josheudowe Posted November 7, 2008 Share Posted November 7, 2008 Has anyone played around with the true ISO range of the D300 in an indoor setting? Just curious to know at what point you'll start to see the image quality affected. I'm using, for the most part, f/2.8 lenses on my D300. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ellis_vener_photography Posted November 7, 2008 Share Posted November 7, 2008 L1.0 is equal to ISO 100 up to Hi 2 which as I recall is equivalent to ISO 6400. Best working range is ISO 200> 1200. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
photo5 Posted November 7, 2008 Share Posted November 7, 2008 I find ISO 1600 to be very acceptable, and on a recent trip to London, set my max ISO to 3200 and still got fantastic results. YMMV of course, but even up to ISO 3200 the D300 shines in my experience.<P> <center><img src="http://hull534.smugmug.com/photos/394943542_Vfiz3-L.jpg"><P> At The British Museum, D300 at ISO 3200, Sigma 10-20mm at 20mm</center><P> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elliot1 Posted November 7, 2008 Share Posted November 7, 2008 A lot depends on how your shoot (RAW or JPG) and what software you use to process your images. ISO 3200 D300 images can be made to look as good as low ISO images if you have the right software and know how to use it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShunCheung Posted November 7, 2008 Share Posted November 7, 2008 The D300 only has Hi 1 but not Hi 2. Hi 1 is approximately ISO 6400. Its rated range is 200 to 3200 with Lo 1 and Hi 1 options. Any time you deviate from the base ISO, you'll lose some quality, but for the D300, I am still happy with ISO 1600 indoors. 3200 is the max in the range and is still OK in my opinion. I would avoid Hi 1 as much as possible. Dave Lee's sample image has very little shadow areas and therefore even ISO 3200 looks good. Unfortunately, the shadow areas are where the problem is. Therefore, I would say Dave's sample is not a representative one. That issue has already been pointed out to Dave multiple times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andreas_manessinger Posted November 7, 2008 Share Posted November 7, 2008 It all depends upon what you do. I have set one of my shooting banks to "ISO 6400 B&W", i.e. ISO fixed to 6400, JPEG output set to B&W (the NEF is still raw, thus shooting NEF+JPEG I can still get color), and the results are very satisfying. It's a funny game: forget about ISO and noise, shoot action at night, the result is a slightly grainy (less than high-speed film) but pleasing B&W image. See <a href="http://blog.andreas-manessinger.info/2008/09/712-straight-no-chaser.html">here</a> for an example. This is not bad. Not bad at all :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bruce_margolis Posted November 8, 2008 Share Posted November 8, 2008 In my experience with the D300, ISO 1600 is pretty darn good in almost all situations. I even don't think about using it -- much less worry about it -- when I need to increase shutter speed such as wildlife and action photos. In fact, tomorrow I will probably use it to photograph a Blue Angels show. However, like Shun is saying, ISO 3200 is a bit rough when you have shadows and you want to raise detail. Just my opinion, that's the time to use NR software but it still comes at a price of detail loss. Depending on the light, of course, much of your work could be accomplished at f/2.8 indoors with ISO 1600 but for those shots that require another stop, I would plan on using software to carefully bring back the shadows. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robertbody Posted November 8, 2008 Share Posted November 8, 2008 For night city shooting, I try to keep it at ISO-200 preferably... ISO-400 hesitantly, and ISO-800 if i have to. Any higher and the color quality is affected, the colors are dulled. Anything over ISO-200 I notice grain. I use high-ISO noise adjustment set to high in camera. <br> <img src="http://www.robertbody.com/cities08/images/2008-10-06-tempe-bridge-32767.jpg"> <br> D300, ISO-1600, 1/45s f/2.8, 17mm...... Nikon 17-35mm f/2.8 <br><br> I like how the lake looks in the picture (affected by exposure time) but i don't like the grain in the sky. When I used ISO-200, however, the shutter speed blurred the water. Maybe a composite of sky at IS0-200 and bottom from ISO-1600 :-) that would work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oskar_ojala Posted November 8, 2008 Share Posted November 8, 2008 Of course the quality starts deteriorating already at ISO 400, but high-ISO is very good, I do not hesitate to increase sensitivity when needed. I do use ISO 1600 or higher when really needed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShunCheung Posted November 8, 2008 Share Posted November 8, 2008 To me more precise (don't mean to nit pick on you, Oskar), quality starts to deteriorate when you make the smallest change from the base ISO 200, i.e. from ISO 250, but of course the deterioration is tiny. When you reach ISO 800 and 1600, it starts becoming noticeable. When I wrote the D300 review here, I included several high-ISO samples in my D300 portfolio. The following fisheye shot (with a pixel level crop) was at ISO 1600: http://www.photo.net/photo/6751025 The following two were at 3200: http://www.photo.net/photo/6808296 http://www.photo.net/photo/6808216 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
