Noise: 18mp APS-C sensors compared with 15mp

[tom_burke3]

<p>I currently have a 500D (T1i). Everyone now and then I get pulled up short by just how noisy high-ISO images are with this camera. Yesterday I visited a stately home which allows photography (but not tripods*), so I took my camera plus 10-22 EF-S & 35mm EF f2 lenses. I left the camera in aperture priority, and mainly shot at either f6.3 or f5.6 with the 10-22. Exposure times were therefore long, and I was hand-holding with no IS, so a lot of shots have been ditched anyway because of camera shake. I set the camera to auto-ISO so in the case of a lot of the interior shots I was at 1600; some were at 1250 and few were lower. Obviously there's a lot of noise in shadow areas of the images, so even where I'm happy (enough) with the hand-holding/blur aspect, I'm not really happy about the noise aspect.</p>

<p>I've successfully ignored the 'time to upgrade' calls as the XXXD cameras have been updated, but I've been wondering about the 650D. Although each individual step between 500D and 650D involved only incremental improvements, the totality of the improvements between the two cameras is now quite significant. One of those is in the area of noise, and that's my question: how much better is the latest iteration of the 18mp sensor than the old 15mp one? I'm not in the position to upgrade to a FF body because I'm too heavily committed to EF-S lenses to change.</p>

<p>(*: far too many people processing through the rooms for anyone to stop and set up a tripod.)</p>

[JeffOwen]

<p>I have the 60D and the 10-22 I just love the combination. I too use this combination to take interiors of churches and stately homes and find that using it hand held is no problem and noise never seems a problem. I do however try to rest the camera on the edge of a wall or handrail so that there is some degree of stability at least in one plane.</p>

[phule]

<p>How large are the prints you're making from these hand-held photos? </p>

[tom_burke3]

<blockquote>

<p>How large are the prints you're making from these hand-held photos?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Probably for on-line use only. Unless a real 'keeper' emerged emerged, in which case 12x8 maximum.</p>

[JohnMWright]

<p>There are two advantages of the 18 mpix sensors over the 15mp (I had a 50D for years). One, at higher ISOs, the noise on the 18 mpix sensor is roughly 1 stop better in raw. Two, Canon has improved the banding/pattern issues. </p>

<p>At web sizes, and relatively small prints like 8x12", I don't think that difference will matter very much.</p>

<p>Also, I found that both noise ninja and ACR (haven't tried others) noise reduction is excellent. I have some ISO 1600 shots from my 50D that look very very close to ISO 100.</p>

 

[keith reeder]

<p>Tom,</p>

<p>how do you convert and process your Raw files?</p>

[david_john_appleton]

<p>Hi Tom<br>

you say you are not in the position to upgrade to a FF body BUT i guess you are looking at a 5dmkii or mkiii<br>

if you dont do video have you consider a 5DClassic ?as they are £200 cheaper on the bay than a new 650d<br>

your 500d with kit lens seam to make £300-350+ the 10-22 is £425 so thats 1K for FF glass<br>

As of 2012 canon have not made a APS-C camer that can match the IQ of a 5Dc<br>

A 5Dc with the new tamron 24-70 F2.8 with IS, you will have been shooting at F2.8/F4@100/200iso and made poster size prints</p>

[PuppyDigs]

<p>I own the 60D and 7D with the 18MP CMOS and used to have a 50D with 15MP CMOS. Yes, like others have said, the 18MP has a clear 1 stop advantage in terms of noise control. However, it is also much less prone to patterned noise than the 15MP CMOS so, with skillful NR, you can squeeze out a stop or two more for nice 8x12 prints. </p>

<p>If you're a JPEG shooter, the 60D has more aggressive default processing and NR than the 7D. Of course you can diddle 7D in-camera parameters to approximate a 60D or Rebel look but most causal shooters are too lazy to bother. In terms of RAW output, the 60D and 7D are almost exactly the same.</p>

<p>I agree, if you really want an upgrade in high ISO noise control, FF results will be like night and day.</p>

[keith reeder]

<blockquote>

<p>FF results will be like night and day.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>No! </p>

<p>That sweeping statement has been disproven on here more times that tongue can tell - the 7D is better than (say) the original 5D, and much better than the earlier FF 1D bodies. </p>

