Noise on DSLRs. Is it overblown ?

<p>I haven't moved to digital, yet. I have done a lot of reading, in this forum, for years, however. If it's not debates on the number of stops of dynamic range, or the benefits of megapixels, or the sensor size AND the number of pixels, eventually , it comes down to noise. From my knowledge of film stuff, the idea was always to try and use the lowest ISO you could for the situation, to keep from getting grain. If you were REALLY stuck, you might go to 800 speed film, just to get the shot, but you KNEW that it was going to get grain.</p>

<p>I just read a long thread about unacceptable noise at 3200 speed. ISO 3200 ! Am I so far out of touch that having "some" noticeable noise, if you zoom in, at 1600 or 3200 is truly a problem ? At what ISO does noise REALLY become noticeable and you have to run that shot through some magic noise reduction software ?</p>

<p>Is this all overblown ? Do I have less noise shooting slides than a good quality DSLR will give me ? You guys keep coming up with complaints that keep me in the film side of the fence.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Yeah, some people's standards have really changed. No question, you can get a lower noise high ISO image with a newer DSLR than with very fast film. The acceptable ISO varies a lot, depending on camera and lighting situation. I often shoot at 3200 and get pretty good results. As for slow slide film (or T-Max 100 or Ektar for that matter) vs. low ISO DSLR - I can't find the noise in either so there doesn't seem to me to be much point in trying to figure out which has less.</p>

<p>My oldest DSLR has noise comparable to ISO 100 slide film when set to ISO 400. It's a little better actually. The newest models are comparable at ISO 800 or even 1600 for the very best performers like the Nikon D700 or Canon 5D mkII.</p>

<p>People nitpick and argue about noise, among other things, all the time, but that doesn't mean it's worse than with film. DSLRs were ahead of 35mm film on noise from just about day one. If you've been staying away from digital because of nerd arguments and nitpicks on the Internet, you have really been missing out!</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I joined the "digital world" about three years ago (I own a D200) and have discovered that <em>some </em> of the old "truisms" and rules of thumb that applied in the 35mm days don't apply anymore. For example, when I shot my n90s, I rarely shot above 400, unless I specifically sought a high-grain look (for that, I'd go w/ tmax 3200). New doors have opened up with good digital cameras on this subject. It's now possible, with a camera like a D700, to obtain great depth of field in low light situations because of its outstanding high iso capability. You really can get a sharp, clean image at 1600 with that camera. 3200 ain't bad either.<br>

Re "At what ISO does noise REALLY become noticeable and you have to run that shot through some magic noise reduction software ?" - this totally depends on your camera. My D200 is pretty lousy beyond iso 800 (even this is questionable). A D90, D300, D700, etc are much superior in this area.<br>

One other point: the look of noise, in my opinion, is significantly less appealing than the look of grain. So, for me, my willingness to accept a noisy high iso digital shot is much less than what I would have accepted with a grainy, high iso 35mm shot. But this is subjective.<br>

Hope this helps.</p>

Noise varies with the model of camera, but mostly correlates with the size of the pixels (NOT the resolution). The D3/D700 has 8.5 (approx.) micron pixels, which are very large by DSLR standards. A full frame DSLR with a higher resolution (e.g., 25 MP) would have to have much smaller pixels. More noise. A 12 MP APS-sized sensor DSLR would have more noise, too.

 

The reason why this is so important is that with a DSLR you can never change the "film" that came with the camera. If you get a camera that, in effect, can't shoot Tri-X, then it will never shoot Tri-X.

 

Whether you need a camera with big pixels depends on the kind of shooting you do and the degree of enlargement. Recently, I shot at 300mm at a zoo, inside, which required ISO 6400. (Lens was wide open and shutter speed was already too slow at something like 1/80.) If I didn't have a D700, I would have just put the camera away and enjoyed the birds.

 

If you're shooting outdoors, or with flash, you don't need ISO 6400, or even 3200, or even 1200. So you don't need those big pixels.

 

These "complaints" really are just talk about one DSLR vs. another, or about advances in technology. For most photographers these days (most, not all), the digital vs. film consideration has long gone by the wayside.

