Is the 1Ds noisy...?

[Forrest41926]

So the name says it's an EOS 1 body, it's digital, and it's a "studio" camera. To me that implies portraits, product shots, ... things like that. It's also a landscape camera -- the full-frame chip makes for wide wides, there's a true spot meter, big viewfinder for true manual focus, and of course the water tight/shock proof brick shell. I would be a lot more comfortable carrying a 1Ds on a rough trail than I would my D60. Not to mention the resolution...

But here's the thing: it looks like this camera is noisier than maybe the rest of the digital EOS family at low ISOs ... right where studio and landscape photogs shoot. I don't know if the jury is still out -- I've seen some very clean photos and a lot of noisy ones from the 1Ds.

People are pointing out that the 1Ds does have more noise per pixel, but it has a lot more pixels than the D60. If you print both images at 8x10 or downsample the noise goes away, and the 1Ds has a better image. So the theory goes.

Is this valid? If I could spare $8K, I would get this camera specifically to print much bigger than I can with my D60. I would be concerned about the noise at ISO 100. If I had longer lenses, I might chase some wildlife around with the AF system, and want to crop more severely. In either case, the noise could be an issue for me.

I know the 1Ds is a better camera in a lot of ways, even most. But is it too noisy, especially considering it's legacy? Or does the noise-per-pixel versus noise-per-image-size argument hold water? I'm especially curious what the landscape shooters think of this.

 

[DavidP #28649]

I'd want the 1Ds for the extra resolution and being able to shoot extreme wide-angles.

The noise issues at low ISO aren't really worth discussing, IMO. The noise is so low, it doens't matter whether the D60 is slightly less noisy or not.

I don't think many will be complaining about 1Ds noise at low ISO. Few probably will even at high ISO.

Canon's done some amazing stuff with this camera.

--
The Unofficial Photographer of The Wilkinsons
http://thewilkinsons.crosswinds.net
Photography -- just another word for compromise

 

[Joo]

Personally, I don't think its that noisy. Also, since the 1Ds produces a much larger file than the D60, I would think that for similar size prints, the 1Ds should be considerably less noisy, when printed.

You can't compare the images from the two cameras by viewing them both at 100%. You have to rezies them to equivalent sizes and then compare. I'd suggest resizing the D60 image to the 1Ds size and compare the images. Then resize the 1Ds image down to the D60 image size and compare the images.

Then compare the noise.

Joo

So the name says it's an EOS 1 body, it's digital, and it's a
"studio" camera. To me that implies portraits, product shots, ...
things like that. It's also a landscape camera -- the full-frame
chip makes for wide wides, there's a true spot meter, big
viewfinder for true manual focus, and of course the water
tight/shock proof brick shell. I would be a lot more comfortable
carrying a 1Ds on a rough trail than I would my D60. Not to
mention the resolution...

But here's the thing: it looks like this camera is noisier than
maybe the rest of the digital EOS family at low ISOs ... right
where studio and landscape photogs shoot. I don't know if the jury
is still out -- I've seen some very clean photos and a lot of noisy
ones from the 1Ds.

People are pointing out that the 1Ds does have more noise per
pixel, but it has a lot more pixels than the D60. If you print
both images at 8x10 or downsample the noise goes away, and the 1Ds
has a better image. So the theory goes.

Is this valid? If I could spare $8K, I would get this camera
specifically to print much bigger than I can with my D60. I would
be concerned about the noise at ISO 100. If I had longer lenses, I
might chase some wildlife around with the AF system, and want to
crop more severely. In either case, the noise could be an issue
for me.

I know the 1Ds is a better camera in a lot of ways, even most. But
is it too noisy, especially considering it's legacy? Or does the
noise-per-pixel versus noise-per-image-size argument hold water?
I'm especially curious what the landscape shooters think of this.

--

• Maybe one day I'll take a decent picture. In the meantime, I'll blame the equipment.
• http://www.pbase.com/jchung/portfolio

 

[Forrest41926]

I'd want the 1Ds for the extra resolution and being able to shoot
extreme wide-angles.

Yeah, those are two very strong selling points ... and so is the body.