<p>You simply can't generalise and say FF is just "better". It's not <em>remotely</em> that black and white.</p>

[PuppyDigs]

<blockquote>

<p>You simply can't generalise and say FF is just "better". It's not <em>remotely</em> that black and white.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Actually I can generalize all I want. It's called freedom of speech and God Bless America! But, okay, you're absolutely right if you choose to include every friggen ancient FF model from yesteryear. Most of us ain't old enough to remember those old bricks nor are they widely available on the used market. And no big surprise that last year's Rebel kicks arse on an old fossil like the EOS D2000 or 1Ds. But then a T90 loaded with Kodak Technical Pan will wipe the floor with all of the above. Sorry if you misunderstood so I'll clarify things just for you: the FF context I was writing about revolves around current models you can purchase new at any photoshop, not your rusty 'n rustic CL/pawnshop boxes of yesteryear. So I can indeed generalize and write any FF currently made will kick the 500D's photographic arse. Nevertheless, my rough-hewn and aged 2005 5D certainly whipped my 50D red 'n bloody in terms of IQ, especially noise control at ISO 800 to 1600.</p>

[tom_burke3]

<blockquote>

<p>how do you convert and process your Raw files?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I always shoot Raw + JPeg. Until recently I was using ACR 5.7 to open the raw file and then moving to PS CS4 for finishing. This year I've switched to Lightroom 4 (now on LR4.1). For some reason I seem to be more aware of the noise in raw images in LR than I was in ACR.</p>

[david_john_appleton]

<p>YES<br>

Keith you say>>>>That sweeping statement has been disproven on here more times that tongue can tell<<<<<<< <br>

now i have seen statements like that before and when asked for links to backup such a statement you will find its very hard to find any links from anyone<strong> that's owned a FF </strong><br>

Now i am led to believe that the 7D is the best APS-C canon, here is a link from a 7D user, read the 1st post and his follow up 15 posts down<br>

<a href="http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=42067097">http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=42067097</a><br>

as you can see he is surprised by the IQ over the 7D<br>

here is a bit i cut and past from his followup</p>

<p>>>>Well, and then, there is no noise. Every pixel seems to positively contribute to the picture, that is fascinating.<br>

And then my lenses shine like never before, the 85/1.8 produces such nice separation from background.<<<<</p>

 

[hadi_khademi]

<p>Tom,<br />Have you considered using a monopod? A lot of places like museums allow use of monopods and using monopod helps immensely with controlling the camera shake (not as good as tripod), hence being able to use lower ISO and higher shutter speed. Also with a wide angle lens like 10-22 mm it is possible to get enough DOF even with larger apertures like 4.0. Try that and you get even better noise levels (due to being able to use lower ISO) to begin with. And last but not the least try to stay away as much as you can fro auto ISO; unless you can set an upper limit for auto ISO (like T4i which lets you do that). Hope this helps.</p>

[tom_burke3]

<blockquote>

<p>Have you considered using a monopod? A lot of places like museums allow use of monopods and using monopod helps immensely with controlling the camera shake (not as good as tripod)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, it's a possibility but not, I think, at this particular place (Chatsworth). They had an interesting rule - no backpacks, no shoulder bags, everything had to be hand-held (including ladies' bags). They have a lot of very old and very valuable artefacts (e.g. porcelain, pictures) on display in the rooms as you walk through them, and they're concerned about someone accidentally knocking that priceless 400-year-old plate off the 300-year-old sideboard and breaking something. It is wonderful seeing these items laid out on tables, sideboards and other surfaces pretty much as they might have looked all those years ago rather than locked away behind glass, so I'm happy to accommodate them. But I think a monopod might stretch their indulgence a bit, especially as you would also be juggling with a camera in the other hand.</p>

[PuppyDigs]

<p>I agree with Tom, most places that prohibit tripods and flash, etc., won't be very accommodating for monopods. Lucky they even allow photography. I've been to s few museums and churches where no photography was allowed and they were so paranoid you had to stow your gear in a locker if you wanted to enter. I was stopped at a historical site at Pearl Harbor and told my camera was too big to bring inside. And they also prohibited purses, backpacks and camera bags.</p>

[hadi_khademi]

<p>I guess I understand the concern of curators of those places, but generally monopods are less intimidating. </p>