D2X performance at ISO 800 vs film...

I don't want to start a highly scientific or technical debate.

 

I currently use Nikon F100's for concerts, shooting at ISO 800 on

Fuji NPZ 800.

 

I'm seriously considering moving up to the Nikon D2X.

 

So this is a question for those D2X users who use it at ISO 800 and

have experience of shooting ISO 800 film... Any impressions? I'm

thinking particularly about grain vs pixellation.

 

Some concert photographers have told me that colours etc just aren't

as good as on film.

 

I doubt I'd ever blow shots up beyond A3 size.

 

Thanks, Neil

I'll load up some examples for you from the D2x. I usually need a cam as well to shoot in the 1600iso range and haven't shot enough of it to make any serious judgement. but even the d70 blows away anything you could do on npz. i'll post back later.

Recently I did a similar evaluation, and IMO, there is no comparison. Fuji ISO 800 NPZ has a purple-green tone and the grains are not that great, but it is understandable for an ISO 800 film. You'll see a bit of noise when you shoot the D2X at ISO 800, but it is far better than Fuji NPZ or Kodak MAX 800.

 

The attached image was shot at a recent wedding with a D2X at ISO 800.

This is straight from the camera without any noice-reduction software; I only scaled down the image to 500 pixels on the long end.

The link below is a wedding image from a year ago using NPZ on an F5. Both were indoor church weddings where flash photography was not permitted.

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/2575048

 

I have made 4x6" type prints from both, and the D2X prints look much better.<div></div>

The advantage to shooting with a good dSLR at a higher ISO is that noise reduction software can be used to clean up the image. Noise Ninja and Neat Image are very good. Bibble Pro, which, overall, is comparable to Nikon Capture, also includes a pretty good noise reduction utility.

 

That plus color correction should make low light shooting under mixed lighting easier with a dSLR than with fast film. And it took years for me to admit to that.

iso 800 on a D2x. NPZ can't do this.<br><br>

<center><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/3531671-lg.jpg"></center><br><br>

<center><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/3531675-lg.jpg"></center>

thank you so far. Yeah, Lex I know! I love film and presume the D2X couldn't yet compare to the crispness of Velvia 50 or Provia 100F (although I don't actually project my slides and never will - I scan then!!)

 

I always thought that NPZ 800 would outperform the D2X in low light at ISO 800 - maybe its time to reconsider??

Eric, that is stunning quality. Do you shoot in RAW mode? Do you need to do much post-camera noise reduction / PS work?

Iso 800 on a D2x. All four that have been posted are straight from camera raw, no adjustments.<br><br>

<center><img src=" http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/3531708-lg.jpg"></center><br><br>

<center><img src=" http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/3531711-lg.jpg"></center>

When you set the D2X at ISO 100, it beats Velvia 50, 100 or provia 100F in 35mm format very easily. The D2X will provide a lot more details than 35mm film, provided that you use a high-end lens on it. I recently made some 8.5x11 prints from D2X RAW files and I had never seen nearly as much sharpness and details from 35mm film of any type.

 

Negative film still wins in one area: it has more latitude than digital. For those portrait/wedding photographers who have not been paying sufficient attention to the correct exposure, negative film still lets you get away with a lot more than digital can. However, since I was a slide film user before, digital's dynamic range has never been a problem for me.

 

The D2X's main drawback is cost. If Nikon can provide a prosumer DSLR with 8 or 10MP and the image quality is close to that from the D2X (but lacks the AF and frame rate capabilities) at $2000, it'll be a very attractive alternative.

 

I hate to point this out in the Nikon Forum, but Canon seems to be ahead in terms of high ISO results. The D2X maxes out at ISO 800 as I would rather not depend on the H1 and H2 settings, but I tested a Canon 20D at ISO 1600 indoors and it looks wonderful.

Neil, yes, i only shoot in raw, and like i said before i noticed your post, these are straight from the cf card. do you want to see 1600 and 3200 iso?

it's kinda ironic. i need to point out that my friend that works at the only pro lab remaining here, is cutting up npz negs on the light table there...

Hi Eric, if you've got some at H1 and H2 (is that it!?) that would be great to see.

 

I bowled over by the quality of the zoomed shots you've posted - I had no idea the D2X is so powerful!

 

Presumably the lesser contrast latitude of digital vs film would explain why often you see concert shots from DSLRs that lack the punch of the saturated coloured lights compared to film (without flash I mean).

 

I know Canon are ahead on DSLRs. I'd use the D2X for concerts and probably not a lot else. Its a huge lump and I can't see myself taking it on holiday backpacking etc necessarily - hence why I'd keep an F100 too.

 

I know Nikon are firmly down the 1.5 magnification rather than full frame sensor, but its about waiting to see if they can compete soon with the 1DS Mk 2, or whether I ought to just take the plunge...whatever I buy will be out of date by the time its out of the box...

