# 550D noise?



## ecphoto (Apr 11, 2012)

I'm still playing with settings on my new 550D/T2i. I had not notices too much noise at the lower ISO's until a few days ago. I took a lot of photos the other day, all at ISO400. I didn't notice a lot of noise on all of them. I noticed it on pictures with lots of white when zoomed at 100% or more. 
Should I expect this as something normal with this camera?

Is anyone has this camera or similar? Should the d-range optimizer be on or off?


----------



## anmolmehtaaa (Apr 11, 2012)

no don't have this camera but you can read the review


----------



## ecphoto (Apr 11, 2012)

anmolmehtaaa said:


> no don't have this camera but you can read the review


 
I read about six reviews prior to purchasing it. This seems to be a question for a hands on user of a 550D.


----------



## jaomul (Apr 11, 2012)

anmolmehtaaa said:


> no don't have this camera but you can read the review


Probably the single least helpful post I have seen here this year.

OP- I have a 550d and find the noise control good, certainly I would have no hesitation using 400 if needed. Usually noise shows up first in the shadows but it is hard to say without seeing shots. Are you shooting jpeg or processing raw files, what way are your noise reduction settings if shooting jpegs.
As for optimiser I dont think this should add noise here, it is more for dymanic range and contrast.
If you can post some of the offending shots I will try and take a similar shot with the same settings and post them and maybe you can compare. I will re-check this post in a few hours, maybe somebody else may have come up with a more helpful solution by then or if not you can post the shots


----------



## Dao (Apr 11, 2012)

Is your photo underexposed?
Do you have a sample of the photo that has the issue you described for us to take a look?


----------



## jowensphoto (Apr 11, 2012)

I too am a t2i user, but have found the noise handeling to be acceptable for what the camera is. I typically don't see much noise until around 800 or so. 

Like others have mentioned, examples would help us to point you in the right direction.


----------



## KenC (Apr 11, 2012)

If you go looking for noise you will find it.  If you enlarge enough on your screen or make a really huge print, it will be there.  For most purposes, though, say for web display or making up to about 11x14 prints, I've found the noise from the T2i to be non-detectable at 400 with no noise reduction.  Again, if you enlarge enough on the screen you will see some, but who cares about that?  I've even made prints of images shot at 1600 with minimal noise reduction and the noise is only visible if you look for it very close-up to the print, but not at normal viewing distance.  This is why I bought the camera, since I do a lot of shooting where I can't use a tripod and needed the high-ISO capability and it hasn't disappointed me.


----------



## 1000_Islander (Apr 11, 2012)

There's far too much 'noise' about noise.
I don't think you could buy a DSLR today that could not produce high-quality 'noise-free' prints at 16x20in from images shot at 400ISO.
I've been at photography for over 3 decades and of course have evolved into digital. I work with several cameras but on my T2i I have shot about 7,000 frames (quality over quantity!). In my bird photography I regularly shoot at ISO 1600 and again have many 16x20 prints that are shown in galleries. An intrinsic part of digital photography (beyond pixel-peeping!) is correct application of image editing. But beyond that, the quality of light is the prime component in successful photographic images.
Enjoy your excellent new camera!


----------



## JSER (Apr 11, 2012)

Dao said:


> Is your photo underexposed?
> Do you have a sample of the photo that has the issue you described for us to take a look?



+1


----------



## jowensphoto (Apr 11, 2012)

1000_Islander said:


> There's far too much 'noise' about noise.
> I don't think you could buy a DSLR today that could not produce high-quality 'noise-free' prints at 16x20in from images shot at 400ISO.
> I've been at photography for over 3 decades and of course have evolved into digital. I work with several cameras but on my T2i I have shot about 7,000 frames (quality over quantity!). In my bird photography I regularly shoot at ISO 1600 and again have many 16x20 prints that are shown in galleries. An intrinsic part of digital photography (beyond pixel-peeping!) is correct application of image editing. But beyond that, the quality of light is the prime component in successful photographic images.
> Enjoy your excellent new camera!



Beautifully articulated!


----------



## ecphoto (Apr 11, 2012)

Sorry guys, I just got home from work so it took me a while to post the pictures.
I shoot in raw and process to jpeg using LR4.
The first 4 are untouched, I just used LR to convert to jpeg.
The last one is a finished product with NR and other tweaks.


----------



## ecphoto (Apr 11, 2012)

It could be that I just expect too much from my camera lol. If its my technique thats the problem let me know what I'm doing wrong.
Thanks a lot guys


----------



## hukim0531 (Apr 11, 2012)

Are you applying any in-camera sharpening to the image?  Try setting the sharpening slider all the way to zero in raw file before converting to jpeg.


----------



## jowensphoto (Apr 11, 2012)

Which lens are you using? The kit lens? It's really not that great in low light, like the light in your pictures. You're better off to use that one when you have ample lighting. Faster glass will yeild much better results in low light envioronments.


