Canon EOS 5D and noise

padu

Hi all,

On the last edition of popular photography, the winner of "photographer of
the year" (a fellow brazilian btw) took a picture of one of the subjects of the "Bodies..." exhibition with a canon EOS 5D using 1/200 sec at f/7.1 and ISO 1600. The published picture is almost 2 pages big, very low light and I can barely see any noise.

How is that? They don't mention any noise reduction software on PP, but it
is hard to believe it was not used. Anybody here has one and care to comment?

Cheers

gpphotos

canon has a reputation for having low noise at high ISO. at 1600 you can get some pretty good results that ive seen.

still not reason enough to make me trade my nikon equipment for canon though evil

DJ-S1

The 5D is awesome at high ISO, just ask Andy.

Andy

padu wrote:

Anybody here has one and care to comment?

Here's ISO 3200 (and see the caption for a 100% crop link)
http://dgrin.smugmug.com/gallery/1134620/1/53163544/Large

And, if you think Canon's high iso noise is low now, wait till you see what the Digic-III can produce

padu

Andy wrote:

Here's ISO 3200 (and see the caption for a 100% crop link)
http://dgrin.smugmug.com/gallery/1134620/1/53163544/Large

And, if you think Canon's high iso noise is low now, wait till you see what the Digic-III can produce

Ok, here's what I'm reading here: don't buy expensive proprietary equipment for your noisy sony a100 (such as glass), work work work and make enough dough to buy the successor of the 5D right?

Well, at least that's the "need" that is starting to build up inside me.

claudermilk

padu wrote:

Ok, here's what I'm reading here: don't buy expensive proprietary equipment for your noisy sony a100 (such as glass), work work work and make enough dough to buy the successor of the 5D right?

Well, at least that's the "need" that is starting to build up inside me.

Remember, it doesn't necessarily HAVE to be a 5D. My 20D is simply amazing with handling noise at ISO 3200 & that's one of the big reasons I went with it.

dogwood

Andy wrote:

Here's ISO 3200 (and see the caption for a 100% crop link)
http://dgrin.smugmug.com/gallery/1134620/1/53163544/Large

And, if you think Canon's high iso noise is low now, wait till you see what the Digic-III can produce

Oh man-- wish I hadn't read this. I now have serious camera envy (I shoot with a pair of 20D's-- which has nice high ISO results too)... the question is, when does the Digic-III processor come out? Still waiting for that 1D Mark II with the 5D sensor and a Digic-III processor that's anti-sensor-dust equipped! You listening Canon?

Osprey Whisperer

You've got to love the high ISO performance of the Canons...well unless you're a Nikonian die hard. As mentioned...the 5D is amazing...as are the rest of the Canons. Here are a couple of samples with a 20D with Canon's inexpensive 50mm f/2.5 compact macro. ISO 1600 with NO NOISE reduction. Hand held, no flash...just existing aquarium lighting. Oh....and through glass to boot. (the 100% crop would also blow you away if I could find the originals lol)

Manfr3d

very nice, if you want to know a free noise
reduction software that outperforms even
noiseninja check out noiseware from here: http://www.imagenomic.com/
The results are really amazing.

Free version doesnt support TIFF and batch.

STLMach1

Bird Man Photographer wrote:

You've got to love the high ISO performance of the Canons...well unless you're a Nikonian die hard. As mentioned...the 5D is amazing...as are the rest of the Canons. Here are a couple of samples with a 20D with Canon's inexpensive 50mm f/2.5 compact macro. ISO 1600 with NO NOISE reduction. Hand held, no flash...just existing aquarium lighting. Oh....and through glass to boot. (the 100% crop would also blow you away if I could find the originals lol)

Ok, this proves it... I do NOT yet know my 30D. I've had HORRIBLE problems with noise even at ISO's around 400 and even more problems with "soft" pictures. Based on these results from your 20D and the conditions/settings with which the picture was taken, I MUST be doing something wrong. I've begun to wonder if the camera was even capable of shots of this quality. At least there's hope for it yet.

I was about to (and still likely will) submit a post regarding my frustrations with my 30D when I saw this post. I suppose I need to learn more about the camera. I've begun to wonder if part of the problem with the "soft" photos hasn't been the factory lens.

Thanks,
Michael

wxwax

The one thing you absolutely, positively cannot do when shooting with a high ISO... is get the exposure wrong.

Nail it, and you're fine.

Tweak the exposure setting afterwards in your software, and you're screwed. Noise erupts like a zit fest on a teenager's face. Similarly, an underexposed shot will probably look ugly too.

Shooting at high ISO puts a premium on your skill at getting the exposure right, in camera. Use of histogram is strongly recommended.

STLMach1

wxwax wrote:

The one thing you absolutely, positively cannot do when shooting with a high ISO... is get the exposure wrong.

