dpreview iso comparison

rjbell

rjbell

Messages
4,422
Name
Robert
Edit My Images
Yes
I've spouted out figures I've read on dxo for quite a while now, with the confidence as if I'd done the test myself! People moan about dxo saying they are not real life results, and they are right, so i though i would look for a better gauge and look at real images. I spent all last night comparing iso raw files on dpreview, actual real life image, the same image taken with every camera. I've found some very surprising results.

I'm not trying to cause arguments or be controversial, this is just my observations of images that seem to contradict dxo or just surprised me.

1. Canon 600d sensor performs as well as the d7000 sensor at high iso.
2. The 5d3 performs better than the d800 at high iso.
3. The om-d performs as well as the d7000 at high iso.
4. There is less than a stop in iso performance between the d7000 and d700.
5. The xpro1 peforms better than both the d800 and 5d3 at iso 6400.


I'm away now for the weekend, i hope to see a nice healthy debate on my return;)

Now you can all slag me off saying i'm crazy!:)
 
Last edited:
how did you manage to find all those images from all those cameras under exactly the same conditions?
 
rjbell said:
1. Canon 600d sensor performs as well as the d7000 sensor at high iso.

Certainly seems that way - there's very little in it all the way through the ISO range

2. The 5d3 performs better than the d800 at high iso.

Also seems to be bang on the money.

3. The om-d performs as well as the d7000 at high iso.

Again, there looks to be very little difference between the two.

4. There is less than a stop in iso performance between the d7000 and d700.

The D700 at 12,800 definitely has a richer colour palette than the D7000 at 6400, looking at those sample images. I'd err on the side of caution and say that there's a stop of difference.

5. The xpro1 peforms better than both the d800 and 5d3 at iso 6400.

I'm pretty amazed at how low the chroma and luminance noise is in the X1 image, although compared to the the other cameras, the image looks like it's being smoothed out somehow, as there's a lot of detail as a trade-off against lower visible noise.[/COLOUR]
Click to expand...


(BTW, I looked at all those in raw format, rather than the JPEG images)

Although there is a total consistency between shots because it's a studio environment where the light is controlled and constant, I see DPreview's images as a guide only - out in the field I do think you start to see the better sensors shine when it comes to dynamic range, how that dynamic range can help you in processing, plus just how the camera reads the exposure, something that is taken out of the equation when shooting manually in the studio.

It's an interesting thread nonetheless and I'm sure there are loads more surprising comparisons - I can sense a bit of a coming together of opinions at some point though.... :)
 
You're always going to get people take mm king about lighting and studio environments etc but that doesn't mean the camera will handle noise differently.

Then you will get the owners of certain cameras "defending" its reputation as if you've offended the camera...

The truth is unless you're going to a sensor like the D3s and equivalent, the ISO performance isn't that different between sensors of the D7000 and equivalent to the 5D3 equivalent...

I found out the other day as you know, everyone is banging on about FF being a huge step up in ISO performance but it really isn't (and 1 stop is nothing to shout about IMO).

A real difference that would improve my results dramitically is going from a compact sensor to a dx sensor, not from a dx to FF.
 
DPReview comparometer is a useful guide - but seems quite capable of producing odd results.
One of the most glaring bloopers I've spotted is the inexplicable X10 RAW results http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/fujifilm-x10/19
ISO 100 looks shockingly bad and shows none of the mosaic pattern us X10 owners expect when pixel peeping.
Now go to ISO 200 - look familiar?
and ISO 400 - spotted any difference?
And ISO 800 looks like it has more fine detail than ISO 100 - eh? WTF! :thinking:

My guess is that the ISO 100 to 400 images are JPEG, not RAW which would account for the lack of mosaic.
And the X10 was set to 12 Mp and Auto DR, resulting in DR 400% for this image and hence no difference in the noise levels between ISO 100 and ISO 400 (ISO 400 is the lowest ISO for DR 400%).

One thing is for sure - the X10 is a quantum leap better than the dpreview comparometer would ever have you believe.

I wish dpreview would do is publish which lens and aperture was used along with the EXIF for each image.
That would answer quite a few questions!
 
Last edited:
The only true tests you can depend on are ones you carry out directly yourself.

This one is so reliable all I get is "no sample" shown where images should be ...

People have varying views, and eyesight! it seems. Some say the D90 is great at ISO 3200 ... it really is not. I've shot many gigs using it, and occasionally I got good results at that level, but only on well lit stages, with great lighting. Other times all I got was a mess of heavy noise across any shadowed area. Now I have the D800 and would say that it is easily 2/3 stops better. And much, much better files to process and clean up. You don't have to smudge the bejaysis out of images with luminance noise reduction, at the loss of detail. When you downsize/scale the images they're cleaner again. The image quality is obviously better all roundand I feel it was a worthy upgrade. I'm sure the 5DIII is every bit as good, and maybe even better. If you like the extra smoothening it does to make this happen.

