Reading mode: Light Dark

NMOS v CCD - my experience.

Go to last post
both Louis and you is a very VERY strong testimonial in my opinion. I've noticed stunning colors in many of Louis' images (which surprised me), no banding or other crappola, excellent texture, great dynamic range (with the understanding that Louis is the king of PP and various techniques - nevertheless...) and now your comments when I know that you know your gear and have some great new Nikon kit to compare it with. Well frankly, that's all I need to hear and as you say this bodes very well.

Thanks,
Oly
 
Louis_Dobson said:
Louis_Dobson said:
Louis_Dobson said:
By the way, this isn't about high ISO noise. I've no idea (nor do I care) which camera has better or worse high ISO noise.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Yes indeed, but please allow me a rant here: I DO care that the E-500 starts to show significant noise by ISO 200! In fact, it bugs the heck out of me, perhaps because I shoot so many scenes with blue sky throughout that any pixel peeping shows remarkable noise on anything other than ISO 100. As soon as I have to go up from 100 I usually think to myself, "Might as well crank it to 400, because it's going to be 'Neat Image City' in PP!" So on that level the fact that you and others have stated that the E-330 bests the E-500 on the noise front really does matter to me quite a bit - even if we're not talking about "high ISO noise" but just simply noise.

Best,
Oly
 
thoughts on the subject, and I think perhaps right on.

Oly
 
Panny blew it hard with the fixed screen (I'm old and want to be able to look down/up at my camera taking a great picture while I simply hold it and skip the throwing my back out and/or giving myself an aneurysm routine) and also the price is ridiculous. At $999 the Panny would be worth the geddas, but it'd still have that fixed screen.

Best,
Oly
 
I know Ive been harsh lately, but ... what is the Aussies and South Africans and probably other Euros say...... "cracky"....!

Noise noise noise. I sometimes wonder if any of you guys complaining on the noise issue ever shot any film at all.... ever had to put film in the frig. Ever do any dark room work..?

Used to be 10 and before and maybe as little as only 6 or 8 years ago, you could see plenty of "noise" at ISO 400 with most 35mm film enlargements. Fuji finally came to solve that with their Pro line of FILM and you could comfortablly shoot ISO 800 for weddings and some even ventured into the 1600 realm. Fuji's claim was shoot ISO 800 with grain like 200 !! And it was largely true. Quite a breakthrough.

Now we complain about some (barely) noticable noise at 200 or 400 or 800.... yet somehow I've also seen incredible (OLy 4/3 no less) ISO 1600 images posted right here. And........ what really gets me..... I've seen "noisy" photos that are simply stunning.

I dono............ I get lost in the translation anymore.

--

'The greatest joy there is in life is creating. Splurge on it!' LRH
 
I remember 8-track tapes that had terrible signal to noise and would sometimes swap chanels right in the middle of a song, but just because I remember something doesn't mean I fondly remember it...

I'll take less noise any day. I can always add some if I feel it's needed.

Oly
 
even if you turn the ISO up until there is some noise, it STILL has that slight sheen. So, no, it isn't lack of noise.

However, it isn't a horrible thing - some people may even like the look. I'm happy with it, but I'd rather do without it.

As for colour - I edit the bejasus out of colour. I'm talking about something else, though what it is exactly I'm not sure (if it was obvious what it was it could be engineered in or out).
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/acam
 
be a noise problem with 4/3rds unless you crank the ISO, and the answer is not to. It is mildly inconvenient, but what you get back is a very portable system.

HOWEVER the fact that film was noisy is completely irrelevant. I used to spend man weeks trying to process to get noise down on film, because Grain Is Horrible.

If noise can be got down, good. Noise is A Bad Thing.

Comparisons with film have nothing to do with it.

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/acam
 
on the E500 unless I am playing heavily in PP.

And I don't think I said the E330 is quieter, although it is.

FWIW what I've found SO FAR is this (but I reserve the right to change my mind after more experience):

Both cameras fine at ISO200 unless you are removing the urinary product

Of course I normally AM removing the urinary product..

The E330 however will let you remove the urinary product at ISO200.

UNLESS you are shooting mainly in B mode, at which point a kind of square pattern becomes faintly visible - although easily removed.

By the way, you talk as though noise reduction sis hard to do. For me, the issue is it removes detail.

Here's a tip for quick sky noise removal without loss of detail:

Two methods

1 - Run a noise removal plug in. Then go to the history and go back a step. then pick the history brush form the toolbox, pick a big brush, and brush the sky.

2 (sounds longer but if you use these genetral techniques becomes quicker) - duplicate layer. Run NR. Enter quick mask, brush sky (shows pink). Exit QM, press delete. Now your de-noised sky is on a separate layer (so now run smart sharpen on the lower layer).

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/acam
 
Show me. In fact, show us all. Present the evidence. Another motto, the venerable put up or....

Seriously though Louis, it should be easy for you to demonstrate this effect for us. Post identical subjects taken under identical conditions, and we'll all see what you are seeing, (presumably.)

Here's a little test I performed the other day. Where's the sheen here?

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1020&message=21904280
Louis_Dobson said:
even if you turn the ISO up until there is some noise, it STILL has
that slight sheen. So, no, it isn't lack of noise.

