An In-Depth Look at 4 Ultra-compact Digicams
by Stephen Caston on July 18, 2005 12:05 AM EST- Posted in
- Digital Camera
Noise
The noise test consists of pictures of our studio shot taken at increasing ISO levels to show the effect on the image. The pictures were taken after resetting the cameras to their factory default settings. The cameras are then set to record with the highest quality option with Manual or Tungsten WB (depending on the camera). Click on a 100% crop below to view the full-size image. All images are sRGB.| Canon SD400 | Nikon S1 | Sony DSC-T33 | |
| ISO 50 |  Click to enlarge. |
 Click to enlarge. |
N/A |
| ISO 100 |  Click to enlarge. |
 Click to enlarge. |
 Click to enlarge. |
| ISO 200 |  Click to enlarge. |
 Click to enlarge. |
 Click to enlarge. |
| ISO 400 |  Click to enlarge. |
 Click to enlarge. |
 Click to enlarge. |
The first thing that you will notice about the crops above is that the Olympus IR-300 was not included in the main ISO table. The reason for this is that the IR-300 does not give the user any control over the ISO setting; it is always automatic. The next thing to note is that only the Canon and Nikon cameras have options for ISO 50. At this level, the Canon SD400 produces a much cleaner image than the Nikon S1. Where the SD400 shows clean noise-free detail, the S1 has a fine grain over the entire image. At ISO 100, the Sony DSC-T33 competes very well with the Canon SD400, producing clean results with low noise and detail loss. The Nikon S1 comes close to matching the detail of the SD400 and T33, but has just a touch more noise throughout the image. At ISO 200, we can see that all three cameras are using some rather heavy noise reduction filters to try and reduce the amount of visible noise. Both the Nikon and Canon cameras are effective here, although it results in slightly soft details. The Sony T33 does a better job of producing a crisp image. However, this crispness comes at the price of jaggies and subtle JPEG artifacts. At ISO 400, all three cameras show a significant loss of fine detail. However, the Sony DSC-T33 appears to retain the most information without softening the details. Both the Canon SD400 and Nikon S1 exhibit virtually the same level of detail loss and discoloration.
Olympus IR-300 Click to enlarge. |
It is unfortunate that the Olympus IR-300 does not have the option to adjust the ISO setting. However, the EXIF information for the image above indicates that the image was taken at ISO 125. From this image, it appears that the camera has a rather strong noise reduction algorithm in place that produces relatively noise-free images, but also leaves signs of jaggies.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
35 Comments
View All Comments
stephencaston - Wednesday, July 20, 2005 - link
Thanks for catching that Jarred, I've fixed it now.Tujan - Wednesday, July 20, 2005 - link
None of these cameras seem to get that soft lime-green colored square. Top right.What IS the true color of that 'Engineering Bldg.?
_____________
Which,or how well do these cameras work to create DVDs. How to determine this.Wich propietor has the best software. Wich software suite works best with wich camera to do so ? [ ]
.........
Most reviews miss this aspect of features for a camera.I've read for example,codec articles,wich tell of specificities of 'formats,and playback. Generally what you do with your output depends on how you want to use it though.Then what playback device/medium is wished to use. Some formats do not work so well with creation of DVDs.Or authoring. Those wich are most ubiquotous will give you most satisfaction for your camera.
You might think that for example,that favorite movie you caught would be great to send to grandma. You can't capture it again though. However its an extra step to re-process the capture. So quality count of a good camera becomes the question of being able to edit from its usable format.What each uses,and how well it keeps the original intented quality for the use you want it to.
Some Cameras will use the MPEG4 format for example.However the utility of editing this format to DVD is difficult to find exact detail from any reviews. In trying to keep of what you see is what you have using the Camera.
JarredWalton - Tuesday, July 19, 2005 - link
You link for the Sony movie clip is broken. You've got a ".jpg" at the end of the file name. The Canon looks pretty nice, though I'm still holding out for SLR. Give me a few more months....Thatkid - Tuesday, July 19, 2005 - link
number 21 it is possible i actually took a hard looka t my camera as well nikon sometimes uses diffrent metals in there cameras im speaking from my experiance using there profresional cameras and they feel plastic but i did open the bettery lid and its a pretty thick metal shell. But you are right it defenately feels diffrent from the sont and cannon. the sony is brushed stainless teel i belive and is ver hard. the canon sd400 feels great its a small and dense feeling camera. they are very diffrent and when compared to the feel of these cameras it deos feel as if it were plastic but compare it to your mouse of keybaord or some sort of video game controller and youll see its a wierd metal.stephencaston - Tuesday, July 19, 2005 - link
#19, thats interesting. The sample we reviewed definitely felt like plastic and made a plastic sound when I tapped on the shell with my fingernail. It felt nothing like the solid metal of the SD400 or the T33. It didn't even feel cool to the touch after leaving it in air-conditioning like metal should. Perhaps the body is made of a very thin metal surrounded by plastic. Either that or you and I received different versions.PrinceGaz - Tuesday, July 19, 2005 - link
That Canon SD400 certainly looks very nice, not as high a resolution as the top-end SD500 but a bit smaller and lighter than it which is important to me. If I needed a replacement camera, that would be the one I'd go for.It's worth noting that in the UK (and maybe other countries) the Canon SD400 is called the Canon IXUS 50, but apart from the name is otherwise identical.
Thatkid - Tuesday, July 19, 2005 - link
the nikon is made with an all metal body if you want to refrence that see Http://www.nikonusa.com/template.php?cat=1&grp=2&productNr=25529the bottom of the page says in bold compact super slim metal body. i know this also because i own one.
my friend has a SD400 weve done all the posible real life senario test possible night time shooting in clubs both get the same exact looking prints some small discrepensies in color cast in the pictures but other then that same performance on both awsome cameras. one thing this article didnt mention is the annoying yellow cast in all the sony t33 pictures sony may advertise 1000+ shots for the t33 but with flash and normal usage checking you pics and that kinda stuff maybe 100 - 150 shots on one baterry. i had the t33 and returned it when i took a picture of the best buy roof only to find it looking extremly orange.
IceWindius - Monday, July 18, 2005 - link
Canon wins again, go figure. My A85 farking rocks, I love it!ShadowVlican - Monday, July 18, 2005 - link
w00t canon wins again, happy i choose an A95rubikcube - Monday, July 18, 2005 - link
Been in the market for a camera for a while and was considering the digital rebel xt for quality concerns. After I read this review, I decided that the quality wouldn't be that different, so I ran out and bought the SD400. Thanks for the great review.