Personally, I think the noise is about what I expect.
It's really easy to start looking very critically at one's equipment, perhaps too critically, and the human mind can start playing tricks...
In any case, I am glad for this thread, because while I wasn't necessarily concerned about it to begin with, I think it's given a lot of 40Ders a chance to compare notes, and I'm happy to say my camera is right up to the same standard.
I must admit, I'm reasonably happy with the noise levels on the 40d at ISO 1600. I had to shoot a classroom sequence where I couldn't use any light other than ambient (fluorescent), and I was able to successfully capture what I was after:
You can clearly see the noise in the shadow areas below the board, but I'm still very happy with the way it turned out.
Well I'm not dpreview or anyone special but here's my shots. Metered with Sekonic. Used a tripod and remote to shoot. In raw I clicked whibal. Convert to jpg and upload.
I used Canon Zoombrowser and synchronized to view 4 at a time @ 100% side by side. Feel free to save and do the same. ISO 100 & 200 looked clean to me then I start noticing noise/grain at ISO 400 in the blacks and shadows and it gets progressively worse at each increment. I think 1250 handled better than 800 but I'll let others vote on that. I didn't shoot 250 and 320. All in all, acceptable throughout the range even though I noticed a piece of cat hair almost disappeared at ISO 3200. Big whoop.
Hopefully I linked right to the original.
All at f/5.6
White balanced:
460 ISO 100 f/5.6 @ 1/4
461 ISO 200 @ 1/8
462 ISO 400 @ 1/15
466 ISO 500 f5.6 @ 1/20
467 ISO 640 @ 1/25
463 ISO 800 @ 1/30
468 ISO 1000 @ 1/40
469 ISO 1250 @ 1/50
464 ISO 1600 @ 1/60
465 ISO 3200 @ 1/125
Canon 40D : Canon 400D : Canon Elan 7NE : Canon 580EX : 2 x Canon 430EX : Canon 24-70 f2.8L : Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L USM : Canon 28-135mm f/3.5 IS : 18-55mm f/3.5 : 4GB Sandisk Extreme III : 2GB Sandisk Extreme III : 2 x 1GB Sandisk Ultra II : Sekonik L358
OK here is my limited comparison: I just got the 40D, and wanted to see how if compares to the XT in 'normal' use. So rather than creating a challenging environment, where I expect the 40D to do better, I thought I would just compare to an 'everyday' picture.
So here it goes. This was a low light test, so I simply took a photo in my office. Both camera's were set to ISO800, f2.8, 1/200th, and both used the same lens set at 50mm. For what its worth, they both metered the same on this shot.
My overall impression is that they have slightly different color, even though I white balanced both from the same reference spot. But I guess what surprised me the most: there is not a significant improvement in the 40D over the XT, at least not to my eye. In fact, I think there is a bit more lumanence noise in the 40 D than the Rebel...
OK here is my limited comparison: I just got the 40D, and wanted to see how if compares to the XT in 'normal' use. So rather than creating a challenging environment, where I expect the 40D to do better, I thought I would just compare to an 'everyday' picture.
So here it goes. This was a low light test, so I simply took a photo in my office. Both camera's were set to ISO800, f2.8, 1/200th, and both used the same lens set at 50mm. For what its worth, they both metered the same on this shot.
My overall impression is that they have slightly different color, even though I white balanced both from the same reference spot. But I guess what surprised me the most: there is not a significant improvement in the 40D over the XT, at least not to my eye. In fact, I think there is a bit more lumanence noise in the 40 D than the Rebel...
What do you think?
They look the same to my eye on this monitor - definately a color shift difference, but the noise looks about the same amount.
My overall impression is that they have slightly different color, even though I white balanced both from the same reference spot. But I guess what surprised me the most: there is not a significant improvement in the 40D over the XT, at least not to my eye. In fact, I think there is a bit more lumanence noise in the 40 D than the Rebel...
What do you think?
Look similar to me. Personally getting a headache pixel picking though. No one said the XT was a bad camera. Just go and shoot! :photo
Canon 40D : Canon 400D : Canon Elan 7NE : Canon 580EX : 2 x Canon 430EX : Canon 24-70 f2.8L : Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L USM : Canon 28-135mm f/3.5 IS : 18-55mm f/3.5 : 4GB Sandisk Extreme III : 2GB Sandisk Extreme III : 2 x 1GB Sandisk Ultra II : Sekonik L358
Look similar to me. Personally getting a headache pixel picking though. No one said the XT was a bad camera. Just go and shoot! :photo
No kidding, though one would think 3 yrs would see more of an advance, but really, these things are all quite good. in any case, the handling of the 40D is just so much better, it is worth it.
