Rangefinder Magazine
May 2006

Click Here for printable version of this article.

Digital Photography by JOHN RETTIE
Ongoing Debate: Quality and Sensor Size

The three cameras John Rettie currently uses on a regular basis include a two-year-old 5-MP Olympus E-1 (left), a brand-new 10-MP Nikon D200 (center) and a three-year old 6-MP Canon EOS-10D. In his view, all three produce excellent image quality, although their ergonomics and functionalities differ considerabl

IF YOU READ photography forums on the Internet, you’ll know that the size of the image sensor in a digital SLR camera and the total number of pixels are tremendous points of contention and oftentimes lead to heated discussion.

Like many in the industry, I believe we have pretty much reached a point of diminishing returns in these areas. While the optimum sensor size for different needs has yet to be established, it’s obvious there will be more than enough quality obtainable from sensors as small as those in point-and-shoot cameras. I experienced this when I tried the 9.0-megapixel Fujifilm E900 with a sensor that is just 1/17 the size of a full-frame sensor. Based on this, I would not be surprised if we end up with SLR cameras using sensors even smaller than the 4/3 sensor in the Olympus range of cameras, which currently has the smallest sensor in a pro-level digital SLR.

Because of this I think we are finally in for some exciting advances in camera technology in the next few years. Basic picture quality will be a given and features will become more of a determining factor in purchase decisions. In my view this was born out by a reader’s response to my column in the March issue when he wrote:

“Sorry to be ‘that guy’ (and I’ll admit my bias, being a Canon shooter), but I was bothered by a statement John Rettie made in the latest WPPI Issue (Steven Segal on the cover). In reviewing PMA, and specifically the Canon 30D, he said that, “The 30D is nowhere near the specs of the Nikon D200, which is Nikon’s closest competitor.” I was comparing the two cameras sideby- side on dpreview.com the night before I read that. I have to disagree strongly with that statement because other than 1) the two megapixels, 2) 5000 more pixels on the LCD, and that 3) the D200 is better weather-sealed than the 30D: they are the exact same caliber of camera. If I were a Nikon shooter, I would definitely buy the D200. However, I would say that the Canon 30D could prove a better value at $400 less than the D200. I would also wager that the 8.2 MP CMOS of the Canon 30D could compete very well against the 10.2mp CCD of Nikon’s D200. In any case, I think we’d be talking about “splitting-hair” differences between these two cameras. Sorry to rant a bit. Just wanted to put in my two cents. In case it matters to you, I’m the Assistant Manager at a little shop in Colorado called Englewood Camera, Denver’s oldest and, almost, last real camera store. Thank you, if you actually read this.”

I have had a Nikon D200 on loan for review for over a month and fortuititiously, I received a Canon 30D a day after I received this e-mail. Apart from the typo where I wrote D30 instead of 30D, this reader raises some interesting questions. I agree with him on his first two points—there is not much difference in the number of pixels in the sensor or on the LCD. I also agree there is very little difference in image quality between the two cameras, certainly at lower ISOs. However, where I disagree is on the functionality and specifications. In fact, now that I have the two cameras in my hand, I find that the differences in specs are even greater than I first thought.

For example, I really like the auto adjusting ISO feature on the Nikon D200, which I don’t think is offered on any other digital SLR. The wireless command flash system works really well. Other features on the D200 that are not available on the 30D (or the 5D for that matter) include multi-exposure with auto gain, an intervalometer for capturing sequences of images automatically and an image overlay whereby two images can be overlaid in the camera.

On the question of image quality the big issue is noise. It is not a problem up to 800 ISO, but above that it falls down, at least compared to Canon cameras. Most of the time I do not shoot above 400 ISO, so it is not critical for my shooting. What’s more, I have been experimenting with some excellent noise-reduction software (see below) that pretty much takes care of the problem.

Now that I have been using the D200 for over a month I have decided to purchase one, along with the excellent 18–200mm zoom lens. From my point of view, the D200 is a significant upgrade and offers more than the 30D. Yes it costs $300 more, but the extra cost is worth it. This means I am a switcher—going from a Canon to a Nikon.

In case anyone cares, I have been a Canon shooter for the past eight years. Prior to that I was a Nikon shooter. My first Digital SLR was the Nikon D1, which I purchased in 2000. For three years I shot digital on my Nikon D1 and film on my Canon 1n. Three years ago I upgraded to a Canon 10D because it was much better than the offerings from Nikon at the time—and it was affordable. In fact, the upgrade cost me nothing since I sold the D1 for the cost of the 10D. While I was happier with the quality of the image obtained by the 10D, I did not find the feel of the Canon body nearly as nice as the “old” D1.

Since then I have been more than happy with the 10D. I chose not to switch to the 20D, which in my opinion did not offer enough reasons to upgrade. The extra two megapixels were not worth it, and apart from quicker start-up there was not much else different. I decided to wait until this year to upgrade to the 30D.

Last fall I tried the Canon EOS-5D and fell in love with the quality of the images it produces. However, I still found the ergonomics not to my liking and quite frankly, I could not justify spending $3300 for it. Incidentally, price is also a reason I have not opted for a Canon 1D camera; plus I find they are unnecessarily big and heavy.

I was impressed with the specifications of the new Nikon D200 when it was announced last fall. Knowing the history of Canon, I was looking forward to the 30D being even better. I decided not to buy the 5D or the D200 at the end of last year, even though it would have been advantageous from a tax standpoint. Instead, I felt waiting for the 30D would be wisest.

Imagine my disappointment with the 30D. Yes, I know it produces fine pictures. But I was looking for more improvements, such as better ergonomics (a subjective thing), plus some weathersealing (I had problems with my 10D in that area), and maybe more pixels to bring it closer to the 5D. Ideally I was also hoping it would have live preview (hinted at with the 20Da), auto-adjusting ISO and a better wireless flash system.

I realize that many of these new gadgets will not appeal to those looking for a more traditional camera, but they are features that are possible in a digital camera and do not detract from using the camera in a “normal” fashion. What they do allow is further experimenting in obtaining different types of photographs, many of which were not possible with film cameras.

Like so many advances over the years, starting with features such as built-in metering and autofocus, there have always been photographers who resist new technologies, saying, “I don’t need that, I’ve never needed it before.” There are tremendous opportunities to advance features in camera bodies that will make life easier for photographers. For example, a few weeks ago I was traveling with a photographer doing a car-to-car shoot. He was leaning out of the sunroof of our car and handholding his Canon EOS-1D Mark II with a Kenyon Gyro Stabilizer. When I suggested it would be nice if he could preview the image on a moveable LCD on the back of the camera, he said: “Wow, I hadn’t thought of that. When will it be available?”

That’s why I think the new E-330 from Olympus and the announcement that Panasonic will have the same live preview system on its upcoming SLR was the top news story at PMA. I’ll bet live preview will become a must-have feature on every professional camera before too long.

Olympus has hinted that the replacement for the E1 will have live preview. If it does, I think it may well be the ideal camera. I guess the bottom line is that I wish we could have a hybrid camera with the ergonomics and features of Nikon and Olympus coupled with a Canon sensor. Oh, and while we’re at it, wouldn’t it be great to have a standardized lens mount so we could choose from all the great lenses on the market?

Quick Software Review:

Noiseware

Remember the old days when we used to worry about excessive grain when shooting high-speed film? I certainly remember when I would avoid shooting anything at more than 400 ASA. I knew the pictures would be too grainy for use in a magazine unless the subject matter was very important. Now I find myself happily shooting at the equivalent of 1600 ISO and not worrying about grain, or noise as it’s called in the digital world. Noise levels increase as sensitivity increases, and noise is most noticeable in shadows and evenly colored areas such as a blue sky.

The Noiseware plug-in cleans up this purposely underexposed image, shot on a Nikon D200 at 3200 ISO, quite nicely.

Indeed, when I came to test one of the newest noise-removing plug-ins, I had to shoot an intentionally underexposed image at 3200 ISO in order to create enough noise so it was sufficiently visible to see in a small image.

Noiseware is published by Imagenomic and is a specialized program that only performs this one chore. It’s offered as a standalone program for Windows or as a Photoshop plug-in for Windows or Mac OS X. I tried the plug-in version on a Mac and found it very easy to use and very effective. It can be left to judge the level of noise reduction automatically or there are a myriad of manual settings for fine-tuning the end result.

I compared the noise reduction on the image pictured here using the Reduce Noise filter built into Photoshop and there was no comparison. Photoshop’s filter barely reduced the noise and took several seconds longer to run than Noiseware.

While there are several noise-reduction plug-ins on the market and the feature is included in several multi-function plugins or actions, Noiseware seemed to do a better job in the short time I’ve been trying it. If you shoot images at high ISO settings you’ll probably find Noiseware worthwhile. It costs $49 to download the standard plug-in or $69 for the Professional version. The standard standalone edition costs just $29.