josheudowe Posted November 8, 2008 Author Share Posted November 8, 2008 Thanks everyone, a lot. Is it noticeably different between JPEG and RAW? Believe it or not, I still shoot JPEG (I know, I need to switch to raw, I just need to learn the process). I'm on a Mac Pro with Photoshop CS, but I just have never made the switch over the raw. Anyway, where I'm running into the problem is shooting indoors. I'm using a D300 with a 70-200 f/2.8 and it seems like I need to be in the ISO 1600+ range to get anything off that can still be handheld. Shun, thanks for those sample images. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShunCheung Posted November 8, 2008 Share Posted November 8, 2008 Josh, if anybody wants to get the most out of their digital images, shoot RAW and post process. When you shoot JPEG, you automatically throw away a lot of information at the time you take the picture, and that information will never be recoverable. It is as simple as that. JPEG is fine for casual photographers and some news/sports photographer when turn-around time is very tight. Even so, you are still better off shooting RAW + JPEG to take advantage of both, especially since memory space is very cheap nowadays. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
josheudowe Posted November 8, 2008 Author Share Posted November 8, 2008 Shun, you're absolutely right. Especially since I'm using ultra-fast, high capacity CF cards (16GB), along with great equipment. However, if I use iphoto just to catalog my photos, can that read RAW? If not, do you have a better suggestion on what to use? Okay, starting today I renounce JPEGs and accept RAW as my new format. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_pogorelc Posted November 8, 2008 Share Posted November 8, 2008 I was in the same boat not too long ago. I have long since made the switch to shooting raw and never looked back. Like you, I was managing all of my old shots using iPhoto. With CS I now use Bridge to manage my raw files, and ACR to do the primary image manipulation, with PS to add any effects, touch-up, crop, etc. While my workflow could be substantially improved, I find that with Bridge I can batch process all of my files easily. The resulting jpgs can be dumped to a place of my choosing so that I can import the images into iPhoto (which I tend not to do anymore). If you do intend to stick with CS, I highly recommend getting a copy of the book "Camera Raw with Adobe Photoshop CS3" by the late Bruce Fraser and Jeff Schewe. It has been invaluable in helping me to understand a lot of the digital imaging processing pipeline. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_pogorelc Posted November 8, 2008 Share Posted November 8, 2008 BTW, I apologize if my previous post seemed a little off-topic. My real point was to support Shun's statement about getting the most out of your images. I tend to shoot a lot of youth sports, often at high ISOs in bad lighting. Since shooting raw, I find that the images that are produced look a lot better when the preliminary manipulation is done on the raw image. No two ways about it, those extra bits are precious. Here is an image I posted in a previous thread that addresses the OPs original question.<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
studor13 Posted November 8, 2008 Share Posted November 8, 2008 "Okay, starting today I renounce JPEGs and accept RAW as my new format." This would be a big mistake. Look folks, I hate to tell you all but it goes like this: 1. Find quality light 2. Work out what is a good composition 3. Get the exposure right Number 3 is the only thing that RAW is going to help you with if you mess it up. And you will get at most 2/3s of a stop of help. Get 1 and 2 wrong and you can shoot RAW until the cows come home and it will make ZERO difference. "JPEG is fine for casual photographers ..." JPEG is fine for ANYONE! It depends on what it is that you are trying to do with the image. And for the record, I shoot RAW+JPEG Normal. Unless I intend to enter an image for a competition, I usually just print the JPEG and I assure you that they look fine. The attached file is from 2 JPEG files which had a huge dynamic range. 1 second and 3 seconds. The shot for the sky also had a 3 stop soft grad ND to really tame the reds. I tried to process the two NEFs but it ain't as easy as you think. JPEGs (Normal) that Nikon give you is very very good indeed.