Thanks evoryware and cmason for the hard work and the really beautiful test shots. At least on a par with what I have seen in "proper" tests. Thank you very much from a 40D owner who, like every other, it looks, just wants to know if everything is all right with their copy.
Dear darkdragon,
The IQ of your batch of test shots is quite nice/ISO, and I am relieved for your sake. But I don’t think we can totally relax yet.
As we have discussed, if you give your camera ideal conditions it likely will produce nice shots.
Your problem shots don’t magically disappear with the appearance of these nice shots. The bad shots really did occur, they are still there, and need to be explained. Specifically, the degree and nature of the noise which appears in them needs to be explained.
You are obviously not going to be able to feed your camera ideal conditions every shot you take, so the future reappearance of this same level and kind of noise seems almost certain. The question is, are these “normal”? The good shots are normal, yes, but what about the bad? Are they bad in a “normal” way?
As we all are very well aware, underexposure is right up at the top of adverse conditions producing noisy images. What is not so clear is whether the amount of underexposure in your problem pics is sufficient to explain the level and type of noise in them. I don’t think it is, based on all the photographs I have seen from the 40D, and the similarity of your problem shots with the problem shots of my #2 40D, and the adverse comments in forums about noise by owners of some copies of the 40D.
Some posters take to the pulpit to preach about the salvation offered by exposing to the right. They are right. But not totally. For example, if you want to take great fireworks photographs you have to abandon the histogram and apply a settings formula. The histogram will be meaningless with respect to success in these shots.
Another example, a first hand experience of mine. I was photographing swimmers in a pool at night using flash. In order not to blow out the white spray thrown up by their vigorous play I had to underexpose the rest of the image to the extent that it peaked in the center of the histogram. That was the correct exposure in this situation and it was not exposure to the right.
I have made the point before that theory is one thing, and it is possible that sometimes theory and the real world coincide. But the real world and real photographers are usually much less exact, much more messy and approximate. Yet imperfectly shot images without the level and kind of noise that you are finding in your underexposed shots are for view in their thousands.
So, it’s good to know your camera can produce very fine images in ideal situations. Can it also produce very fine images when forced by the real world to operate in less than ideal situations (or when you choose to move it outside its ideal world), as many cameras obviously can? You have some evidence that it cannot.
This is not a spiteful judgment from me. I have been through the pain of having two dud 40Ds which I wanted to cherish and believe in. I don’t wish this on anyone. In fact I hope you never see another bad pic from your camera which is bad in a way that is not normal. cmason has given a clue as to what kind of tests you might do next.
My overall impression is that they have slightly different color, even though I white balanced both from the same reference spot. But I guess what surprised me the most: there is not a significant improvement in the 40D over the XT, at least not to my eye. In fact, I think there is a bit more lumanence noise in the 40 D than the Rebel...
What do you think?
Yeah, I think I would have to agree with you that any differences in IQ between these shots are vanishingly small.
The 40D is however very special in its AF and speed, and it has a little more resolution for larger prints. It feels great to handle, never gets in the way, but always feels like it is eager to help you do what you want to do. Has nice displays.
My first 40D had a similar/worse noise issue. I have a new one and although it is better, I am still not 100% convinced I have a perfect camera.
Stuff I shoot indoors with my Studio strobes is great, but outdoor sports, not so hot. I compare back to my 20D stuff and the difference is huge.
I have read, and agree with, that the 40D exposes about 2/3 of a stop under the 20D which I fix with EC adjustment.
Im actually noticing something similar with my camera. When I shoot indoors it looks fine (as with my test shots I posted) but outside the image seems a lot more noisy to me. I think I will do some more test shots outside this weekend and see if anyone else notices a difference from my tests indoors. No idea what could cause an indoor/outdoor difference other than the heat outside
indoors, although my 20D and 40D shots are clearly different in terms of saturation and exposure, the quality is superb on both. Outdoors, where I use it most, I am beginning to suspect my focus is slightly off, but not all off the time and not by such a huge amount that it is clearly the issue. Its freakin annoying either way. I would be happier if it was so bad I could just send it to Canon with a sample and say "fix this!"
Good that this thread has picked up again, because, as I said above, I don't think you can judge a camera solely on its performance in ideal/fully controlled circumstances, though of course that's valuable information. It's how it performs in the real world of use that matters in the end.
