Digital noise – real life stories
Discussion
Digital noise – real life
I pretty much gave up on photography when digital came in. I could not cope with the price of the high end digital cameras and was obviously I was not impressed with low end cameras when compared to my analogue SLR slide film.
But now I perhaps things are looking better and I may make the jump. However, I’ve now got used to not carting around a huge SLR and its kit so I’ve been looking at something like the Canon G9. I need some realistic advice. This camera has an obvious high pixel count (12m) but as it’s a compact will the noise be atrocious?
I know that I could post this on a real photography forum but I suspect that their advice would be a little too ‘photo anorak’ and not so balanced (no offence to them!)
At the end of the day I know that I am probably asking too much. I want a camera at <£500 that gives me slide quality shots and one that I don’t have to take a rucksack with me to us it.
I pretty much gave up on photography when digital came in. I could not cope with the price of the high end digital cameras and was obviously I was not impressed with low end cameras when compared to my analogue SLR slide film.
But now I perhaps things are looking better and I may make the jump. However, I’ve now got used to not carting around a huge SLR and its kit so I’ve been looking at something like the Canon G9. I need some realistic advice. This camera has an obvious high pixel count (12m) but as it’s a compact will the noise be atrocious?
I know that I could post this on a real photography forum but I suspect that their advice would be a little too ‘photo anorak’ and not so balanced (no offence to them!)
At the end of the day I know that I am probably asking too much. I want a camera at <£500 that gives me slide quality shots and one that I don’t have to take a rucksack with me to us it.
Rob Smith7 said:
I want a camera at <£500 that gives me slide quality shots.
Not a chance I'm afraid. To get slide quality you'll still need a film camera. To get print quality to A4 you might JUST get away with a non DSLR. Remember amount of pixels is 'almost' totally irrelevant. (It's just a 'mines bigger than yours' marketing ploy that has bugger all to do with quality).Can't comment on that model, but am sure someone here will.
Edited by GetCarter on Tuesday 29th January 13:38
There's quite a comprehensive review of it here where they say that the noise is quite bad at higher ISOs.
I have an S3IS, which also has pretty bad noise at higher speeds. It becomes noticeable most in lower light conditions, so whether that is likely to be problem depends on whether you are likely to use it much then. I find that if there is plenty of light, then the pictures are OK, and have had some quite large prints done without noise being an issue. It is a bit frustrating when you have to take account of it all the time and remember to make sure the ISO is set right, or otherwise good shots get spoilt. I am fed up of it now, so will get an SLR at first opportunity. I expect the G9 will be a bit better, but take a look at the sample shots to see what you think.
I have an S3IS, which also has pretty bad noise at higher speeds. It becomes noticeable most in lower light conditions, so whether that is likely to be problem depends on whether you are likely to use it much then. I find that if there is plenty of light, then the pictures are OK, and have had some quite large prints done without noise being an issue. It is a bit frustrating when you have to take account of it all the time and remember to make sure the ISO is set right, or otherwise good shots get spoilt. I am fed up of it now, so will get an SLR at first opportunity. I expect the G9 will be a bit better, but take a look at the sample shots to see what you think.
tank slapper said:
There's quite a comprehensive review of it here where they say that the noise is quite bad at higher ISOs.
I have an S3IS, which also has pretty bad noise at higher speeds. It becomes noticeable most in lower light conditions, so whether that is likely to be problem depends on whether you are likely to use it much then. I find that if there is plenty of light, then the pictures are OK, and have had some quite large prints done without noise being an issue. It is a bit frustrating when you have to take account of it all the time and remember to make sure the ISO is set right, or otherwise good shots get spoilt. I am fed up of it now, so will get an SLR at first opportunity. I expect the G9 will be a bit better, but take a look at the sample shots to see what you think.
