snubbr.com

Low Light: Nikon D40 vs Canon Rebel Xti?
Hi! I'm the indecisive libra..

I had my mind made up to buy the Nikon, but I shoot a lot of bands. Now I'm hearing canon is better in low-light situations. I am doing more modeling and posed band photos, but I'm still going to be shooting bands at clubs and bars. I worry about having too much noise if I bring the nikon to a high ISO..

Maybe the difference isn't that big and it's all just the age old Nikon vs Canon war..

If I could only afford a Fuji s5....

Avyhttp://www.avygrrl.com..

Comments (47)

You can do the comparison for yourself from the reviews of the two cameras on this site:http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond40/page17.asphttp://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos400d/page17.asp.

Chris R..

Comment #1

I've read the reviews already. Thanks though. They both seem to be really good cameras, but I can't decide. I tried to find a comparison review, but could only find the Ken Rockwell comparison, which seemed to have WAY more Nikon info than canon and next to nothing on the rebel xti..

Http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/d200-d80-d70-d50-d40-5d-xti.htm.

So I figured I'd ask people here because someone may have used both..

Avyhttp://www.avygrrl.com..

Comment #2

Just found this one as well on the off chance someone else needs it....

Http://www.dcviews.com/...-Xti-Nikon-D80/Canon-Rebel-Xti-Nikon-D80-review.htm.

Avyhttp://www.avygrrl.com..

Comment #3

AvyTech wrote:.

Hi! I'm the indecisive libra..

I had my mind made up to buy the Nikon, but I shoot a lot of bands.Now I'm hearing canon is better in low-light situations. I am doingmore modeling and posed band photos, but I'm still going to beshooting bands at clubs and bars. I worry about having too much noiseif I bring the nikon to a high ISO.Maybe the difference isn't that big and it's all just the age oldNikon vs Canon war..

If I could only afford a Fuji s5....

Avyhttp://www.avygrrl.com.

Hi.

5d and up, I would get Canon...at least until the new Nikons and Sonys come out..

Below that just about any camera is ok for shooting bands...I would not use a Sony A100 or Oly before E510/410 but thats just me..

I have done thousands of band photos with my 6mp Pentaxes...they do just fine...and use same sensor as the D40. I think my K100d is a little noisier but has a little more detail than those cameras..

So any 6mp sony sensor camera or most6/8mp Canons would be fine. I would get a Canon 30d if I was going Canon...same applies though...its not really better...just different...is a higher spec camera though....as is the new 40D..

I really do not know why good iso ability has to be linked to feature set..

Try them all and get what feels right..

The Inches.

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.

Neil..

Comment #4

Both of them are pretty ok for you. You simply need to denoise picture after... with all cameras..

The rest is +- the same. Take the one you like from handling point of view..

Http://www.howtoshot.com/7/nikon-d40x-vs-canon-400d-rebel-xti/My fotoblog: http://www.howtoshot.com/My fotoblog (czech): http://fotaky.xf.cz/My photos (leazy to update anyway): http://gady.idomena.cz/..

Comment #5

AvyTech wrote:.

I had my mind made up to buy the Nikon, but I shoot a lot of bands.Now I'm hearing canon is better in low-light situations. I am doingmore modeling and posed band photos, but I'm still going to beshooting bands at clubs and bars. I worry about having too much noiseif I bring the nikon to a high ISO..

When you read all the Nikon/Canon comparisons, keep in mind that these two companies tend to deal with noise differently..

Canon had benefited from using CMOS sensors, which produce cleaner RAW data than the CCD sensors from Nikon. However, Canon has an extremely conservative approach to noise reduction. When they process their RAW sensor data to JPEG, they tend to leave a *lot* of the noise in their JPEG files. They do this to preserve as much detail as possible. Consequently, all their high-ISO image tend to retain the ugly color blotches..

Nikon, on the other hand, has a more balanced approach to noise reduction. When Nikon cameras process RAW sensor data to JPEG, they remove much of the ugly chroma noise, and only leave behind luminance noise. This gives their high-ISO noise a more appealing, "film-like" grainy look. Of course, compared to Canon they lose some detail in the process. But overall, I think Nikon's JPEG files are much better than Canon's..

If you shoot strictly JPEG, then I think the recent generation of Nikon dSLRs (D40, D80, D40x) are better than Canon's. 99% of online reviews out there compare only in-camera JPEGs between brands. Very few compare RAW noise between cameras at high ISO. Keep that in mind whenever you read those..