 

--Marc

<p>Yes, the standards have changed. I looked through some 50 year old slides this weekend in preparation of having them scanned. Lots of grain, which you could see almost with your bare eyes. Quite acceptable 50 years ago. <br>

I even looked at some photos in a 25 year old edition of National Geographic the other day. Lots of grain there as well, and for 25 years ago, you would not blink an eye....</p>

<p>This is a hard question to answer. With film, grain has lots of variation from one emulsion to another. Kodachrome 200 was grainy, but had lots of fans. Digital noise has character variation as well. I have one camera that gets really ugly noise in the shadows at base ISO. My other camera produces noise that looks like grain at all ISO levels that I use. I like the look of the second camera a lot, but a few folks on this forum have been complaining about it. What you see is what you get I guess. To me, the images with grain look sharper and deeper.</p>

<p>My problem with digital noise isn't the quantity of it, but the quality of it. I much prefer film grain.</p>

<p>It's way overblown. Of course there's always room to improve and applications that would benefit from better high ISO performance, but in reality we are far better off right now than 10 years ago with regards to noise.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>he idea was always to try and use the lowest ISO you could for the situation, to keep from getting grain</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Wrong. High ISO films were often used in particular cases, where grain can be a style element. The ISO noise in a digital camera is completely different from such film grain, though. I do believe, though, that for most cameras, the noise issue is highly exaggerated. It has become so much better during the past 3 years, in particular with the newer camera models and better or bigger sensors.<br>

I work with a Nikon D700 since half a year, and even with high ISO rates, the noise can easily be eliminated without major loss in ACR already, and before that, with my EOS 30D, I've never really felt that noise was a problem for me.</p>

<p>The bar has certainly been raised.</p>

<p>5 years ago I shot an indoor wedding with ISO 800 film and I was very unhappy with the grain, and I was also unhappy with the "high" ISO 800 results from the D100 at that same wedding. Today people complain if ISO 1600 results are not excellent, although still much much better than what I got from ISO 800 film or digital from 5 years ago.</p>

<p>I see absolutely no reason why those complaints should prevent you from entering the digital world.</p>

<p>The issue of noise at high ISO is real. The solution is also very real as there are many excellent software programs that allow noise reduction and noise elimination while maintaining exceptional detail. Those who complain may not be well versed in post processing techniques or may just like to complain a lot.</p>

<p>FWIW, there are also software programs that can add film grain into digital images and you can even choose which type of film grain to add.</p>

 

<p>Over the years, I shot a lot of higher-ISO films- particularly in 35mm- trying to strike the best balance bewteen speed and grainieness. Then, I got a pair of Nikon D100s, which immediately produced somewhat less grainy/less noisy high-ISO proof-sized prints and enlargements than any piece of 35mm film I'd ever used. This, despite the D100 having a smaller-than-full-frame sensor and only being a 6 megapixel camera.</p>

<p>Another added benefit of DSLRs is, of course, white balancing. When I'd shoot a wedding ceremony in mixed light with, say Fuji 800 or 1600 color negative film, I'd often have to have the printer at my store run three sets of prints to get to a decent color balance. Using the Auto White Balance feature on even the D100 gave me a good color balance on the first run of prints.</p>

<p>With the D700, I'm able to shoot events with flash at ISO 800, giving me a much better ambient light level in images, even in relatively-dark rooms. I get prints that look like they were shot on ISO 100-200 color negative film. </p>

<p>Also, with the D100 and D200, I'd run images shot at ISO 800 through Neat Image to lessen noise. With the D700, the images are so noiseless, I notice no difference at ISO 800 running the images through Neat Image.</p>

<p>Noise is such an issue in digital cameras because when it shows up, it looks terrible. The "Quality of noise" argument is really the core of it. There is "grain" on film, but there is always some detail behind it. A little grain doesn't ruin a picture on film. When you see noise on your digital images, however, it just turns them to garbage. There is no detail in the noisy areas at all. I think it makes them look cheap. This is why so much research and development has gone into reducing the noise in digital cameras. This is also why people have been so intolerant of any noise whatsoever in their digital images, and why people are obsessing over noise reduction software. Even though a digital image at ISO 1600 may have less noise than ISO 1600 film has grain, it won't look as good unless that noise is removed completely.</p>

<p>On a digital camera, you always were best to avoid the hghest ISO setting. If the camera went to 1600, you didn't want to exceed 800. On the newest generations cameras, however, they are pushing usually 2 High ISO settings that look terrible, even though the ISO range is hgher. So if you have a newer camera that goes to 6400, you really want to avoid 6400 and 3200, but you should expect great results up to 1600. It's the most advanced cameras that go to 12800 that are giving great results at 3200.</p>

