CANON 40D High ISO examples.

[glsammy]

Matt (matt_xyz) and I have been taking about the ISO performance of the 40D. I've only had the camera a few days but I was impressed by the low noise when using high ISO settings, and shooting JPEGs.
Matt pointed me to a review where they showed that the 40D is actually slightly noisier than the 20D, when shooting RAW. A very interesting link Matt.
Today I went out and took some shots in RAW. My initial impression is that the noise is in some way different rather than worse. Hard to be exact, but I certainly prefer the images from the 40D at ISO 1000 and 1250 than the 20D at 800.
What is evident is the greater detail that shows through, which to me is far more important.
Here's a few examples:

Here's an ISO 1000 shot, full frame.



Here's a cropped version:

I regard that as a heavy crop, yet look at the amount of detail on the bird.

Here's an ISO 1250 example:



Again this is a large cropped image, The bird is as far away from me as the blue tit was.
I find these very pleasing noise levels. Yes noise reduction has been done, but at a lower level than I would do with an ISO 800 version from my 20D.

Another 1250 image:



And another:



Now a ISO 1000 one:



The light levels were not that good for any of these, as you can tell by looking at the shutter speeds and apertures I used with these high ISO shots.

If the noise is greater, it's of a type and level that to me is very pleasing to the eye, I would certainly rate these as good if not better than any ISO 800 I've taken with the 20D.

Another difference I'm noticing, the 40D seems to meter more accurately than the 20D. I would always start with -1/3 stop exposure compensation with the 20D. I'm getting the same results with the 40D with no compensation. All the above were taken with no exposure compensation, except the blue tit, which I applied just -1/3 stop as the sun had just come out and I feared the white could be burnt out. With the 20D, I'd be applying at least -2/3 stops in the same situation. Even the Great Tit is OK at 0 Compensation, something I would rarely if ever get right if I used that setting on the 20D.

[Ollie]

Interesting experiment Graham. if you hadn't stated the high ISO's used I don't think I would have noticed.

The 40D definitely seems to deal with noise better than the 20D or the 400D for that matter when shooting RAW, and it does seem to have kept the detail in the bird itself very well.

If I had tried 0 compensation on a Great Tit with the 400D it would most surely have burnt the white out.

Roger

[matt_xyz]

nice shots Graham and I agree the noise looks pretty good to me. It would be interesting to see them without any NR. Did you remove the noise with Neat Image or using Lightroom?

There certainly seems to be plenty of detail.

Matt

[glsammy]

Originally Posted by matt_xyz

nice shots Graham and I agree the noise looks pretty good to me. It would be interesting to see them without any NR. Did you remove the noise with Neat Image or using Lightroom?

There certainly seems to be plenty of detail.

Matt

Purely Lightroom, at default settings.
I'll prepare a couple with nothing done, but that isn't going to be totally fair as I've always used noise reduction. What I find pleasing is that when finished the images have more detail in them. Of course the 40D has more pixels, perhaps that's the real difference?

[MeadsMan]

Using software to upgrade an image with good affect,still seems to escape me ,but the cropped photo looks much sharper than the uncropped version,wich technically dosn`t add up ? Did you sharpen the cropped image more ? Secondly shooting at the higher Iso settings,would you get a decent print using such high settings ? And to what size ? Don`t get me wrong,they are great photos,and one at a high iso is better than none at all,but how does the quality really hold up,if you were to make prints from these ?

Regards Mark.

[glsammy]

Here's a naked version of the Great Tit. Nothing done to it at all, as is plain to see!

[glsammy]

Originally Posted by MeadsMan

Using software to upgrade an image with good affect,still seems to escape me ,but the cropped photo looks much sharper than the uncropped version,wich technically dosn`t add up ? Did you sharpen the cropped image more ? Secondly shooting at the higher Iso settings,would you get a decent print using such high settings ? And to what size ? Don`t get me wrong,they are great photos,and one at a high iso is better than none at all,but how does the quality really hold up,if you were to make prints from these ?

Regards Mark.

Mark, the full frame shot has had nothing done to it at all. No noise reduction, no sharpening no balancing. The cropped version has had all of those actions done, hence the difference. I only loaded the full frame to show how far I'd cropped it.

With DSLR's especially if your shooting RAW, you MUST edit the images or your in for a life of disappointment. That's the whole purpose of RAW, it's RAW data, nothing being done to it. Your the one expected to do the rest.
If you don't want to do anything, then your only option is to shoot JPEG, with one of the cameras Picture styles selected. If you do this, then the camera will apply what it thinks is the correct level of sharpness, colour etc. I'd rather not let the camera do this but do it myself.
In the Canon Menu, it even tells you this on your picture style menu choices. If you choose Neutral, it says that you should apply your own balances in software later.
It's one of the main benefits of DSLR's. Users of compacts have it done for them in camera and once the camera has done it, your stuck with it. Not so with RAW. If I wish to alter the style of the image I can always go back and do so.

As for prints, they'd be just fine. The full sized versions look much better than the reduced ones here. Once you've reduced them to screen size you lose a lot of the fine detail which is clearly evident on the full or larger sized version.

[MeadsMan]

That looks the way most of my photos do,but I shoot on low iso settings generally You can certainly bring out the best,with your photoshop techniques Graham.

[matt_xyz]

Originally Posted by glsammy

Here's a naked version of the Great Tit. Nothing done to it at all, as is plain to see!

Graham that still looks very good for ISO 1250. I'm sure an average ISO 800 shot from my 400D or 30D would look worse than that. The noise seems finer somehow.

Matt

[glsammy]

Originally Posted by matt_xyz

Graham that still looks very good for ISO 1250. I'm sure an average ISO 800 shot from my 400D or 30D would look worse than that. The noise seems finer somehow.

Matt

Yep, that's pretty well what I thought. I'm just going to check to make sure I've uploaded the correct one, I've got so many copies of these shots lying about I could have uploaded the wrong one!

Whoops! It wasn't the right one.

This is it, the noise looks more like it should now..




It still doesn't look at all bad to me though, as it's ISO 1250.