Thanks, good review. I think the below sums it all up :-(I have an S3IS, which also has pretty bad noise at higher speeds. It becomes noticeable most in lower light conditions, so whether that is likely to be problem depends on whether you are likely to use it much then. I find that if there is plenty of light, then the pictures are OK, and have had some quite large prints done without noise being an issue. It is a bit frustrating when you have to take account of it all the time and remember to make sure the ISO is set right, or otherwise good shots get spoilt. I am fed up of it now, so will get an SLR at first opportunity. I expect the G9 will be a bit better, but take a look at the sample shots to see what you think.
it doesn't matter how much you are prepared to spend; you can't buy your way out of the 'compact camera problem' - a small, noisy sensor is a small noisy sensor
Rob Smith7 said:
tank slapper said:
There's quite a comprehensive review of it here where they say that the noise is quite bad at higher ISOs.
I have an S3IS, which also has pretty bad noise at higher speeds. It becomes noticeable most in lower light conditions, so whether that is likely to be problem depends on whether you are likely to use it much then. I find that if there is plenty of light, then the pictures are OK, and have had some quite large prints done without noise being an issue. It is a bit frustrating when you have to take account of it all the time and remember to make sure the ISO is set right, or otherwise good shots get spoilt. I am fed up of it now, so will get an SLR at first opportunity. I expect the G9 will be a bit better, but take a look at the sample shots to see what you think.
Thanks, good review. I think the below sums it all up :-(I have an S3IS, which also has pretty bad noise at higher speeds. It becomes noticeable most in lower light conditions, so whether that is likely to be problem depends on whether you are likely to use it much then. I find that if there is plenty of light, then the pictures are OK, and have had some quite large prints done without noise being an issue. It is a bit frustrating when you have to take account of it all the time and remember to make sure the ISO is set right, or otherwise good shots get spoilt. I am fed up of it now, so will get an SLR at first opportunity. I expect the G9 will be a bit better, but take a look at the sample shots to see what you think.
it doesn't matter how much you are prepared to spend; you can't buy your way out of the 'compact camera problem' - a small, noisy sensor is a small noisy sensor
)ETA... just call me Satan
Edited by GetCarter on Tuesday 29th January 14:12
why not get a cheap second hand dslr? I'm sure a 8MP sensor would be more than a match for 35mm slide film?
how about a 350D (£250) and 28/35mm (£100) prime for lightweight cheapness and good quality images? (classic 50mm prime like perspective)
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Canon-EF28MM-f2-8-Prime-lens...
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Canon-Digital-EOS-350D-Body-...
how about a 350D (£250) and 28/35mm (£100) prime for lightweight cheapness and good quality images? (classic 50mm prime like perspective)
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Canon-EF28MM-f2-8-Prime-lens...
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Canon-Digital-EOS-350D-Body-...
Edited by Scho on Tuesday 29th January 14:33
Scho said:
I'm sure a 8MP sensor would be more than a match for 35mm slide film?
Well that really depends on what you are trying to achieve. I think that 35mm film has a usable resolution equivalent to about 25 megapixels, so most digital cameras are quite a way off that at the moment. An 8MP SLR is probably good enough for what most people want though, and will certainly produce some nice images.
You say you want slide quality shots? What exactly about slide film are you trying to recreate? The only thing I can see that is inferrior on digital to 35mm slide film is resolution. Colour saturation shouldn't be an issue (given the right sensor / image processor), modern lenses are far better than of old, kit is slightly smaller than 35mm etc etc. Granted noise is an issue at higher ISOs, but then you shoot at 400ASA slide film and push it two stops (or 1000/1600ASA print) and compare to a modern DSLR at 1600ISO, I think you'll find the wet image a lot worse.