Nail it, and you're fine.

Tweak the exposure setting afterwards in your software, and you're screwed. Noise erupts like a zit fest on a teenager's face. Similarly, an underexposed shot will probably look ugly too.

Shooting at high ISO puts a premium on your skill at getting the exposure right, in camera. Use of histogram is strongly recommended.

Thanks, Sid! I'm still not a great judge of exposure, especially in lower light conditions when it counts more. Because of this, software has been my crutch but like you stated, tweak the exposure and you've got more noise than a Twisted Sister concert! Sadly many of my incorrectly exposed shots have had noise in them before I got as far as the software.

Since I often shoot in P or Av mode on my camera, what's the best course for correcting the problem? I've never used a light meter but I'm beginning to wonder if that wouldn't be a better option (at least for me).

I guess complicating this matter even more is judging exposure when using a flash (especially the less tunable onboard flash of the 30D). Judging exposure then would have to factor the degree reflection from the subject (reflectivity??? ), intensity of the flash, distance from the subject, etc.

Tricky stuff! Thanks for the information, Sid!

Michael

colourbox

You may not need a light meter. Just keep the histogram as high up as possible without clipping the highlights. Use the clipping display to gauge that. The reason for all of this is that all the noise is in the low end of the sensor. An underexposed digital image will raise the noise level when you boost its brightness in software. If you don't have to boost it later, the noise won't surface. Furthermore, if you have enough light to expose on the bright side, you can lower the brightness in software, which will spread out the clean high bits and push the noisy low bits closer to the bottom, and that will have the effect of reducing noise.

I haven't had enough time to experiment with the following idea but I suspect that if I had a choice between a nailed or slightly bright exposure at 1600 or a slightly underexposed shot at 800 I think the 1600 could be less noisy. Has anyone run this type of test?

(I shoot with a Canon Rebel XT...won't upgrade until DIGIC III or later)

ziggy53

STLMach1 wrote:

Thanks, Sid! I'm still not a great judge of exposure, especially in lower light conditions when it counts more. Because of this, software has been my crutch but like you stated, tweak the exposure and you've got more noise than a Twisted Sister concert! Sadly many of my incorrectly exposed shots have had noise in them before I got as far as the software.

Since I often shoot in P or Av mode on my camera, what's the best course for correcting the problem? I've never used a light meter but I'm beginning to wonder if that wouldn't be a better option (at least for me).

I guess complicating this matter even more is judging exposure when using a flash (especially the less tunable onboard flash of the 30D). Judging exposure then would have to factor the degree reflection from the subject (reflectivity??? ), intensity of the flash, distance from the subject, etc.

Tricky stuff! Thanks for the information, Sid!

Michael

Michael,

Try using "Exposure Bracketing", if the light is changing or variable or the latitude is too great for one exposure, or "Exposure Compensation" when the light is pretty stable, but you notice the Histogram is crowded too low or too high.

Generally, it is better to slightly overexpose than underexpose. If you see consistantly too much graininess, it can indicate a consistant problem with underexposure.

ziggy53

wxwax

STLMach1 wrote:

Since I often shoot in P or Av mode on my camera, what's the best course for correcting the problem?

As Colourbox said, use the histogram in your camera.

It's a life saver.

Be aware that in a non-flash situation, where there's weird lighting (like a concert!) there's danger ahead. Take a stage lit mostly in red. Your combined histogram might look fine. But that's only because it apparently averages the three color channels. If you were able to look at only the red channel, you'd see that it was overexposed.

Luckily, the 30D gives you a 3 channel (RGB) histogram. Use it!

So, take some test shots (love digital!) and check your histogram. Make sure the bump is where it should be, and make sure you haven't lost any highlights. In any of the channels.

That's my advice.

LiquidAir

Another thing to watch out for: flat lighting is the bane of low light photography. Images with a narrow tonal range put a spotlight on noise. If you are shooting at high ISO, try to get some shadow in your shot. Sometimes you will actually be better served by turning some lights off to increase contrast. Another option is to bring an off camera flash (I hold it in my left hand) set to very low power (I target 1-2 stops above the ambient light) to create some shadows.

marlinspike

Canon is the king of noise and the 5d has the lowest noise of any canon (except the 1Ds Mk2). Though the rebel XTi seems not quite as good as the rest of the Canon line and the D80 is very close to it (not so close at 1600, but still pretty close), meaning the Pentax K10D should be very close to the XTi as well. To the people having noise issues with the 20D, every 20D and 10D I've seen has needed the in-camera meter to read +2/3 to be correctly exposed.

thebigsky

wxwax wrote:

Tweak the exposure setting afterwards in your software, and you're screwed. Noise erupts like a zit fest on a teenager's face. Similarly, an underexposed shot will probably look ugly too.

rofl

STLMach1

Thanks to everyone for the information!