The noise issues at low ISO aren't really worth discussing, IMO.
The noise is so low, it doens't matter whether the D60 is slightly
less noisy or not.

We all saw that harbor shot, at ISO 125. Downsampled from 11 mpx to 400x600 or something like that -- web size -- the noise in the water was objectionable to most people on this forum. Granted, we're a picky bunch, but 1/3 stop above the lowest ISO shouldn't produce that much noise after a severe downsample. That's probably the worst case, and Fred's sample images looked great. So I'm really not sure what to think of the overall noise levels. But going on Phil's SDs, the 1Ds is noisier than the D30, D60, and 1D at ISO 100.

Canon's done some amazing stuff with this camera.

I definately agree with this!

 

[Forrest41926]

Personally, I don't think its that noisy. Also, since the 1Ds
produces a much larger file than the D60, I would think that for
similar size prints, the 1Ds should be considerably less noisy,
when printed.

Yeah, for an 8x10 from both cameras -- with the same framing, when the D60 is up to it -- the 1Ds seems to have much less noise. It also has 340 ppi versus 260.

But the D60 already makes great 8x10s; I would think people would buy the 1Ds to print 16x24s and 24x36s instead of 8x10s. I know I would. I would expect a 16x24 from the 1Ds to look about like an 8x10 from the D60; that's a little more optimistic than the math would have you believe, but then there's the pixel-size issue, and the low-pass filter. But then you're enlarging the image quite a bit, and noise comes back into the equasion...

You can't compare the images from the two cameras by viewing them
both at 100%. You have to rezies them to equivalent sizes and then
compare. I'd suggest resizing the D60 image to the 1Ds size and
compare the images. Then resize the 1Ds image down to the D60 image
size and compare the images.

I think this is a fair way to compare sharpness -- but I think it's obvious the 1Ds is much sharper than the D60. Not just in terms of detail and resolution, but I think it really is sharper -- better edge definition before applying USM.

But I don't know about noise. The D60 is limited by it's pixels a lot more than the 1Ds is. It's really like 35 mm versus medium format. This camera would open new doors for me ... but I would hope the noise is up to the pixel-size.

Maybe I'm just wierd, though. That's why I asked everyone else's opinion.

 

[Joo]

Personally, I don't think its that noisy. Also, since the 1Ds
produces a much larger file than the D60, I would think that for
similar size prints, the 1Ds should be considerably less noisy,
when printed.

Yeah, for an 8x10 from both cameras -- with the same framing, when
the D60 is up to it -- the 1Ds seems to have much less noise. It
also has 340 ppi versus 260.

But the D60 already makes great 8x10s; I would think people would
buy the 1Ds to print 16x24s and 24x36s instead of 8x10s. I know I
would. I would expect a 16x24 from the 1Ds to look about like an
8x10 from the D60; that's a little more optimistic than the math
would have you believe, but then there's the pixel-size issue, and
the low-pass filter. But then you're enlarging the image quite a
bit, and noise comes back into the equasion...

The fact of the matter is, if you want to print 16x24, the 1Ds is generally the better camera to use than the D60, period. To compare noise from two different cameras printing at two different sizes really isn't a fair comparison. You're basically handicapping the comparison.

You can't compare the images from the two cameras by viewing them
both at 100%. You have to rezies them to equivalent sizes and then
compare. I'd suggest resizing the D60 image to the 1Ds size and
compare the images. Then resize the 1Ds image down to the D60 image
size and compare the images.

I think this is a fair way to compare sharpness -- but I think it's
obvious the 1Ds is much sharper than the D60. Not just in terms of
detail and resolution, but I think it really is sharper -- better
edge definition before applying USM.

But I don't know about noise. The D60 is limited by it's pixels a
lot more than the 1Ds is. It's really like 35 mm versus medium
format. This camera would open new doors for me ... but I would
hope the noise is up to the pixel-size.

Maybe I'm just wierd, though. That's why I asked everyone else's
opinion.

I would say its a very fair way to compare noise., and not just sharpness. Just as if you wanted to compare grain from a medium format film to grain from a 35mm film, you should print at similar sizes. Just because you blew up a medium format shot by 10,000% and see grain but don't see it from a 35mm shot at 100% doesn't mean the medium format film is grainier than the 35mm film. Its the same situation with trying to compare a 1Ds shot to a D60 shot.