If you shoot RAW, then Canon holds a clear advantage over Nikon. At the RAW level, those Canon CMOS images are simply cleaner than Nikon CCD images. That's the reason Sony and Nikon have switched to CMOS sensors for their upcoming dSLR models. I've seen a few Nikon/Canon RAW files processed identically in Adobe ACR, and the difference is like night and day. Canon RAW files would hold up better when processed with popular noise reduction programs like NeatImage, NoiseWare, NoiseNinja, etc..

So if you're a JPEG shooter, Nikon would give you nicer JPEGs. If you're a RAW shooter, Canon gives you cleaner RAW files. Anyway, that's my opinion and I'm sticking to it!..

Comment #6

For low light bars and clubs, you'll probably want a bright prime or two..

Canon would have an edge in that area for now, since some of the available inexpensive Nikon primes (for example, a 50mm f/1.8) won't Autofocus on a D40 (since the D40 and D40x don't have focus motors built in like other Nikon DSLR models)..

Sigma makes a pretty nice prime for low light use that would Autofocus on a D40 (the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 EX DC HSM). But, if you wanted something a bit longer, your choices can be limiting with the D40 if you want Autofocus..

Ditto for some of the brighter third party zooms around. You'll have fewer choices with a D40 if you want Autofocus..

No current Tamron or Tokina lenses will Autofocus on a D40. You'll want Sigma's HSM or Nikon's AF-S lenses to get Autofocus (and some of these tend to cost more than available competing lenses, and you can't get some lens types at all if you need Autofocus (for example, a 50mm f/1.8)...

So, I'd decide what lenses you may need for the type of shooting you want to do before deciding on a camera body and if you can live with Manual Focus or not if you decide you need some of the brighter primes that don't have focus motors built in..

JimChttp://www.pbase.com/jcockfield..

Comment #7

Not sure about the XTI, but I recently purchased a Canon 40D...and returned it. It wasn't much cleaner at high ISO's...and I am en extemely low light shooter. My last batch was shot at either 800ISO pushed by -1.7 to -3.0 stops or ISO 1600 pushed by -2.7 stops. Just to get the shutter speed up to "usable" limits, which are about 1/10 sec with Nikons VR..

On another note. I purchased the Canon 24-105 IS with the 40D (returned that also) and compared shots taken at the same apertures with the same shutter speed and guess what. Nikons VR looks like it works twice as good as Canons. I had twice as many sharp shots with the Nikon VR lens....

Still, I'm not a "pro Nikon" guy, I'm a whatever works best guy. Go try them both. See what you like. They're both great systems. Canon wins in High ISO, just not as much as everyone would want you to believe. I so want to like Canon and go that path, but Nikon is just too good..

John..

Comment #8

PopPhoto run noise tests on each reviewed camera nowi think they are the only ones to actually measure noisehere is the results.

Noise (low numbers best score)ISO1002004008001600D40xx.x.93.981.01.0XTi 1.151.41.72.22.35K10D1.151.151.41.71.95E-5101.181.11.131.31.45Riley.

Real men get zippo haircuts..

Comment #9

Rriley wrote:.

PopPhoto run noise tests on each reviewed camera nowi think they are the only ones to actually measure noisehere is the results.

Noise (low numbers best score)ISO1002004008001600D40xx.x.93.981.01.0XTi 1.151.41.72.22.35K10D1.151.151.41.71.95E-5101.181.11.131.31.45.

Those popphoto numbers claim that the D40 @ ISO 1600 is better than the XTi @ ISO 100. Honestly... even a blind man would see that's not truly the case in the real world..

These noise tests are pretty useless because they don't tell you how much detail remains. I could take a ISO 800 photo from a cellphone camera, and with enough noise reduction it'll beat a D3 at measurable noise levels too..

What these reviewers ought to do is include a resolution chart in all their noise tests. Cameras should be graded on their ability to minimize noise while retaining as much resolution as possible. All those noise charts at popphoto (and even here at DpReview) are not only completely useless, but utterly misleading too...

Comment #10

Cs_hauser wrote:.

Rriley wrote:.

PopPhoto run noise tests on each reviewed camera nowi think they are the only ones to actually measure noisehere is the results.

Noise (low numbers best score)ISO1002004008001600D40xx.x.93.981.01.0XTi 1.151.41.72.22.35K10D1.151.151.41.71.95E-5101.181.11.131.31.45.

Those popphoto numbers claim that the D40 @ ISO 1600 is better thanthe XTi @ ISO 100. Honestly... even a blind man would see that's nottruly the case in the real world..

These noise tests are pretty useless because they don't tell you howmuch detail remains. I could take a ISO 800 photo from a cellphonecamera, and with enough noise reduction it'll beat a D3 at measurablenoise levels too..

What these reviewers ought to do is include a resolution chart in alltheir noise tests. Cameras should be graded on their ability tominimize noise while retaining as much resolution as possible. Allthose noise charts at popphoto (and even here at DpReview) are notonly completely useless, but utterly misleading too..

They measure resolution at high iso toomaybe you should actually read a review before commenting in defence.

Riley.

Real men get zippo haircuts..

Comment #11

Rriley wrote:.

Cs_hauser wrote:.

Rriley wrote:.

PopPhoto run noise tests on each reviewed camera nowi think they are the only ones to actually measure noisehere is the results.

Noise (low numbers best score)ISO1002004008001600D40xx.x.93.981.01.0XTi 1.151.41.72.22.35K10D1.151.151.41.71.95E-5101.181.11.131.31.45.

Those popphoto numbers claim that the D40 @ ISO 1600 is better thanthe XTi @ ISO 100. Honestly... even a blind man would see that's nottruly the case in the real world..

These noise tests are pretty useless because they don't tell you howmuch detail remains. I could take a ISO 800 photo from a cellphonecamera, and with enough noise reduction it'll beat a D3 at measurablenoise levels too..

What these reviewers ought to do is include a resolution chart in alltheir noise tests. Cameras should be graded on their ability tominimize noise while retaining as much resolution as possible. Allthose noise charts at popphoto (and even here at DpReview) are notonly completely useless, but utterly misleading too..

They measure resolution at high iso toomaybe you should actually read a review before commenting in defence.

Riley.

Real men get zippo haircuts.

A Pop Photo comparison of the D40 and K100d? I would be interested in seeing that...especially at Iso 1600 and 3200..

The D40 IS a good camera...its lack of AF motor limits it for band photography a bit though....which is why I would prefer a D50 or D70s ...or my Pentaxes with the same sensor..

Neil..

Comment #12

Neil holmes wrote:.

Rriley wrote:.

Cs_hauser wrote:.

Rriley wrote:.

PopPhoto run noise tests on each reviewed camera nowi think they are the only ones to actually measure noisehere is the results.

Noise (low numbers best score)ISO1002004008001600D40xx.x.93.981.01.0XTi 1.151.41.72.22.35K10D1.151.151.41.71.95E-5101.181.11.131.31.45.

Those popphoto numbers claim that the D40 @ ISO 1600 is better thanthe XTi @ ISO 100. Honestly... even a blind man would see that's nottruly the case in the real world..

These noise tests are pretty useless because they don't tell you howmuch detail remains. I could take a ISO 800 photo from a cellphonecamera, and with enough noise reduction it'll beat a D3 at measurablenoise levels too..

What these reviewers ought to do is include a resolution chart in alltheir noise tests. Cameras should be graded on their ability tominimize noise while retaining as much resolution as possible. Allthose noise charts at popphoto (and even here at DpReview) are notonly completely useless, but utterly misleading too..

They measure resolution at high iso toomaybe you should actually read a review before commenting in defence.

Riley.

Real men get zippo haircuts.

A Pop Photo comparison of the D40 and K100d? I would be interestedin seeing that...especially at Iso 1600 and 3200..

The D40 IS a good camera...its lack of AF motor limits it for bandphotography a bit though....which is why I would prefer a D50 or D70s...or my Pentaxes with the same sensor..

Neil there isnt a comparison as such, you have to get the results from each reviewRiley.

Real men get zippo haircuts..

Comment #13

Rriley wrote:.

Noise (low numbers best score)ISO1002004008001600D40xx.x.93.981.01.0XTi 1.151.41.72.22.35K10D1.151.151.41.71.95E-5101.181.11.131.31.45.

They measure resolution at high iso toomaybe you should actually read a review before commenting in defence.

Don't have to. If they say any of those cameras have less noise at ISO 1600 than any of them at ISO 400, mush less 100, they are obviously wrong...

Comment #14

Clint Sanders wrote:.

Rriley wrote:.