I would take DXO ratings over random set up tests any day.
 
Last edited:
This is true. Indoors though, is where you want high ISO. Not in bright conditions.

All I know is any comparisons I've seen between the 800 & 5DIII - the Canon appeared to be a teensy bit better until you looked closer, and saw that it basically uses smudging techniques, softening the noise and therefore overall image, to compensate. I'll take slightly noisier but sharper any day. a 2 second fix in PP with a much larger file to push around.
 
scottthehat said:
go out side and shot high iso with decent light, the noise will be hardly nothing, then go in side and do the same and the noise is more promonent this is were you will really see the advantages of bigger sensors sucking in more light.
Click to expand...

So you're saying the sensor will make more noise in an indoor environment? ...and the sensor can detect this? Lol.

If you don't expose your image correctly you will notice noise.
 
Here's a direct comparison, D800 left, 5DIII right. ISO 6400 on both. Full res images. 100% crops

You can see the link for the site in the url bar, you can directly compare many cameras there.

http://i.imgur.com/S6ceo.jpg

Check out the 'smoothening' on the Canon. No thanks.

I'm not looking at these because I have the D800 and want it to be better ... I did all this research before buying. I actually held the 5DIII in the shop and it's a lovely body. I would have happily switched over , as I'm clearing all my gear to go FX anyhow, if I thought it was actually better. I'm never tied to one make.

As I said, I'd prefer the sharper, yet noisier, over a smooth effect to cover up.
 
Last edited:
scottthehat said:
alot of these test are done at f4 and shutter speed of like 400/sec so the light can be to bad, try the same thin with shutter speeds of like 50th/sec
Click to expand...

Lol are you sure you know what you're talking about?????

The shutter speed will start slow and get faster as ISO changes. Aperture is always the same.
 
Phil Young said:
Lol are you sure you know what you're talking about?????

The shutter speed will start slow and get faster as ISO changes. Aperture is always the same.
Click to expand...

I think Scott knows exactly what he's saying. If you're using shutter speeds of 1/400 there is quite alot of light to capture, Try the same test really pushing the sensor
 
boyfalldown said:
I think Scott knows exactly what he's saying. If you're using shutter speeds of 1/400 there is quite alot of light to capture, Try the same test really pushing the sensor
Click to expand...

Exactly. I can produce really clean images in good light at ridiculous ISO. I can also produce hideous noise in poor light (lots of contrasty shadows) at comparatively low ISO. I must admit, I've given up on these test sites as well as I just don't see strong correlations with real life.
 
Last edited:
boyfalldown said:
I think Scott knows exactly what he's saying. If you're using shutter speeds of 1/400 there is quite alot of light to capture, Try the same test really pushing the sensor
Click to expand...

Then Scott would know that the shutter speed will not be the same during these tests and that it's just another way of gathering light into the sensor.
 
Phil Young said:
Lol are you sure you know what you're talking about?????

The shutter speed will start slow and get faster as ISO changes. Aperture is always the same.
Click to expand...
yes i do phil, maybe you should try it go out and take a photo at f4 and iso at 12800 shutter speed at 400/5000th sec what ever you need to get the correct exposure,
Now go in to a dim room and use iso 12800 and f4 and the correct shutter speed to get the correct exposure and you tell me the level of noise is the same(y)

now if you had a full fram camera you could do the same with both and see that the full frame does a better job,
And no im not saying that crop cameras cant do high iso the can and have come on shed loads, I used a pentax k5 the other day for a 2nd cam at a wedding as my d300 was away for a service, and the iso did beat the d300 but when it come to some big prints and high iso over 6400 my d700 beat it.
 
Last edited:
Phil Young said:
Then Scott would know that the shutter speed will not be the same during these tests and that it's just another way of gathering light into the sensor.
Click to expand...

of course but if the lights not there in the first place the sensor works harder and produces more noise and the bigger the sensor the more light it gets end of phil.
 
scottthehat said:
yes i do phil, maybe you should try it go out and take a photo at f4 and iso at 12800 shutter speed at 400/5000th sec what ever you need to get the correct exposure,
Now go in to a dim room and use iso 12800 and f4 and the correct shutter speed to get the correct exposure and you tell me the level of noise is the same(y)

now if you had a full fram camera you could do the same with both and see that the full frame does a better job,
And no im not saying that crop cameras cant do high iso the can and have come on shed loads, I used a pentax k5 the other day for a 2nd cam at a wedding as my d300 was away for a service, and the iso did beat the d300 but when it come to some big prints and high iso over 6400 my d700 beat it.
Click to expand...

OK I just grabbed my 12800 outside F8 shot. I'll do the same inside when I get home and post the images...if there is a noticable difference I will hang my head in shame...
 
Phil Young said:
OK I just grabbed my 12800 outside F8 shot. I'll do the same inside when I get home and post the images...if there is a noticable difference I will hang my head in shame...
Click to expand...