And here's the other end, three crops from H-2 on the D2x. Ilkka brought up a good point and I have yet to determine, if H-1 = 1600 and respectively, if H-2 = 3200 or not. Regardless, this is the highest iso you can set on the D2x. I used my handheld meter and set it for 2000 iso and made the exposure. Like NPZ, or film in general, it looks best with an over exposure. <br><br>

<center><img src=" http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/3531772-lg.jpg"></center><br><br>

<center><img src=" http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/3531777-lg.jpg"></center><br><br>

<center><img src=" http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/3531780-lg.jpg"></center>

NPZ couldn't do that at ISO 2000! And I find it is very intolerant of underexposure... Amazing! Time to rent one to shoot my next gig on I think

"I bowled over by the quality of the zoomed shots you've posted - I had no idea the D2X is so powerful!"

 

Neil, so was I! When i first got it and came home to photoshop, i couldn't stop zooming in and outin disbelief.

 

"Presumably the lesser contrast latitude of digital vs film would explain why often you see concert shots from DSLRs that lack the punch of the saturated coloured lights compared to film (without flash I mean)."

 

this is just laziness of the post processing. but you're right, straight out of the can, and most are shot on Canon, they all have the same waxy skin tone.

 

"I know Canon are ahead on DSLRs. I'd use the D2X for concerts and probably not a lot else. Its a huge lump and I can't see myself taking it on holiday backpacking etc necessarily - hence why I'd keep an F100 too."

 

oh, you'll be taking it everywhere. There's no need for film with this camera. You'll soon get sick of scanning and ending up with inferior quality.

 

"I know Nikon are firmly down the 1.5 magnification rather than full frame sensor, but its about waiting to see if they can compete soon with the 1DS Mk 2, or whether I ought to just take the plunge...whatever I buy will be out of date by the time its out of the box..."

 

I've grown to really like the 1.5 factor. it took a bit to get used to of course, but now i have all these wonderful fast primes. my 180 is now almost a 300 f2.8, my 135 f2 is a 200 f2. All this glass was so expensive as a 1:1 film lens. I bought the 17-55 dx and am now not missing anything. Just one zoom purchase and that's it. Regarding the MkII, I don't like the Canon skin tones. Go to your pro shop with a couple of cf cards and shoot both. The Canon has on board software for noise reduction that can't be turned off (Nikon does) that will always give that plastic waxy Canon look. I'm not into it.

Eric, do you have any BW400CN in your fridge? I'd like to see a comparison between that stuff (exposed at iso 250 or thereabouts) and the D2X. If you don't use it, that's ok too, I am just curious.

<blockquote><i>I hate to point this out in the Nikon Forum, but Canon seems to be ahead in terms of high ISO results. The D2X maxes out at ISO 800 as I would rather not depend on the H1 and H2 settings, but I tested a Canon 20D at ISO 1600 indoors and it looks wonderful.</i></blockquote>

<p>Canon is known to perform noise reduction in camera, even on the RAW images - more so than Nikon does. What I wonder is whether the results are better than what you can achieve in post with decent noise reduction tools?

Ilkka, I only have the old T400CN, which i love and still use. I'm down to 20 rolls in 35mm and one or two left for 120. But no, i don't have anything, with any digi cam, that comes close to the kind of results I can get with T400CN. You can get it close, but still, the depth isn' there. With digital, i open raw a few times at different exposures and use masking layers to bring in different values.

Yeah. I just wish I could get this kind of images with digital, but I can't with the D70.<div></div>

Eric, those are very impressive. Certainly Fuji Neopan 1600 would be hard pressed indeed to match them, let alone any colour negative film. I'm a B&W film user (no software can match darkroom printing, until I can dodge and burn by waving my hands over the monitor!) but for colour, digital's definitely the way.

It's odd. I have a whole 8x10 portfolio book of digital images, and most other photogs don't believe they are digital. It takes desire to work them over in post. But nevertheless, there's something i can't get, lattitude, on the digi that is there with T400Cn @250 iso. I did these three D2x shots yesterday. <br><br>

<center><img src=" http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/3531967-md.jpg "></center>

Although I'm a film guy, I have to say that digital has the advantage when it comes to high ISO.

 

But I mostly shoot at ISO 100, 160 & 200, and no digital camera I've used (borrowed) has given me the colour/look of Velvia, Provia or Kodakrome. Also, I think digital is still way behind film for B&W.

 

Digital IS the future, but film will NEVER go out of style (I hope).

Just my 2 cents.

 

P.S Loved those low light photos. Definately can't get such cleam pics with ISO 800 film or higher.

 

Cheers.

Let us see some action examples, folks! I think D2X should be more capable than some static portraits?!

 

Shun, would you whip out your 500mm f/4 AFS and show us some birds in flight or something like that with your new D2X? Congrats on your new toy, BTW!<div></div>

The fact that the D2X noise goes up at HI settings is a physical necessity with small pixels, you can manipulate the data all you like with image processing algorithms, but you can't escape the fact that more photons means less noise. So a larger sensor will always win over a smaller one given equal technology and image processing in each case. However, do you want to pay for it and carry the associated lenses is another matter.

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/3488117-md.jpg" height="453" width="680" border="0"><br>The Pull<br>by Nikos Peri<p>

D2x and 80-200mm f/2.8 AFD<br>

Would have to check, but certainly not higher than 320 ISO...