<p>This means that the newest digital cameras are 1-2 stops better than previous generations. So while 15 years ago you would have pulled out your ISO 1600 film to shoot something and knew you would get usable results with a quality asthetic, it wasn't until recently that digital cameras have been on the same par. I think it was this latest generation of cameras (2008-09) that finally managed to exceed the quality of film for the same applications.</p>

<p>I've seen so many images (print and web) from enough DLSR's shot at high ISO's that most people complain give "terrible" results to conclude that much of the "terrible" is exposure and post processing competance...not all of it...but a lot.</p>

<p>Digital has changed what is able to be done in low light and we also have a load of people who I suspect have never shot much with film, who look at 100% crops and whine they spent $x on their camera there is visible noise in their handheld shots in the dark. A lot of what you see at 100% you will not see in prints and sometimes you do need a tripod!</p>

<p>A huge number of high iso pictures just don't get processed properly. Sticking your camera on jpg with in camera noise reduction will never get the best out of the camera. I have found the exposure is also key to getting the best high iso performance, I have iso 3200 shots that look like ones at 800 that were underexposed. Also the goal is noise reduction not noise removal, so many pictures are plastic looking with the NR software having removed detail.</p>

<p>Here is an example from my D700 at 1600 with no processing or sharpening:</p>

<p><img src="http://www.liddellphoto.com/iw/becky_face.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p><img src="http://www.liddellphoto.com/iw/becky_door_2.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>3200 has a bit more noise but very usable.</p>

<p>This is an aesthetic issue which won't be solved by asking other people. Go to flickr, do some searches on various ISO values and the DSLR you are interested in, find some pictures which are available full size, and judge for yourself. Tip: there is definitely a difference between APS-C and full frame sensors, at higher ISOs.<br>

I find digital noise more objectionable than film grain, but there's less of it, so it's an aesthetic call. The ability of a full frame sensor, like the D700, shown above is really amazing, compared to film.<br>

What's often lost in these discussions is that neither is "better." They just look different. Which you prefer is a matter of taste.<br>

Also, you can buy a DSLR online, test it, and send it back for a refund if you don't like it. Be careful, DSLRs are both expensive and as addictive as crack, as there is always a new one coming out. :-)</p>

<p>The arguments about noise are not the thing holding me back. It's the cost of the cameras that still have people complaining about the noise that are holding me back.</p>

<p>If it was as simple as, "Those entry level cameras have too much noise , but the better ones are great. " it would be easy. It's when the $1500 cameras are being complained about, and the posts start saying you need to spend $2500 on a D700 or equivalent, to reduce the noise to acceptable levels, that I just say the HECK with saving up for one. The thought of dropping $1500 and then being disappointed in what I see, and worrying about get exact exposure so as to NOT induce more noise and THEN still running every shot through some third party software, to get it they way I want it just seems nuts to me. What other products do we purchase that we KNOW will not be good enough, out of the box, and we will need to spend money on third party things to make them right ? On top of that, do we expect to become obsolete in 2 or 3 years. All of that does not instill confidence in purchasing a DSLR. At least on my part.</p>

<p>Perhaps this is the big question. If I don't shoot beyond ISO 800, will digital noise ever be an issue ? Can I ignore the debate, if I have the expectations I have with film and avoid really high ISO ?</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Noise is such an issue in digital cameras because when it shows up, it looks terrible.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>except all sensors/processors are not created equal. i can see this just from looking at high-ISO images from my d80 (10mp CCD) and d300 (12mp CMOS). without question, the d300 is better at high iSOs. in particular, the grain it produces is often quite acceptable, which allows me to confidently shoot at ISO 1600-2500. i've blown up 16x20 prints under these conditions which look very "filmy."</p>

<p>OTOH, P&S cameras are really bad at high ISOs. and the d80 can sometimes handle ISO 1600, sometimes not. a lot of it has to do with background lighting, contrast, saturation, etc.</p>

<p>in the end i would say all that really matters is one's own aesthetic.</p>

<p><em>If it was as simple as, "Those entry level cameras have too much noise , but the better ones are great. " it would be easy. It's when the $1500 cameras are being complained about, and the posts start saying you need to spend $2500 on a D700 or equivalent, to reduce the noise to acceptable levels, that I just say the HECK with saving up for one.</em></p>

