DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> General Discussion >> Interesting 300D/Rebel ISO Test (Large Image)
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 7 of 7, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 06/07/2004 01:11:52 PM · #1
I installed the Russian Firmware mentioned in this thread: //www.dpchallenge.com/forum.php?action=read&FORUM_THREAD_ID=96619 so that I could test the ISO3200 feature that it enables. Here is a grid I made on M mode at 1/200sec f/3.5:



All of the above are 100% crops. Now, as you can see, in RAW mode ISO1600 and ISO3200 both look identical. On the camera LCD they were different, and originally the thumbnails in the Photoshop CS filebrowser were different, but once I opened the files the ISO3200 image reverted to the same as the ISO1600 image.

I decided this might be something to do with the RAW conversion, so I tried them both in JPEG mode. As you can see, this time the ISO3200 image was much noisier. The dark area isn't any lighter but the light area is quite a lot lighter. Also, the noise is colour rather than monochrome which means it is harder to get rid of in post processing.

I also noticed that in JPEG mode, both ISO1600 and ISO800 are much darker than their RAW counterparts, but perhaps with marginally less noise, although it isn't really noticable. Again however, the noise is colour.

The settings other than ISO were exactly the same for each shot and the RAW files were opened straight from the camera with no processing.

I thought the results were quite interesting, and I was wondering if anyone had any explainations for the differences?

Message edited by author 2004-06-07 13:24:21.
 06/07/2004 01:23:55 PM · #2
Originally posted by Konador:
I was wondering if anyone had any explainations for the differences?

You're using hacked firmware in your 300D? =]

In all seriousness, I'd be very hesitant to load any non-manufacturer-provided code into my camera. You never know what effect the modified firmware may have on other operational aspects of the camera. The "hackers" are just "twiddling bits" without the in-depth understanding of the cameras internals that the "real" developers have. (Not to mention Canon's developers work at the source-code level; the hackers are modifying binary data here-and-there hoping for the best.) I think your example might be a good indication that they only found "one piece of the puzzle" for ISO 3200...
 06/07/2004 01:27:06 PM · #3
Just upgraded to test stuff :) I'm planning on reverting back to the official firmware once I've finished playing.
 06/07/2004 01:56:18 PM · #4
Actually, I'd say what you are seeing is pretty much what you'd expect.

Looking at it, at least on my screen, I'd say that the dark areas are darker and the light areas are lighter - exactly what you'd expect to see from an increase in contrast (applied to the JPEG files)

Also, the noise doesn't really look like it has 'become' coloured, just that the saturation has been increased, again what you'd expect from the saturation adjustment in the JPEG conversion.

Just some thoughts...
 06/08/2004 03:40:03 AM · #5
Although the whole 'upgrade' option is extremely appealing, I'm weary about trying it out.
As Eddy eloquently put it, we have a case of hackers 'tweaking' the original work of the manufacturer. If ISO 3200 was a feasible pausibility on the 300D, wouldn't Canon have capitalized on that long ago?

I don't know. I think I'll sit in the side lines and wait till we hear more feedback from our 'guinea pigs.' :P

Message edited by author 2004-06-08 03:40:40.
 06/08/2004 03:58:27 AM · #6
Originally posted by Gordon:
Actually, I'd say what you are seeing is pretty much what you'd expect.

Ditto.

I think without the ISO 800-1600 results for the original firmware it's extremely easy to blame the hacked firmware for something that, in reality, may be identical in the original.
 06/08/2004 04:32:10 AM · #7
Originally posted by Salar:
If ISO 3200 was a feasible pausibility on the 300D, wouldn't Canon have capitalized on that long ago?


I don't think so. Look at the extra features that become avaliable with the russian firmware. Canon intentionally crippled features on the 300D because they still want to sell their line of 10D cameras without the 300D being a competitor in that part of their market. Instead of completely redesigning the menu set/firmware for the 300D, they probably just reworked the 10D template and removed or disabled some features/menus.

Granted, the russian firmware doesn't make the 300D a 10D, but it does add much needed features that should have been made avaliable in an official firmware update from Canon by now (especially after the release of the D70).

Originally posted by Salar:
I think I'll sit in the side lines and wait till we hear more feedback from our 'guinea pigs.' :P


Experiment - Day 3: Guinea Pig #564321 reporting...

I haven't needed to use the 3200 feature much, but the FEC is a godsend for indoor flash photos. As I've stated before, indoor photos w/ the onboard flash were consistently underexposed (I've heard this from many others as well). With FEC at around +1, indoor flash shots are now properly exposed.

Being able to select OneShot mode instead of AIfocusAF kicking into AIservo at the worst possible times while recomposing is invaluable.

I'm perfect happy using firmware by "hackers that are just twiddling bits without the in-depth understanding of the cameras internals that the real developers have."

I have 'real' results from the russian firmware features that the 'real developers' refused to deliver.

I'm up for whatever it takes to get the full potential out of my camera. I was nervous about upgrading the firmware at first too, but decided wtf and took the plunge. If they have the knowledge to engineer the firmware and make the extra features avaliable through an added menu screen without affecting any of the other features/menus, then I'm sure they have a fairly in depth knowledge of this stuff (I for one would have no idea where to begin). That is the great thing about programmed in feature crippling. If the manufacturer is unwilling to unlock the features via firmware upgrades there will always be someone somewhere with the knowledge to do so. Power to the people baby!

Pages:  
Current Server Time: 03/14/2025 04:37:10 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 03/14/2025 04:37:10 AM EDT.