Re: Nikon D80/200 - Canon 30d

newsmb@xxxxxxxxx <newsmb@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On May 31, 6:36 pm, Wolfgang Weisselberg <ozcvgt...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
new...@xxxxxxxxx <new...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

If
you run the D200 image (especially the RAW file) through Noise Ninja
or NeatImage you can get results at least as good as what the 30D
produces.

Aren't you missing something?

No.

You claim: D200 images + (Noise Ninja or NeatImage) are as
good or better than 30D images. Right?

Like the fact that you can run the 30D images (especially the
RAW file) through Noise Ninja or NeatImage as well?

And that after applying NN or NI for *both* cameras, the difference
between the D200 and the 30D has not shrunk? If anything, it
has increased ...

What are you talking about? The D200 actually preserves *more* detail,

Does it? Oh, you mean these 10.5023% extra pixels in each
dimension?

even at higher ISO's.

Which is why dpreview writes:
| The biggest difference from ISO 800 upwards is the effect Nikon's
| noise reduction has on detail, becoming gradually more blurred as
| sensitivity increases, in this respect Canon has it.
and
| With noise reduction turned off the D200 image exhibits more
| detail and with only a slight increase in noticeable noise, at ISO
| 3200 however noise dominates the image.
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond200/page21.asp

With any decent NR software you should be able
to get results that are at least as good.

You are right, you _should_. However, there also _should_ be
no poverty and there _should_ be no wars.

Again you compare "D200 + NR-software" against "30D", where you
_should_ compare "D200" versus "30D" (where you loose) and you
_should_ compare "D200 + NR-software" with "30D + NR-software",
where, again, you'll loose, especially at high ISO values.

While we're on the subject, you're arguing out of both sides of your
mouth.

Which is only fair, seeing you compare apples and oranges.

On the one hand the
resolution edge enjoyed by the Nikon is "irrelevant",

You cite Rockwell, you _really_ should read him:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/mpmyth.htm

Yes, 8 to the alleged 10 MPix is completely irrelevant.
And if your alleged extra 10.5023% pixels are completely drowned in
noise or smoothed away by denoising --- as they are with ISO 3200
on the D200, they are not only irrelevant but not even measurably
'better' in any way you care to name.

but the alleged extra noise by the Nikon at high ISOs

Oh, the noise is a fact.

-- which is not noticeable in
anything other than large prints and 100% crops,

Unlike the alleged 10 MPix, which are not even visible then
as an improvement ...

is easily fixable in software,

Show me the alleged software that _fixes_ that, instead of
simply ameliorating the worst damage done by noise, like
Noise Ninja or NeatImage do.

Free hint: You can try to guess information that is not there,
but you cannot divine it. Once the noise is indistinguable from
the data, you cannot get more data. And the more the noise hides
the data, the more information you loose. You can average (loose
information density) or try and substract the guestimated noise
(loose information quality) or go somewhere inbetween.

and is entirely a function of heavier in-camera NR by Canon

Is it?
It couldn't be that Canon uses a CMOS sensor --- which is a
completely different technique to the CCD sensor of the D200 ---
and it couldn't be that a completely different technique just
_might_ have a different type and strength of noise!

After all, you are claiming that the input is essentially the same.

Funny, though, that the D200 _with_ it's NR on, blurs the image much
more than Canon, to get the same amount of noise (i.e. Nikon has a
heavier in-camera NR). Next funny thing: with Nikons NR
mostly turned off (as much as the camera allows) at ISO 3200
it has _much_ more noise than Canon and the noise itself
overshadows the signal.

-- is a huge deal to you.
Please make up your mind.

Your claims are wrong, thus all your logic based on it is
worthless. Hence you believe I cannot make up my mind, when
in fact, there is no problem at all.


Anyway, if you want a full explanation see:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/dslr-comparison/index.htm

The truth is that cameras with similar-sized sensors and similar pixel
counts will generate about the same level of sensor noise.

Oh, you poor selective reader.
"Resolution and noise have almost nothing to do with real
image quality". Didn't even read the first word.
Resolution. That alleged 10 MPix, you know?

Plus, the D200 is backwards-compatible with just about every
Nikon F mount lens built in the last 30 years.

Except all the exceptions.
While the 30D is compatible with *all* EF lenses ...

The "exceptions" are APS-format lenses and a very small number of low-
volume specialty lenses, which combined account for less than 1% of
Nikon AI F-mount lenses out there.

In other words, if you grab J. Random Lens, it might work, or
might not work. If you want a special lens, it's very much
hit and miss.

If I wanted that, I'd buy Sigma lenses, thank you very much.

My Tamron SP 90mm macro that I
bought back in 1989 works perfectly well. Not having to buy a new one
saved me $500, thank you.

So? Any old FD macro will work very well as a macro on an
EOS camera.

AF assist lamp,

Practically every external flash unit has one, so?

Yes, but that means having to carry one around with you.

If you want red eyes, use inbuilt flash.

How many centimeters does that AF assist lamp work?

Don't forget the vertical banding issue.

You mean the banding issue that affected only a very small number of
cameras early in the D200 production run? That only showed up in
severely overexposed images? That Nikon fixed quickly and free of
charge? That banding issue?

Of course that banding issue. The one that Nikon claims to
have fixed, although it didn't only show up in high key
photograpy (you know, high key, something professionals do).

And that the JPEGs out of the camera are compressed to a given
file size, instead of a given quality

The D200 lets you choose. Go into Shooting Menu -> JPEG Compression.

Oh, they _finally_ managed to do the right thing?

Anyway, I am not here to trash Canon or to say that the D200 is
perfect. I've already said the cameras are very similar. I'd much
rather be out shooting photos.

Oh, I just didn't like the "the D200 is soooo professssional and
soooo much better than the 30D, which is a 'consumer camera',
having scene modes" and all that.

-Wolfgang
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Nikon D80/200 - Canon 30d
    ... camera noise then. ... | Ninja or NeatImage you can get results at least as good as what the ... the D200 images are already as good as the 30D images. ... by a margin not larger than what (Noise Ninja or NeatImage) ...
    (rec.photo.digital.slr-systems)
  • Re: High ISO noise CCDs vs CMOS
    ... I've been looking at reviews on the Sony A100, Nikon D80/D200 and Canon ... I see so many people say only if you shoot high ISO is it a concern. ... But this ISO noise has me ...
    (rec.photo.digital.slr-systems)
  • Re: Wet Mounting Film on Scanners
    ... Your answer about shadow noise is my second data point indicating the ... better perfomance of the Nikon. ... Then combine the images in Photomatix. ... cleaning in Vuescan are enagbling me to perform much ...
    (comp.periphs.scanners)
  • Re: Less expensive DSLRs, Nikon or Canon
    ... Canon has no entry level D-SLR like the Nikon D50 yet. ... Especially for the noise myth. ... but I understand that others prefer to have the photo ready ...
    (rec.photo.digital)
  • Re: largish sensor P&S
    ... For starters both Canon and Nikon uses CMOS in DSLRs. ... noise correlates more to well size than to technology. ... "Well size" usually refers to number of electrons, I guess you mean pixel size, which does indeed correlate well with noise. ...
    (rec.photo.digital)