Noise (low numbers best score)ISO1002004008001600D40xx.x.93.981.01.0XTi 1.151.41.72.22.35K10D1.151.151.41.71.95E-5101.181.11.131.31.45.

They measure resolution at high iso toomaybe you should actually read a review before commenting in defence.

Don't have to. If they say any of those cameras have less noise atISO 1600 than any of them at ISO 400, mush less 100, they areobviously wrong..

They say about their noise tests.

"Noise. We determine a camera's noise level at various ISO settings by shooting an FBI SIQT v.1.0 target and analyzing a 100x100-pixel square in the center of the large middletone gray patch. Using Adobe Photoshop's histogram function, we average the standard deviations of the luminosity, R, G, and B channels, and base our rating on the scale at right.".

At iso 1600.

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.

Riley.

Real men get zippo haircuts..

Comment #15

Rriley wrote:.

They say about their noise tests"Noise. We determine a camera's noise level at various ISO settingsby shooting an FBI SIQT v.1.0 target and analyzing a 100x100-pixelsquare in the center of the large middletone gray patch. Using AdobePhotoshop's histogram function, we average the standard deviations ofthe luminosity, R, G, and B channels, and base our rating on thescale at right.".

At iso 1600.

So they don't take into account resolution..

Http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/noise.htm.

Look at the pics, that will tell you what you need to know...

Comment #16

Would give you a dam clue.

Clint Sanders wrote:.

Rriley wrote:.

They say about their noise tests"Noise. We determine a camera's noise level at various ISO settingsby shooting an FBI SIQT v.1.0 target and analyzing a 100x100-pixelsquare in the center of the large middletone gray patch. Using AdobePhotoshop's histogram function, we average the standard deviations ofthe luminosity, R, G, and B channels, and base our rating on thescale at right.".

At iso 1600.

So they don't take into account resolution..

PopPhoto E-510 review.

The most dramatic improvements gained from shooting in RAW mode can be seen in the differing noise levels in RAW and JPEG images shot at ISOs from 100 to 1600. In that range, JPEG noise levels ranged from Very Low (1.5) to Low (1.8) impressive results, especially considering that the camera's builtin noise reduction barely affects image resolution, maintaining an average 1890 lines and an Excellent resolution rating at ISO 1600..

Yet RAW images at ISO 1600 were even better, showing noise levels nearly identical to JPEG images shot at ISO 100, for a noise rating of Very Low. Although resolution at ISO 1600 dropped about 10 percent, it still averaged above 1700 lines, earning it an Excellent rating. At ISO 100 to 400, noise ratings for RAW files were Extremely Low; resolution was slightly higher at ISO 100..

Are we there yet ?Riley.

Real men get zippo haircuts..

Comment #17

I can't read their test if it isn't linked..

"Yet RAW images at ISO 1600 were even better, showing noise levels nearly identical to JPEG images shot at ISO 100, for a noise rating of Very Low.".

That makes no sense. JPEG is derived from raw. If the RAW file had NR done, it would show up in the JPEG. Makes one wonder if they are measuring JPEG artifacts as noise, which would be retarded..

The cameras listed are so close, that none produce noisier images at 400 than any other one at 1600. If a test says otherwise, the test is clearly flawed..

Http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/noise.htm..

Comment #18

Would give you a dam clue.

PopPhoto E-510 reviewThe most dramatic improvements gained from shooting in RAW mode canbe seen in the differing noise levels in RAW and JPEG images shot atISOs from 100 to 1600. In that range, JPEG noise levels ranged fromVery Low (1.5) to Low (1.8).

They just listed the noise rating..

The camera's builtin noise reduction barely affectsimage resolution, maintaining an average 1890 lines and an Excellentresolution rating at ISO 1600..

And this is the resolution rating, and it is SEPARATE from noise..

Are we there yet ? .

Are we? Since they rate noise and resolution separately, they both should be listed to approach anything meaningful..

Although comparing pictures would be the best route, as their measuring metric is clearly flawed...

Comment #19

Clint Sanders wrote:.

Would give you a dam clue.

PopPhoto E-510 reviewThe most dramatic improvements gained from shooting in RAW mode canbe seen in the differing noise levels in RAW and JPEG images shot atISOs from 100 to 1600. In that range, JPEG noise levels ranged fromVery Low (1.5) to Low (1.8).

They just listed the noise rating..

The camera's builtin noise reduction barely affectsimage resolution, maintaining an average 1890 lines and an Excellentresolution rating at ISO 1600..

And this is the resolution rating, and it is SEPARATE from noise..

Are we there yet ? .

Are we? Since they rate noise and resolution separately, they bothshould be listed to approach anything meaningful..

How come you edited this bit out?.

Yet RAW images at ISO 1600 were even better, showing noise levels nearly identical to JPEG images shot at ISO 100, for a noise rating of Very Low. Although resolution at ISO 1600 dropped about 10 percent, it still averaged above 1700 lines, earning it an Excellent rating. At ISO 100 to 400, noise ratings for RAW files were Extremely Low; resolution was slightly higher at ISO 100..

Did it make you look wrong ? .

Although comparing pictures would be the best route, as theirmeasuring metric is clearly flawed..

No matter, clearly you have a better site that measures noise. I would be happy to see it..

Riley.

Real men get zippo haircuts..

Comment #20

Sony A700 will be a winner for event photography..

I'm shoting with Minolta 7D, camera body stabilization with fast primes is best setting in my opinion..

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.

Http://www.stan-pustylnik.smugmug.com..

Comment #21

Rriley wrote:.

How come you edited this bit out?.

Yet RAW images at ISO 1600 were even better, showing noise levelsnearly identical to JPEG images shot at ISO 100, for a noise ratingof Very Low. Although resolution at ISO 1600 dropped about 10percent, it still averaged above 1700 lines, earning it an Excellentrating. At ISO 100 to 400, noise ratings for RAW files were ExtremelyLow; resolution was slightly higher at ISO 100..

Did it make you look wrong ? .

Did it make me look wrong? No. It lists their noise rating and resolution rating as separate measurements from seperate tests. It backs my claim..

Your listing of noise ratings from the magazine was their measurements from their NOISE test. That test did not take into account resolution, as per how THEY say THEY run the test. They do the resolution test SEPARATELY..

You really suck at reading comprehension don't you?..

Comment #22

Thanks for the feedback. I have a Canon Rebel 2000 + lens at home and have the opportunity to buy an XTi body (new) for a lower price. I found the D40 to be just what I wanted, but heard the Canons are better for what I like to do with bands. I think I'm going to the Canon side because of cost and ISO. I hate being so stuck between 2 great choices. Falling into the megapixel crock, the XTi is 10.1 so I can say yay to that and the ability to use both Canon AND Nikon/Nikkor lenses.

Avyhttp://www.avygrrl.com..

Comment #23

Thanks .

I currently use a Fuji s7000 and it's noisy at higher ISOs. This is a 6.3MP camera with CCD that records approx 12MP if those numbers matter right now. I shoot in very dark clubs and sometimes the lighting just plain sucks. I took photos of a friend's band just for fun a lil bit ago and could get nothin special on one of the guitarists. It was frustrating. I think cleaner shots using higher ISOs would help.

Not sure if I'd use it too much, what ith the annoying rapid flash....

I tested the D40 in a store, but not on the field. Avyhttp://www.avygrrl.com..

Comment #24

Thank you so much. I'm still learning a lot about lenses and this was one things that concerned me about the D40. I read that it only uses AF-S and that just scared me. I keep going back to the Canon..

So far I only need the lens I have (28-80 from my rebel 2000), a fisheye and a wide-angle. I'll be able to build on that later..

I found this helpful site this morning...http://www.bobatkins.com/.../photography/reviews/best_canon_eos_lenses.html.

Avyhttp://www.avygrrl.com..

Comment #25

I'd probably get the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 EX DC HSM, no matter what camera you choose if budget could stand it for smaller clubs and bars..

Or, go with a 35mm f/1.4, or 35mm f/2 (only half as bright as f/1.4), or a bright 50mm.(f/1.8, f/1.4), depending on what you can afford. I'd lean towards the wider lenses for smaller venues..

A 30mm like Sigma offers should be about right for small clubs and bars (works how to roughly the same angle of view you'd have using a 45 lens on a 35mm camera with the entry level DSLR models from Nikon, Pentax and Sony; or around the same angle of view you'd have using a 48mm lens on a Canon DSLR with an APS-C size sensor..

Then, use your feet for zoom (move closer or further away for the desired framing)..

Then, get something longer later as budget permits so you'll have more versatility (I'd get a 50mm next and an 85mm or 100mm after that)..

You can can much brighter primes than you can zooms. A lens like the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 is 4 times as bright as a high end zoom with f/2.8 available, allowing shutter speeds 4 times as fast for any given lighting and ISO speed compared to a lens with only f/2.8 available (or, you could use lower ISO speeds to get the same shutter speeds you'd have with a dimmer lens)..

Or, if you have an even better budget, look at the new Sony DSLR-A700. It will have ISO speeds up to ISO 6400 (native through ISO 3200, boost to ISO 6400), a super fast AFsystem, stabilization for all of your lenses and more. Here's a neat flash presentation on it:.

Http://www.sony.co.uk/.../xml/xmlfile/52/1187079498952.xml&bandwidth=high.

JimChttp://www.pbase.com/jcockfield..

Comment #26

Clint Sanders wrote:.

Rriley wrote:.

How come you edited this bit out?.

Yet RAW images at ISO 1600 were even better, showing noise levelsnearly identical to JPEG images shot at ISO 100, for a noise ratingof Very Low. Although resolution at ISO 1600 dropped about 10percent, it still averaged above 1700 lines, earning it an Excellentrating. At ISO 100 to 400, noise ratings for RAW files were ExtremelyLow; resolution was slightly higher at ISO 100..

Did it make you look wrong ? .

Did it make me look wrong? No. It lists their noise rating andresolution rating as separate measurements from seperate tests. Itbacks my claim..

Your listing of noise ratings from the magazine was theirmeasurements from their NOISE test. That test did not take intoaccount resolution, as per how THEY say THEY run the test. They dothe resolution test SEPARATELY..

You really suck at reading comprehension don't you?.

What part of.

"Although resolution at ISO 1600 dropped about 10 percent, it still averaged above 1700 lines"isnt about RESOLUTION.

And this about D40.

The Nikon applies noise reduction in a distinct chunk around ISO 800, resulting in lower noise than at ISO 400 along with a noticeable dip in resolution..

HOW would they know that if they didnt measure RESOLUTION at the same time.

Riley.

Real men get zippo haircuts..

Comment #27

Rriley wrote:.

What part of"Although resolution at ISO 1600 dropped about 10 percent, it stillaveraged above 1700 lines"isnt about RESOLUTION.

And this about D40The Nikon applies noise reduction in a distinct chunk around ISO 800,resulting in lower noise than at ISO 400 along with a noticeabledip in resolution..

HOW would they know that if they didnt measure RESOLUTION at the sametime.

Yeah..

They measure resolution at different ISO settings and they measure noise at those same settings. They do both at the same time. The same way I can step on a scale and read my weight and my watch at the same time..

My time measurement doesn't effect my weight measurement..

Their resolution measurement doesn't affect their noise measurement...

Comment #28

I would go K100D super and get the FA35 and FA50. The 35 is better than the sigma, lighter and less expensive..

The 6MP pentax's are also better at high ISO and they use no Noise Reduction. AS is also a great thing..

ISO 3200, No NR.

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window..

Comment #29

Clint Sanders wrote:.

Rriley wrote:.

What part of"Although resolution at ISO 1600 dropped about 10 percent, it stillaveraged above 1700 lines"isnt about RESOLUTION.

And this about D40The Nikon applies noise reduction in a distinct chunk around ISO 800,resulting in lower noise than at ISO 400 along with a noticeabledip in resolution..

HOW would they know that if they didnt measure RESOLUTION at the sametime.

Yeah..

They measure resolution at different ISO settings and they measurenoise at those same settings. They do both at the same time. Thesame way I can step on a scale and read my weight and my watch at thesame time..

My time measurement doesn't effect my weight measurement..

Their resolution measurement doesn't affect their noise measurement..

Originally you said this:.

What these reviewers ought to do is include a resolution chart in all their noise tests. Cameras should be graded on their ability to minimize noise while retaining as much resolution as possible. All those noise charts at popphoto (and even here at DpReview) are not only completely useless, but utterly misleading too..

Knowing how much resolution falls at iso, and making a statement about it is the same thing. I am not persuaded by your argument.

Riley.

Real men get zippo haircuts..

Comment #30

Anyway, whoever said that said they should include it WITH their noise test...

Comment #31

I'd go with the XTi and the 17-85 IS. Also, the Canon can use a fast primes, which is not an option with the Nikon D40/D40x..

I'm a loyal Nikon shooter, but those two lenses make the Canon a better choice for you...