----------



## 1000_Islander (Apr 11, 2012)

Without coming across as being facetious, the camera manufacturers just love the newfound interest in photography with digital cameras. The vast majority of concerns in photo forums are with shooting in low light conditions. And folks, with their frustrations in not getting good images in low light are led to believe (via forums, etc) that getting a 'better' camera or faster lenses is going to be the ticket. So millions and millions of dollars are spent in this pursuit. Yes, one's odds will get better, but the fact is you need light, good light to readily get good images. 
These images are not particularly 'noisy'. It's important to know that light falls off exponentially so with onboard flash like this it quickly becomes less-light, and that is where the perception of 'noise' comes into play. 
Better technique, better lighting, and a better understanding can all help.
A 'pro' could use the same camera, or an even less expensive one and get good results.
The 'situation' of noise is across the board; a Nikon or Sony or whatever may or may not do 'better'. In fact, most P&S cameras will often yield better looking images, especially with JPGs, simply because they are overall tailored for less-experienced folks. It is often frustrating for those moving 'up' from a P&S to a DSLR when they find many images are not even as good.


----------



## jaomul (Apr 11, 2012)

ecphoto said:


> It could be that I just expect too much from my camera lol. If its my technique thats the problem let me know what I'm doing wrong.
> Thanks a lot guys


I don't think the noise is excessive in these. You have to zoom before it is apparent. If anything here I would say up the ISO a stop to get a slightly faster speed (There may be very slight camera movement in one or two shots) and maybe give exposure compensation a slight plus. This way you can tweak the exposure in post. They look slightly under exposed to me but I am looking at them with an uncalibrated laptop. If you slightly over expose without clipping the highlights and have to bring it back in post it is a good way of reducing noise (a few have posted about this here so I tried it and it works quite good). Really though i don't think these examples are noisy for 400


----------



## LuckySe7en (Apr 11, 2012)

I can get away with usable image at iso 1600.  Of course I have to clean it up in post.  But I try to stay under 800 if I can.  
I shoot with the T2i


----------



## ecphoto (Apr 11, 2012)

hukim0531 said:


> Are you applying any in-camera sharpening to the image?  Try setting the sharpening slider all the way to zero in raw file before converting to jpeg.


 None that I can remember. I avoid in camera processing as much as possible.



jowensphoto said:


> Which lens are you using? The kit lens? It's really not that great in low light, like the light in your pictures. You're better off to use that one when you have ample lighting. Faster glass will yeild much better results in low light envioronments.


 Its the 18-55 IS II kit lens. I used a 1/200 shutter so I could use the flash instead of ambient as my main exposure. I could have probably gotten away with using 1/60 would that help my image quality?


----------



## ecphoto (Apr 11, 2012)

1000_Islander said:


> Without coming across as being facetious, the camera manufacturers just love the newfound interest in photography with digital cameras. The vast majority of concerns in photo forums are with shooting in low light conditions. And folks, with their frustrations in not getting good images in low light are led to believe (via forums, etc) that getting a 'better' camera or faster lenses is going to be the ticket. So millions and millions of dollars are spent in this pursuit. Yes, one's odds will get better, but the fact is you need light, good light to readily get good images.
> These images are not particularly 'noisy'. It's important to know that light falls off exponentially so with onboard flash like this it quickly becomes less-light, and that is where the perception of 'noise' comes into play.
> Better technique, better lighting, and a better understanding can all help.
> A 'pro' could use the same camera, or an even less expensive one and get good results.
> The 'situation' of noise is across the board; a Nikon or Sony or whatever may or may not do 'better'. In fact, most P&S cameras will often yield better looking images, especially with JPGs, simply because they are overall tailored for less-experienced folks. It is often frustrating for those moving 'up' from a P&S to a DSLR when they find many images are not even as good.


 Well said +1. I am well aware that I have a lot to learn still and will take any and all advice, what would you recommend to I do to improve?


----------



## ecphoto (Apr 11, 2012)

> I don't think the noise is excessive in these. You have to zoom before it is apparent. If anything here I would say up the ISO a stop to get a slightly faster speed (There may be very slight camera movement in one or two shots) and maybe give exposure compensation a slight plus. This way you can tweak the exposure in post. They look slightly under exposed to me but I am looking at them with an uncalibrated laptop. If you slightly over expose without clipping the highlights and have to bring it back in post it is a good way of reducing noise (a few have posted about this here so I tried it and it works quite good). Really though i don't think these examples are noisy for 400


 


LuckySe7en said:


> I can get away with usable image at iso 1600.  Of course I have to clean it up in post.  But I try to stay under 800 if I can.
> I shoot with the T2i





would you guys say that I would need to noise reduce these images or would I be okay with out doing it?


----------



## jaomul (Apr 11, 2012)

I think they are fine, but I am in the camp where noise does not bother me unless its really bad. I take it over any bit of blur any day. In day to day use a printed photo is where your photo shines. We rarely print very large so why process them as if we were going to


----------



## ecphoto (Apr 11, 2012)

jaomul said:


> I think they are fine, but I am in the camp where noise does not bother me unless its really bad. I take it over any bit of blur any day. In day to day use a printed photo is where your photo shines. We rarely print very large so why process them as if we were going to


If I plan on printing 8x11 or smaller I should just leave it alone then? or whats the size where you think it will become apparent?


----------



## LuckySe7en (Apr 11, 2012)

I don't think the noise is a problem.  But if you're worried, lower it next time.  If you're using flash, you may not need such a high iso


----------