That'll be a first. Just remember photos or it didn't happen :)
 
Phil Young said:
Then Scott would know that the shutter speed will not be the same during these tests and that it's just another way of gathering light into the sensor.
Click to expand...

A faster flash speed infers more light so you don't push the sensors ability
 
Phil Young said:
Yes yes yes.

If there isn't a noticeable difference you lot better not pull out any excuses though :)
Click to expand...

If I wasn't ready for the pub I'd do the same - but beer calls
 
Here we are then.

As you can see, there is the same amount of noise in both images.

Outside_big.JPG

Inside_big.JPG

Outside_crop.JPG

Inside_crop.JPG


Outside exif:
F8, 1/400th, ISO 12800

Inside exif:
F8, 1/40th, ISO 12800

Lens: 18-200mm, Nikon D7000.
 
The second one does look a fair bit noisier to me, though I do agree that the difference isn't huge.

I think the thing about most indoor scenes though, and why they were probably brought up in the first place in this thread, is that they often have very dark shadow areas due to inconsistent light sources (I'm thinking churches etc..) and that is where cameras are really pushed pretty hard. I realise this probably sounds like hindsight excuses but the indoor scene that you shot looks fairly flatly lit to me and probably isn't the sort of scene that offers sufficient dynamic range to really push a camera.

I believe you shoot the odd wedding so I'm sure you've probably seen this yourself where part of an image can look clean as a whistle and some darker areas are a horrible noisy mess.
 
gad-westy said:
The second one does look a fair bit noisier to me, though I do agree that the difference isn't huge.

I think the thing about most indoor scenes though, and why they were probably brought up in the first place in this thread, is that they often have very dark shadow areas due to inconsistent light sources (I'm thinking churches etc..) and that is where cameras are really pushed pretty hard. I realise this probably sounds like hindsight excuses but the indoor scene that you shot looks fairly flatly lit to me and probably isn't the sort of scene that offers sufficient dynamic range to really push a camera.

I believe you shoot the odd wedding so I'm sure you've probably seen this yourself where part of an image can look clean as a whistle and some darker areas are a horrible noisy mess.
Click to expand...

I think it's more of a case of what you said - the dark areas may appear to have more noise when its more like a trick to the eye.

Looking closely with my detective eye - I can't see a difference in noise, I can understand that I may be tricked into believing there is more as the indoor scene is totally different to the outside scene...but I really can't see how one has more noise or the other has less detail, they do look of equal IQ's to me...

I don't think 1/50th or around that is nearly enough to show more noise on the sensor...

I could believe there possibly being more noise from a long exposure though.
 
Phil Young said:
I think it's more of a case of what you said - the dark areas may appear to have more noise when its more like a trick to the eye.

Looking closely with my detective eye - I can't see a difference in noise, I can understand that I may be tricked into believing there is more as the indoor scene is totally different to the outside scene...but I really can't see how one has more noise or the other has less detail, they do look of equal IQ's to me...

I don't think 1/50th or around that is nearly enough to show more noise on the sensor...

I could believe there possibly being more noise from a long exposure though.
Click to expand...

The way I see it is simply that outdoor scenes are typically less contrasty than indoor ones. If an outdoor scene is very contrasty it will present the same set of problems. If an indoor scene is lit evely it'll not present much of a problem. It's not really an issue of shutter speed, just one of dynamic range and in particular dealing with shadows. Where there is a big enough dynamic range that there will be deep shadows, noise will always be present, and the higher the iso the worse it will likely be.
 
What I'm saying and have maintained is that there isn't "more" noise as such, but when things aren't exposed properly which include but are not limited to: high dynamic scenes, you will notice the noise more.

There will still be the same amount of noise inside, outside, fast or slow shutter (unless long exposure which is a different conversation)...
 
Phil Young said:
What I'm saying and have maintained is that there isn't "more" noise as such, but when things aren't exposed properly which include but are not limited to: high dynamic scenes, you will notice the noise more.

There will still be the same amount of noise inside, outside, fast or slow shutter (unless long exposure which is a different conversation)...
Click to expand...

Would never dispute any of that. I just find it's very often hard to expose everything well in a typically lit indoor scene.

Anyway, I meant to add, it sounds like we're in agreement here. :)
 
Last edited:
Again, the difference will be in a badly lit indoor scene at night. That will show the difference. Besides that I cannot see how you would ever think this loss of contrast, dynamic range and sharpness would ever be usable. I think the camera produces appalling shots at this ISO. I don't blame it however as it's not supposed to be great up there. I speak as an ex owner, btw.
 
The point is and has always been....

The noise level will be the same but you will notice it when (whatever) are under exposed such as a high dynamic range indoor scene where you will get highs that seem less noisy than the lows. There is no more noise though, just a trick in the eye.

Anyway, the D7000 retains detail up to its highest sensitivity, each to their own on weather they use it or not...
 
I thought you said you were getting usable results at higher ISO?? they are not usable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top