Rebel 300D vs. 350D at ISO 1600

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <d0lhmb$7n8$1@nnrp.gol.com>, davidjl@gol.com says...
>
> Something I found over at dpreview.
>
> http://onemansstory.net/iso/iso.html
>
> http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/ [...] e=12575265
>
> David J. Littleboy
> Tokyo, Japan

This is why I love having two monitors.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

The real loser here is Oly. What's the point of the E-Volt now? The XT is a
better camera in just about every way, and smaller and lighter, too.

"David J. Littleboy" <davidjl@gol.com> wrote in message
news0lhmb$7n8$1@nnrp.gol.com...
>
> Something I found over at dpreview.
>
> http://onemansstory.net/iso/iso.html
>
> http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/ [...] e=12575265
>
> David J. Littleboy
> Tokyo, Japan
>
>
>

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Wed, 9 Mar 2005 09:59:42 +0900, "David J. Littleboy" <davidjl@gol.com> wrote:

>
>Something I found over at dpreview.
>
>http://onemansstory.net/iso/iso.html
>
>http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1031&message=12575265
>
>David J. Littleboy
>Tokyo, Japan
>

Y'know, I am inclined to think this whole kind of discussion is getting well in
to measurbation!

For a start, yes, I can see a difference between the noise levels in the two
test shots cited above. But is it significant in any real sense? I doubt it.

I did a shoot with a young lady recently, using my 300D. I was using available
light indoors, so I had to push things a bit. One shot I took at ISO1600.
Processing that photo through Raw Shooter Essentials (which BTW I love) I had to
push the shot by another 2 stops. That means the equivalent ISO is 6400! The
result, with some noise reduction in RSE yields a VERY respectable 8x10 print on
my Canon i9950. It's not cut yourself on it sharp, but IMHO very acceptable.

I've uploaded the result to http://www.splatco.com/david/RS_CRW_7977-03.jpg
sized on my screen to about the same size as the paper print on my screen, at 72
dpi (!). I reckon that's not half bad for ISO6400, in colour!

As far as I am concerned, at this level the functional features of the camera
are much more important. For my uses I crave the larger buffer and faster Flash
write of the more recent models. There are many other features I would value
over and above any lower noise.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 13:18:31 -0500, Bill <bill@c.a> wrote:

>DJ wrote:
>
>>For a start, yes, I can see a difference between the noise levels in the two
>>test shots cited above. But is it significant in any real sense? I doubt it.
>
>I think if you compare the two under very low light conditions, or even
>night shots, the results seem quite noticeable. From samples I've seen,
>the 350/XT is much better at long exposures and high ISO settings than
>the Rebel/300. Even under bright lighting, the detail is better at high
>ISO.
>
>If low light isn't your thing, it might not make a difference.

Point taken. I'd like to see some comparisons at 30s or 5m exposures.