which camera has lower noise?

Hi there I am in the midst of buying a SLR and have narrowed it down to either canon 30/40D or nikon d200/300 ....given that they have

the most lenses available in my city to rent/buy......my decision is basically down to which brand (model) will produce the lowest amount of

noise at the higher ISO (800 and up)? I havew read conflicting articles about the CCD in nikons being better than the CMPOS sensors

but have yet to see any real world pictures comparing the two (allI have seen are 100% crops) which to me is not a realistic picture..I want

to be like to look at 2 pics , say 8 x 10 from each camera and be able to see visible differences..can anyone provide pics, links showing

differences bewteen the two brands? thanks in advance!

Canon 50D is great up to ISO 3200

Canon has the lowest grain, but Nikon 300 has a perfect image even with 1600 ISO : )

Which articles regarding CCD better than CMOS? All the new Nikons (except D200) have gone to CMOS chips.(D3, D300, D700, D90)

I can offer you my own personal experience. I had a Nikon D200 with a 18-200mm VR lens. I purchased a Canon

40D with a 28-135 lens. I set them up for full auto on each mfgs settings, no filters, same everything else and took

real life test shots of various things from the same distance ect... I set the shutters off at the same time using cable releases.

The Canon with the lesser lens produced a sharper photo across the board. At the time I had no better Canon lens to test with. There is a fairly large difference between the Nikon D200 and the newer technologically better Canon 40D. the digic processor III utilized a 14 bit a/d converter vs. the canon older CCD. This results in four times the color tones; 4K vs. 16K.

I have never read any review that ever said that a comparable CCD is better than a CMOS sensor. As far as these are concerned the 40D is better, faster, etc....

The others I cannot speak on.

Forgot to mention your other question. My 40D in low light high school gyms have produced good photos.

But, with the Nikon and the Canon, I used Noise Ninja on the high ISO shots. It works better than Photoshop noise reduction. I have read the reviews on the ISO hype of the 50D and maybe that would be a good idea.

I think your comparison in real life photography is between the Canon 40D and the Nikon D300 for outcomes and features. What do you want to take pictures of? If sports is in you list, I can vouch for the Canon.

here is an article by Thom Hogan read about a third way down......he makes reference to the CCD sensor producing less noise

than the CMOS sensor......http://bythom.com/d200review.htm

Go to www.dcresource.com or www.dpreview.com then download the sample images and print them. If you still can't figure out which is better and which to purchase, just go to your local camera and get the camera that feels better in your hands.

John,

For ISO>400 my Canon 40D has less visible noise than my Nikon D300 if you shoot in RAW format, if you shoot in JPEG depends to noise reduction setting in the camera.

I am a very experienced photographer, owning several studios. I have used Nikons since 1970. After running tests at the

studio comparing a Nikon D2x to a Canon 20D, I decided to make the change to Canon. I bought a 40D. The colors are

better (more life like) to me. The grain is much less on the Canon. The control window on the back makes more sense to

me than Nikon's did. The lenses seem sharper, except that I did find my nikon 70-200 to be a remarkable lens, I believe

my new Canon 70-200 is just as good.

BTW, Nikon D300 uses a CMOS vs old D200 which had a CCD, D200 is not very usable at ISO800 or above, the 300 is much better.

For many of us who had to use grainy films like GAF 500 just to get a picture at all, even the capabilities of the old Canon 20D amaze me. I can't wait to get hold of the new really high speed bodies.

 

When noise cannot be avoided, embrace it. I find it preferable to grain in film.

FWIW, the Canon 5D II is now the low light/high ISO champ being a full stop better than the D3/D700, but I'm assuming. that's out of your price range.

Thom Hogan's article was posted on 3-19-06. Now that Nikon has gone to the CMOS chip, I wonder if he may have a

different opinion. Old CCD tech vs. new CMOS tech. He was comparing CCD D200 to the cameras available at the

time."On the plus side, CCD sensors tend to have less noise than CMOS sensors, all other factors equal." Things

are no longer equal! My experience wiht 30D and D200 were close with Canon in a slight lead.