<p>ANY DSLR you buy today will out perform 35mm film on noise by 3 stops or more. Including the cheapest entry level models. You are paying too much attention to people who spend more time nitpicking, pixel peeping, and arguing on the Internet than they do actually shooting photographs.<em></em></p>

<p><em>If I don't shoot beyond ISO 800, will digital noise ever be an issue ? </em></p>

<p>No. In print current DSLRs set to ISO 800 will look like ISO 100 slide film. When set to ISO 100 their prints will have the smooth clean look of medium format.</p>

<p><em>Noise is such an issue in digital cameras because when it shows up, it looks terrible. The "Quality of noise" argument is really the core of it. There is "grain" on film, but there is always some detail behind it. A little grain doesn't ruin a picture on film. When you see noise on your digital images, however, it just turns them to garbage. There is no detail in the noisy areas at all.</em></p>

<p>This is not true. 35mm film grain does more to obscure detail than digital noise, except perhaps at the very highest ISOs for digital (i.e. 6400). There's nothing to recover once grain has destroyed fine detail, though in print grain can be mistaken for fine detail, so sometimes you get lucky. In the digital realm noise reduction software can often reduce noise will retaining or enhancing detail.</p>

<p>For some reason in color photography noise is very disturbing to the viewer such that neither film grain nor digital noise are pleasing. Though small amounts are acceptable in print, the goal is always the lowest possible level. But in B&W it often isn't disturbing or even contributes to the look. This is a color vs. B&W issue, not a digital vs. film issue. I've purposely shot very high ISO digital images knowing they would be converted to B&W and after the conversion and other adjustments, the noise would be similar to grain in high ISO B&W film. They look terrible in color, fine in B&W.</p>

<p><em>Even though a digital image at ISO 1600 may have less noise than ISO 1600 film has grain, it won't look as good unless that noise is removed completely.</em></p>

<p>ISO 1600 from the latest DSLRs looks better than ISO 400 35mm. You don't have to make any great efforts to reduce or eliminate the noise. The images look just fine in print.</p>

<p>If you want to know the #1 reason why digital noise is "an issue", it's because Photoshop lets people pixel peep all day long.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>the idea was always to try and use the lowest ISO you could for the situation, to keep from getting grain</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>still very true. I shoot digital long since and almost all of my photos are shot at ISO 100 same as I did/do on film. All for a very good reason. Most of what you read is just fetisjism.</p>

<p>The moaning noises (quite separate from the image noise) usually came from people with unrealistic expectations. Yes, when I was shooting film, ISO 1600 was really pushing it and those out there who were tinkering with 3200 were the geeks. But thats all changed. Well the hype has changed it.<br>

In the film days, the best pro workhorse film camera, the Nikon F6 cost $5000 new. So a pro could get well outfillted for $10k, and that investment would last years because it was only the film that was getting updated, not the gear.<br>

Now, with digital, that investment is more like $20,000. But the cruncher is that half this investment is depreciating very fast as digital technology advances quickly. A good used D3 can be had on eBay for $3k.<br>

So we now have a whole generation of photographers who have a different expectation and that also covers things like "acceptable" noise. You and I are quite happy keeping below 1600, but young Joe Gizmo is not, and the camera companies are to blame, as really there is so little differentiation at the mid to top level that things like high ISO management becomes a major differentiator.<br>

For the most part, people still shoot in well lit situations. But we are seeing new professionals who have never learned to use flash creatively in wedding photography. And they complain about low light performance from their gear. I have little patience with them. Go buy a flash.<br>

Yes, my opinion is it's certainly overblown, but many people can't find anything else to talk about as a point of difference. Those who are realistic know the real world limits of their gear, especially if they have to make a living from it. And not many are playing in the 3200/6400 ISO territory. In fact they try to stay as low as possible to get the cleanest images they can. 200-400 is still where its at in the daytime real world.</p>

<p>It all depends on the camera, the sensor, and the processing chips. I'm very happy with ISO 3200 on my D700. It's not completely "noise free," but the images look great. It looks like the grain of ISO 400 film.</p>

<p>By contrast, the noise performance of the D200 is rather disappointing. I grabbed a few ambient light shots at a friend's wedding with the D200 at ISO 1600, and the images were so noisy that they're practically useless. ISO 1600 film would have looked considerably better.</p>

<p>ISO 3200 example, Nikon D700</p>

<p>(For pixel peepers, a higher resolution JPEG is visible on my website.)</p>

<div></div>