<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShunCheung Posted November 8, 2008 Share Posted November 8, 2008 Andy, may I politely make a suggestion to you? Print out what you wrote above on a piece of paper. Come back and review it 1, 2, 3 years from now and see whether you'll still agree with yourself today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bernie moore Posted November 8, 2008 Share Posted November 8, 2008 Bruce- Blue Angels minus one.. On of the pilots has been suspended for fraternizing with one of the crew, and it's too late to replace him with one of the last crew's pilots. Still...it's the best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hudspeth Posted November 8, 2008 Share Posted November 8, 2008 Bernhardt Why do we care about the pilots indiscretion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eric_arnold Posted November 8, 2008 Share Posted November 8, 2008 here's a d300 shot with the sigma 30mm lens with auto-iso set to 3200 max. the camera chose 2800. normally, i try not to go above 1600, but in this case, i was shooting a street scene outside at night and needed all the ISO i could get.<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
josheudowe Posted November 8, 2008 Author Share Posted November 8, 2008 Scott, thanks for the information. I need to learn more about the raw process and the advantages and disadvantages. As pointed out by Andy, I think there will be times when raw is a huge advantage and times when it's not. When I'm running around my yard shooting pics of my kids on the swings, I'm sure a jpeg will be fine. Not to change the subject too much from the original question, but what software options should I consider when shooting raw? I love the ease of using iphoto to merely catalog my pics and upload them to various sites, but in terms of working with raw photos, performing any image manipulation, etc, I'm all ears! Thanks all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxwelll Posted November 8, 2008 Share Posted November 8, 2008 hey josh, i've been shooting in raw for years now and would never turn back. the flexability it gives you is priceless. you sound like you are shooting with some wicked gear, so i think maybe its time for your software to catch up. lightroom. i wouldn't say you need to get lightroom 2, but lightroom none the less. it will give you all the raw processing you need and if you don't do a lot of heavy alteration, may even keep you from using photoshop. i don't know how much you like to manipulate your photos, but all the basic stuff for raw files (and a little extra) is in there. bridge is a cheaper alternative if you already have it, but then you are still jumping back and forth between programs. if you want one place for most of your work flow, then lightroom is it. if you need more info i would suggest checking out scott kelby's books, or blog. his writing is really accessible and also, he's a funny guy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_pogorelc Posted November 9, 2008 Share Posted November 9, 2008 Josh, there are a lot of people more qualified than myself to speak about workflows. I provided my limited perspective that works for me. I bought CS3 and so Bridge and PS were part of the deal. ACR is a plugin within Bridge that allows you to batch process your raw files. ACR can also be invoked from within PS. BTW, I bought Scott Kelby's Photoshop CS3 Book a while ago -- a lot of good practical tips for PS as well as ACR. In addition, he dedicates a early portion of his book extolling the virtues of Bridge. This kind of sealed the deal for me because our household already owned a copy of PS 7 from way back when, so CS3 was a practical and affordable upgrade. Also keep in mind that there are several other raw image processing tools such as DXO and, of course, Nikon's own Capture NX. I can not comment on these, but firmly believe each of these tools are effective and each has their own share of advocates. I think you can download trial copies of the various s/w tools and so that might be a good way to go -- give 'em a test drive to see what works for you. Whatever choice you decide to make, the bottom line is that you can always produce JPEG images that can be imported into iPhoto if that is your image managing tool of choice. Either the camera does the bulk of the processing for you up front, or you spend a little time on back end using your computer. One thing is for sure, the raw file is the true digital negative and gives you the most flexibility to make things look their best, particularly at high ISOs when you are light-challenged. P.S. to Eric -- very cool shot! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
studor13 Posted November 9, 2008 Share Posted November 9, 2008 Shun, no need to write it down on a piece of paper. You know, the internet is here to stay. I will also politely remind you of your stance on staying DX "forever" only a few years ago. Getting back to the OP, I've found that at above ISO 400 noise starts to creep in. However, even ISO 1600 is very usable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShunCheung Posted November 9, 2008 Share Posted November 9, 2008 Andy, don't need to remind me. I still prefer DX for all of my wildlife and sports shooting today in 2008 and will continue to do so for years to come, although I also use FX now. That is no different from me using both 35mm film and 645 film in parallel a few years ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now