Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EOS Digital Cameras 
Thread started 26 Nov 2009 (Thursday) 02:57
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

I've decided the noise on high MP sensors is not that much of an issue.

 
mrkgoo
Goldmember
2,289 posts
Joined Aug 2006
     
Nov 26, 2009 02:57 |  #1

Ok, this is mostly in regards to the megapixel war and how increasing resolution leads to higher pixel density, smaller pixels, less light capturing ability per pixel, and ultimately noise. Yes, this is still true.

HOWEVER... the resolution of the 7D at 18 seems so high that it pretty much doesn't even matter for most regular uses (i.e. not printing super large images). We know noise is at a pixel level. The noise on high-resolution sensors such as the 7D is largely irrelevant for most uses, as the resolution seems high enough that we're nowhere near viewing at 100% anymore to even see the pixels.

I don't know if I'm getting my thoughts across well. Let's put it this way - even if the noise were identical between a 7D (18 mp) vs a 40D (10mp) (although I'd say it's slightly better on the 7D), that's at 100%, pixel peeping. When viewing two images taken similarly, the noise on the 7D can appear less BECAUSE of the higher resolution. I think it's approaching a point were perceived noise at non-100% is improving once you hit a certain high-MP - an that we're getting there with 20mp or so.

Ok, so we still have an issue when it comes to cropping, but well, you can't win 'em all. That said, any image that needs to be cropped that was taken on a lwer res senor probably won't fare that well detail wise.

I just think maybe Canon did a good thing going to higher resolution with the 7D in this regard.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
ohansen
Member
Avatar
227 posts
Joined Mar 2007
Location: Sunny West Coast, Scotland
     
Nov 26, 2009 03:44 |  #2

Bad boy, don't you know what these forums are all about ;-)a !

Kidding, that makes two of us. My opinion (posted here https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=784313 and on dpreview http://forums.dpreview​.com …rum=1019&messag​e=33772026 (external link)) is "I was at first a little concerned about seeing almost as much noise at 100% as from my 40D until I realised that I was looking at a screen enlargement almost the size of the back of my car. Printed it looks pretty darn good. Granted these days most folks view pictures on the screen and rarely print (big), but I still think many of these noise "issues" and concerns are a bit overblown... "

I don't know if A1 (33" x 23")counts as "superlarge" but I'm sure I could have doubled that size and been happy...


7D and 60D, Sigma 12-24, Canons 24-105L, 100-400L, 50mm f1.4, 100mm Macro. 580EXII, Elinchrom Skyports, Eye-Fi, Apple Macs, iPhone 3GS, PS4, LR3. Socks and jeans with holes repaired.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Headshotzx
Goldmember
Avatar
4,488 posts
Likes: 129
Joined Dec 2007
Location: Singapore
     
Nov 26, 2009 03:47 |  #3

Agreed. Even on my 400D, I regularly print ISO1600 - 3200 pushed images and they're no problems up to A3 (or was it A2?) size. Some of them are hanging on my school's walls.


Zexun | Flickr (external link) | YouTube (external link) |

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Anders ­ Östberg
Goldmember
Avatar
3,395 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Nov 2003
Location: Sweden
     
Nov 26, 2009 04:35 |  #4

Agree for the most part, more pixels mean you down-size the noise for smaller prints, and in really large prints image quality actually means less because of viewing distance. I find the "medium sized" prints are the hardest since people still want to put their nose up against them.

However, I do mostly indoor sports this time of year and I need to be at very high ISO all the time, so noise is a major issue. I don't know where the breakeven point is, newer sensors are cleaner but they take away some of the advantage by adding more pixels, and then you gain some quality back from down-sizing the prints. Since I don't need masses of pixels I have a feeling one of the newest sensors but with fewer pixels would have given me better quality pictures. A 1D Mark IV with 10 MP instead of 16 MP maybe. We'll never see such a beast though, megapixels still rule, unfortunately. I still want more pixels for other uses, have the cake and it it, so to speak.


Anders Östberg - Mostly Canon gear - My photos (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Rankinia
Senior Member
449 posts
Joined Mar 2008
Location: Sydney, Australia
     
Nov 26, 2009 04:46 |  #5

Noise is prints reduces dramatically. 1600 iso on my 30d looks awesome in prints. On my 1ds, 800 looks perfect in prints, 1250 just adds a grain, no big deal.


1ds, 30d, 17-40/4 180/3.5, mt-24, 580ex2
http://adamrose.wordpr​ess.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mrgooch
Goldmember
Avatar
3,109 posts
Gallery: 3 photos
Likes: 151
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Toms River NJ
     
Nov 26, 2009 08:17 as a reply to  @ Rankinia's post |  #6

Does shooting at MRAW lower the noise?



  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Anders ­ Östberg
Goldmember
Avatar
3,395 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Nov 2003
Location: Sweden
     
Nov 26, 2009 08:28 |  #7

I would think it has the same effect on noise as down-sizing a full frame to equivalent size, so yes.


Anders Östberg - Mostly Canon gear - My photos (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
afalco
Member
Avatar
110 posts
Likes: 4
Joined Oct 2009
Location: Budapest, Hungary
     
Nov 27, 2009 13:10 |  #8

I agree. But only If you never need to crop a photo, and either never make prints or only print them smaller than A4 (which at 300 dpi needs only 3507x 2480 i.e. about 8.6 Mp), oh and only display it on screen or at WEB resolutions. Otherwise you do need more MP. That's the reason why I can't wait for my 7d to arrive :)


Gear is one thing photos are another story.
500px.com/AndreasFalco (external link)
photography.andreasfal​co.com (external link)
Thank you.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Replaces
Goldmember
Avatar
1,079 posts
Joined Aug 2009
Location: Illinois, USA
     
Nov 27, 2009 14:17 |  #9

you are right. that's hwat i think too i hate people pixel peeping saying 50D is worse than 40D when viewed at the same size, it doesn't matter.


