| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/13/2007 02:19:03 PM · #1 |
Does ISO 100 make a noticable difference in noise factor as opposed to 200?
|
|
|
|
02/13/2007 02:24:29 PM · #2 |
Going back to my film days. ISO 100 & 200 are almost the same with grain, 200 being slightly more grainy and on to 400 and progressively more grain. ISO 50 was grain free.
Now, with digital, I believe the settings on a camera are approximations of the old ISO/ASA settings. But, the grain effect/noise has a lot to do with the camera make. I believe the Pentax K100D has very little grain at 200 or 400, but doesn't have the ISO 100 setting. I doubt if you would, if you could test the two, notice any difference.
Just my reading on the K100D, I could be wrong and I am sure someone will soon tell so :) |
|
|
|
02/13/2007 02:28:03 PM · #3 |
The K100D is a late generation 6mp sensor. It should be essentially noise-free.
|
|
|
|
02/13/2007 02:29:17 PM · #4 |
| I've taken to like ISO 200 in favour of ISO 100 whenever possible. 200, arcanely enough (?), appears to deliver more 'punch' (contrast without any discernible loss of detail). I'm still experimenting though... |
|
|
|
02/13/2007 02:29:26 PM · #5 |
|
|
|
02/13/2007 02:43:34 PM · #6 |
Yeh thanks! that guide help's alot. Don't think i'm missing out on anything at ISO200. But even in well lit days on a tripod i still get some grain when i view at 100%. Are most DSLR sensors subject to minor noise at any level?
|
|
|
|
02/13/2007 02:45:44 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by dmadden:
Are most DSLR sensors subject to minor noise at any level? |
I believe so. I think I remember reading it somewhere.
|
|
|
|
02/13/2007 03:03:15 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by rex:
Originally posted by dmadden:
Are most DSLR sensors subject to minor noise at any level? |
I believe so. I think I remember reading it somewhere. |
I would think full-frame sensors might be less noisy. |
|
|
|
02/13/2007 03:07:04 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by formerlee:
Going back to my film days. ISO 100 & 200 are almost the same with grain, 200 being slightly more grainy and on to 400 and progressively more grain. ISO 50 was grain free.
Now, with digital, I believe the settings on a camera are approximations of the old ISO/ASA settings. But, the grain effect/noise has a lot to do with the camera make. I believe the Pentax K100D has very little grain at 200 or 400, but doesn't have the ISO 100 setting. I doubt if you would, if you could test the two, notice any difference.
Just my reading on the K100D, I could be wrong and I am sure someone will soon tell so :) |
]
WHile ill say Olympus has the worst noise ive ever seen, the panasonic lumix line is equivalent to the noise of the Fuji S series!
What im getting at it has a bit more todo then the manufactuer.
1 - Sensor Size
2 - Number of photosites versus sensor size
3 - The image processor.
The image processor or whatever you liek to call it is where the manufacturer thing comes in but A 3.1 Fuji S5000 at ISO 800 on a 1/2.7 chip has less noise then an S6000 (the new model) 6.0 Megapixel on a 1/1.7 size sensor. even thuugh the S6000 has a better sensor tech wise and it has a betetr image processor. ISO 800 compariosn between a 3.1 MP 1/2.7 chip versis a 6 MP 1/1.7 chip the later has much more noise.
Message edited by author 2007-02-13 15:08:58. |
|
|
|
02/13/2007 03:10:08 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by dmadden:
Does ISO 100 make a noticable difference in noise factor as opposed to 200? |
The sensor is actually an analog device. The camera turns up the gain on the sensor's signal therefore producing "brighter" or "readable" results. Noise is generated here but theres more to it then that.
