Sony A350
Several months ago, Sony introduced the mid-level A350 with a 14.2MP CCD sensor. The Sony CCD is unusual in that it is the only recent new sensor introduction that is not based on CMOS technology. The A350 is aimed at the top of the entry-level market and Sony targets the A700 at the prosumer/serious amateur market.
In testing the A350 it is clear that Sony is already performing quite a bit of in-camera noise processing with JPEGs produced by the A350. This is very similar to the in-camera processing performed by Canon and Nikon, although a book could be written on the subtle differences in "noise reduction philosophy" among these three companies.
Even with significant in-camera processing Noiseware can improve image quality at higher ISO settings, making those higher speeds more useful for the photographer using an A350. Improvements are much more subtle than the Sigma SD14 and Pentax K20D improvements but they can still be clearly seen.
| Sony A350 In-Camera JPEG vs. Noiseware Processed |
||
| ISO | Sony A350 In-Camera JPEG |
Sony A350 Noiseware Processed |
| 100 |  |
 |
| 200 |  |
 |
| 400 |  |
 |
| 800 |  |
 |
| 1600 |  |
 |
| 3200 |  |
 |
Click on any of the above image crops for the full image. Note: Full size images are between 1.6MB and 6.2MB! |
||
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
61 Comments
View All Comments
mharris - Monday, July 28, 2008 - link
If you look at the photos, you'll notice that the unfiltered photos are nearly 10x bigger than the filtered photos. So the loss of details is due to a ridiculously low JPEG compression, not the noise filter.B3an - Friday, August 1, 2008 - link
"If you look at the photos, you'll notice that the unfiltered photos are nearly 10x bigger than the filtered photos. So the loss of details is due to a ridiculously low JPEG compression, not the noise filter."Not it's not. Would have thought this was obvious... the file size is lower because of the lower detail in the noise reduction filtered images. This is because of how JPEG compression works. It's the same with any image after noise reduction has been used, it nearly always produces smaller files sizes 'cause of the resulting lower detail.
Baviaan - Monday, July 28, 2008 - link
Are you actually serious? You can't be, look at the amount of detail lost in the photos done by Noiseware. You lose all the detail and the photos look very, very smeared.And compare the 3D to a 1DMK3 or 5D, this comparison is useless.
Wesley Fink - Monday, July 28, 2008 - link
There is no doubt the Nikon D3 is the low-noise champion, but we weren't comparing it to other PRO cameras like the ID Mark III. The comments were comparing relative photosire size across the spectrum of digital SLR sensors.We do agree the ID Mk III at 10 megaixel with a 1.3X (APS-H) crop factor is more directly comparable in photosite size to the D3. The 5D at full-frame 12.8 megapixels is certainly comparable in photosite size if not speed or high ISO performance.
strikeback03 - Monday, July 28, 2008 - link
The 5D is only enabled on-camera to ISO 3200, but plenty of users use effectively higher ISOs by deliberately underexposing then pushing the exposure in post-process with decent results.michal1980 - Monday, July 28, 2008 - link
I agree with others.Are you guys blind? some of thos vacation shots are terrible after the noise reduction. I'd rather stick with the noise in some of them. The beach shot looks ok in the foreground, but as soon as you hit the water its all water paiting.
the sail boat on the water is one of the worst, in the original shot you see waves breaking, and caps. The after processing shot destroy's the feel of the water.
IMHO, alot of the pictures looks better just shrunk (which filter the nose by itself), then they did after noise removal.
Jedi2155 - Monday, July 28, 2008 - link
Same here, there noise reduction seriously destroys the detail present in the images. A lot of the areas of high contrast is destroyed after the noise reduction resulting in smearing.I'm neither a professional or even a prosumer, but it was quite noticeable to me that the details were significantly reduced with the noise reduction where I definitely would not consider this software.
I also could not tell the difference in the low ISO shots for the noise reduction although I am on a 6-bit TN LCD panel so that could probably be the reason. Did anyone else see a difference in the low-ISO shots?
B3an - Monday, July 28, 2008 - link
From the images it's hardly any better than Photoshops noise reduction filter. Messing around with the settings i can get very nearly as good results.And like all noise reduction filters it makes the image lose detail, messes up some colours, and sometimes over sharpens the edges.
I dont think this is good software or worth the money.
eetnoyer - Monday, July 28, 2008 - link
Noiseware on images from any of the superzooms? I often find myself to be a little tentative of taking higher ISO setting shots on my superzoom because of the pronounced noise levels. I would be interested to see some results from some of the different brands' superzoom models.Thanks
guitargeek27 - Monday, July 28, 2008 - link
All in all, I've been pretty disappointed in the Anandtech articles about cameras and image manipulation, the articles gives just a rough idea what noise reduction software does, but does not go into settings, original noise levels, or RAW vs JPEG noise levels (lens, apeture, shutter speed, post processing software).If you're a beginner photographer, or just care about software please read. But if you are seriously interested in photography please try a different site or get your hands on a real book.
I think I'm just disappointed about having an amateur write a review as opposed to a pro.