xsi vss 40d

joshhuntnm

the 40Dand the about to be released xsi use the smag digic iii processor. could one assume the noise would be about the same on both?

kini62

joshhuntnm wrote:

the 40Dand the about to be released xsi use the smag digic iii processor. could one assume the noise would be about the same on both?

Never ASSume anything:D

But IMO the noise will be greater with the Xsi- more pixels same space= smaller pixels= more noise without a major redesign of the space.

Gene

evoryware

guessing, different processor from the XTi to the XSI so I think it will handle better than the XTi which I have. It doesn't go up to ISO 3200 like the 40D and my 40D ISO 3200 noise is like my XTI at 1600 (sometimes 800), IMO. I'd get the 40D again in a heartbeat over the XSi.

Tee Why

Probably more with the XSi as they are both same sized CMOS sensors with image processing by the same generation of processing program (digic III).

Some forum testing/comparison of RAW images btwn the 30D and the 40D actually show a touch more high ISO noise in the 40D. You can only cram so many pixels into a sensor before you just get more noise and my personal feeling is that with current technology, 8MP is the limit for APS-C sized sensor and 12MP for a full frame sensor, where if you add more pixels, you increase noise.

If I remember their ad's and their PR guy Chuck Westfall, they were promising about the same level of noise level as the XTi, of course with more MP's. But they were not stating that it has less noise. I have a XTi and a 30D and I only shoot in RAW and the XTi has more noise.

In JPEG images, they can apply more noise reduction but it comes at the cost of resolution.
Here are some images from the XSi at dpreview some are at high ISO.
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0803/08032101canon450dgallery.asp

claudermilk

Tee Why wrote:

If I remember their ad's and their PR guy Chuck Westfall, they were promising about the same level of noise level as the XTi, of course with more MP's. But they were not stating that it has less noise.

Sigh. I really wish they'd quit cramming more pixels on & spend the effort lowering the noise floor. Pretty soon the pixel density will resemble a P&S, as will the noise level. Counter-productive IMHO.

I wouldn't assume anything until some tests are published.

joshhuntnm

This is a slightly different issue, but isn't it true that more Megapixals really only affects how big you can print? Wouldn't the quality of a small print--4X6 stay constant?

Cameron

joshhuntnm wrote:

This is a slightly different issue, but isn't it true that more Megapixals really only affects how big you can print? Wouldn't the quality of a small print--4X6 stay constant?

Yes - you really only need a couple of megapixels to get good 4x6 prints.
For most uses, the resolution differences you're talking about will be a non-issue. Ergonomics, features, and other things will be much more important.

Tee Why

More MP's may help if you really print large. If you print around 200dpi, which I hear is tough to tell aprat from 300dpi, with a 6MP camera, you should be able to print about 16x20 or so.

If you intend to print 16x20 or bigger regularly, more MP's may help but it'll come at the cost of noise, unless you are willing to get a full frame camera.

If you are printing 4x6 or 8x10, 6mp will be enough and more mp probably won't help you.

mercphoto

joshhuntnm wrote:

This is a slightly different issue, but isn't it true that more Megapixals really only affects how big you can print? Wouldn't the quality of a small print--4X6 stay constant?

There are so many variables that go into this that to point at only one, such as MP, is really hard to do. Lens quality has a huge impact. Subject matter is important as well. Let's face it, some images simply have more fine detail than other images. A landscape is highly detailed, and a sharp lens, lots of pixels and low noise are all important. But when I was shooting motocross 6 million pixels with a high-quality L-lens was more than adequate for stunning 20x30 prints.

claudermilk

MP count is only one aspect, so isolating it is to an extent as counter-productive as our tendency to look at lens sharpness values over all other aspects. That said, quality otherwise being equal, more pixels is better since it gives you more data to work with. The problem is you hit a point of diminishing returns since there's only so much physical real estate to work with (and by association only so many photons hitting the sensor surface)--eventually that space will get subdivided so much that each data point becomes less and less meaningful. I think that this point is rapdily being approached if we're not already there. I keep saying I'd rather that the manufacturers spend their time improving the pixels they already have (i.e., more dynamic range, less noise, wider color gamut). We already have more than enough pixels to print the most typical sizes. My "measly" 8MP camera does just fine with these sizes (up to 16x20 so far & looks fantastic).