Is anyone else seeing a difference in the noise levels between 1D copies?
lexvo has his legendary 1D with amazingly clean ISO 1600 performance.
My camera looks a bit noisier at 1000 than lexvo's 1600.
The OP's samples at 1000, particularly the 4th and 6th images he posted, look pretty noisy. The 4th image looks like it was drawn with crayons while the 6th image looks like someone went at it with sandpaper.
The color blotchiness in the OP's samples cleans up very nicely in ACR with even a slight amount of NR.
Ariel Bravy wrote:
Is anyone else seeing a difference in the noise levels between 1D copies? lexvo has his legendary 1D with amazingly clean ISO 1600 performance. My camera looks a bit noisier at 1000 than lexvo's 1600. The OP's samples at 1000, particularly the 4th and 6th images he posted, look pretty noisy. The 4th image looks like it was drawn with crayons while the 6th image looks like someone went at it with sandpaper. The color blotchiness in the OP's samples cleans up very nicely in ACR with even a slight amount of NR.
Drawn with crayons? Went at it with sandpaper? Not even remotely like that on my monitor. Noise, where present, is so far below the "objectionable" level that it would be hard to detect these were taken with the 1D. Craziness...
veroman wrote:
Drawn with crayons? Went at it with sandpaper? Not even remotely like that on my monitor. Noise, where present, is so far below the "objectionable" level that it would be hard to detect these were taken with the 1D. Craziness...
- Steve
I agree with you Steve even though I am only looking at them on a 17 inch laptop monitor (calibrated), I don't see what Ariel is seeing. Just normal low light 1D noise. Not the type that would show in prints at all.
Chuck Westfall of Canon commenting on an inquiry about the 1D:
INQUIRY:
"I have owned / extensively used a number of Canon DSLRs, including the 1D, 1D2, Rebel, Rebel XT, Rebel XTi, and 20D. I continue to notice over the years that when looking at screen saver photos, shots taken with my ID are very often noticeably sharper than any of the other cameras. The degree of this phenomenon continues to surprise me. You have previously advised that the 1D's AA filter was less aggressive than newer models. My understanding is that increasing the sharpness setting, when shooting JPEGs would, to some degree, counter the newer, more aggressive AA filters. My question is whether increasing sharpness to maximum on newer models would theoretically achieve the equivalent level of AA filtering on the 1D, and whether such a degree of sharpening would be expected to have a significant negative impact on image quality in other respects, such as moire, noise, etc.?"
WESTFALL'S RESPONSE:
"It's difficult to make a valid comparison between the EOS-1D and other EOS Digital SLRs, if for no other reason than the fact that the original 1D at 4 megapixels had the lowest resolution of any EOS Digital except for the 3.1MP EOS D30 back in 2000. In order to make any comparison as fair as possible for all the cameras involved, we'd have to settle on a fixed output size, such as a 13 x 19 inch print, so that we're not throwing away the higher resolution of the newer cameras before we compare. Under those conditions, I'd say that any current EOS Digital model would outperform the original 1D in terms of overall image quality including sharpness and noise, assuming equal in-camera sharpness and ISO settings, etc. You wouldn't even have to change the newer camera's default sharpness settings to see the improvements, although raising the sharpness settings on a newer camera would increase its advantage over the original 1D. The higher the resolution of the newer camera, the greater its overall sharpness would be on a 13 x 19 inch print, all else being equal. The same logic would even extend to a screensaver image, as long as the image data is downsampled properly. Note that I am not saying the original EOS-1D was a slouch by any means. I am saying, though, that current EOS cameras are much better in terms of image quality including sharpness and noise levels."
veroman wrote:
Drawn with crayons? Went at it with sandpaper? Not even remotely like that on my monitor. Noise, where present, is so far below the "objectionable" level that it would be hard to detect these were taken with the 1D. Craziness...
As is, I find this image completely unusable, and believe me, I'm a fan of the 1D.
You said these were JPEGs straight out of the camera. I'm used to looking at RAWs in ACR which does a wonderful job of cleaning out the chroma noise in the images. Without the NR, the images from the 1D tend have much more visible chroma noise.
The whole left side of that image is just plain nasty, something I'd expect at maybe 3200 on the 1D, but at 1000? Nuh uh.
Have you tried doing some NR on the full size image?
LCollector wrote:
Sadly, OP, apart from the first image, all your images are pretty noisy !! Clearly, you didn't need the superior AF abilities of a 1 D for the posted pictures. Well, if it does really make you feel good to own an original 1D, enjoy ! :-)
I just love it when someone jumps in an makes a statement that's so silly that it makes me laugh. I guess if it really makes you feel good to post such rubbish then enjoy!
Ariel Bravy wrote:
As is, I find this image completely unusable, and believe me, I'm a fan of the 1D. You said these were JPEGs straight out of the camera. I'm used to looking at RAWs in ACR which does a wonderful job of cleaning out the chroma noise in the images. Without the NR, the images from the 1D tend have much more visible chroma noise. The whole left side of that image is just plain nasty, something I'd expect at maybe 3200 on the 1D, but at 1000? Nuh uh. Have you tried doing some NR on the full size image?...Show more →
They're JPEGs because that's what I happened to shoot that day. I usually shoot RAW. But it wasn't straight out of camera. There was some tweaking in Photoshop, including a little shadow lifting and brightening, which revealed a bit of noise.
If the left side looks "nasty" to you, it's because you're looking at it backlit and probably on a monitor that's way brighter than mine. MOST monitors are way too bright. Mine is calibrated to the rest of my system so that when I print, what I see on my monitor is exactly what comes out of my Epson. In the case of this image, when printed at 300dpi at its native size, the noise simply disappears ... as it does with my other "noisy," "nasty" cameras, ie Nikon D2x, Kodak SLR/c, Canon D60 and D1.
Treebeard, honestly, buddy....read some other comments from Ariel and a couple other folks. His photos DO HAVE A LOT OF NOISE !!! Plain and simple... I have a 20-20 eyesight, and am proud of it. It sure does help in figuring out what a great pic looks like. Also, I can clearly isolate dirty photos. Not sure why you are so hung up on my comment, truth is usually bitter.
Also, if one is so proud to give kudos to a great camera, please please post some decent pictures. ...otherwise, it's an insult to a great camera.
Actually I have 20-20 vision as well, or maybe it's 15-30 or perhaps 17-40? Not sure but I still think it's funny.....and I am not hung up on your comment....and I still think it's funny.
Good heavens, I thought we were here to appreciate some good ol' 1D photos, not get hung up on some noise. For heavens sake this is 5+ year old technology, and is still the choice of working journalists. Someone does not buy a 1D for 5D2 low-noise capabilities. They buy it because they love the quality and character the photos produce. Enough about the noise.
Zander Alberts wrote:
Someone does not buy a 1D for 5D2 low-noise capabilities. They buy it because they love the quality and character the photos produce.
Precisely put. Indeed, I have shots from my film days that have considerably more grain and grit than anything I've posted here, yet no one ever complained about it or made comment. Whatever noise the 1D produces is, to me, part of the camera's quality and character, as you put it.
Want to see really, really nasty noise? Take a look at a pic shot with a Sigma SD9 or SD10 at ISO 400, then brightened somewhat. There's no "quality or character" to those images ... just red, blue and green blotches that look like a bad case of acne or some such other skin ailment. The noise of the 1D and the 1Ds is quite film like by comparison and therefore not too objectionable, if at all.
I love the camera, plain and simple. It has its issues, but overall, it makes solid images and just keeps on working. It's over a third of my age, after all...
LCollector wrote:
if one is so proud to give kudos to a great camera, please please post some decent pictures .... otherwise, it's an insult to a great camera.
I believe I have. And if I haven't, then certainly others contributing to this thread have.
I've always found the focusing on the 'ol 1D to be brilliant and still a huge step up from the x0D series cameras. These images were shot on a blind bend where you could only hear them coming, then you had a split second to point, shoot a few frames and then they were gone. They were doing in excess of 100mph...
veroman wrote:
But it wasn't straight out of camera. There was some tweaking in Photoshop, including a little shadow lifting and brightening, which revealed a bit of noise.
Now that's a totally different story. Properly exposed images don't have too much of a noise issue. Start bumping the exposure and you'll get the nastiness demonstrated in your images.
and no... it's not a brightness issue, unless the calibrated monitor I've been using for years suddenly is too bright when viewing your images and only your images.
Nevertheless, it's good to hear that the noise disappears when you make a print.
Anyways, thanks for demonstrating one of the main limitations of the 1D: It's not so hot when it comes to pushing high ISO shots.
With that said, let's return to our regularly scheduled program of enjoying the 1D awesomeness.
Stage lighting at ISO 1000. It's a JPEG straight out of the camera:
Taylor Barrett wrote:
Gotta agree with Ariel. The noise on the left side is nasty. The Japonais sign (the subject) looks fine but the shadows are very bad, even for a 1d.
Ok ... I'll remove it then. No need to represent the 1D in a less-than-appropriate way.
1D is fantastic.
I would never consider selling mine if it could get better battery life and a bigger LCD with zoom. My only two peeves with this camera.
Move it's CCD sensor into a 1D2 body
