-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
less noise
- Thread starter Annop
- Start date
Robert MacLellan
Senior Member
The camera with the lowest ISO rating also has the least noise since the noise is a function of electrical noise generated by the individual pixels. I think the Nikon 950 has a minimum ISO of 80 and I know the Sony DSC-770 has a minimum ISO of 50.
F
Frances
Guest
In the real world and forget the iso rating, the canon S10 was very good!
aloha!
Frances.
aloha!
Frances.
Leon Wittwer
Forum Pro
The Kodak DC 290 is also very good.
Arnold Edmondson
Well-known member
- Messages
- 159
- Reaction score
- 0
Don't forget resolution plays a part, a 3.3Mp CCD produces more noise than a 2.1Mp CCD and the 2.1Mp CCD produces more noise than a 1.3Mp CCD over a given range.
Arni.
Arni.
Karl Guttag
Senior Member
I don't think there is huge difference between the sub $1000 class cameras. Most of them use the same imager chip, the main source of noise. Faster, lower minimum F stop, optics help as they get more light on the imager. All the cameras do some level of processing to reduce noise and some may be slightly better than others, but basically it comes down to the inherent noise in the imager.
With digital, ISO rating is a marketing game. As it is all electronically processed, this number is just an "approximate equivalent" for exposure use. A high ISO rating will be more noisey as the signal gets amplified more. Using a "lower ISO" will cause the camera to put more light onto the imager (either or both smaller F stop and longer exposure) and thus should be less noisy. BUT, for some situations, a better overall picture will be obtained with a higher ISO equivalent (more noise, but less blur from movement for example).
With current CCD technology, size does matter. Consumer/prosumer cameras have kept the imager size has not grown as fast as the pixel count, thus the size per pixel has srunk. Since the individual pixels are smaller, they tend to be a bit more noisy. Pro digital cameras have significantly bigger imager chips and pixels so that they have better light sensitively and thus less noise and better low light performance.
The bottom line is that you are not going to see big differences between cameras with the same megapixels in the same price class. Two meg cameras will likely be less noisy per pixel, but for the same size image you will probably be better off with more pixels that can be averaged down.
Just my opinion and experience,
Karl
Karl
With digital, ISO rating is a marketing game. As it is all electronically processed, this number is just an "approximate equivalent" for exposure use. A high ISO rating will be more noisey as the signal gets amplified more. Using a "lower ISO" will cause the camera to put more light onto the imager (either or both smaller F stop and longer exposure) and thus should be less noisy. BUT, for some situations, a better overall picture will be obtained with a higher ISO equivalent (more noise, but less blur from movement for example).
With current CCD technology, size does matter. Consumer/prosumer cameras have kept the imager size has not grown as fast as the pixel count, thus the size per pixel has srunk. Since the individual pixels are smaller, they tend to be a bit more noisy. Pro digital cameras have significantly bigger imager chips and pixels so that they have better light sensitively and thus less noise and better low light performance.
The bottom line is that you are not going to see big differences between cameras with the same megapixels in the same price class. Two meg cameras will likely be less noisy per pixel, but for the same size image you will probably be better off with more pixels that can be averaged down.
Just my opinion and experience,
Karl
Karl
Leon Wittwer
Forum Pro
There are likely some noise differences between some manufacturers since some make their own ccds. Kodak, Fuji, etc make their own. Kodak's ccd in the DC 290 has significantly less noise than predecessor ccds with the same physical size ccd but with more pixels. Obviously, the manufacturing process or something is different to get this to happen despite the slightly smaller pixel size. Leon
Karl Guttag
Senior Member
I still would guess that the biggest diffence between current cameras is the sensitivity of the USER to noise 
. A lot of the debate has been between people with cameras that are pretty similar.
Obviously the process/manufacturing of the CCD can make a difference. I had an earlier Kodak 210 (ancient history 2+ years old) and it was very noisy, but they have clearly improved since then. Clearly Kodak is worrying about low light noise issue in the Pro arena with their 620X camera.
The in-camera processing can make a significant apparent difference as well, particularly how the imager to color pixel coversion is done. Some algorithms may be biased against noise while others favor sharpness. Cameras also have to deal with "not well behaved" pixels which is sort of a static noise.
I do a lot of work in Photoshop at high magnification and would certainly like there to be less noise. Hopefully in a year or so we will see it. Above 3Meg it is going to be a tough choice between more resolution and less noise and more light sensitivity. A 3-Meg camera with less noise at ASA 400 equivalent sensitivity, and 10 bit D to A would be pretty hard to beat for most people.
Karl
. A lot of the debate has been between people with cameras that are pretty similar.Obviously the process/manufacturing of the CCD can make a difference. I had an earlier Kodak 210 (ancient history 2+ years old) and it was very noisy, but they have clearly improved since then. Clearly Kodak is worrying about low light noise issue in the Pro arena with their 620X camera.
The in-camera processing can make a significant apparent difference as well, particularly how the imager to color pixel coversion is done. Some algorithms may be biased against noise while others favor sharpness. Cameras also have to deal with "not well behaved" pixels which is sort of a static noise.
I do a lot of work in Photoshop at high magnification and would certainly like there to be less noise. Hopefully in a year or so we will see it. Above 3Meg it is going to be a tough choice between more resolution and less noise and more light sensitivity. A 3-Meg camera with less noise at ASA 400 equivalent sensitivity, and 10 bit D to A would be pretty hard to beat for most people.
Karl
Karl Guttag
Senior Member
This would be true if the process of the CCD is the same and the area of the imager is the same so that the pixel sites are smaller. I know that my 3.3Meg camera is vastly better than my 2.5 year old 1Meg camera when it comes to noise (I would still like it to be better, but it is a vast improvement).
The ISO discussion is based on a fictitious ISO equivalence rating by the manufacturers. With on-camera processing, the manufacturer can caim any ISO equivalence that they want.
Karl
The ISO discussion is based on a fictitious ISO equivalence rating by the manufacturers. With on-camera processing, the manufacturer can caim any ISO equivalence that they want.
Karl
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum