40D Noise, How much is normal?

I've had my 40D for a year now and I'm really not happy with the noise results. I keep hearing people talk about how they make 'usable' shots with ISO1600 but my shots make me want to hurl even at ISO1000.

Here's a 1:1, exported into Lightroom 2.2, saved as a full sized JPG at qquality 10.

http://spoon.org/chud/​IMG_2592.jpg

Specifically along the doors of the car the noise is just unreal. I realize its ISO1000 and I can't expect miracles but this doesn't seem any better than my old XT.

I'm sure I'm doing a thousand things wrong with my shots, Program mode, under exposing, etc. I'm totally willing to accept this is entirely my fault, I just want to know whether its me or the camera.

Can you post the raw file?

Uh... I don't see the problem here.

Sure, there's some noise. That's why there are noise reduction softwares (and you can reduce noise through raw processing).

My desktop is 1920x1200 and at that resolution width-wise, the shot looks clean enough for me considering iso1000. Do you print large? If not... then what's the worry? I know a lot of FF people will crucify me for saying this, but even iso1600 isn't noise-free on the 5D2. Pixel-per-pixel, the noise level is slightly in favor to the 5D2. However, you just have 21mp to work with instead of 10mp. So when you look at the overall photo, the image looks "cleaner".

But still, I don't see the problem w/ the example you posted.

Are you using shadow recovery?

Stop clicking 1:1 as your first step in evaluating an image. You'll go blind.

Couple of things, ISO1000 is one of the interpolated ISO values, it is not a real ISO. It is basically ISO800 pushed 1/3 stops. Therefore is it a underexposed picture that is adjusted upwards. This will make the noise more visible. You would be better off shooting at ISO 800 and open the lens a bit more or shoot at ISO 1600. The other thing I see is that the picture still seems a bit under exposed which also will show the noise a bit more. Lastly, how aggressive was NR set? I ran the picture through Noise Ninja and it cleaned up very nicly with very little NR.

Looks fine to me, not the best image to look for noise though.

Gordon,

Somewhere in this forum there is a list of ISO's which are the best for the 40D. You are using ISO's that produce more noise instead of the ones I have mentioned. Also, as some have told you, if noise bothers you, use the noise filter in PS Elements, or several applications (Noise Ninja, Neat Image, etc.), which are designed to remove noise.

Looks quite OK actually.
I consider ISO-800 to be the max usable ISO on the 40D.
You see, there's a reason why people rave about the ISO performance of the 5D and 5DII .

The photo is very botchy, like you applied heaps of NR

My suggestion is to review how you are processing your photos, or to try DPP, that tends to give cleaner results

Also it depends on the scene and your exposure

These are two 100% crops from the same ISO 1600 photo from two cameras to give you an indication on how they should perform, none of that NR you are using:

Shadows (noisier than your photos, though this is zero NR):

George.ML wrote in post #7713151
Looks quite OK actually.
I consider ISO-800 to be the max usable ISO on the 40D.
You see, there's a reason why people rave about the ISO performance of the 5D and 5DII .

um..there's not much difference between the 3 cameras noise wise, at least at the pixel level

gjl711 wrote in post #7713046
Couple of things, ISO1000 is one of the interpolated ISO values, it is not a real ISO. It is basically ISO800 pushed 1/3 stops.

I actually wasn't aware of this until last night. I've been noticing the noise more and more and started googling and came across this, I had no idea. I'll try to stick to the 'natural' ISOs in the future.

I've also been reading about the differences in processing between Lightroom and DPP, too bad Lightroom doesn't do a better job since its just so damn convenient to do everything in one stop. I take a lot of event photos that require fast turnaround so every step adds to the time/workload significantly.

Gordon S. wrote in post #7714376
I've also been reading about the differences in processing between Lightroom and DPP, too bad Lightroom doesn't do a better job since its just so damn convenient to do everything in one stop. I take a lot of event photos that require fast turnaround so every step adds to the time/workload significantly.

I think that the ARC problem was just for the 50D and it was using an early Beta release of the camera raw profile. I've played a lot with ARC and DPP and really do not see a differance assuming that the settings are the same. One thing I did notice, DPP has NR set and ARC did not. I have reset the NR defaults in my DPP to zero and now the images are very close.

Gordon S. wrote in post #7712446
I keep hearing people talk about how they make 'usable' shots with ISO1600 but my shots make me want to hurl even at ISO1000.

Maybe you're just a screamer. Do yourself a favor and try 3 things:
1) Print that to A4. See if there's any noise to speak of
2) Downsize that to your monitor's resolution. See if there's any noise to speak of
3) Shoot an ISO200 film or a digital P&S at ISO400

Obsessing over 100% crops is pointless. That picture is flawless and noise free for both print and computer slide show use. If you expect ISO100 smoothness at 100% then by all mean, shoot at ISO100 But don't expect ISO1600 to be just as clean when pixel peeping.

iso 1000 is one of the isos that has been pushed up slightly and possibly grainier than iso 1600. :P If you use the isos which are 2/3rds above one stop, like iso 320 or 640 which have been pulled down, the results are much better

(iso 640 has almost identical noise to iso400, but iso 500 is nearly as grainy as iso 800)

I got that info from some charts I looked at a while ago...but if in doubt avoid any iso settings 1/3rd of a stop above a "real" setting like 100 or 200.

I wouldn't worry about this too much, you'll never notice the noise in this above shot if you print it A4.