Great stuff that I'll take to heart. The histogram is something I still don't understand and therefore can't really take advantage of. I'll be pulling some of my Digital Photography books off the shelf to study up on histograms. They're something I knew I would have to educate myself on and thus far had not yet done so.

Thanks again for all the great input,
Michael

colourbox

Here's an article about the histogram.

Here's a thread with a visual example about 3/4 down the page of how proper exposure avoids the noise. Or more correctly, how underexposure dramatically increased noise.

AntoineD

Fair right, I'll sell my D200 and little brothers to buy a Canon 5D set

marlinspike

AntoineD wrote:

Fair right, I'll sell my D200 and little brothers to buy a Canon 5D set

I speak a little French and I am curious, what French word did you translate as "fair right"?

Je parle en peu de Francais et je suis curieux, qu'est-ce que l'expression en Francais que vous avez traduit "fair right"?

AntoineD

marlinspike wrote:

I speak a little French and I am curious, what French word did you translate as "fair right"?

Je parle en peu de Francais et je suis curieux, qu'est-ce que l'expression en Francais que vous avez traduit "fair right"?

I think I wanted to say "fair enough".
Does "fair right" doesn't mean anything ?

I could say which french words I was thinking about, for I write in english without thinking about french Oh, let's may it might be "très bien", in a casual way.

How, let me correct you :

Je parle en peu le Francais et je serais curieux de savoir quelle est l'expression en Francais que vous avez traduite par "fair right"?

marlinspike

AntoineD wrote:

I think I wanted to say "fair enough".
Does "fair right" doesn't mean anything ?

...

How, let me correct you :

Fair right doesn't mean anything, but I thought maybe you were using something like the Australian "Fair Dinkum" (which I still can't figure out what it means).

Heh, does the fact that I haven't had a French class in over 6 years really show that much?

AntoineD

marlinspike wrote:

Heh, does the fact that I haven't had a French class in over 6 years really show that much?

Not as much as my German, well forgotten…

ziggy53

AntoineD wrote:

Fair right, I'll sell my D200 and little brothers to buy a Canon 5D set

I hope you are "not" serious, about selling the D200. It is a wonderful camera, with capabilities and qualities unique to itself.

Selling your "little brother's" camera I can understand!:D (Unless I am your little brother.)

ziggy53

AntoineD

ziggy53 wrote:

I hope you are "not" serious, about selling the D200. It is a wonderful camera, with capabilities and qualities unique to itself.

Selling your "little brother's" camera I can understand!:D (Unless I am your little brother.)

ziggy53

Oh, I meant: D200's little brothers
Like the D70, my F5, a FM…

As a portraitist (but not only), I'm more and more envying those who have a Full Frame sensor. Nikon should quickly put one in its collection… :cry

D200 nicely handle the noise at iso800 (tells me a little of a "film"…) but not at 1600. At least, not as well as the 5D, without a doubt.

So, well… if I had some more bucks… I think I'd seriously wonder about changing my whole gear.

kygarden

AntoineD wrote:

Oh, I meant: D200's little brothers
Like the D70, my F5, a FM…

As a portraitist (but not only), I'm more and more envying those who have a Full Frame sensor. Nikon should quickly put one in its collection… :cry

D200 nicely handle the noise at iso800 (tells me a little of a "film"…) but not at 1600. At least, not as well as the 5D, without a doubt.

So, well… if I had some more bucks… I think I'd seriously wonder about changing my whole gear.

I think every camera has it's own type of customer. I'll be keeping my D200 I'm more than happy with this gem. There's no doubt Canon has a little edge on noise, but I tend not to be a pixel peeper and what noise I DO see isn't at all objectionable to me. I recall many, many magazine photos that have plenty of noise, whether artificially added or as a result of the camera used or blowing up the image, but "noisy" photos are used in ads all the time. If you ask me, people get way too hung up on the "noise" issue. We'd all be better served to seek to improve our skills (me for sure) than sit around fretting over how much noise a camera does or does not have. Just my opinion :ivar

That said...the 5D is a nice camera...but I don't want one - even if it was given to me. I much prefer Nikon's D200 image quality, body design/build and layout. It works for me. I do need better glass though...anyone wanna donate to my lens fund?...

AntoineD

Sure, kygarden, you have a point, and somehow, that's why I ain't trying any harder to buy canon stuff. I even got some picture I've done with my D70 published. They looked magnificent on the paper

That's why I told my stuff from a portraitist's point of view: what does matter to me is the bokeh, for portrait. And you must admit it's not always easy to get something nice looking with nikon dslr.

But the D200 is a very good camera, that's for sure
Very well build, etc.