• site home
  • blog home
  • galleries
  • contact
  • underwater
  • the bleeding edge

the last word

Photography meets digital computer technology. Photography wins -- most of the time.

You are here: Home / The Last Word / Does using live view make your images noisier?

Does using live view make your images noisier?

February 23, 2015 JimK 7 Comments

It has been speculated that using live view, because it heats up the sensor, will add to the shadow noise in images, and should be avoided. An extreme twist on this point of view says that you shouldn’t use mirrorless cameras because, with the exception of the M240, their live view is on all the time, wrecking havoc on your shadows.

That didn’t sound right to me.

In a 68-degree F (20 degrees Celsius) room, I set a D810 up in manual mode, with 14 bit raw file precision. I set the ISO to 800, which is the highest ISO on the D810 where there is no clipping of dark-field images. There happened to be an Otus 85 on the camera. I left it there, secure in the knowledge that the dark field images would be of very high quality. I set the shutter to EFCS at 1/2000 second, the aperture to f/16, the shutter mode to single shot, and the exposure delay to 0. With the lens cap on, I made a series of several exposures with live view off, and another series about a minute apart with live view on.

I brought the images into RawDigger, and selected nearly the whole frame.

Here’s the histogram of the first image:

d810ISO800DFhisto

 

The gaps in the red and blue pixels are due to Nikon’s white balance prescaling.

I plotted the average standard deviation (aka sigma) of all four channels vs exposure number. Here’s the graph:

d810ISO800DFgraph

The vertical axis is the standard deviation measured by the ADC count. You can see that the self-heating introduced by live view is in evidence. You can also see that the effect of that heating is tiny.

If we look at just a 200×200 pixel central sample, we can see an even smaller effect, indicating that the main component of the heat-induced live view noise is pattern noise;

d810ISO800DFgraphsmall

 

The Last Word

← Learning on the job How much do you do in post? →

Comments

  1. Jean Pierre says

    February 23, 2015 at 12:37 am

    Thanks Jim,
    I had the same fear with the LCD monitor of the Fuji X-Pro1, Olympus EM-5, Sony SLT-a65 and Sony RX-100III! I make some tests and found out that the monitor affect the image and increase the noise also by ISO100!!!
    New MILC have EVF! Even, when you look through the EVF the Monitor still affect…..
    To avoid noise it is better to put the monitor as much as possible away from the back. Best is a swiveling monitor!
    Or to shoot without Liveview for DSLR! Best is to have a cool-pack and cooling down the back of the DSLR, it works as a wonder…..

    Reply
    • Jim says

      February 23, 2015 at 7:18 am

      Maybe it’s a problem for other cameras, but it looks like it’s inconsequential on the D810.

      Jim

      Reply
      • Jean Pierre says

        February 23, 2015 at 7:09 pm

        All digital camera are affected, more or less!
        What I want to know:
        How much noise difference between 1/8000s and 30sec?
        And which shutter speed affect less? It is 1/8000s or 1/125s …? It could be interesting for continuous mode by shooting session.

        Reply
  2. Igor says

    February 23, 2015 at 12:42 pm

    Hi Jim,
    I am not sure where I should post my question, so I am posting it here. It is about noise but in more practical manner.
    I tried to compare the noise level in raw images from the Canon 6D and Sony A7. According to DxO mark, their normalized LowLight scores (based on SNR18) are nearly identical. The difference in pixel count (20 vs 24 Mpix) should give some slight edge to the 6D. However, when I looked at the test images (gray scale) on DPR at ISO 1600-6400, the visible difference in the image noisiness was almost 1 stop for my sight. The same held true when I downloaded the raw files from dpr and processed them in dcraw.
    My question, where the truth is? Or everything is right on its own but the final images from the A7 will be noisier for some reason?

    Reply
    • Jim says

      February 23, 2015 at 12:48 pm

      I don’t have any Canons to test. I’m not knowledgeable of the ins and outs of DxO’s testing, although it appears that they build a model and present data from the model instead of the actual measured data. If you want to compare Claff photographic dynamic range vs ISO for several cameras, I recommend you use this page:

      http://home.comcast.net/~NikonD70/Charts/PDR.htm

      Jim

      Reply

Trackbacks

  1. D810 live view’s effect on dark-field noise, longer exposures | The Last Word says:
    May 31, 2016 at 2:06 pm

    […] few days ago, I posted some graphs that indicated that using live view on the D810 had no material effect on dar…. Several people have expressed interest in seeing the test repeated at longer shutter […]

    Reply
  2. D810 live view heating effects at 30 second exposures | The Last Word says:
    May 31, 2016 at 2:07 pm

    […] few days ago, I posted some graphs that indicated that using live view on the D810 had no material effect on dar… at 1/2000 second shutter speeds. Yesterday, I repeated the tests at 1/30 second and 1 second […]

    Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

May 2025
S M T W T F S
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031
« Apr    

Articles

  • About
    • Patents and papers about color
    • Who am I?
  • How to…
    • Backing up photographic images
    • How to change email providers
    • How to shoot slanted edge images for me
  • Lens screening testing
    • Equipment and Software
    • Examples
      • Bad and OK 200-600 at 600
      • Excellent 180-400 zoom
      • Fair 14-30mm zoom
      • Good 100-200 mm MF zoom
      • Good 100-400 zoom
      • Good 100mm lens on P1 P45+
      • Good 120mm MF lens
      • Good 18mm FF lens
      • Good 24-105 mm FF lens
      • Good 24-70 FF zoom
      • Good 35 mm FF lens
      • Good 35-70 MF lens
      • Good 60 mm lens on IQ3-100
      • Good 63 mm MF lens
      • Good 65 mm FF lens
      • Good 85 mm FF lens
      • Good and bad 25mm FF lenses
      • Good zoom at 24 mm
      • Marginal 18mm lens
      • Marginal 35mm FF lens
      • Mildly problematic 55 mm FF lens
      • OK 16-35mm zoom
      • OK 60mm lens on P1 P45+
      • OK Sony 600mm f/4
      • Pretty good 16-35 FF zoom
      • Pretty good 90mm FF lens
      • Problematic 400 mm FF lens
      • Tilted 20 mm f/1.8 FF lens
      • Tilted 30 mm MF lens
      • Tilted 50 mm FF lens
      • Two 15mm FF lenses
    • Found a problem – now what?
    • Goals for this test
    • Minimum target distances
      • MFT
      • APS-C
      • Full frame
      • Small medium format
    • Printable Siemens Star targets
    • Target size on sensor
      • MFT
      • APS-C
      • Full frame
      • Small medium format
    • Test instructions — postproduction
    • Test instructions — reading the images
    • Test instructions – capture
    • Theory of the test
    • What’s wrong with conventional lens screening?
  • Previsualization heresy
  • Privacy Policy
  • Recommended photographic web sites
  • Using in-camera histograms for ETTR
    • Acknowledgments
    • Why ETTR?
    • Normal in-camera histograms
    • Image processing for in-camera histograms
    • Making the in-camera histogram closely represent the raw histogram
    • Shortcuts to UniWB
    • Preparing for monitor-based UniWB
    • A one-step UniWB procedure
    • The math behind the one-step method
    • Iteration using Newton’s Method

Category List

Recent Comments

  • JimK on Goldilocks and the three flashes
  • DC Wedding Photographer on Goldilocks and the three flashes
  • Wedding Photographer in DC on The 16-Bit Fallacy: Why More Isn’t Always Better in Medium Format Cameras
  • JimK on Fujifilm GFX 100S II precision
  • Renjie Zhu on Fujifilm GFX 100S II precision
  • JimK on Fuji 20-35/4 landscape field curvature at 23mm vs 23/4 GF
  • Ivo de Man on Fuji 20-35/4 landscape field curvature at 23mm vs 23/4 GF
  • JimK on Fuji 20-35/4 landscape field curvature at 23mm vs 23/4 GF
  • JimK on Fuji 20-35/4 landscape field curvature at 23mm vs 23/4 GF
  • Ivo de Man on Fuji 20-35/4 landscape field curvature at 23mm vs 23/4 GF

Archives

Copyright © 2025 · Daily Dish Pro On Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in

Unless otherwise noted, all images copyright Jim Kasson.