Chuck Norcutt wrote:
> The noise in the 300D image is a bit amazing.
It just shows how far things have come in a relatively short time. The
10D/300D sensor/processor were quite leading edge when they came out.
> Also the exposure differences. Particularly noticeable to me in the camera
> body in the
> ISO 400 images.
I don't know what happened with the 300D iso 400 image. I though maybe I
had inadvertently put in the wrong sample, but I double checked.
> DPReview has always claimed that Canon sensors are 1/3
> stop more sensitive than the ISO rating would inidate what what I see
> looks like more than 1/3 stop difference between the two cameras.
Again, I wasn't really trying to get exposure perfect. The 300D has
limited choice of metering mode and this was using
evaluative/matrix/whatever, with -1/3 stop EV. The F30 was using spot
metering with no EV adjustment, although outdoors I usually set it at
-2/3 in the sun and -1/3 in overcast/cloudy conditions.
> Are we seeing the full frame or a cropped section?
The shots are all full pixel samples of considerably larger images.
> Is the Fuji doing a lot of noise reduction that would be recognizable by lost
> detail at high
> magnification?
>
One assumes so. One answer is in the samples I posted, a series of the
same subject, shot seconds apart, at iso 400-3200.
I started out comparing the F10 to the F30 and found that the F30 uses
less noise reduction than the F10, resulting in less detail loss at high
isos. I was not completely convinced that the test shots were right for
the F10, and was going to redo them, but the DCR review comments about
the F30 noise vs. DSLRs got me going in a different direction for the
moment. I may go back to test F10 vs. F30 vs. 300D with more care.
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|