Sigma SD14 at ISO 800

This all began with suggestions on how high noise seen in Sigma SD14 ISO 800 images could be tamed and controlled. Our first look at the impact of Noiseware is Sigma SD14 ISO images first published in Sigma SD14 on Vacation. As stated, all images were processed with just the free Community Edition of Noiseware using just auto processing. You can do an even more effective job in some cases by tweaking the noise reduction parameters manually in the Community Edition. The real power of Noiseware comes in the AI-enabled Standard and Pro versions, which get more effective the more they are used. These are baseline conversions just to show you that the impact of Noiseware on the SD14 is truly significant.

In each pair of images, the top images are JPEGs that were processed from RAW in Sigma Photo Pro 2.5 and saved as highest quality JPEG images. The matching image just below is the same image that has been auto processed in Noiseware Community Edition.







Noiseware Software Noise Reduction Sigma SD14 at lower ISO
Comments Locked

61 Comments

View All Comments

  • GoSharks - Thursday, July 31, 2008 - link

    I agree that the box is a horrible test subject. dpreview's (for one example) shots of a grey patch, and then multiple crops of a high detail image are excellent for showing the level of noise AND detail that exist at each ISO setting. The box only gives you the level of noise, which is only half the story.
  • marokero - Monday, July 28, 2008 - link

    Was the photog shooting through the windows inside a grounded helicopter?

    I've been shooting with a D3 since February, and I've been getting images that were just "not doable" below ISO 6400 without a flash - and a flash would've ruined the moment. Yes, David Black could've used a slower shutter speed and lower ISO to get the same exposure, but would he have been able to freeze the hockey action at 1/125s and ISO 800? I seriously doubt it.

    I surely would like more manufacturers to implement some of Foveon's X3 layered tecnology in their future sensors, but not at the cost of reduced light sensitivity. Noiseware, Noise Ninja, Neat Image... they all do a fine job of cleaning up noise, but they do not do miracles.
  • peroni - Monday, July 28, 2008 - link

    Sorry Wesley but this article should be withdrawned, the quality is not on par with the rest of this site articles.

    p.s.
    In nearly all the pictures you have posted the originals look better.


  • Deadtrees - Monday, July 28, 2008 - link

    The selling point of Sigma cameras are their sharp/full-of-detail images yet the reviwer thinks it's better to smear all of those in favor of low noise. That's just stupid.

    If he buys a Ferrari, he'd cripple the engine for the sake of low noise, then talk about how great it is to have low noise on Ferrari.

  • pepsimax2k - Monday, July 28, 2008 - link

    is that dido on the main page pic?

    woohoo *wins award for least geeky anandtech post in, ohh, 5 minutes?*
  • Deadtrees - Monday, July 28, 2008 - link

    1. That D3 ISO 6400 sample image has shutter speed of 1/1000. Even Nikon D70 or Canon A350 that are known for high noise would only show minimal noise when it's shot in the bright area.
    Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying D3 low-noise/high-ISO sucks. D3, without a doubt, shows the least noise out of all the cameras in market. However, showing ISO 6400 image with shutter speed of 1/1000 and saying 'look at this low noise in ISO 6400' is simply wrong. Hell, I can even show you low-noise ISO 1600 images with D70 so you can talk about how D70 shows very little noise.


    2. "However, many incorrectly criticize Sony, for instance, on their "heavy" image processing in the A350. Canon and Nikon also heavily process images in-camera; they just make slightly different choices in their processing algorithms."

    That's because, as you know, Sony kills noise in favor of detail and they do it way too much. What good is 14.2MP when it's crippled; in other word, you don't get to see the advantage of 14.2MP when the ISO goes up as the noise processing algorithm kills most of the details. Again, Canon and Nikon doesn't smear images as Sony does.

    3. Either your expectation is too low or my expectation is too high, but Imageware creates really smeared images just like Sonys'. Well, if you are a fan of watercolor-like or plastic-like pictures that shows the least detail, I guess Imageware is all good. But....really....pictures processed with Imageware really look terrible.
    Given that, I hope you don't waste your money getting quality lenses. You'd be fine with lenses made with window glasses.
  • Wesley Fink - Monday, July 28, 2008 - link

    I suppose we will all have to chide Nikon for their obvious stupidity. The Hockey image was supplied by Nikon as an example ISO 6400 image in their D3 launch kit.
  • Deadtrees - Monday, July 28, 2008 - link

    No, the problem is you saying 'Look at this image! it's ISO 6400 and shows so little noise!'
  • Some1ne - Monday, July 28, 2008 - link

    It completely ruins all the detail in all the photos that include bodies of water. Seriously, in the Noiseware processed one you can't see any of the ripples/waves/other details in the water anymore. Terrible!
  • Ratinator - Monday, July 28, 2008 - link

    Has anyone heard anything about when Kodak is going to release their new filter that was discussed about a year ago mentioned here http://www.dpreview.com/news/0706/07061401kodakhig...">http://www.dpreview.com/news/0706/07061401kodakhig...

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now