"If you don't walk today, you have to run tomorrow."
Nikon, then Canon, then Nikon again. But I still love POTN over NikonCafe. :p

Nikon D90, MB-D80, Nikon D600, MB-D14, Nikkor AF-S 24-70mm f/2.8G, Nikkor AF-S 70-200mm f/2.8G VR.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Lester ­ Wareham
Moderator
Avatar
28,256 posts
Gallery: 3246 photos
Best ofs: 6
Likes: 16256
Joined Jul 2005
Location: Hampshire, UK
     
Nov 27, 2009 15:08 |  #10

mrgooch wrote in post #9085541 (external link)
Does shooting at MRAW lower the noise?

Yes if you combine the noise reduction and sharpening techneques correctly, see http://www.zen20934.ze​n.co.uk …D%20ISO%20Perfo​rmance.htm (external link)

The default DPP noise reduction is well set by Canon, however the DPP sharpening is not edged masked so it is not optimal for high ISO, better to use an edge masked sharpening process in Photoshop.


My Photography Home Page (external link) RSS Feed (external link)
Gear List
FAQ on UV and Clear Protective Filters
Macrophotography by LordV

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
fWord
Goldmember
Avatar
2,637 posts
Joined Jan 2006
Location: Melbourne, Australia
     
Nov 28, 2009 17:21 as a reply to  @ Lester Wareham's post |  #11

"I've decided the noise on high MP sensors is not that much of an issue."

Well I wish more people knew this. It might be a stretch to say it's a fact, but it's more of an observation. I have used cameras that are far more noisy than people would like these days and yet have no issues. In an 8X12" print from an 11MP camera, even a noisy image on screen appears completely noiseless in print.

I'm willing to wager than the bulk of the whiz-bang equipment users here have almost never made a print, let alone going beyond the usual snapshooter's 4X6" ones. Pixel peeping at 100% on screen is useful if you wanted to be absolutely discriminating with your own photos in deciding which ones to keep, and then be able to print to large sizes. But most of the worries that people have about noise levels (or even the slightest bit of blur) would be unfounded if printing small.

There's a very blurred image of a jaguar from an entry-level 8MP camera that looks acceptably sharp (at normal viewing distances) in A3 print hanging on my wall, and I have another image from a 7-year old 11MP camera (looks pin sharp even at 100%) that is astonishingly beautiful on a 24X36" canvas (even with my nose up against the print), looking far better in print than it does on screen.

What this tells me is that, if a photographer gets a shot right, he/ she can print far bigger than a 24X36" from today's 'regular' 12MP DSLR sensors and still expect stunning image quality.

These days the resolutions are going into 20+ MP which is all great for cropping, but if you're the kind that gets things right in camera and don't need to print large as the Great Wall of China, there's no need for super, super high resolution or the newest in technology.


LightWorks Portfolio (external link)
Night Photography Tutorial: Basics & Minutiae (external link)
Gear List (Past & Present)
The Art of Composition IS the Art of Photography.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
AdamLewis
Goldmember
Avatar
4,120 posts
Likes: 52
Joined Oct 2005
Location: San Francisco, CA
     
Nov 28, 2009 17:32 |  #12

Call me crazy, but with almost no difference when blowing up super huge prints between 12mp and 18mp (Ive made plenty 20x30 prints from 8mp...), Id rather have a clean @ 100% 12mp file than a clean @ 66% 18mp file. Smaller and easier to work with.


flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Anders ­ Östberg
Goldmember
Avatar
3,395 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Nov 2003
Location: Sweden
     
Nov 29, 2009 02:43 |  #13

Another thing about very high resolution is that on a pixel level it's more difficult to use, e.g. motion blur shows up more and it needs better lenses. So, on screen at 100% it may look worse than from a lower resolution camera, even though it may still look better in print. Too see if pictures are good enough I try to evaluate them on screen at roughly the same size I'm going to print them.


Anders Östberg - Mostly Canon gear - My photos (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Headshotzx
Goldmember
Avatar
4,488 posts
Likes: 129
Joined Dec 2007
Location: Singapore
     
Nov 29, 2009 02:49 |  #14

This observation pretty much means that since more and more cameras with high-iso's are coming, the lesser / older models are going off at better prices. So if you don't need to print big or shoot insanely high isos, you can get professional series cameras from a few year's back at great prices. 1D2's now at a quarter of retail price back in 2004, or a 1Ds2 at a third of the new price when it was released, for example.


Zexun | Flickr (external link) | YouTube (external link) |

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Anders ­ Östberg
Goldmember
Avatar
3,395 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Nov 2003
Location: Sweden
     
Nov 29, 2009 02:55 |  #15

Absolutely. 1D II is good but beginning to feel a bit old in my view, but the 1Ds II is still a great camera and prices are coming down.


Anders Östberg - Mostly Canon gear - My photos (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

3,165 views & 0 likes for this thread
I've decided the noise on high MP sensors is not that much of an issue.
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EOS Digital Cameras 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is dneitz
860 guests, 264 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.