Canon better noise than Nikon. Not !

What does everyone think of these tests done by Ken Rockwell.

 

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/dslr-comparison/index.htm#summary

 

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/dslr-comparison/resolution.htm

 

In particular, see his comments on the "granite" where the Canon's were

fuzzier than the Nikons at the highest ISO.

 

Also the Canon's aliasing seemed a minus.

 

Overall, the Canon's did not do so well in Ken's tests. It could be argued

that the Nikon's won the noise tests.

 

Any comments?

 

(Notice I asked for comments on the tests, not on Ken Rockwell ... so everyone

who comments on Ken gets the buzzer).

I think Ken tends to find what he's looking for.

 

Sorry, couldn't help myself :)

Carl, ironically that's what Ken said about other people in his preface to the tests. BTW, did you read his report in detail? I notice your reply came pretty quickly after I posted the question.

Suzanne, to my eye, Canon IN FACT does have better noise reduction then the Nikon's. Any Nikons. What you seem to miss, is that the Nikons show LESS DETAIL because their anti-noise algo's are MORE AGGRESSIVE...more aggressive means noise gets removed BUT SO DOES DETAIL...too high a price to pay.

 

By the way, I took this from Ken's site you pointed out to us.

 

You really need to stop being fooled. In order for Nikon to "match" or come close to Canon's noise performance, they have to crank up their algorithms, but guess what again? DETAIL GONE!

 

Don't fall for this.

Suzanne, are you a troll? You just joined today...your love for Nikon is religion, based on faith....our preference for Canon is not faith based....it's based on facts.

 

Canon has ALWAYS provide LESS NOISE then any and all Nikon DSLRs, of any cost. Get over it.

I don't understand why Ken didn't remove a variable by using his very sharp Nikon prime lens with an adaptor on the Canons - it would also have allowed him to use the same aperture (another variable not controlled for). It's also noticeable that there are differences in exposure between the cameras - with the Canon shots (particularly the 30D) being significantly overexposed. That will naturally affect the outcomes. In short, there are too many factors that have been poorly controlled (perhaps by design) to make any meaningful comparisons.

Pavel, I am a Canon user. True, I did sign up today, because I read Ken's article on wanted some feedback on it from other Canon users. Anyway, thanks for the welcome to the forum.

Suzanne

Suzanne,<br>

Ken is know any where on any forum to his hate about Canon Camera. Why I don't know. <br> I not the first article he post on his web site whom are a "little" bias again the Canon Camera.<br> I read this article some day ago and it have some flaw<p> If you want a real opinion about noise on camera go at dpreview.com, the reviewer here is a Nikon lover, but he is honest.<div></div>

From dpreview

 

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos30d/page20.asp

 

"Apart from the obvious resolution difference the EOS 30D and EOS 5D produced fairly similar levels of visible noise and also limited softening at ISO 1600 and 3200. The Nikon D200 exhibits more noise above ISO 800 and pretty heavy noise reduction effect at ISO 3200. The D200's noise reduction seems to take care of chroma (color) noise better than Canon giving noise a more film like monochromatic appearance. However on balance it's clear that the EOS 30D comes away with a more usable image (compared to the D200) at ISO 1600 and 3200."

 

ISO 1600 and 3200 of people benefit from a very light use of chroma noise reduction.

 

I actually really like the Nikon cameras, especially the D80 and D200, and you could compare them favourably against the Canon's on many levels but noise would not be one.

Ken is a Nikon user, only a human being and have biases.

 

On the review of the canon sd700 IS , He said that the sd700 IS , has better build quality than the rebel xt and the 30d, I wonder why he did not include a Nikon model to the insult.

 

In the review of nikon d80 on dpreview, the 400d clearly has better image and noise characteristics than the Nikon.

 

All other manufacturers at the moment, is just playing catch-up with Canon, regarding sensor and processor performance in dslrs.

A couple of years ago I jumped from a lifetime of Nikon use to Canon. I had a Nikon D100 and went with the Canon 20D (and later added the full frame 5D). I still have Nikon enlargements on the wall that clearly show the noise when the ISO was dialed up. The Canons never really show this in "real world" shooting. The full frame 5D is really amazing in this respect.

<I>your love for Nikon is religion, based on faith....our preference for Canon is not faith

based....it's based on facts.</i><P>

 

I had to laugh at that massive dose of unwarranted assumption, subsequently undercut by

Suzanne herself. And based on what I see in this forum, the prim little phrase about Canon

users not being faith-based is, to put it mildly, not invariably correct.<P>

 

Disclaimer: I use Canons myself.

don't mind Pavel, he's our local multiple-personality, um, shall we say "entertainer." look through his posts of a couple weeks ago for some good laughs.

 

welcome suzanne.

First, his conclusions don't seem to jive with that of <a href="http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos30d/page20.asp">DP Review</a>, which in my experience has scientifically sound testing (Ken should have done his tests with the same lens; <a href="http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/dslr-comparison/index.htm#test">he did not</a>.

 

<p>Second, he's comparing a 10 Megapixel Nikon to two 8 Megapixel Canons. Why didn't he do this comparison with the 5D? Probably because he knows the high ISO performance and resolution of the 5D not only <a href="http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos30d/page20.asp">trounces the D200</a>, but it also <a href="http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos5d/page21.asp">trounces the D2X</a>.</p>

 

I also agree with Alistair in that there are certainly some points on which the D200 or D2X are clear winners. High ISO noise levels is unequivocally not one of them. This is based upon my hands-on experience as much as my reading of various resources online.