I have been trying to alert this thread to the possibility that there might be an IQ issue with a significant number of 40Ds. The evidence from various forums, BrendonL's experience and my own, plus what I have seen of good and bad images from the 40D, makes me think that 40D owners might well look hard at what their camera produces.
In my own experience, the bad #2 copy could produce woefully noisy images at low ISO inside and out (usually in low-mid gray tones). There were other issues including an ugly smearing of skin tones where there was luminance contrast, and backfocusing.
1DMkx... owners are not backward in coming forward to Canon with anomalies in their cameras' performances.
So good on all of you here for the serious effort to understand just what's going on.
Do you mind if we use your images for testing? In other words, do you mind if I download, crop, print, etc. your images for the purpose of determining the root of this "noise" issue?
Please do. I ran a similar thread on FM ad got very little constructive comment.
Just in case it matters, all my inside stuff, all excelent was manual exposure, one shot.
The outside shot (and I have many) are all shot at high speed multi shot, mostly shutter priority but not all. Most can be "saved" with lots of sharpening, noise reduction etc. But the all have a "hazed" look and many have a red fringe. All have poor detail.
I have tried to figure out if it is me, or a 40D setting I am missing, but I am not a total novice. Had my 20D for years and Rebel before that, no issues.
First I'd like to comment on your latest comments specifically, "The outside shot (and I have many) are all shot at high speed multi shot, mostly shutter priority but not all. Most can be "saved" with lots of sharpening, noise reduction etc. But the all have a "hazed" look and many have a red fringe. All have poor detail."
In the outdoor shot it looks like prime focus is on the closest shoulder as the lettering looks fairly sharp. Even at f5.6, according to the EXIF that was your aperture, at 200mm it is important to use a single focus dot and place the single focus dot on the area that you wish to be sharpest focus, in this case his left eye. Since it's a static shot and since it's at 200mm, focus and recompose would have worked well here.
Please do try the technique of single point focus with focus and recompose and see if things improve a bit.
Regarding image noise, please describe the regions you see that are most affected. Feel free to crop to 100% and post the crop to make your point. I just want to make sure we discuss the same regions or entities before continuing. Please be as specific as possible. Darkdragon and Neil feel free to do the same.
Interesting. I show the focus point as bang on the side of his cheek. That is 100% crop of a larger image.
Brendon,
If you can do some more testing with the single focus point just to rule out the autofocus misunderstanding your wants. The camera will normally focus on the closest part of the closest object, and that's what it seems to have done.
For now, it would be good to practice on a similar subject at a similar distance and similar lighting, just to rule out some variables.
Anyone will do of course, but for now let's stick to human subjects if possible. If a human subject is not readily available, anything with a similar basic shape will do.
While I still don't know what happened with those airplane shots, and other shots that I get that come out very grainy (even in ISO 100). I have to say that I took some shots last weekend and they turned out well. It seems to me that my camera is just very sensitive to exposure. If the image is underexposed it gives me a grainy mess, if the image is expose properly it turns out clean images.
I have not had the time yet to do any formal outdoors test shots, just had some time last weekend to take a few shots at the park before dinner.
This weekend I'll be at another baseball game and hopefully my skills are improving and my camera will feel like giving me clean images to work with.
Comments
yeah, after seeing these controlled tests I tend to agree too. who woulda thunk it
Hey at least now theres something for other to go by maybe.
It's really easy to start looking very critically at one's equipment, perhaps too critically, and the human mind can start playing tricks...
In any case, I am glad for this thread, because while I wasn't necessarily concerned about it to begin with, I think it's given a lot of 40Ders a chance to compare notes, and I'm happy to say my camera is right up to the same standard.
You can clearly see the noise in the shadow areas below the board, but I'm still very happy with the way it turned out.
Bugs
Spiders
Flowers
I used Canon Zoombrowser and synchronized to view 4 at a time @ 100% side by side. Feel free to save and do the same. ISO 100 & 200 looked clean to me then I start noticing noise/grain at ISO 400 in the blacks and shadows and it gets progressively worse at each increment. I think 1250 handled better than 800 but I'll let others vote on that. I didn't shoot 250 and 320. All in all, acceptable throughout the range even though I noticed a piece of cat hair almost disappeared at ISO 3200. Big whoop.
Hopefully I linked right to the original.