Alot more to it. |
|
|
|
02/13/2007 03:40:48 PM · #11 |
I also read somewhere that cameras that pack more MPxel onto a sensor and not upgrade the processor can lead to more noise. As i heard is "suggested" with the 10mp Sony DSLR (which was born of the Minolta Maxxum).
|
|
|
|
02/13/2007 03:42:19 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by ignite:
Originally posted by rex:
Originally posted by dmadden:
Are most DSLR sensors subject to minor noise at any level? |
I believe so. I think I remember reading it somewhere. |
I would think full-frame sensors might be less noisy. |
You would think correctly. ON a FF sensor (at least at this time) the photosites are less "crowded" and they can be a little bigger and more sensitive (I think I have that right). The main reason itsy-bitsy sensors are noisier is they jam too many photosites into too small an area. The more Mp you cram into a tiny sensor for marketing purposes, the more of an issue you are gonna have with noise. The 5D Canon, a FF camera, is an absolutely outstanding performer noise-wise.
R.
|
|
|
|
02/13/2007 03:57:41 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by zeuszen:
I've taken to like ISO 200 in favour of ISO 100 whenever possible. 200, arcanely enough (?), appears to deliver more 'punch' (contrast without any discernible loss of detail). I'm still experimenting though... |
Ah - another 200 user.
I rarely ever drop below 200, and when I do, it's usually to cut down the light, not to do with supposed better quality, not that I could tell any difference really and probably comes down to splitting hairs.
200 & 400 is where I live, and never hesitate to use 800 when needed.
|
|
|
|
02/13/2007 03:59:31 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by Brad:
Originally posted by zeuszen:
I've taken to like ISO 200 in favour of ISO 100 whenever possible. 200, arcanely enough (?), appears to deliver more 'punch' (contrast without any discernible loss of detail). I'm still experimenting though... |
Ah - another 200 user.
I rarely ever drop below 200, and when I do, it's usually to cut down the light, not to do with supposed better quality, not that I could tell any difference really and probably comes down to splitting hairs.
200 & 400 is where I live, and never hesitate to use 800 when needed. |
I use 200 or 400 whenever I'm handholding, too. On the 'pod I stick with 100 unless it gives me shutter speed issues in waning light and a breeze. Nothing wrong with 200/400 on the 20D :-)
R.
|
|
|
|
02/13/2007 04:16:33 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by ignite:
Originally posted by rex:
Originally posted by dmadden:
Are most DSLR sensors subject to minor noise at any level? |
I believe so. I think I remember reading it somewhere. |
I would think full-frame sensors might be less noisy. |
You would think correctly. ON a FF sensor (at least at this time) the photosites are less "crowded" and they can be a little bigger and more sensitive (I think I have that right). The main reason itsy-bitsy sensors are noisier is they jam too many photosites into too small an area. The more Mp you cram into a tiny sensor for marketing purposes, the more of an issue you are gonna have with noise. The 5D Canon, a FF camera, is an absolutely outstanding performer noise-wise.
R. |
Bear is quite correct here, larger photo sensor=better sensitivity= less noise, is why most P&S digies are so noisy, smaller sensor more pixles per inch= less sensitive=more noise,DSLrs have larger sensors where full frame have even larger (but more vigenneting and lense distortion just like a film camera)
The ISO setting basically ramping up the voltage on the sensor and causes noise (and I think heat which enhances noise) and is not a result of a programmed grain emulation.
also //www.dpreview.com/reviews/pentaxk100d/
that sight has a good through testing and will help you see the noise levels at diffrent ISOs compared to other cameras, and test the ISO on camera as compared to Film. |
|
|
|
02/13/2007 05:40:42 PM · #16 |
I can't contribute much to the technical discussion here, but will comment on how reluctant people seem to be shooting at higher ISOs even given -- or perhaps forgetting -- how good modern DSLR sensors are.
If I'm shooting tripod mounted I'll stick with ISO 100 unless conditions warrant something else ... it's a no brainer. But I have absolutely no problem going to ISO 1600, even 3200, if shooting handheld in less than ideal conditions (low light with "slow" lens).
And with the current choices in noise reduction software -- Noiseware Pro, Noise Ninja, etc -- it's easy to overcome resulting grain without images looking too processed.
Here are just a few of my higher ISO shots from the 20d, all of which were processed using Noiseware Pro at a mild setting (slightly "detuned" default setting):
ISO 800 examples:
     
ISO 1600 examples:
     
ISO 3200 examples:
 
|
|
|
|
02/13/2007 05:47:09 PM · #17 |
ok, I have a question then...