Comment #32

Thanks. After taking in a LOT of advice and tech info, I'm going with the Xti. The ability to use Canon AND Nikon lenses also helped, because there is a Nikon lens I really want to get someday kinda-soon. I'm sure there will be others, but this one is very much the epitome of what I'll need. (18-135mm... sadly I can't afford 18-200mm) Avyhttp://www.avygrrl.com..

Comment #33

Both photos are at pretty high ISO, and are generally nice, but I noticed the noise straight away in the first picture. I want to make a number of my photos poster-sized, so that Pentax won't do. Did you auto or manual focus?I really like the 2nd picture. No good reason why. Just makes me smile. Avyhttp://www.avygrrl.com..

Comment #34

I have made ISO 1600 posters. They look great. In fact, I sold one for a few hundred dollars. If you are refering to the slight grain in the red. Please do not pick nits, since this is a lot cleaner than ISO 400 print film. You also have to realize that the camera is not using any noise reduction, while Nikon needs it when using the same sensor.

If I want something to look like a cartoon, I will draw it myself. Even then, they can not compete from ISO 400 on up with any of their APS DSLR's. If you want better high ISO performance, the next step up would be a Canon 5D, which is at least 5 times the price. For me, I learned to accept a little grain in order to retain the resolution and better tonality. Even then, a decent ISO 1600 exposure will make a large print that does appear to be clean...

Comment #35

Thank you! I decided to go the canon route. I have a 28-80mm from my rebel 2000 I can use. I'm also buying a 24mm macro and a 70-210mm (with another canon rebl slr) for $175 at lunch. Hopefully they're still in good condition. I know he's underselling the hell out of them. (He can't use them because he went digital with nikon)..

I may buy an XT kit instead if something happens with my finances. From what I understand, the upgrades aren't that huge. Hopefully I can still get the XTi when the time comes..

Avyhttp://www.avygrrl.com..

Comment #36

I forget where I read it (here/kenrockwell/other?), but Canon was noted as having the ability to use Nikon lenses in addition to their own..

If that was false info, no big deal to me. I just thought it was pretty sweet. Avyhttp://www.avygrrl.com..

Comment #37

It wasn't the red I noticed, but the bananas themselves. They looked fuzzy-grainy in the spaces around each other. I don't know if this image is a crop or full-size, but if it's full size, I think that graininess would show in a poster print. If it's just a crop, then I'm sure it wouldn't..

I've taken plenty of photos on my s7000 that have crops that look the a little grainy, but print 11 x 14 (and 12 x 16) just fine. It's not about cartoony lines or looking false. I want to take a picture of a kid blowing bubbles and SEE the bubble in print as I saw it in life. If I'm going to upgrade, I want to seriously upgrade in quality as much as I can for my budget..

I'm not very knowledgeable with the Pentax line, but I know Fuji, Canon and Nikon. When I first posted, my choice was between the latter two and Canon has won. Avyhttp://www.avygrrl.com..

Comment #38

Canon, Nikon and Pentax take different approaches. C uses NR to the point that it smooths out fine detail and texture, then sharpens it so the high contrast edges stand out. Finer things like texture of cloth, shading across objects gets wiped out..

Nikon uses NR on the D40 but the Sony sensor has very little inherent noise. It appears to me that the Nikon circuitry adds noise that later needs to be removed..

Pentax takes a hands off approach and uses no NR at all. One does get some noise at higher ISO but it actually is no more and most of the time less than what a 30D produces. Of course, fine detail and texture are preserved while it is wiped out on the C..

As far as the bananas, there are spots on the bananas but the noise appears on the darker plate. I do apologize for any fuzziness, since I took too long of an exposure for the focal length used..

As I mentioned before, I have made posters from ISO 1600 pictures and they were nice! ..

Comment #39

AvyTech wrote:.

I forget where I read it (here/kenrockwell/other?), but Canon wasnoted as having the ability to use Nikon lenses in addition to theirown..

Not directly. There are adapters, but I doubt you would keep autofocus or even metering..

Canon will undoubtedly come out with something similar to the 18-135, probably with IS. The Nikon 18-200VR is nice, but is way over your budget. It and a D40 would be about $1300...

Comment #40

Dangit. I thought it was a direct connection. Ah well. Thanks for saving me the embarassment of a wasted trip..

Avyhttp://www.avygrrl.com..

Comment #41

You can't go wrong with either the Canon 400D or the Nikon D40. My recommendation is to go with the one that feels most comfortable. That way you will take more photos, learn more features, and become more skilled..