[rockwell]
Okay, you won't have the resolution, but at 10.2MP for my D80, I have all the resolution I need. I've made acceptable 30x20" prints from a 6MP and that's enough for me. Hell, I've even printed an image from my D80 on a show stand 5 meters wide.[/rockwell]
The advantages of digital far, far outweigh the disadvantages if you ask me. (oh and get a cheap 350D or something, forget the compacts (though the ricohs are supposed to be better than the others))
[rockwell]
Okay, you won't have the resolution, but at 10.2MP for my D80, I have all the resolution I need. I've made acceptable 30x20" prints from a 6MP and that's enough for me. Hell, I've even printed an image from my D80 on a show stand 5 meters wide.[/rockwell]
The advantages of digital far, far outweigh the disadvantages if you ask me. (oh and get a cheap 350D or something, forget the compacts (though the ricohs are supposed to be better than the others))
Just a note on resolution. Firstly, although there is really no such thing, slide film is analogue - well as analogue as you can get. When I was getting film translated to digital in the 1990's the file size was generally 96mb per shot. (Still much more than from my DSLR)
Now I'm commited to Digital SLR's and have been since 2000 - but don't even THINK that the current crop of sub £10k bodies will get anywhere near the res of a slide film. It aint going to happen.
...but as has been stated... DSLRs are easily good enough to print to large sizes. I sold over 100 30" x 20" prints last year... all taken with a puny 12 mp camera. Nobody has complained (yet).
Now I'm commited to Digital SLR's and have been since 2000 - but don't even THINK that the current crop of sub £10k bodies will get anywhere near the res of a slide film. It aint going to happen.
...but as has been stated... DSLRs are easily good enough to print to large sizes. I sold over 100 30" x 20" prints last year... all taken with a puny 12 mp camera. Nobody has complained (yet).
Edited by GetCarter on Tuesday 29th January 15:51
GetCarter said:
Just a note on resolution. Firstly, although there is really no such thing, slide film is analogue - well as analogue as you can get. When I was getting film translated to digital in the 1990's the file size was generally 96mb per shot. (Still much more than from my DSLR)
sorry if i've underestimated the quality of 35mm slide, i've only ever really used 4x5 trannies, I'd be genuinely interested to see one of your 95mg files with a 100%crop.Edited by GetCarter on Tuesday 29th January 15:51
I've scanned 5x4 sheets of 100 iso provia on an imacon flex making 300MB tiffs and i can just start to see the films grain @ 100% so i'd imagine there would be shed loads of grain in a 95mb file from a 35mm slide?
sure you can scan a 35mm slide and make any filesize you want BUT at what point are you not recording usefull info and just scanning in grain?
rick.
If you're used to the flexibility and control of an SLR I think you'll quickly hit the satisfaction buffers with a compact.
Re the rucksack, if you don't want the bother of carrying decent kit, then you can't be very keen on getting decent results, surely...?
Rob Smith7 said:
I want a camera at <£500 that gives me slide quality shots and one that I don’t have to take a rucksack with me to us it.
Why exactly do you want 'slide quality'? Do you want to give slideshows on a big screen (in which case you'll be limited by the resolution of the projector, assuming that's digital too) or make prints bigger than A2?Re the rucksack, if you don't want the bother of carrying decent kit, then you can't be very keen on getting decent results, surely...?
Although comparing film to digital is not that straight forward is it. 6x7 from a med format would be better than 645 and much better than 35mm, also film stock is an issue of course.
Out of morbid curiosity i had a look at this a while back, and it seemed to me that 12mp (on screen and printed at A3) was better than 35mm and near as damn it as good as the image from my bronica(645). THe film was Provia 100 and just a boring scene without challenging DR. A fairly unscientific test to be fair but it kept me happy. Film was scanned at 4000dpi on a Nikon CS8000.
Ive never printed as big as GetCarter so I'm sure he has much more experience of this kind of thing. However, if theres one thing ive learnt over the years its trust your own eyes. (unless your registered blind of course).
I still use film sometimes though, horses for courses as they say.
Out of morbid curiosity i had a look at this a while back, and it seemed to me that 12mp (on screen and printed at A3) was better than 35mm and near as damn it as good as the image from my bronica(645). THe film was Provia 100 and just a boring scene without challenging DR. A fairly unscientific test to be fair but it kept me happy. Film was scanned at 4000dpi on a Nikon CS8000.
Ive never printed as big as GetCarter so I'm sure he has much more experience of this kind of thing. However, if theres one thing ive learnt over the years its trust your own eyes. (unless your registered blind of course).
I still use film sometimes though, horses for courses as they say.
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff