What is the truth of 717’s noise level?

[Yang]

Hi, Sony folks,

I’m currently trying to make a (right) decision between 717 and G3. Now, I have narrowed the decisive factors down to 717’s noise level which I cannot influence at all.

According to my observation:
G3 shots are clean (thanks to ISO 50), but soft

717 shots are sharp, but comparably noisy (of cause, better than other 5MP DC, though).

As far as I’m concerned, in digital photography, sharpness and noise are always a contradictory matter. Aside from the optical property of the lenses, a soft image can look sharp after undergoing a sharpening process (e.g. using USM in PS), but isn’t as clean as before. On the other hand, a noisy image can look “smooth” after undergoing a softening process (e.g. using Gaussian blur), but isn’t as sharp as before. So, above certain overall image quality, the noise issue is actually not as serious as it sounds. My problem is, why Phil’s sample shots all looked more noisy than those of other reviewers like Steve and Jeff? I would like to know which of the following sample shots corresponds to the impression of real 717 users on its noise level. Any input is appreciated. Thanks!

Former G1 veteran, Yang
http://www.fototime.com/inv/C8357F4A7D0C07B
(ctk2382)

 

[JohnK]

I shouldn't really be replying as I own a 707, not a 717, but I'd like to observe that with regard to noise, IMHO the 7*7 are no better or worse than other comparable cameras. Where they really excell is in highlight detail. The highlights seem to roll off smoothly to pure white, instead of clipping...

Hi, Sony folks,

I’m currently trying to make a (right) decision between 717 and
G3. Now, I have narrowed the decisive factors down to 717’s noise
level which I cannot influence at all.

According to my observation:
G3 shots are clean (thanks to ISO 50), but soft
717 shots are sharp, but comparably noisy (of cause, better than
other 5MP DC, though).

As far as I’m concerned, in digital photography, sharpness and
noise are always a contradictory matter. Aside from the optical
property of the lenses, a soft image can look sharp after
undergoing a sharpening process (e.g. using USM in PS), but isn’t
as clean as before. On the other hand, a noisy image can look
“smooth” after undergoing a softening process (e.g. using Gaussian
blur), but isn’t as sharp as before. So, above certain overall
image quality, the noise issue is actually not as serious as it
sounds. My problem is, why Phil’s sample shots all looked more
noisy than those of other reviewers like Steve and Jeff? I would
like to know which of the following sample shots corresponds to the
impression of real 717 users on its noise level. Any input is
appreciated. Thanks!

Former G1 veteran, Yang
http://www.fototime.com/inv/C8357F4A7D0C07B
(ctk2382)

--
JohnK

 

[maclaren1973]

Hi, Sony folks,

I’m currently trying to make a (right) decision between 717 and
G3. Now, I have narrowed the decisive factors down to 717’s noise
level which I cannot influence at all.

According to my observation:
G3 shots are clean (thanks to ISO 50), but soft
717 shots are sharp, but comparably noisy (of cause, better than
other 5MP DC, though).

As far as I’m concerned, in digital photography, sharpness and
noise are always a contradictory matter. Aside from the optical
property of the lenses, a soft image can look sharp after
undergoing a sharpening process (e.g. using USM in PS), but isn’t
as clean as before. On the other hand, a noisy image can look
“smooth” after undergoing a softening process (e.g. using Gaussian
blur), but isn’t as sharp as before. So, above certain overall
image quality, the noise issue is actually not as serious as it
sounds. My problem is, why Phil’s sample shots all looked more
noisy than those of other reviewers like Steve and Jeff? I would
like to know which of the following sample shots corresponds to the
impression of real 717 users on its noise level. Any input is
appreciated. Thanks!

Former G1 veteran, Yang
http://www.fototime.com/inv/C8357F4A7D0C07B
(ctk2382)

 

[louis_D70]

Maclaren

Yes, I agree. At a first glance, they may look different. But when looked more carefully, they are actually the same....I feel is the different "blue" which cause the "illusion".

If there is real difference, it may caused by different noise level in red, green and blue channels, and the different "blue" is a combination of different level of red, green, blue,......just maybe....

Louis_s

Hi, Sony folks,

I’m currently trying to make a (right) decision between 717 and
G3. Now, I have narrowed the decisive factors down to 717’s noise
level which I cannot influence at all.

According to my observation:
G3 shots are clean (thanks to ISO 50), but soft
717 shots are sharp, but comparably noisy (of cause, better than
other 5MP DC, though).

As far as I’m concerned, in digital photography, sharpness and
noise are always a contradictory matter. Aside from the optical
property of the lenses, a soft image can look sharp after
undergoing a sharpening process (e.g. using USM in PS), but isn’t
as clean as before. On the other hand, a noisy image can look
“smooth” after undergoing a softening process (e.g. using Gaussian
blur), but isn’t as sharp as before. So, above certain overall
image quality, the noise issue is actually not as serious as it
sounds. My problem is, why Phil’s sample shots all looked more
noisy than those of other reviewers like Steve and Jeff? I would
like to know which of the following sample shots corresponds to the
impression of real 717 users on its noise level. Any input is
appreciated. Thanks!

Former G1 veteran, Yang
http://www.fototime.com/inv/C8357F4A7D0C07B
(ctk2382)

 

[johnd1]

If noise is a big concern, I have a suggestion. Go to the Minolta forum and ask about noise. There, they will tell you to think of noise as a fine film grain rather than what you normally thought was noise. And that it doesn't show up in print. And that if you properly use the myriad of settings on the D7i you can reduce it. Or you can believe the philosophy of the forum that noise should not be reduced in the camera, it should be left for the user to do in Neat Image.

No, I wouldn't be too concerned about noise with either the Canon or the Sony. If Minolta users are happy with the amount of noise the D7i produces, why should it be a concern to us? I say all this with tongue in cheek of course.
John

Hi, Sony folks,

I’m currently trying to make a (right) decision between 717 and
G3. Now, I have narrowed the decisive factors down to 717’s noise
level which I cannot influence at all.

According to my observation:
G3 shots are clean (thanks to ISO 50), but soft
717 shots are sharp, but comparably noisy (of cause, better than
other 5MP DC, though).

As far as I’m concerned, in digital photography, sharpness and
noise are always a contradictory matter. Aside from the optical
property of the lenses, a soft image can look sharp after
undergoing a sharpening process (e.g. using USM in PS), but isn’t
as clean as before. On the other hand, a noisy image can look
“smooth” after undergoing a softening process (e.g. using Gaussian
blur), but isn’t as sharp as before. So, above certain overall
image quality, the noise issue is actually not as serious as it
sounds. My problem is, why Phil’s sample shots all looked more
noisy than those of other reviewers like Steve and Jeff? I would
like to know which of the following sample shots corresponds to the
impression of real 717 users on its noise level. Any input is
appreciated. Thanks!

Former G1 veteran, Yang
http://www.fototime.com/inv/C8357F4A7D0C07B
(ctk2382)

 

[Brooks P]

If noise is a big concern, I have a suggestion. Go to the Minolta
forum and ask about noise. There, they will tell you to think of
noise as a fine film grain rather than what you normally thought
was noise. And that it doesn't show up in print. And that if you
properly use the myriad of settings on the D7i you can reduce it.
Or you can believe the philosophy of the forum that noise should
not be reduced in the camera, it should be left for the user to do
in Neat Image.
No, I wouldn't be too concerned about noise with either the Canon
or the Sony. If Minolta users are happy with the amount of noise
the D7i produces, why should it be a concern to us? I say all this
with tongue in cheek of course.
John

--

On one point I agree with the Minolta folks, and that is that noise is the same as film grain. I think a lot of people get obsessed with noise when they view their pictures on a monitor. With film the grain is always there, just not as readily seen. If we digital people were to mimic most film photographers, we would never see the noise. That is, from camera, to small negative, to print. The grain doesn't show up until large prints come in to play. We on the other hand have easy access to viewing our work on the monitor, as opposed to the dark room, and we see the noise/grain prior to seeing the finished result (printed picture).

One other observation I have made is that generally the picture presented to show the amount of noise, has large areas of blue sky. I don't see many professional photos with large expanses of blue sky.

JM2CW.

Brooks
F717, HP315, Minolta Maxxum 5000i
http://www.pbase.com/brooks_p

'We should be careful to get out of an experience only the wisdom that is in it -- and stop there; lest we be like the cat that sits down on a hot stove-lid. She will never sit down on a hot stove-lid again -- and that is well; but also she will never sit down on a cold one any more.' Pudd'nhead Wilson

 

[Bernie Ess]

Hi Yang, my first camera was (and still is) the Canon G1, my second new one the F717. The 717 is a rather versatile camera, its faster and more silent than the Canon. Files are bigger, and at ISo100 pics are reasonably clean. However the Canon ISO50 mode gives IMO cleaner results, also I find the Canon colours more pleasing, less plastic- like. The Sony an give nice photos without a doubt, but I consider it as an intermediate step towards a DSLR, maybe in 1 or 2 years, when prices have come down a bit.

For the G3 I didnt try it, but according to what I read its not really a step up from the G2, specially in image quality. Maybe a cheap G2 will be the better solution.

Greetings Bernie

 

[Yang]

Hi Yang, my first camera was (and still is) the Canon G1, my second
new one the F717. The 717 is a rather versatile camera, its faster
and more silent than the Canon. Files are bigger, and at ISo100
pics are reasonably clean. However the Canon ISO50 mode gives IMO
cleaner results, also I find the Canon colours more pleasing, less
plastic- like. The Sony an give nice photos without a doubt, but I
consider it as an intermediate step towards a DSLR, maybe in 1 or 2
years, when prices have come down a bit.

For the G3 I didnt try it, but according to what I read its not
really a step up from the G2, specially in image quality. Maybe a
cheap G2 will be the better solution.

Greetings Bernie

Hi, Bernie

I'm very close to buy a F717 instead of G3 (as originally planned) at the moment. As a former G1 shooter, my biggest concern of today is F717's noise level: Comparing my own F717 test shots (taken in photo store) as well as those in the Internet with my own G1 shots as well as G3 shots of others, I can clearly see the different. It's also visible in 20x30cm prints I made.

F717 may give me better chane to shoot successfully in many difficult conditions thanks to its fatser lens and fast AF. But, unter the best condition like photo studio, I think G3 may offer better photo quality. In my opinion, one can more easily sharpen a photo, but than reduce noise.

I would like to know your experience as a G1 and F717 shooter at the same time. For instance, do you shoot with different camera under different conditions? Thanks!

yang
http://www.fototime.com/inv/CFB683ADE70B32C
gl1577

 

[Ulysses]

Hello Yang. The search and considerations continue. How close are you to your deadline date?

I'm very close to buy a F717 instead of G3 (as originally planned)
at the moment. As a former G1 shooter, my biggest concern of today
is F717's noise level: Comparing my own F717 test shots (taken in
photo store) as well as those in the Internet with my own G1 shots
as well as G3 shots of others, I can clearly see the different.
It's also visible in 20x30cm prints I made.

Agreed. If you are examining very closely, you can see the difference in some shots, though probably not all, due to factors that I will consider next.

You asked for the truth about noise levels in the F717 compared with the G3. Here is what I find: The G3 camera has noise also, even at ISO 50. But that noise occurs in a different "pattern" than it does at ISO 100. This can be interpreted as smoother and more film-like. With a little bit of USM, an ISO 50 shot can be a beautiful thing to see. However, the F717 when printed can be quite acceptable even to someone who is very concerned about noise. If you are going to be printing MANY of your photos, I do not know that noise is a huge consideration at all.

To manage noise in the F717, your best bet is to pay VERY close attention to your exposure. The following page would explain very well why the shots from Phil, Steve and others appear to have slightly different noise levels:
http://www.sesee.com/Photo/F505V_tips_noise.htm

If Phil had exposed by about +0.3EV, the noise levels would drop noticeably, with only minimal cost of losing some of the worst highlights.

F717 may give me better chane to shoot successfully in many
difficult conditions thanks to its fatser lens and fast AF.

I'm not so sure about that, to be honest. But you must decide, based upon your own results. This has been one consideration in my own tests. The G3 is somewhat slower, but its incidence of success has been very high. The success of the F717 is very good both with and without the Hologram AF system, but I often turn it off since it is irritating to people.

--

Ulysses
Repository of Some of My Stuff
http://www.imagestation.com/album/pictures.html?id=4291269101

I'm an uncle!!!

 

[Ulysses]

Yang -

This test can be looked at for a number of different conclusions about sensitivity, noise, etc.

Here is what I did. I set up both cameras for as similar settings as I could think of during a wind chill factor of 10º F.

Both cameras were set as follows:
F4.0
1/200s
ISO 100
Daylight WB

Notice that the G3 may be more sensitive here, and so the cause of the highlights not being held well. A different exposure (faster shutter is what I would have tried) would have helped, but I wanted to set the cameras in Manual mode at the same exposure settings.

Notice in areas like the street asphalt that the F717 is somewhat noisier, and in areas like the siding of the homes it looks like straight lines are rather "fuzzier" even though the F717 is set to Fine compression (a second look reveals that I am not using the Superfine compression in the G3... mistake, but it's holding up a bit better than you'd expect).

Here is the G3 image: http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid41/pc56fb62290e3b193a6b272b915520dd7/fcf9adc8.jpg.orig.jpg

Here is the F717 image: http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid41/p8d266215f8484c43131ef3d9f63aa07a/fcf9ad8a.jpg.orig.jpg

Again, I could have tried to take more similar-looking shots, but it was way too cold out. So just choosing the same settings was about all I could stand at the time.

Hope this helps somewhat.

I'm very close to buy a F717 instead of G3 (as originally planned)
at the moment. As a former G1 shooter, my biggest concern of today
is F717's noise level: Comparing my own F717 test shots (taken in
photo store) as well as those in the Internet with my own G1 shots
as well as G3 shots of others, I can clearly see the different.
It's also visible in 20x30cm prints I made.

F717 may give me better chane to shoot successfully in many
difficult conditions thanks to its fatser lens and fast AF. But,
unter the best condition like photo studio, I think G3 may offer
better photo quality. In my opinion, one can more easily sharpen a
photo, but than reduce noise.

I would like to know your experience as a G1 and F717 shooter at
the same time. For instance, do you shoot with different camera
under different conditions? Thanks!

yang
http://www.fototime.com/inv/CFB683ADE70B32C
gl1577

--

Ulysses
Repository of Some of My Stuff
http://www.imagestation.com/album/pictures.html?id=4291269101

I'm an uncle!!!

 

[Yang]

Yang -

This test can be looked at for a number of different conclusions
about sensitivity, noise, etc.

Here is what I did. I set up both cameras for as similar settings
as I could think of during a wind chill factor of 10º F.

Both cameras were set as follows:
F4.0
1/200s
ISO 100
Daylight WB

thanks for your efforts. It's wellknown G3's ISO 50 is almost as sensitive as ISO 100 of others. This G3 shot was overexposed compared to F717 shot.

You told me in your last post overxeposure may help reduce apparent noise level. So, I can hardly compare these two shots, although it's generelly assumed G3's ISO 100 is more noisy than ISO 100 of others.
yang

 

[Ulysses]

thanks for your efforts. It's wellknown G3's ISO 50 is almost as
sensitive as ISO 100 of others. This G3 shot was overexposed
compared to F717 shot.

Depending upon who you are talking to, it never seems to matter how well you try to set up a test shot like this. If I had tried to get the images to look more even, then I'd get others who say that I can only compare them at the same exact exposure settings.

While you are familiar with the very good sensitivity of the G-series, it was quite surprising for myself in seeing how great a difference would be in terms of sensitivity.

While the G3 in this shot overexposed at those settings, I would be inclined to say that the F717 is also slightly underexposed, but close to what it should be. BTW, I based this shot off of the live histogram in the F717 shot, which I took first, and then set the G3 for the same settings.

You told me in your last post overxeposure may help reduce apparent
noise level. So, I can hardly compare these two shots, although
it's generelly assumed G3's ISO 100 is more noisy than ISO 100 of
others.

While that general assumption held for the G1 and G2, I'm not so sure now that it holds for the G3.

Probably the best way to do a test like this is to allow the Program AE mode to take over and let the camera figure its own best exposure (again, there would be those who would not agree). It can still be revealing to see the camera make its own default suggestions.

--

Ulysses
Repository of Some of My Stuff
http://www.imagestation.com/album/pictures.html?id=4291269101

I'm an uncle!!!

 

[Hal Fisher]

Hey Ulysses. So are you saying the 717 histogram appear to be well aligned but the shot was still slightly underexposed?

Hal

While the G3 in this shot overexposed at those settings, I would be
inclined to say that the F717 is also slightly underexposed, but
close to what it should be. BTW, I based this shot off of the live
histogram in the F717 shot, which I took first, and then set the G3
for the same settings.

 

[Ulysses]

Not really the camera's fault. I think it was just my bad call by perhaps 2/3 stop or maybe less. It's just that the scene did appear brighter than portrayed here by the F717.

I was trying to retain some of the color of the sky. To expose the shot more would have lost the blue (as happens in the G3 shot). I also didn't intend to blow highlights in the G3, but I was already committed to the settings as read off of the F717.

The human eye is an amazing thing. It compensates for all SORTS of lighting problems, and this was a problem lighting situation. I chose it on purpose since the sun was setting at around 4pm behind the rooves of many of the homes. And so you got that rather dark shadow area near head level, but the rooves of the homes in the shot were still brightly lit due to their higher elevation. I figured it would throw both cameras off.

Turns out that the G3 was also using Center metering rather than multi-zone metering. My mistake again. I told you I was freezing out there.

Still, not a bad effort from either camera, but there are things I'd change about each shot to improve the exposure and the effort at reducing noise.

Hey Ulysses. So are you saying the 717 histogram appear to be
well aligned but the shot was still slightly underexposed?

--

Ulysses
Repository of Some of My Stuff
http://www.imagestation.com/album/pictures.html?id=4291269101

I'm an uncle!!!

 

[Ulysses]

it's generelly assumed G3's ISO 100 is more noisy than ISO 100 of others.

Phil's review is nearly here.

--

Ulysses
Repository of Some of My Stuff
http://www.imagestation.com/album/pictures.html?id=4291269101

I'm an uncle!!!

 

[Yang]

Maybe sharpness setting -1/2 on F717 would produce smoother, but not too soft shots.

 

[SmokinMan]

I usually use 0 sharpening. I find this the best trade off between the noise and the shapness. With 0 sharpening, I can get the sky as clean and blue as Jeff's, as clean and not so blue of Steve's and as noisy as Phil's depending on how correctly I expose the sky. Yet the result is reasonably sharp that I do not need to sharpen before printing at A4 size. So, all of them is the truth.

ISO50 of my previous S40 could get as noisy as phil's too. But usually it was my fault in judging the exposure. Although I like the ISO50 of Canon, I found the 717 produce reasonable clean image.

So, basically

Maybe sharpness setting -1/2 on F717 would produce smoother, but
not too soft shots.

--
SmokinMan



Sony DSC F717 (Ex S40)
Olympus IS-1 35mm Film Camera http://www.pbase.com/smokinman/

 

[Ulysses]

ISO50 of my previous S40 could get as noisy as phil's too. But
usually it was my fault in judging the exposure.

Exposure is so important when it comes to the user attempt to reduce noise.

Although I like
the ISO50 of Canon, I found the 717 produce reasonable clean image.

Yes, reasonably. It is more subject to good exposure than anything else. In many shots, you can almost make it appear to be non-existent. Shots that have lots of expansive shadows tend to be candidates for issues here, but this can be worked around, too.

So, basically

Did you finish your thought? Or like me, did you turn to answer the wife momentarily and then lost your thought, hitting the post button anyway?

--

Ulysses
Repository of Some of My Stuff
http://www.imagestation.com/album/pictures.html?id=4291269101

I'm an uncle!!!

 

[SmokinMan]

So, basically

Did you finish your thought? Or like me, did you turn to answer the
wife momentarily and then lost your thought, hitting the post
button anyway?

I ran down to answer the pizza delivery. With pizza in my hand I just hit the post. Cannot think anymore.

What I am going to say is that basically I would not put sharpness and noise tradeoff as the primary criteria for choosing a camera. They all have different defaults with respect to sharpness, brighness, contrast, even color space. I may like one more than another and that is it. I do wish my 717 with its big and fast lens has lower ISO 50 or ISO 75. It will become handy in bright outdoor and most of the time will get clean result.

--

Ulysses
Repository of Some of My Stuff
http://www.imagestation.com/album/pictures.html?id=4291269101

I'm an uncle!!!

--
SmokinMan



Sony DSC F717 (Ex S40)
Olympus IS-1 35mm Film Camera http://www.pbase.com/smokinman/

 

[Ulysses]

I ran down to answer the pizza delivery. With pizza in my hand I
just hit the post. Cannot think anymore.

Hahahahahahah...

What I am going to say is that basically I would not put sharpness
and noise tradeoff as the primary criteria for choosing a camera.
They all have different defaults with respect to sharpness,
brighness, contrast, even color space. I may like one more than
another and that is it.

Man, this is so true. A camera is more than just any single feature or single talent. It's a package that should suit the photographer in many different ways. In all cameras, there are features that we're not happy with, and yet we put up with them so that we can enjoy other factors that come into play.

--

Ulysses
Repository of Some of My Stuff
http://www.imagestation.com/album/pictures.html?id=4291269101

I'm an uncle!!!