A550 raw noise vs A850 vs Canon 7D

agorabasta · Dec 5, 2009

OK, did a quick comparison at ISO3200 using IR raw samples developed in Lr3 with all the same setting except camera calibration and some WB adjustments. Those specific adjustments didn't change the image/noise appearance to sway the results either way.

Below are the 100% crops of the same area in the images.

A550

7D

A850

All files were developed with 'blacks' at zero; sharpening/radius/detail/masking at 150/0.7/0/0; NR color at 8 and edge detail at 0.

Which way the comparison sways is quite apparent.

And now keep in mind that A700 V4 is always better than A900 at pixel level...

agorabasta · Dec 5, 2009

A550

7D

A850

Tuputam · Dec 5, 2009

agorabasta said:
Which way the comparison sways is quite apparent.

enlighten us.

garykohs · Dec 5, 2009

Yes, please enlighten us.

There's clearly more noise with the 850 but it's not showing the ugly artifacts of the other two. But the pics were taken from slightly different angles so it's hard to compare too closely.
--
Gary

andre700 · Dec 5, 2009

I was thinking, more meaningless noise comaring, but you really make a verry good point here. I dont understand why this is done more oftan: comparing nois and detail before and after basic treatment i raw converter, it really makes more sense.

It is meaningless to pixelpeep at unedited raw files, becaus you dont know what's in there before you start working with it. I guess cannon might have some nois removal routine done inside camera, if this is desireable or not is another discussion. We all remember the fuss it made when Sony did that...

First rule in comparing DSLR cameras is to ensure a basis as equal as possible, leaving raw converter settings at basic will not do.

personally I would prefere to look at big size prints when comparing quality.

André

agorabasta · Dec 5, 2009

Nothing to enlighten about, all's quite apparent. There's far less colour noise in the a850 sample, and there's also more detail. The a550 is the worst here... The 7D is not far from that, though.

And being worse than a850/a900 at pixel level is quite a diagnosis.

Don't buy an 550 for raw shooting! It's very nice as p&s DSLR, and should be used this way only.

agorabasta · Dec 5, 2009

Andre700 said:
personally I would prefere to look at big size prints when comparing quality.

Printing reduces the image data to rubbish.

And on the other hand, a good electronic image can always be optimized for optimal printout on a specific machine - but that's a printer-specific task.

dennismullen · Dec 5, 2009

agorabasta said:
Nothing to enlighten about, all's quite apparent. There's far less colour noise in the a850 sample, and there's also more detail. The a550 is the worst here... The 7D is not far from that, though.

And being worse than a850/a900 at pixel level is quite a diagnosis.

Don't buy an 550 for raw shooting! It's very nice as p&s DSLR, and should be used this way only.

And if the A850 was scaled to the same size as the other pictures it would look even better.
--

“Those who would sacrifice liberty for safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” - Ben Franklin.
You can see larger versions of my pictures at http://www.dennismullen.com .

andre700 · Dec 5, 2009

agorabasta said:
Andre700 said:

personally I would prefere to look at big size prints when comparing quality.

Click to expand...

Printing reduces the image data to rubbish.

hehe, thats qite strange, I always believed that printing reduced the image data to a picture...

agorabasta said:
And on the other hand, a good electronic image can always be optimized for optimal printout on a specific machine - but that's a printer-specific task.

Looking at images at pixel level on a monitor is a qite strange thing to do. The image will never be presented this way in real life. Looking at a print shows what the result is when presenting it in real life. I dont think i makes sense to do whats possible to find differences in quality that never makes any difference in real life presentation of pictures.

The photos I choose to print find their way to a wall, in sizes up to more than 3 by 4 feet. The photos remaining in my computer are limited to 22 inches.

André

headofdestiny · Dec 5, 2009

Interesting, thanks. A couple of things. First, pixel level comparisons are intersting, but not all that useful in regards to actual photography. I'd be more interested in seeing output comparisons at the same size. Second, Andrey, from RPP, says the A900 and A850 aren't exactly the same. http://forums.getdpi.com/forum/showthread.php?t=11951

agorabasta · Dec 5, 2009

They are not exactly the same, but not much different; and I've been saying so ever since the samples became available. The IR sample for a900 was taken too long ago and is exposed differently from the more recent batch of tests.

Yet if I used the a900 sample, the results would be even more favorable for the a900 than they are now for a850. but that would be rather unfair.

Tuputam · Dec 5, 2009

agorabasta said:
Don't buy an 550 for raw shooting! It's very nice as p&s DSLR, and should be used this way only.

I will wait for dxomark score, both for 7D and A550, before taking your words for it. They both might land higher than A700

agorabasta · Dec 5, 2009

Tuputam said:
agorabasta said:

Don't buy an 550 for raw shooting! It's very nice as p&s DSLR, and should be used this way only.

Click to expand...

I will wait for dxomark score, both for 7D and A550. Unlike what you think, they both might land higher than A700

You may choose whatever pleases you personally. DxO don't use standard definitions of properties, so their results are totally unscientific per se; but some of those may still be translated into standard terms, while the various "dxomarks" certainly can't.

Tuputam · Dec 5, 2009

Tuputam said:
agorabasta said:

Don't buy an 550 for raw shooting! It's very nice as p&s DSLR, and should be used this way only.

Click to expand...

I will wait for dxomark score, both for 7D and A550, before taking your words for it. They both might land higher than A700

And I will just add that A850/A900 score far ahead of A700 on dxomark.

agorabasta · Dec 5, 2009

Andre700 said:
agorabasta said:

Printing reduces the image data to rubbish.

Click to expand...

hehe, thats qite strange, I always believed that printing reduced the image data to a picture...

Then try doing a reverse transformation, would you?

Mika Kovalainen · Dec 5, 2009

Some camera review sites do/did just that - photgraph a print of a photo, and use(d) it for comparison...

Nordstjernen · Dec 5, 2009

How do you deal with differences in the tone curve and different image scale when comapring these pictures? I can't really see how they can be compared or related to real life work.

Also, claiming that "Printing reduces the image data to rubbish" seems very odd, and looks like a lack of knowledge about how pixel data is transformed into printer dots or raster pattern. When making a print that takes care of all the image data, the print will represent the pixel data as close to the image seen on the screen as possible. You can do this by optimizing the print size to the available image data and the maximum resolution of the printer -- you just have to be careful to choose a print medium that can handle the resolution of the data generated.

Nordstjernen · Dec 5, 2009

agorabasta said:
Don't buy an 550 for raw shooting! It's very nice as p&s DSLR, and should be used this way only.

Wow, this is a really hefty claim! What about all the other benefits with raw, like extended dynamic range, better color data if corrections are needed, highlight/shadow recovery etc etc???

agorabasta · Dec 5, 2009

Still, the a700 is much better at pixel level. If you insist on using 'dxomark' you should at least gather a clear understanding of what their figures mean. And their results are not contradictory with that.

agorabasta · Dec 5, 2009

Nordstjernen said:
agorabasta said:

Don't buy an 550 for raw shooting! It's very nice as p&s DSLR, and should be used this way only.

Click to expand...

Wow, this is a really hefty claim! What about all the other benefits with raw, like extended dynamic range, better color data if corrections are needed, highlight/shadow recovery etc etc???

It just means that there are better cams for shooting raw, and not what you've read into my words.

A550 raw noise vs A850 vs Canon 7D

Leading Member

Leading Member

Leading Member

Veteran Member

Forum Enthusiast

Leading Member

Leading Member

Veteran Member

Forum Enthusiast

Veteran Member

Leading Member

Leading Member

Leading Member

Leading Member

Leading Member

Forum Enthusiast

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Leading Member

Leading Member

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts