• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Quantitative image noise level measurements: Is the 50D really this bad? (1 Viewer)

I had my eyes opened significantly by this thread on POTN - http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=705691. This is where I came to understand that long shots and heavy cropping were no way to secure beautiful images. Of course, I knew that heavy cropping, especially with the 50D, was a bit futile, but I guess we all have hopes and expectations until reality catches up with us.

I do have to say that birding seems to be one of the more demanding photographic disciplines because of so many factors that challenge us. It's the only photography I do where cropping seems, unfortunately, to be almost a necessity. With that in mind, I don't always find it reasonable to blame the equipment for poor results. In fact, the more experienced I become (a long way to go yet) the more I realise that it is my failings or unrealistic expectations that are to blame. You need to make your own "luck", so....

- Choose your time of day wisely so that you have cool, undisturbed air and light that comes in lower and lights the side/underside of the bird rather than the top only.

- Get much closer to your subject. This is not just a question of longer glass. You need to physically close the distance to your subject. Getting closer will fill the frame more, get more pixels on your subject, gather more light, record more detail, look sharper and less noisey. You will also avoid issues with dirty/hazy air and heat haze. If you are physically closer you can shoot with shorter glass, which means you can use a lower shutter speed, which means you can use a lower ISO and/or stop down a little to sharpen that lens. As a technique it will also cost you far less in glass and support systems and your back will thank you too.

- Position yourself so that the light is in your favour, somewhere behind you, usually, and not so that you are shooting into a backlit scene.

- Expose correctly, or even ETTR. Do not underexpose, especially if you are at higher ISOs already. I've been shooting in manual mode for around a year now. It makes results so much more consistent and controllable. It's got to the point that I almost cannot face shooting in one of the autoexposure modes. That's not willy waving or anything. I simply find manual exposure easier. The light often does not vary much, from moment to moment, and once I have a good exposure dialed in that may well do me perfectly for several minutes, if not hours. If the light is changing then, quite honestly, I am likely to prefer a shot lit by sunshine than cloud, so I can simply choose not to release the shutter if the sun disappears for a moment.

To sum up - shoot in good light; fill the frame (as best you can) and nail your exposure. If you slip up on any or all of those things then your IQ will go downhill.

Here are a few of my recent shots with my 50D and 100-400. All were shot at 400 ISO

Thanks Tim. I know my gear is up to it, it's just my lack of understanding that needs to be worked on. I must say though, I have been looking at some pictures taken with my 40D 400mmf/5.6 and I was more happy with those than I am now with my 50D and sigma 50-500. (dont say it, I should have kept the 400mm Canon lens) Better glass is needed so I have put the sigma on ebay. Thanks again. Neil.
 
Just to let readers of this thread know that I have written a fuller account of my measurements of noise level on raw images from the 350D, 40D and 50D, together with the methods used. These were the original subject of this thread and I so far have not seen anything in this thread or elsewhere that contradicts them. This account can be found at http://www.stephenburch.com/noise/noise.htm
 
Just to let readers of this thread know that I have written a fuller account of my measurements of noise level on raw images from the 350D, 40D and 50D, together with the methods used. These were the original subject of this thread and I so far have not seen anything in this thread or elsewhere that contradicts them. This account can be found at http://www.stephenburch.com/noise/noise.htm

Well it's an interesting read, though I must confess that I don't really understand the method you've used well enough to make real sense of the results. It's a bit too forensic for me, I want to see the sample images as they'd make more sense to me.
 
Well it's an interesting read, though I must confess that I don't really understand the method you've used well enough to make real sense of the results. It's a bit too forensic for me, I want to see the sample images as they'd make more sense to me.

Yup, because all this test does is compare the per-pixel noise. Which is really important if you happen to view all of your images at 100%, or print them out at A0. For you, me and, I imagine, the vast majority of user it's the per-image noise that's really important.
 
I'm afraid I disagree! Its the per pixel noise that determines the inherent quality of the image, not some measure that happens to depend on the magnification you want to use on any particular image. The magnification is highly variable from one image to the next and depends on how big the subject is in the field of view, how large you want to view or print the picture etc etc. We arent all fortunate or clever enough to have birds filling the frame all the time...
 
By popular request, I have also added to my website page the Yellow-legged gull example, to illustrate that the effects seen on the graphs can also be quite significant on real photos.
 
By popular request, I have also added to my website page the Yellow-legged gull example, to illustrate that the effects seen on the graphs can also be quite significant on real photos.

Described as....

a somewhat underexposed pic of a Yellow-legged Gull

If you want to accentuate noise then underexposing the shot and then boosting the exposure in PP is the ideal way to do it.

Which version of ACR was used? Your web site only says - "I initially used Adobe Camera Raw, as downloaded for running in PhotoShop Elements versions 3 to 6".
 
If you want to accentuate noise then underexposing the shot and then boosting the exposure in PP is the ideal way to do it.

Which version of ACR was used? Your web site only says - "I initially used Adobe Camera Raw, as downloaded for running in PhotoShop Elements versions 3 to 6".

I didnt intentionally underexpose! The first few shots just came out like that. But surely it is interesting to see if something reasonable can be recovered from them?

For the 50D shots, I used the very latest version of ACR V5.4.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 15 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top