BirdForum is the net's largest birding community dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE!

Register for an account to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="stephenB" data-source="post: 1543671" data-attributes="member: 23668">I am sure that with appropriate post processing using NeatImage noisy images can be made to look quite acceptable. That wasnt quite the point of my original post! That was to try to make a like for like comparison, without any noise reduction processing, of the sensor outputs from the 350D, 40D and 50D. I was expecting the 50D to be somewhat poorer than the others, due its smaller pixels, but was suprised by how poorly it came out in the comparison. Given there must have been various improvements since the days of the 350D, including the claimed larger micro-lenses in the 50D, I was suprised to find no evidence for them in the comparative figures. In fact the difference in noise levels between the 350D and 50D is probably even worse than 1 stop, because according to the DXOmark website the 50D is setup so that ISO 400 isnt actually ISO 400, but is notably less - much more so than for the 350D. So, for the same amount of light coming in, the noise would be even higher on the 50D! I should maybe add I used PSE 6 and ACR to do my raw to tiff conversion, taking care to turn off anything which might affect noise levels (like sharpening). It might be interesting to try DPP and compare results. I'll post the result if I get round to it.Having said all that, I'm quite surprised how noise free many of Tim's pics are, especially those at ISO 1600. But then is he using "High ISO speed Noise reduction" on the camera, and if so at what level? Also if NeatImage has been applied, then this can easily reduce noise levels by large amounts depending entirely on the "Noise reduction amount".</blockquote>

Verification