--

• Maybe one day I'll take a decent picture. In the meantime, I'll blame the equipment.
• http://www.pbase.com/jchung/portfolio

 

[inigo guionnet]

Personally, I don't think its that noisy. Also, since the 1Ds
produces a much larger file than the D60, I would think that for
similar size prints, the 1Ds should be considerably less noisy,
when printed.

You can't compare the images from the two cameras by viewing them
both at 100%. You have to rezies them to equivalent sizes and then
compare. I'd suggest resizing the D60 image to the 1Ds size and
compare the images. Then resize the 1Ds image down to the D60 image
size and compare the images.

You only compare the images by viewing both at 100%!!!!!!!

Then compare the noise.

Joo

So the name says it's an EOS 1 body, it's digital, and it's a
"studio" camera. To me that implies portraits, product shots, ...
things like that. It's also a landscape camera -- the full-frame
chip makes for wide wides, there's a true spot meter, big
viewfinder for true manual focus, and of course the water
tight/shock proof brick shell. I would be a lot more comfortable
carrying a 1Ds on a rough trail than I would my D60. Not to
mention the resolution...

But here's the thing: it looks like this camera is noisier than
maybe the rest of the digital EOS family at low ISOs ... right
where studio and landscape photogs shoot. I don't know if the jury
is still out -- I've seen some very clean photos and a lot of noisy
ones from the 1Ds.

People are pointing out that the 1Ds does have more noise per
pixel, but it has a lot more pixels than the D60. If you print
both images at 8x10 or downsample the noise goes away, and the 1Ds
has a better image. So the theory goes.

Is this valid? If I could spare $8K, I would get this camera
specifically to print much bigger than I can with my D60. I would
be concerned about the noise at ISO 100. If I had longer lenses, I
might chase some wildlife around with the AF system, and want to
crop more severely. In either case, the noise could be an issue
for me.

I know the 1Ds is a better camera in a lot of ways, even most. But
is it too noisy, especially considering it's legacy? Or does the
noise-per-pixel versus noise-per-image-size argument hold water?
I'm especially curious what the landscape shooters think of this.

--

• Maybe one day I'll take a decent picture. In the meantime, I'll

blame the equipment.

• http://www.pbase.com/jchung/portfolio

 

[Joo]

Personally, I don't think its that noisy. Also, since the 1Ds
produces a much larger file than the D60, I would think that for
similar size prints, the 1Ds should be considerably less noisy,
when printed.

You can't compare the images from the two cameras by viewing them
both at 100%. You have to rezies them to equivalent sizes and then
compare. I'd suggest resizing the D60 image to the 1Ds size and
compare the images. Then resize the 1Ds image down to the D60 image
size and compare the images.

You only compare the images by viewing both at 100%!!!!!!!

Then compare the noise.

Joo

So the name says it's an EOS 1 body, it's digital, and it's a
"studio" camera. To me that implies portraits, product shots, ...
things like that. It's also a landscape camera -- the full-frame
chip makes for wide wides, there's a true spot meter, big
viewfinder for true manual focus, and of course the water
tight/shock proof brick shell. I would be a lot more comfortable
carrying a 1Ds on a rough trail than I would my D60. Not to
mention the resolution...

But here's the thing: it looks like this camera is noisier than
maybe the rest of the digital EOS family at low ISOs ... right
where studio and landscape photogs shoot. I don't know if the jury
is still out -- I've seen some very clean photos and a lot of noisy
ones from the 1Ds.

People are pointing out that the 1Ds does have more noise per
pixel, but it has a lot more pixels than the D60. If you print
both images at 8x10 or downsample the noise goes away, and the 1Ds
has a better image. So the theory goes.

Is this valid? If I could spare $8K, I would get this camera
specifically to print much bigger than I can with my D60. I would
be concerned about the noise at ISO 100. If I had longer lenses, I
might chase some wildlife around with the AF system, and want to
crop more severely. In either case, the noise could be an issue
for me.

I know the 1Ds is a better camera in a lot of ways, even most. But
is it too noisy, especially considering it's legacy? Or does the
noise-per-pixel versus noise-per-image-size argument hold water?
I'm especially curious what the landscape shooters think of this.

--

• Maybe one day I'll take a decent picture. In the meantime, I'll

blame the equipment.

• http://www.pbase.com/jchung/portfolio

--

• Maybe one day I'll take a decent picture. In the meantime, I'll blame the equipment.
• http://www.pbase.com/jchung/portfolio

 

[Forrest41926]

The fact of the matter is, if you want to print 16x24, the 1Ds is
generally the better camera to use than the D60, period. To compare
noise from two different cameras printing at two different sizes
really isn't a fair comparison. You're basically handicapping the
comparison.

I would definately hope the 1Ds prints a better 16x24 than the D60. This is no surprise ... it seems to be what the camera is made for. I would kind of expect a 16x24 from the 1Ds to look like an 8x12 from the D60.

I don't think this is a "handicapped" comparison. I think this is more like trying to get the most out of each camera. Canon put almost twice the pixels ( and a sharper AA filter ) into one camera to make it able to make larger prints.

You're one of the more knowledgable people on this forum, and you obviously disagree. Same goes for DavidP. So here's a question: would you really buy this camera to never ( or very rarely ) printer larger than 8x12 or so? Would you do if this wasn't the only full-frame EF camera on the horizon? ( This is assuming you hit the lottory and sticker-shock wasn't an issue... )

 

[JohnM31499]

& I am scratching my head. My 1Ds shots at 50, 100 & 200 show absolutely no noise whatever(that is none, nothing, nada)

Whether the D60 is less noisy is irrelevant to me, how can you have less noise than none at all??

I made a 13x19(A3+)print from a crop of an ISO 100 image last night & the quality is breathtaking. It is so much better than anything that ever came from either my 1D or D60 that there is really no comparison at all.

-John

 

[Adam-T]

You're NOT weird - a AGREE

When viewed both at 100% the 1DS should be NO noisier than the D60 @ ISO100, let's face it, it's only gone up from 6.5 to 11Mp and with a lot more sensor space to spread those pixels out on too and better cooling with the Mag alloy casing so no excuse..

increasing or decreasing the image sizes of both cameras doesn't wash, this thing costs $10,500 US Bucks in the UK, I don't NOT expect it to have any more noise than a camera with a physically smaller sensor which costs £2000..

So the question still lies - the idea of having more pixels is to print bigger and allow for heavy cropping, IF the 1DS is noisier at ISO100 than the D60 then you gain little as you can't do this.

So folks, is it or isn't it???

--
Olympus C2100UZI +B300 +A28, Canon D60, EOS7

My Ugly mug and submitted Photos at -------->
http://www.photosig.com/viewuser.php?id=27855

 

[Joo]

If you are trying to determine which camera you can get the best and largest print from, then the 1Ds still wins, regardless of the the difference in noise between the D60 and the 1Ds.

If money was not an issue (e.g. if I wont the lottery), then of the cameras on the market right now, I'd buy the 1Ds. Even if I didn't want to print larger than 8x12, I'd probably still get the 1Ds because I believe the 1Ds will generally be able to print better 8x12 photos than the D60 due to its lower visible noise when printed at 8x12 and because of the greater freedom in cropping for composition.

Joo

The fact of the matter is, if you want to print 16x24, the 1Ds is
generally the better camera to use than the D60, period. To compare
noise from two different cameras printing at two different sizes
really isn't a fair comparison. You're basically handicapping the
comparison.

I would definately hope the 1Ds prints a better 16x24 than the D60.
This is no surprise ... it seems to be what the camera is made for.
I would kind of expect a 16x24 from the 1Ds to look like an 8x12
from the D60.

I don't think this is a "handicapped" comparison. I think this is
more like trying to get the most out of each camera. Canon put
almost twice the pixels ( and a sharper AA filter ) into one camera
to make it able to make larger prints.

You're one of the more knowledgable people on this forum, and you
obviously disagree. Same goes for DavidP. So here's a question:
would you really buy this camera to never ( or very rarely )
printer larger than 8x12 or so? Would you do if this wasn't the
only full-frame EF camera on the horizon? ( This is assuming you
hit the lottory and sticker-shock wasn't an issue... )

--

• Maybe one day I'll take a decent picture. In the meantime, I'll blame the equipment.
• http://www.pbase.com/jchung/portfolio

 

[Joo]

I still do not agree Adam. You could probably still crop a considerable amount of the 1Ds photos, print a 8x10, and still have similar visible noise in the print as the D60. Saying you gain little from moving to the D60 to the 1Ds, in terms of image quality, is too broad of a statement and hasn't been backed up by any quantifiable tests.

The 1Ds may have a larger sensor, but the cell size is not that much larger than the D60. The cell size of the 1Ds is about 30% larger than the D60's cell size. Granted, one would think that the 1Ds should have lower noise, but clearly the noise reduction utilized by both sensors is different. At least the long exposure NR would indicate this to be true.

Is the noise from the 1Ds unacceptable? I personally don't think so. Not that I own it, and probably never will at the current price. But from the samples that have been posted, the noise level seems to be more than acceptable.

You're NOT weird - a AGREE

When viewed both at 100% the 1DS should be NO noisier than the D60
@ ISO100, let's face it, it's only gone up from 6.5 to 11Mp and
with a lot more sensor space to spread those pixels out on too and
better cooling with the Mag alloy casing so no excuse..

increasing or decreasing the image sizes of both cameras doesn't
wash, this thing costs $10,500 US Bucks in the UK, I don't NOT
expect it to have any more noise than a camera with a physically
smaller sensor which costs £2000..

So the question still lies - the idea of having more pixels is to
print bigger and allow for heavy cropping, IF the 1DS is noisier at
ISO100 than the D60 then you gain little as you can't do this.

So folks, is it or isn't it???

--
Olympus C2100UZI +B300 +A28, Canon D60, EOS7

My Ugly mug and submitted Photos at -------->
http://www.photosig.com/viewuser.php?id=27855

--

• Maybe one day I'll take a decent picture. In the meantime, I'll blame the equipment.
• http://www.pbase.com/jchung/portfolio

 

[Forrest41926]

& I am scratching my head. My 1Ds shots at 50, 100 & 200 show
absolutely no noise whatever(that is none, nothing, nada)

My head is itchy, too. I've seen some really bad 1Ds shots, and some really good ones. Both sets at low ISOs.

How are you finding ISO 50? Do you think you loose that much range? Is it useable in the real world?

Whether the D60 is less noisy is irrelevant to me, how can you have
less noise than none at all??

Well, Nikon's D1h has less noise than a D60, and Kodak's 720x has less noise than a D1h -- I think. There's always going to be something with less noise. Someone can build a camera with one pixel, and you can guess what it's standard deviations would look like.

But a lot of the 1Ds samples I've seen look noisier ( at low ISO ) than the D30, D60, and 1D. That would scare me a bit if I had $8K to spend on a camera body. ( And then some of the samples look smooth as my favorite silk shirts. )

I made a 13x19(A3+)print from a crop of an ISO 100 image last night
& the quality is breathtaking. It is so much better than anything
that ever came from either my 1D or D60 that there is really no
comparison at all.

Care to humor us and post some 100% crops? 'Cause I'm really confused on the issue... Not that it would be imperrative until they have affordable refurbs, but I'm curious nonetheless.

 

[Joo]

& I am scratching my head. My 1Ds shots at 50, 100 & 200 show
absolutely no noise whatever(that is none, nothing, nada)

My head is itchy, too. I've seen some really bad 1Ds shots, and
some really good ones. Both sets at low ISOs.

How are you finding ISO 50? Do you think you loose that much
range? Is it useable in the real world?

Whether the D60 is less noisy is irrelevant to me, how can you have
less noise than none at all??

Well, Nikon's D1h has less noise than a D60, and Kodak's 720x has
less noise than a D1h -- I think. There's always going to be
something with less noise. Someone can build a camera with one
pixel, and you can guess what it's standard deviations would look
like.

The Kodak 720x is a 2MP camera. The Nikon D1h is a 2.7MP camera. The D60 might have more noise than either, but again, is that really a fair comparison?

Would you then go so far as to compare the Kodak 720x to the Canon 1Ds. The 720x being a 2MP camera and the 1Ds being an 11MP camera and say that there is little to be gained from upgrding to the 1Ds from the 720x?

But a lot of the 1Ds samples I've seen look noisier ( at low ISO )
than the D30, D60, and 1D. That would scare me a bit if I had
$8K to spend on a camera body. ( And then some of the samples look
smooth as my favorite silk shirts. )

I made a 13x19(A3+)print from a crop of an ISO 100 image last night
& the quality is breathtaking. It is so much better than anything
that ever came from either my 1D or D60 that there is really no
comparison at all.

Care to humor us and post some 100% crops? 'Cause I'm really
confused on the issue... Not that it would be imperrative until
they have affordable refurbs, but I'm curious nonetheless.

--

• Maybe one day I'll take a decent picture. In the meantime, I'll blame the equipment.
• http://www.pbase.com/jchung/portfolio

 

[Adam-T]

similar visible noise in the print as the D60. Saying you gain
little from moving to the D60 to the 1Ds, in terms of image
quality, is too broad of a statement and hasn't been backed up by
any quantifiable tests.

I didn't SAY that there was little gain, what I said was that if you have to reduce the size of the output to counteract Noise, then there would be little gain.. Phil's noise test pics are useless to judge relativeness on as the D60 ones look Underexposed (Maybe he shouldn't have used a 28-135IS ;-) LOL)

--
Olympus C2100UZI +B300 +A28, Canon D60, EOS7

My Ugly mug and submitted Photos at -------->
http://www.photosig.com/viewuser.php?id=27855

 

[Forrest41926]

The Kodak 720x is a 2MP camera. The Nikon D1h is a 2.7MP camera.
The D60 might have more noise than either, but again, is that
really a fair comparison?

Depends what you want to do with each camera. Then again, the D1h looks as good at 3200 as my D60 does at 1000, so they really do have different strengths and weaknesses. I doubt many people shoot landscapes with a D1h.

Would you then go so far as to compare the Kodak 720x to the Canon
1Ds. The 720x being a 2MP camera and the 1Ds being an 11MP camera
and say that there is little to be gained from upgrding to the 1Ds
from the 720x?

Now you're putting words in my mouth. I didn't say there's nothing to be gained ... in fact, I said there's everything to be gained except maybe noise. That's what I'm asking about.

 

[Z (is real)]

Having a discussion of noise in this forum is rather pointless.

First off, there are variables to control for. E.g. sensitivity calibration and overall dynamic range.

One expects the sensitivty to be about the same between the two cameras since they're both made by Canon. Roughly this translates to the metered exposures being the same under the same circumstances and resulting image having about the same values. However it is not clear to me how well this is controlled for in various experiements. (And in Phil's test, the 1Ds was so close to the D60 in terms of std. dev. that any difference in sensitivity could easily change the balance.)

Dynamic range has to do with how much detail the camera captures in shadows and highlights. Generally speaking, noise is the limiting factor on dynamic range, but it is still worth making sure the overall dynamic range is comparable. (If one has vast amounts of dynamic range to work with, one can overexpose the image and then reverse compensate a little to push the noise down. This method will be quite familiar to people who bought the EOS-1D early on.) Put another way, Canon may have chosen to give more highlight protection in exchange for a bit more noise on the EOS-1Ds. (And in particular, larger pixels give better dynamic range, not lower noise per se. You get more noise electrons with a larger pixel, but proportionaly more signal electrons as well. So overall it is a win.)

So noise comparisons without controls for these parameters are somewhat suspect to start with.

Beyond that, visual perception of noise is not a simple thing. E.g. any noticeable pattern in noise will be percieved as much stronger than an equal amount of random noise. Chroma noise tends to be more objectionable than luminosity noise, etc. (For a concrete example, the 1Ds noise crops in Phil's review looked "less noisy" to me than the D60 ones. I'm not saying they are less noisy, that would require some more strict definition of "noisy," I'm just saying what my visual perception was.)

Any noise comparison where you are looking at swatches that are different sizes, or different brightnesses are pretty dubious. (It is a lot like comparing loudspeakers without normalizing them to the same volume. People tend to prefer the louder one no matter how its quality of reproduction is.)

Finally, there is the 1 to 1 crops issue. Other than as a purely geek level technical comparison, this means nothing for actual printing of photographs. (It is a reasonable way to judge output for lower res cameras and for small crops if you are targeting web output.) For prints, even large ones, the printing process and the viewing process both integrate samples in a way that reduces the visual amoutn of noise. Look at it this way: if you are seeing the individual pixels in a photo, it already looks very bad.

So if you are actually interested in photography you want to be looking at prints. But that said, what about pixel to pixel comparisons? Well, if you want to compare equal output image area for a given framing on each camera, the 1Ds image should be resized down by about 76%.

-Z-

 

[Amac]

Forrest,

the point has been made above about the pickiness of people on this forum. It seems that some like to find fault with new additions to the digital camera world.

In assessing the quaity of an image, I'd ask "Does this camera produce images that have faults that the average buyer of my prints would pick up on?"

It is a professional camera after all.

The answer is "No". In fact they will be impressed with how clear the images are. That's my experience, anyway.

I do get the sense that people think ISO 100 equals the "No noise" ISO. Why would that be? It's certainly not the case with film equivalents. You would have to expect at least a little noise at that ISO, and I find the 1Ds is more than acceptable

Amatuers and gearheads here can pick the camera to pieces, but I think we all know the bigger picture is that a lot of pros will buy this camera and shoot a lot of astonishing images with it.

Just my 0.02c
--
Regards

Andrew McGregor

 

[inigo guionnet]

Personally, I don't think its that noisy. Also, since the 1Ds
produces a much larger file than the D60, I would think that for
similar size prints, the 1Ds should be considerably less noisy,
when printed.

You can't compare the images from the two cameras by viewing them
both at 100%. You have to rezies them to equivalent sizes and then
compare. I'd suggest resizing the D60 image to the 1Ds size and
compare the images. Then resize the 1Ds image down to the D60 image
size and compare the images.

You only compare the images by viewing both at 100%!!!!!!!

Then compare the noise.

Joo

So the name says it's an EOS 1 body, it's digital, and it's a
"studio" camera. To me that implies portraits, product shots, ...
things like that. It's also a landscape camera -- the full-frame
chip makes for wide wides, there's a true spot meter, big
viewfinder for true manual focus, and of course the water
tight/shock proof brick shell. I would be a lot more comfortable
carrying a 1Ds on a rough trail than I would my D60. Not to
mention the resolution...

But here's the thing: it looks like this camera is noisier than
maybe the rest of the digital EOS family at low ISOs ... right
where studio and landscape photogs shoot. I don't know if the jury
is still out -- I've seen some very clean photos and a lot of noisy
ones from the 1Ds.

People are pointing out that the 1Ds does have more noise per
pixel, but it has a lot more pixels than the D60. If you print
both images at 8x10 or downsample the noise goes away, and the 1Ds
has a better image. So the theory goes.

Is this valid? If I could spare $8K, I would get this camera
specifically to print much bigger than I can with my D60. I would
be concerned about the noise at ISO 100. If I had longer lenses, I
might chase some wildlife around with the AF system, and want to
crop more severely. In either case, the noise could be an issue
for me.

I know the 1Ds is a better camera in a lot of ways, even most. But
is it too noisy, especially considering it's legacy? Or does the
noise-per-pixel versus noise-per-image-size argument hold water?
I'm especially curious what the landscape shooters think of this.

--

• Maybe one day I'll take a decent picture. In the meantime, I'll

blame the equipment.

• http://www.pbase.com/jchung/portfolio

--

• Maybe one day I'll take a decent picture. In the meantime, I'll

blame the equipment.

• http://www.pbase.com/jchung/portfolio

When you viewing the image at 100% you see the real size, and real noise.
The same with the film or film scans.

D30 at 100% and D60 and 1Ds at 100% to compare the noise or number of hot pixels, obiously if you see the 1Ds image and D30 image at the same size, the 1Ds is more clean. But the number of pixels to contribute to noise
is the same more or less in two cameras.

The resolution is the advantage, but the level noise is the same, and for see this level of noise, you need two images at 100% (real size)