All at f/5.6
White balanced:
460 ISO 100 f/5.6 @ 1/4
461 ISO 200 @ 1/8
462 ISO 400 @ 1/15
466 ISO 500 f5.6 @ 1/20
467 ISO 640 @ 1/25
463 ISO 800 @ 1/30
468 ISO 1000 @ 1/40
469 ISO 1250 @ 1/50
464 ISO 1600 @ 1/60
465 ISO 3200 @ 1/125
dak.smugmug.com
460 ISO 100
461 ISO 200
462 ISO 400
466 ISO 500
467 ISO 640
463 ISO 800:
468 ISO 1000
469 ISO 1250
464 ISO 1600
465 ISO 3200
dak.smugmug.com
ISO 200 @ 1/4, same lighting as above pics. Blown highlights on the background, whibal, and white sheets on the rosco.
ISO 200 @ 1/4 w/ Highlight tone priority nothing blown.
dak.smugmug.com
Now "that's" a great test and comparison.
Thanks a bunch.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
So here it goes. This was a low light test, so I simply took a photo in my office. Both camera's were set to ISO800, f2.8, 1/200th, and both used the same lens set at 50mm. For what its worth, they both metered the same on this shot.
My overall impression is that they have slightly different color, even though I white balanced both from the same reference spot. But I guess what surprised me the most: there is not a significant improvement in the 40D over the XT, at least not to my eye. In fact, I think there is a bit more lumanence noise in the 40 D than the Rebel...
What do you think?
Rebel XT:
40D:
Rebel XT Crop:
40D:
Thanks for all the test shots, good to look and compare shots camera vs camera with the same basic setup.
I'm planing to experiment with highlight tone priority soon myself, I just did some reading about it on dpreview yesterday and was intrigued.
They look the same to my eye on this monitor - definately a color shift difference, but the noise looks about the same amount.
You're welcome. Hope it helps!
Look similar to me. Personally getting a headache pixel picking though. No one said the XT was a bad camera. Just go and shoot! :photo
dak.smugmug.com
No kidding, though one would think 3 yrs would see more of an advance, but really, these things are all quite good. in any case, the handling of the 40D is just so much better, it is worth it.
Dear darkdragon,
The IQ of your batch of test shots is quite nice/ISO, and I am relieved for your sake. But I don’t think we can totally relax yet.
As we have discussed, if you give your camera ideal conditions it likely will produce nice shots.
Your problem shots don’t magically disappear with the appearance of these nice shots. The bad shots really did occur, they are still there, and need to be explained. Specifically, the degree and nature of the noise which appears in them needs to be explained.
You are obviously not going to be able to feed your camera ideal conditions every shot you take, so the future reappearance of this same level and kind of noise seems almost certain. The question is, are these “normal”? The good shots are normal, yes, but what about the bad? Are they bad in a “normal” way?
As we all are very well aware, underexposure is right up at the top of adverse conditions producing noisy images. What is not so clear is whether the amount of underexposure in your problem pics is sufficient to explain the level and type of noise in them. I don’t think it is, based on all the photographs I have seen from the 40D, and the similarity of your problem shots with the problem shots of my #2 40D, and the adverse comments in forums about noise by owners of some copies of the 40D.
Some posters take to the pulpit to preach about the salvation offered by exposing to the right. They are right. But not totally. For example, if you want to take great fireworks photographs you have to abandon the histogram and apply a settings formula. The histogram will be meaningless with respect to success in these shots.
Another example, a first hand experience of mine. I was photographing swimmers in a pool at night using flash. In order not to blow out the white spray thrown up by their vigorous play I had to underexpose the rest of the image to the extent that it peaked in the center of the histogram. That was the correct exposure in this situation and it was not exposure to the right.
I have made the point before that theory is one thing, and it is possible that sometimes theory and the real world coincide. But the real world and real photographers are usually much less exact, much more messy and approximate. Yet imperfectly shot images without the level and kind of noise that you are finding in your underexposed shots are for view in their thousands.
So, it’s good to know your camera can produce very fine images in ideal situations. Can it also produce very fine images when forced by the real world to operate in less than ideal situations (or when you choose to move it outside its ideal world), as many cameras obviously can? You have some evidence that it cannot.
This is not a spiteful judgment from me. I have been through the pain of having two dud 40Ds which I wanted to cherish and believe in. I don’t wish this on anyone. In fact I hope you never see another bad pic from your camera which is bad in a way that is not normal. cmason has given a clue as to what kind of tests you might do next.