I have been shooting mostly 400iso..Now from what I read here my cam is kinda sorry and noisy ( not that I disagree)
So should I be shooting at 100 or 200(generally speaking) ISO given the limitations of my cam? |
|
|
|
02/14/2007 02:08:11 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by RainMotorsports:
What im getting at it has a bit more todo then the manufactuer.
1 - Sensor Size
2 - Number of photosites versus sensor size
3 - The image processor.
|
Another way to look at this is:
1. spacing of photosites (ie. how much distance between the center of each pixel). Becasue:
a) A larger photosite captures exponentially more photons (signal) than "thermal" noise. While it captures more of both signal and noise, the signal to noise ratio is better with a larger photosite.
b) Each connection that passes near a photosite can add noise to the photosite by induction, quantum tunneling, etc, so the greater separation allowed by wider spacing means less noise (I'm assuming the manufacturer trades off the size of the photosite with isolation from active traces on the sensor).
2. The generation of the sensor (older devices are noisier) The connecting traces can be made thinner, the photosites can be masked more accurately, so there is less noise from induction, tunneling, etc. The sensor itself may be slightly more sensitive to photons, the microlenses may be better, there may be a new type of transistor used that is more accurate, etc.
3. The image processor gets faster and more capable, allowing more complex noise reduction algorithms. The analog to digital converter gets more accurate, etc.
Message edited by author 2007-02-14 14:09:17. |
|
|
|
02/14/2007 02:15:28 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by ignite:
Originally posted by rex:
Originally posted by dmadden:
Are most DSLR sensors subject to minor noise at any level? |
I believe so. I think I remember reading it somewhere. |
I would think full-frame sensors might be less noisy. |
You would think correctly. ON a FF sensor (at least at this time) the photosites are less "crowded" and they can be a little bigger and more sensitive (I think I have that right). The main reason itsy-bitsy sensors are noisier is they jam too many photosites into too small an area. The more Mp you cram into a tiny sensor for marketing purposes, the more of an issue you are gonna have with noise. The 5D Canon, a FF camera, is an absolutely outstanding performer noise-wise.
R. |
I think its more related to photosite size than sensor size, the 5D and 1DMII have the same sized photosites. The reason that the 5D is slightly better is that its a newer sensor.
On the other hand, the 5D is supposed to have less noise than the 1DsMII, both are FF, but the 1DsMII has smaller photosites than the 5D, and its an older process sensor. |
|
|
|
02/14/2007 02:19:55 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by Rae-Ann:
ok, I have a question then...
I have been shooting mostly 400iso..Now from what I read here my cam is kinda sorry and noisy ( not that I disagree)
So should I be shooting at 100 or 200(generally speaking) ISO given the limitations of my cam? |
Some people like a noisier look. (Robert Farber did a lot of work where there is noticeable film grain)
Take some test shots in dim, normal and bright lighting and see which ISO you prefer. |
|
|
|
02/14/2007 06:32:08 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by hankk:
Originally posted by Rae-Ann:
ok, I have a question then...
I have been shooting mostly 400iso..Now from what I read here my cam is kinda sorry and noisy ( not that I disagree)
So should I be shooting at 100 or 200(generally speaking) ISO given the limitations of my cam? |
Some people like a noisier look. (Robert Farber did a lot of work where there is noticeable film grain)
Take some test shots in dim, normal and bright lighting and see which ISO you prefer. |
Wow a simple comment that kinda made me go, d'oh...I like a grainy look more often then not but I always feel a if it is Bad becuz it doesn't fare well on DPC..But really!! I must remember that there is a defined taste here and simply because a style doesn't score well doesn't mean it is bad.
I have to work within the limitations of my cam, so if I have a cam that takes noisy shots I will just work within that...
Thanks to the learned lords of ISO here :)) |
|
|
|
02/14/2007 07:38:22 PM · #22 |
| Bear in mind that most people would say that film grain looks a lot nicer than digital noise. It tends to be monchromatic, while dital noise shows up as colour mottles. Some digital cameras, the Nikon D70 comes to mind, have a fairly attractive grainy pattern, while others, like my D50 tend to show colour mottling. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 09/07/2025 07:28:44 PM EDT.
