.

Ah, only that!
Thanks a lot farrukh, for a moment I thought that you had some relevant information about 40D and 400D sensors being the same.

No sir, the text you quoted doesn’t show that two sensors were the same; it merely shows perfect inability/unwillingnes​s to understand written text, and perfect ability to highlight the wrong parts of it.

When you add your personal expectations to the formula, and subtract actual hands-on experience, this is what you end up with: personal opinion based more on wrong attitude than on correct information.

Well I have both the 40D and the MKIIn and I posted comparable pictures in the 40D vs MKIIn thread.

The 40D does a great job at higher ISO's

mdrtoys wrote in post #4031998
Well I have both the 40D and the MKIIn and I posted comparable pictures in the 40D vs MKIIn thread.

The 40D does a great job at higher ISO's

i was expecting alot better than that.

canon has been known for her nice low noise on high iso's and i feel it's the same as the 40D / 30D .

it's the same **** as the 20D to the 30D....

diferent lcd ... bla bla bla.

mdrtoys wrote in post #4031998
Well I have both the 40D and the MKIIn and I posted comparable pictures in the 40D vs MKIIn thread.

The 40D does a great job at higher ISO's

Did you know - 20d was better then MK2N at noise performance. MK2/MK2N were the worst noise performers of digic II lineup

pwm2 wrote in post #4030679
Another thing. Notice the exposure graph. Wth the graph more to the right, there would have been less noise.

huh? do you like washed out exposures