The Sigma SD14 Wakeup Call
When Sigma SD14 on Vacation was published, one of the features discussed was photographs that tried to use the noise of the Sigma Foveon sensor at ISO 800 and even 400 as a creative tool. Like others, we assumed this noise issue at sensitivities that are a non-issue with other cameras is a problem of the Foveon sensor.
We received a very interesting email from a Gary Mercer, one of the professional photographers featured in the Popular Photography December 2007 Sigma SD14 promotion. He provided us with useful insight to the SD14 noise "problem" and a suggestion:
"I've been using Sigma DSLRs from the very humble beginning of the SD9 to the current SD14. There is a lot of controversy concerning the low light performance of the SD14 and also higher ISO 400 and up noise issue. I've found that other DSLR systems use in camera noise programs that produce soft, but less noisy images right out of the camera even when shooting raw. The supposedly raw images produced by most Bayer-sensor cameras are in fact heavily edited images prior to downloading them to the computer. The SD14 doesn't do any serious noise reduction in the image coming out of the camera. In fact, the SPP 3.2 and 2.5 versions of the Sigma Software barely address noise after the fact.
So how does someone who wants to shoot at higher ISOs with the SD14 deal with this? Imagenomic's Noiseware program is the best solution I've found to date. It is superb. If you sent me the raw images of the pictures you posted shot at ISO 800, I'm sure that Noiseware would take care of the noise in these images easily, salvaging them for you. I found this out after a helicopter shoot of the Hawaiian Islands with the SD14. We couldn't remove the doors off the helicopter, so I had to shoot through the canopy which lowered the light about two F-stops and also needed to use a polarizing filter which further lowered the light. It was a disaster in the making, forcing me to shoot at ISO 800. But after spending all this money on the helicopter, I was going to try to get my money's worth. When I got back to Florida and post processed the images, I thought the shoot was a complete bust, until a pro buddy of mine suggested Noiseware from Imagenomic. Even Noise Ninja couldn't clean up those images. Noiseware saved my shoot and I was able to save the images and use them in my latest gallery exhibition of my photography at www.pmgallery.info.
Moral of the story? The SD14 works just fine when you know the nature of the best and have the right tools to pull the results you want from this camera. It isn't super speedy, but I've got model test shots I've shot with it and lots of sample images on my SD14 test images website at pbase.com if someone wants to really see what is possible with the SD14 in real life."
Gary certainly has the credentials that persuaded us to try his suggestion and we were frankly astounded at the results we achieved by processing the Sigma JPEG files with Noiseware. The results were so impressive we tried the Noiseware processing with other camera images. Some cameras showed dramatic improvement in noise and others, like Nikon and Canon cameras, showed very little improvement with Noiseware processing. A large selection of images has been Noiseware-processed in the last few weeks. With this experience with a wide range of digital images from a cross-section of cameras, it is time to discuss the impact of Noiseware in more detail.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
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...