I included my personal file for each of the cameras you are looking at. That way you will have all the documentation and customer service links in one place..

Http://personafile.com/...l-Rebel-Xti-10.1-Megapixel-18-55mm-013803066104.htm.

Http://personafile.com/....2-Megapixel-Digital-Camera-D40X-P0182080000114.htm.

A Few Of My Favorite:http://personafile.com/kcair/public..

Comment #42

Thanks for the reply..

I actually bought the XT for a nice price. The Xti wasn't worth the higher price to me (for my needs).So far, I'm in love with my XT!.

Avyhttp://flickr.com/photos/avytechhttp://photos.avygrrl.com..

Comment #43

Which lenses are you opting to use now with your XT..

Your q did help me reach to conclude for XTi so far..

Thanx and enjoy your shooting spreee..

Comment #44

Oh I use the kit lens and the 28-80 kit lens from my Rebel 2000 (film)..

I also bought the 50mm f/1.8 because everyone's been raving about it. At only $80, it was easy to just buy it. I'd have just blown the money on something stupid (clothes, more make-up, etc) anyway. So far so good!.

If you're interested, I started a thread about my gear plans. I research every little detail like crazy and so far know exactly what I want. Maybe it'll help you a little at least to start..

Http://forums.dpreview.com/...forums/read.asp?forum=1031&message=25314461.

Have fun!.

Avyhttp://flickr.com/photos/avytechhttp://photos.avygrrl.com..

Comment #45

I like both cameras... but here is my recommendation. I always go with the one that feels most comfortable. That way you will take more pictures, learn more features, and become a better photographer. I included my personal files for both cameras. That way you have access to the documentation, reviews, and cusomer support links for the camera you decide to purchase..

Http://personafile.com/...6.1-Megapixel-Digital-Camera-D40-P0182080000113.htm.

Http://personafile.com/...l-Rebel-Xti-10.1-Megapixel-18-55mm-013803066104.htm.

All the best,.

NautiqueA Few Of My Favorite:http://personafile.com/kcair/public..

Comment #46

So if you're a JPEG shooter, Nikon would give you nicer JPEGs. Ifyou're a RAW shooter, Canon gives you cleaner RAW files. Anyway,that's my opinion and I'm sticking to it!.

Agreed, though if you read the 40D review you'll see that it now offers a Nikon-like high ISO noise reduction option:.

Http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos40d/page19.asp.

Which basically does heavier chroma noise reduction like Nikon. As you implied, in the case of RAW, all of this is moot because you'll do noise reduction in post..

Considering all this, I think the 40D gives the best of both worldsgreat RAW files and the option to have low-noise (but lower-detail) or high-detail (but nosier) JPEGs...

Comment #47

Click Here to View All...

Sponsored Amazon Deals:

1. Get big savings on Amazon warehouse deals.
2. Save up to 70% on Amazon Products.


This question was taken from a support group/message board and re-posted here so others can learn from it.

 

Categories: Home | Diet & Weight Management | Vitamins & Supplements | Herbs & Cleansing |

Sexual Health | Medifast Support | Nutrisystem Support | Medifast Questions |

Web Hosting | Web Hosts | Website Hosting | Hosting |

Web Hosting | GoDaddy | Digital Cameras | Best WebHosts |

Web Hosting FAQ | Web Hosts FAQ | Hosting FAQ | Hosting Group |

Hosting Questions | Camera Tips | Best Cameras To Buy | Best Cameras This Year |

Camera Q-A | Digital Cameras Q-A | Camera Forum | Nov 2010 - Cameras |

Oct 2010 - Cameras | Oct 2010 - DSLRs | Oct 2010 - Camera Tips | Sep 2010 - Cameras |

Sep 2010 - DSLRS | Sep 2010 - Camera Tips | Aug 2010 - Cameras | Aug 2010 - DSLR Tips |

Aug 2010 - Camera Tips | July 2010 - Cameras | July 2010 - Nikon Cameras | July 2010 - Canon Cameras |

July 2010 - Pentax Cameras | Medifast Recipes | Medifast Recipes Tips | Medifast Recipes Strategies |

Medifast Recipes Experiences | Medifast Recipes Group | Medifast Recipes Forum | Medifast Support Strategies |

Medifast Support Experiences |

 

(C) Copyright 2010 All rights reserved.