Get a Canon XTI with a good lens or 40d with included lens?

[punchkin]

Originally posted by: soydios

Originally posted by: foghorn67

Originally posted by: punchkin
No, not at all. The camera seems to destroy a huge amount of detail at higher ISOs. Check out the bicyclist picture at ISO 1600, for example.

gah, not another camera with built in over agressive NR. I hate this trend.

I was just looking at 100% crops of D300 images at high ISOs, and the fine texture detail is just wiped out by noise reduction. So, apparently the D300 and D200 sensors have the same light-gathering ability, but the D300 applies better noise reduction.

I believe the D300 to have a better sensor with respect to noise; it's a later-generation CMOS sensor versus an earlier CCD. I don't know what you're basing your assumption on. I don't know enough about the D300 to know if it applies noise reduction to RAW files before saving them, but that would make them not very "raw". Were you looking at out-of-camera JPEGs?

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: soydios
I was just looking at 100% crops of D300 images at high ISOs, and the fine texture detail is just wiped out by noise reduction. So, apparently the D300 and D200 sensors have the same light-gathering ability, but the D300 applies better noise reduction.

Do you know what the in-camera high ISO NR setting was set to?

The D300 has four user-selectable high ISO NR settings, and as you can see from the example pictures, each one has a varying ratio of detail/noise.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: punchkin

Originally posted by: foghorn67

Originally posted by: punchkin
It looks like the XSi's noise performance really is pretty poor.
http://www.dpreview.com/gallery/canoneos450d_preview/

Are you being facetious? I don't see anything out of whack. Only the boxer one, but that is just a horrible picture in everyway.

No, not at all. The camera seems to destroy a huge amount of detail at higher ISOs. Check out the bicyclist picture at ISO 1600, for example.

looking at the boxer it appears there isn't much NR going on. there isn't much detail left after the noise, either.

i think the guy on the bike missed the focus. seems to me the pavement closer to the camera is sharper than the pavement under the bike. the high ISO NR hasn't been turned on for that shot, only the last one with the bike by itself has.

 

[punchkin]

Originally posted by: punchkin

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: punchkin
The noise is evident even at 400 ISO.

Here is a full-size ISO 400 image from the XSi from Canon's website. What noise are you referring to?

the user reports or the reviews or anything else... go on giving bad advice.

There aren't any XSi user reviews. The XSi hasn't shipped yet; your reviews and reports don't even exist yet (outside of your own mind).

I would highly question technical advice from a person that can't even copy/paste a URL into a forum post.

I was writing of the user reviews related to cameras with the XSi's AF module, i.e. the 30D and 400D, and the user reviews of the .40D Your technique is called "quoting out of context", and it's hard for some AT posters to get past, apparently. Welcome to adulthood.

This particular ISO 400 image shows the effects of heavy noise reduction.

Have a nice life. You may learn to argue some day. In the meantime, remember, among other things, that making bald assertions of fact such as "model X will surely be better" don't qualify.

I take it back. It looks like the 450D does pretty well in the noise department. My apologies.

 

[fuzzybabybunny]

Originally posted by: punchkin

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: punchkin
In addition your conclusion that the XSi will "only improve on that" is laughable... sorry.

Still waiting for a link of any kind to back up your claim.

Any link. Where are all these leaked high ISO images from the XSi you were talking about? All the evidence the AF is worse than the 40D?

Anything? Bueller?

Don't be an ass. The noise is evident even at 400 ISO. Google is a mother. Go point your little eyeballs up on the page there... yep... right up there, where you can read what I actually wrote.

As for your claims... you have politely, um, ignored the stupidity of them that I showed already. The XSi will only improve on the noise performance, eh? Bueller? heh heh. Thought so. Comfort yourself with your eensy crops from a completely different camera.

The XSi's AF is a tweaked version of the AF from the 30D/400D. The AF module in the 40D is far superior. But hey, don't believe the specs or the white papers or the user reports or the reviews or anything else... go on giving bad advice.

Punchkin, we've been over this time and again. First off, cool your tone and learn to have a little more tact when you post. The way you say things does nothing but incite ill will towards you. Secondly, like others have mentioned in the past, you have to post links to back up your points. You attacked jpeyton's links because they were from a different camera. Fine. Where are your own links? We can see what you wrote, but we'd prefer to read/see it from an outside source (you're not it).

EDIT: looks like you posted links (thanks), and you proved yourself wrong. Have more tact next time when disagreeing with the posts of others.

 

[punchkin]

.

 

[fuzzybabybunny]

Originally posted by: punchkin

Originally posted by: fuzzybabybunny
Punchkin, we've been over this time and again. First off, cool your tone and learn to have a little more tact when you post. The way you say things does nothing but incite ill will towards you. Secondly, like others have mentioned in the past, you have to post links to back up your points. You attacked jpeyton's links because they were from a different camera. Fine. Where are your own links? We can see what you wrote, but we'd prefer to read/see it from an outside source (you're not it).

EDIT: looks like you posted links (thanks), and you proved yourself wrong. Have more tact next time when disagreeing with the posts of others.

"We" have not been over this time and time again. DrPizza scolded me, once, in a separate thread in which I was one of the few who was correct, and you were one of the ones who was wrong (together with DrPizza himself, by the way) about a sensor performance issue. Don't scold me next time before you FIGURE OUT WHAT'S GOING ON. Here, I resurrected a long-dead thread in order to apologize. Think and read carefully before flying off the handle. Have more tact yourself.

Taken to PM. This is a good example of mis-moderation.

 

[punchkin]

No problem. I won't resurrect any more threads... it just hit me that if I were right, I probably would have done the opposite (hopefully in a non-snotty way) to rub it in gently, so I thought it was honest to just admit that I was wrong.

 

[fuzzybabybunny]

Originally posted by: punchkin
No problem. I won't resurrect any more threads... it just hit me that if I were right, I probably would have done the opposite (hopefully in a non-snotty way) to rub it in gently, so I thought it was honest to just admit that I was wrong.

While I generally don't think much of thread resurrections, I think that doing so for the sake of an apology and a correction is probably one of the best reasons to do so. It's a good example of many of the things that make a good person a good person.