One more thing to consider. Roll-over the image, as Ken suggests (<a href="http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/dslr-comparison/index.htm#summary">here</a>). However, instead of looking at the brightly lit cabinets that are so prominent, look at the shelf behind the chair (it the bottom-left corner of the image). There's an enormous difference, there, between ISO 100 and ISO 3200. To me, this coincides with <a href="http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos5d/page21.asp">DP Review</a>'s discovery that the D2X has very high levels of luminance noise, but low levels of chroma noise.

 

<p>I don't know about you, but I don't take photos at ISO 3200 when I'm in a brightly lit room. The reason I shoot at ISO 3200, is because the scene is <b>not</b> brightly lit. Therefore, the luminance noise level will play a large role in the overal quality of my images.</p>

I have shot side by side several times with a friend of mine. He has a Nikon D2X, I have a Canon 1D mkII. We have compared images afterwards on screen an in print. Until 400iso the D2X images can hold up, but above that, there is a BIG difference!

<i>In the review of nikon d80 on dpreview, the 400d clearly has better image and noise characteristics than the Nikon.</i><br><br>

 

Canon's perceived lesser noise and detail are delusional, because as you can see from comparision pictures Canon applies a lot of sharpening to camuflage noise reduction which is evident from the halos at high contrast trasitions. See the resolution chart comparision <a href="http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond80/page28.asp">here</a>, check the vertical lines especially. <br><br>

 

Nikon obviously applies more conservative sharpening or no sharpening at all, which is a better approach since sharpening is not a reversible manipulation, and doing it later (outside the camera) is the more flexible way.

> Canon's perceived lesser noise and detail are delusional

 

Oh yeah, you're going to win a lot of converts around here with your choice of words... :-)

You'r so fast Hyun, anything else (such as an argument) to contribute?

These samples were shot at IS0 100. What does this have to do with noise? Sharpening levels are adjustable from the default. You can specify zero sharpening, if you choose.

<i>These samples were shot at IS0 100. What does this have to do with noise? Sharpening levels are adjustable from the default. You can specify zero sharpening, if you choose.</i><br><br>

 

Where does the sharpening halos come from then? As far as I know its because Canon applies on board noise reduction, even before getting the raw image ("on board noise reduction circuitry" is their official saying), you may check this from several of their official product releases. This kind of noise reduction and subsequent sharpening may not be cancellable. If sharpening levels are adjustable then Phil Askey would (and should) chose to apply no sharpening to both cameras, otherwise test would be meaningless.

What I think.

 

I think that when the 20d and 10d were introduced that noise levels in the canon sensors were better. now that gap IMO has been narrowed to the point of being insignificant. That said I still prefer the canon image to a nikon. BUT the thing that sells me on a canon is taht they offer a full frame digital SLR.. Nikon doesn't. if I were to choose another camera other than canon. I woudl be looking at something like the new Pentax (entry level price but if the image quality is even close to being on par with current designs I think it will do well)

<p>

<blockquote>

"The moiré issues in the scan marked "perfection" are artifacts of Photoshop's resampling algorithms....

<br/>

It's easy to see that my D80 and D200 perform smoothly. There is no significant moiré or aliasing or any other funny business going on.

<br/>

This is interesting: the three Canons have significant aliasing, or false resolution.... This is an engineering textbook rendition of aliasing."

</blockquote>

Hmmmm.... The 'perfection' scan's moire is caused by the resampling in photoshop but the canon images are the canon's fault not the RESAMPLING IN PHOTOSHOP? Yeah that makes sense.

 

<p>

<blockquote>

"The aliasing isn't turning colors on the 20D and 30D, so no problem. There's a little bit of color on my SD700, but as we'll see at ISO 200, it's insignificant photographically"

</blockquote>

I didn't really notice any on the SD700 shots, but every one of the D70 shots looked horrible.

 

<p>

<blockquote>

"But wait - look at the granite! The Nikons render this much more sharply than the Canons...."

</blockquote>

Yikes... so much noise even something out of focus looks sharp. Way to go Nikon. Seriously is this guy blind or just an...

 

<p>

<blockquote>

"The only thing I see is more aliasing with the Canons, but the same noise."

</blockquote>

I don't know what he sees in his tests but I see more a little more detail and MUCH less noise in the 8mp canon shots that have been resampled to match his 10mp nikon shots.

<br/>

If you look at the 'black dot' in the middle of the charts... the true story is hidden right before your eyes.

<br/>

I am a canon guy, but I am more than willing to accept when canon is bested by nikon.... This couldn't be farther from the case when it comes to noise.

i doubt this even need to be debated.. i think it's quite obvious who wins this war. I could never use my d2x above 640, and chose not to over 400. I just bought my first canon. a 5d. and boy, the few nikon loyalists who hold their pride over common sense really are missing out.. but it's fine by me.. keep shooting nikon and leave the higher isos to canonites, now including me.

Mark Chappel, Noise performance is EVERYTHING....and therefore Canon is the best way to go these days, if one wants a DSLR. Perhaps in the future Nikon will improve in that department, but for today, the XIi produces less noise at ISO 1600 then does the D2X Nikon flagship...that is why I maintain people by Nikon today by faith, religion, in other words, brand loyalty...again, in the digital realm, noise is the achilles heal with manufacturers. Is this a laughing matter? I don't see the humor.