 

 

I would go with D300 or 40D (or the new 50D). Which one fits you hand better? Either will produce great images in

low light. Buy the system. Hang on for a great ride. These are exciting times for digital photography!

The review of the D300 on dpreview.com includes a detailed noise comparison between it and the 40D <<a

href="http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond300/page18.asp"><b>link</b></a>>.

"FWIW, the Canon 5D II is now the low light/high ISO champ being a full stop better than the D3/D700, but I'm assuming. that's out of your price range."

 

I would take that with a big grain of salt, unless of course Mike you are going to back that up with some hard facts?

 

John, either of the two cameras (D300 and 40D) are giong to produce similar results and I think the real decision is going to be what system you prefer. You are going to have to purchase lenses and a myriad of other accessories for your system, so your decision should be based on this. Digital cameras nowadays aren't the investment that film SLR's used to be however lenses will last forever. Canon may catch up to Nikon in the speedlight/flash side of things next year and Nikon may catch Canon in some other department.

 

It really comes down to what you feel comfortable using. Go to the store and check them out. The reason you may have only seen 100% crops of these two camera images is probably because that is the magnification you need to be at to see any difference.

Tom, go here to download the D3/700 images:

 

http://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM

 

and here to download the iso equivalent 5D II images:

 

http://www.dpreview.com/previews/canoneos5dmarkII/page14.asp

 

(the last images in the group are the same shot taken at progressively higher ISOs).

 

put them in PS, compare the grain and draw your own conclusions. From what I can see it looks like the 21 mp 5D II is a

full stop better at high ISOs that the 12 mp D3/700 is.

Mate, 8x10 is too small to notice any significant noise with today's DSLRS. Even at ISO 800, you will see very

little noise with any of those cameras.

 

I have used Canons and Nikons, 30D is good in low light. 40D is much better in Noise department (but it

suppresses too much and photos look a bit "fake" because the NR is too strong for my taste).

Nikon D200 is bit more noisy at high ISOs, but D300 is really good. Of the four cameras, IMHO, D300 has best low

light performance.

Personally, I'd be happy to accept some level of noise than to have a photo with over noise reduction. When I use

my D40, I turn off NR. while,i find NR in my 20D is pretty good!

 

There is no point discussing CCD vs CMOS anymore, even pros have stopped doing that. Everybody is using CMOS now

a days in important DSLRs.

 

if you have the habit of looking at LCD....u should get a Nikon. Canon's LCD is really bad. Nikon has really good

LCDs even in cheapest camears. I hate the LCD on my 40D, its good only at night time, but everytime i open the

files on my MacBook when i get home, that all chages, the photos come out amazing!

 

Nikon has better flash system.

they are cheaper, better, can do wirelessTTL....they are awesome. Even my 580EX does not work 100% on my 40D !

the bloody 40D wants a 580EXII !

 

Lenses....Nikon has the best pro grade wide zoom. At medium and tele range, they both amazing.But Canon has more

variety and will give you some extra choices if you are really rich.

 

If you want highest megapixels, unfortunately, Sony is the king of the hill now.

 

 

Infact, i'd say, go for the cheapest camera you can get, maybe 30D or D200 and spend every cent on the best

lenses you can afford. DSLRs depreciate really fast. A 3000 dollar DSLR will be worth less than half in 2 years.

Lenses are what makes photos,and will not depreciate badly at all. Infact they might even appreciate !

 

Cheers!

<p>All I can say is in the scientific community they insist on CCD v's CMOS due to the signal to noise ratio, at least in a quantitative requirement. Especially in Spectroscopy. Almost all the Mfg. companies use the CCD. The real benifit of the CMOS is faster read out of the image "sports".<br>

Opinions may differ with practical useage with cameras due to the elctronics design to handle the noise.<br>

So it's a technology thing at this point and one final point, CMOS is cheaper to make. Get it?<br>

Thats my 10 cents worth.</p>