High ISO and noise

[Jemmwm]

Hi All,
I'm contemplating upgrading my Canon 450D, to either a 7D or a 5D MkII. I keep reading about the great high ISO capabilities of both these cameras and was wondering if it is all true. I am always reluctant to push the ISO higher than even 200 on my 450D due to the amount of noise I then get, and that severely limits me, which is one of the prime reasons I want to upgrade.
Really truely, how high can you push the ISO in either of those cameras before you get a noise problem?
Would anyone suggest which was better at high ISO?
Cheers all,
J

[LeeR]

I was talking to the owner of the shop where I get my pictures printed the other day about the relationship between megapixels and image quality. We both agreed the relationship is not as clear as most people think and as proof he showed me a 30 X 40 print made from an 8 Mp image. However, he argued, as soon as you try to say something like that on the Internet, someone with "credentials" will produce a graph that shows you can't make anything bigger than an 8 X 10 with that size image. I agreed, of course, it's one of the main reasons I have been slow to upgrade my equipment; I simply haven't been caught up in all the hoopla over megapixels and image quality. However, performance at high ISO's is a very different thing. The newest generation of sensors are wonderous in their ability to produce clear sharp and relatively noise free images at extremely high ISOs. I have seen shots taken at ISO 3200 that looked as good as the images my camera makes at ISO 200. And there seems to be no end in sight as to how high the ISO range will grow. Nikon will soon be introducing a camera that can capture images at ISO 25,000. No word yet on the image quality at that range is astonishing, We'll be doing landscapes by starlight if ISOs go any higher!

[OsmosisStudios]

Originally Posted by LeeR

I was talking to the owner of the shop where I get my pictures printed the other day about the relationship between megapixels and image quality. We both agreed the relationship is not as clear as most people think and as proof he showed me a 30 X 40 print made from an 8 Mp image. However, he argued, as soon as you try to say something like that on the Internet, someone with "credentials" will produce a graph that shows you can't make anything bigger than an 8 X 10 with that size image.
[...]
Nikon will soon be introducing a camera that can capture images at ISO 25,000. No word yet on the image quality at that range is astonishing, We'll be doing landscapes by starlight if ISOs go any higher!

First point: as you and the shop owner have agreed, you can make giant prints of photos with lower MP cameras. That being said, higher resolution certainly doesnt hurt (especially at 30"x40"). The bigger determining factor is the quality of the image itself, and lack of noise certainly helps that.

Nikon have a camera that does 2 stops above 25k: the D3s. Yes, it's full frame, but it does 102,400 ISO, albeit being a bit rough. 25,600 is a high level for a DX-sized sensor, but for full-frame that's just scratching the surface. The OP mentioned the 5DmkII, so full-frame is an option.

[inkista]

Originally Posted by Jemmwm

I am always reluctant to push the ISO higher than even 200 on my 450D due to the amount of noise I then get, and that severely limits me, which is one of the prime reasons I want to upgrade.

While the newer cameras do have better noise performance at high ISO settings, it's not as huge a leap as the marketing copy or online discussions would make you think.

I used 800 and 1600 regularly on my Canon XT (350D), so from where I'm sitting, not going above 200 on a 450D means you're doing something wrong . So here are a few other things to consider:

Are you being too picky?
Noise probably gets more attention than it should in online reviews and debates. But when you increase the voltage gain across a sensor, you're going to get noise. There's no way around that. Are you sure you aren't being hyper-picky, and worried about 100% crop noise, rather than actually evaluating the noise across the whole image, as it will be viewed at its final print/display size? My noise expectations are lower than most digital newbies (who assume everything should be completely noise free), because I used to shoot with ASA 1200 Kodak Gold and Tri-X back in the day. Grain/noise looks fine to me. But then, I'm also not a pixel peeper.

The fact that Lightroom now has presets for ADDING grain back into a shot should indicate that grain/noise is not necessarily always a bad thing.

Are you underexposing?
Noise tends to show more in darker/underexposed areas of an image than in properly exposed/lighter ones. You can easily have more noise using iso 200 and underexposing than using iso 800 and nailing exposure or exposing to the right and then performing digital pull-processing. Learn to use your histogram. If a shot is unbearably noisy, chances are good it was underexposed and then pushed (the exposure was lightened) in post.

Do you do noise reduction in post?
Like sharpening, this can have a huge impact on your final photo. Most folks assume everything is done in the gear, and don't realize that software gives most folks far more than a helping hand in terms of contrast, sharpness, and noise. You can make your glass look a lot more expensive than it is if you sharpen up processing.

I leave you with an iso 3200 shot I took on my 50D, which is widely castigated across the interwebz as having lousy high ISO performance and a smaller dynamic range, not even on a par with the 40D's (which has more or less the same sensor/processor as your 450D). I shot RAW, and did all processing in Lightroom.


Canon 50D. adapted Contax Zeiss Planar T* 100/2. iso 3200. f/4. 1/100s.

Here's a link to the full-sized image if you want to pixel peep.

[Jemmwm]

Thanks all for the really useful information - I really appreciate it.
Inkista - I think you are absolutely right in what you are telling me, and have really opened my eyes.
Yes, I am incredibly picky (unfortunately). Perfectionist by nature.
And yes, I think I do underexpose too much. I am a relative beginner and am still struggling with the whole exposure thing. As we can see the "blinkies" on the review photo for overexposure, I think I focus way too much on that and then underexpose too much. Definitely more work to be done there!
And again, yes, I am learning my postprocessing also and need to nail the noise reduction filters too. I have just bought CS5, and should hopefully have that down soon!
Thanks heaps again - and whaddyareckon, 7D or 5D Mk II???
PS - great pic!

[OsmosisStudios]

Originally Posted by Jemmwm

Thanks heaps again - and whaddyareckon, 7D or 5D Mk II???
PS - great pic!

I think her point was that you shouldnt upgrade your equipment and instead concentrate on upgrading your skills and technique.

[WVCoalMiner]

And if you are hellbent on upgrading definetly go FULL FRAME on the 5D MK II

[Jemmwm]

Thanks all, and I definitely hear you.
I am working on my technique all the time, and will now definitely think about my underexposure problems, and my postprocessing.
Thanks again!

[inkista]

Originally Posted by Jemmwm

... and whaddyareckon, 7D or 5D Mk II???

Zeiss glass. Also Leica. The bodies, they come and go. The glass, it stays.

You didn't really need autofocus, anyway, did you?

[abarickman]

If you are at all concerned about high ISO performance and can swing it then go with the 5D MKII. The only time I would say don't do this is if you shoot a lot of action (dance, sports etc) or need the extra reach that a crop sensor would give you. If this is the case go with the 7D. I personally would really like to get a 5D MKII to augment my 40D. I can use the 40D for sports and when I need reach and the 5D MKII when I need the high ISO performance and jaw dropping detail.

Just my 2 cents.