However, it isn't a horrible thing - some people may even like the
look. I'm happy with it, but I'd rather do without it.

As for colour - I edit the bejasus out of colour. I'm talking
about something else, though what it is exactly I'm not sure (if it
was obvious what it was it could be engineered in or out).
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/acam
Click to expand...
 
Do you by any chance have a gallery where we can see the difference in your 5D images vs. your S3? BTW, Louis's photographic abilities and pp skills are in pretty good standing with this forum. You however are our newest Canon participant, come on, wow us. At least when "Joe Mama" visited us he could back up his claims with his photography and knowledge, and consequently gained the respect of may here. The burden is on you, not Louis, for the folks who participate on the Oly forum. ;)
jay bo said:
Seriously though Louis, it should be easy for you to demonstrate
this effect for us. Post identical subjects taken under identical
conditions, and we'll all see what you are seeing, (presumably.)

Here's a little test I performed the other day. Where's the sheen
here?

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1020&message=21904280
Louis_Dobson said:
even if you turn the ISO up until there is some noise, it STILL has
that slight sheen. So, no, it isn't lack of noise.

However, it isn't a horrible thing - some people may even like the
look. I'm happy with it, but I'd rather do without it.

As for colour - I edit the bejasus out of colour. I'm talking
about something else, though what it is exactly I'm not sure (if it
was obvious what it was it could be engineered in or out).
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/acam
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--



'How one responds to failure, not success, could be the better measure of character.'
 
Louis_Dobson said:
By the way, you talk as though noise reduction sis hard to do. For
me, the issue is it removes detail.

Here's a tip for quick sky noise removal without loss of detail:

Two methods

1 - Run a noise removal plug in. Then go to the history and go
back a step. then pick the history brush form the toolbox, pick a
big brush, and brush the sky.

2 (sounds longer but if you use these genetral techniques becomes
quicker) - duplicate layer. Run NR. Enter quick mask, brush sky
(shows pink). Exit QM, press delete. Now your de-noised sky is on
a separate layer (so now run smart sharpen on the lower layer).
Click to expand...
And a third: select sky by whatever method (I usually use QM and a brush) then apply your NR plugin to the selection.

All methods are easy, quick and effective.

--
John Bean [GMT - is there any other?]

PAW 2007 Week 5:
http://waterfoot.smugmug.com/gallery/2321711/1/127460306/Large



Index page: http://waterfoot.smugmug.com
Latest walkabout (4 April 2006): http://waterfoot.smugmug.com/gallery/1348582
 
If I were to use the term "air brushed appearance" to describe it, would that be an adequate label for what you see? I recall certain pictures taken with my old D620L 1.4Mp point & shoot that had an air brushed appearance, to the point that they looked manufactured, rather than captured.
 
Louis_Dobson said:
Both cameras fine at ISO200 unless you are removing the urinary
product
Click to expand...
For a moment there I thought you were talking about UTIs. But this was about noise, not medical conditions.

But then again, what the heck are you talking about? :)

--
--Radu
http://www.gruian.com

'We are like caterpillars, contemplating pupation... No longer will I chew on the cabbage leaves, no longer will I spend my time moving around on the underside of foliage. Life must be a preparation for the transition to another dimension...' (Terence McKenna)

 
Radu Gruian said:
Radu Gruian said:
Both cameras fine at ISO200 unless you are removing the urinary
product
Click to expand...
For a moment there I thought you were talking about UTIs. But this
was about noise, not medical conditions.

But then again, what the heck are you talking about? :)
Click to expand...
"Removing the urinary product", or more commonly "extracting the urine" is a polite way to euphemistically say "taking the p*ss". I leave you to Google for this slang expression if its meaning isn't clear ;-)

--
John Bean [GMT - is there any other?]

PAW 2007 Week 5:
http://waterfoot.smugmug.com/gallery/2321711/1/127460306/Large



Index page: http://waterfoot.smugmug.com
Latest walkabout (4 April 2006): http://waterfoot.smugmug.com/gallery/1348582
 
Hmm this must be British slang, 'cause I've never heard it before. It is funny, though.

--
--Radu
http://www.gruian.com

'We are like caterpillars, contemplating pupation... No longer will I chew on the cabbage leaves, no longer will I spend my time moving around on the underside of foliage. Life must be a preparation for the transition to another dimension...' (Terence McKenna)

 
Jay Turberville said:
Jay Turberville said:
In some images the differences is obvious in some hard to tell…..
Phil may be very biased in his conclusions but he produces nice
images for analyses, so I can retest him.
Click to expand...
You understand that the DR images that Phil posts are synthetically
generated, right? If you want to "retest", you'll have to shoot
your own test wedge.

--
Jay Turberville
http://www.jayandwanda.com
Click to expand...
I would like to do that….but for now, give me image and tell you what you have in it.
 
I am slightly color blind and frankly, I do not see any difference in the results between my E500 and my E330.

I developed my love affair with digital back in 1999 when I bought a Kodak with 1.3 (I think) megapixels. The best thing about it was the preview and the feedback. Although feedback was available on my first DSLR, there was no preview. Although the preview is not perfect on the E330 (cannot see the changes in exposure, WB etc), it is certainly better then not having it at all. Also, I just like the build and feel of the E330.
--
http://www.zenfolio.com/digitalphotonut
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top