Neil
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
Yeah, I think I would have to agree with you that any differences in IQ between these shots are vanishingly small.
The 40D is however very special in its AF and speed, and it has a little more resolution for larger prints. It feels great to handle, never gets in the way, but always feels like it is eager to help you do what you want to do. Has nice displays.
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
Stuff I shoot indoors with my Studio strobes is great, but outdoor sports, not so hot. I compare back to my 20D stuff and the difference is huge.
I have read, and agree with, that the 40D exposes about 2/3 of a stop under the 20D which I fix with EC adjustment.
www.lewington.net
Im actually noticing something similar with my camera. When I shoot indoors it looks fine (as with my test shots I posted) but outside the image seems a lot more noisy to me. I think I will do some more test shots outside this weekend and see if anyone else notices a difference from my tests indoors. No idea what could cause an indoor/outdoor difference other than the heat outside
indoors, although my 20D and 40D shots are clearly different in terms of saturation and exposure, the quality is superb on both. Outdoors, where I use it most, I am beginning to suspect my focus is slightly off, but not all off the time and not by such a huge amount that it is clearly the issue. Its freakin annoying either way. I would be happier if it was so bad I could just send it to Canon with a sample and say "fix this!"
www.lewington.net
http://www.lewington.net/photos/303587205_wUYy5-O.jpg
http://www.lewington.net/photos/303585273_AEYRa-O.jpg
www.lewington.net
Big difference, but with a different ISO i would expect some difference. the inside shot is very nice sharpness and little noise.
I have been trying to alert this thread to the possibility that there might be an IQ issue with a significant number of 40Ds. The evidence from various forums, BrendonL's experience and my own, plus what I have seen of good and bad images from the 40D, makes me think that 40D owners might well look hard at what their camera produces.
In my own experience, the bad #2 copy could produce woefully noisy images at low ISO inside and out (usually in low-mid gray tones). There were other issues including an ugly smearing of skin tones where there was luminance contrast, and backfocusing.
1DMkx... owners are not backward in coming forward to Canon with anomalies in their cameras' performances.
So good on all of you here for the serious effort to understand just what's going on.
Neil
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
Do you mind if we use your images for testing? In other words, do you mind if I download, crop, print, etc. your images for the purpose of determining the root of this "noise" issue?
Thanks,
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
Just in case it matters, all my inside stuff, all excelent was manual exposure, one shot.
The outside shot (and I have many) are all shot at high speed multi shot, mostly shutter priority but not all. Most can be "saved" with lots of sharpening, noise reduction etc. But the all have a "hazed" look and many have a red fringe. All have poor detail.
I have tried to figure out if it is me, or a 40D setting I am missing, but I am not a total novice. Had my 20D for years and Rebel before that, no issues.
Any help is appreciated.
www.lewington.net
First I'd like to comment on your latest comments specifically, "The outside shot (and I have many) are all shot at high speed multi shot, mostly shutter priority but not all. Most can be "saved" with lots of sharpening, noise reduction etc. But the all have a "hazed" look and many have a red fringe. All have poor detail."
In the outdoor shot it looks like prime focus is on the closest shoulder as the lettering looks fairly sharp. Even at f5.6, according to the EXIF that was your aperture, at 200mm it is important to use a single focus dot and place the single focus dot on the area that you wish to be sharpest focus, in this case his left eye. Since it's a static shot and since it's at 200mm, focus and recompose would have worked well here.
Please do try the technique of single point focus with focus and recompose and see if things improve a bit.
Regarding image noise, please describe the regions you see that are most affected. Feel free to crop to 100% and post the crop to make your point. I just want to make sure we discuss the same regions or entities before continuing. Please be as specific as possible. Darkdragon and Neil feel free to do the same.
Thanks,
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
www.lewington.net
Brendon,
If you can do some more testing with the single focus point just to rule out the autofocus misunderstanding your wants. The camera will normally focus on the closest part of the closest object, and that's what it seems to have done.
For now, it would be good to practice on a similar subject at a similar distance and similar lighting, just to rule out some variables.
Anyone will do of course, but for now let's stick to human subjects if possible. If a human subject is not readily available, anything with a similar basic shape will do.
Thanks,
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
I will kick my kid out in the blazing heat over the weekend for testing.
www.lewington.net
I have not had the time yet to do any formal outdoors test shots, just had some time last weekend to take a few shots at the park before dinner.
This weekend I'll be at another baseball game and hopefully my skills are improving and my camera will feel like giving me clean images to work with.