D50 better than D300 in ISO

<p>I love my D50,but I wish it had a larger viewfinder.</p>

<p>The thing that bothers me most about the D50 is how slow it is. Slow to clear the buffer, and slow to preview images. And the small screen. The D40 fixes these things. And supposedly the viewfinder is better as well, but to tell you the truth I've never noticed a difference between them.</p>

<p>For the matter... Dpreview tests:<br /> <br /> D50<br /> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond50/page17.asp<br /> <br /> D300<br /> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond300/page18.asp</p>

<p>A question Rob,<br>

what is you NR setting in camera? The general consensus is to have it at no NR in camera if I'm not wrong....</p>

 

<p>To make a better comparison I downsampled Rob's D300 example so that it was the same size as the D40 (or is it D50?) one. After doing that they look much the same to me.<br>

I am not surprised since I remember looking at the JPEG noise measurements on Dpreview for D40 and D300 and finding them much the same at a given ISO.<br>

Don't people say that the D40 is about 1 stop better than D200/D80? Don't people also say that the D300 is about 1 stop better than D80/D200? If that's so then D40 and D300 should be similar.<br>

Mind you, noise and sharpness are always a tradeoff so be sure to compare sharpness as well as noise.</p>

 

<p>I am looking at the same files posted above in my new Demo copy of NX. To me there isn't much difference. The D300 preview maybe looks a bit better compared to the D50, at 1600, but it also looks like there is more NR going on. The blacks especially show much less noise, but if you look at the shadows, the D50 retains more detail. It's interesting.</p>

<p>So I would challenge those of you who say the D300 is clearly better than the D40/50 to show us the goods! To tell you the truth I would be happy for you to show me that I actually got something in terms of image quality for the 1400 euro I just spent!</p>

<p>The D50 was my first DSLR, and I still have it, and use it mostly as a backup to a D90. I don't know if it has better noise reduction than the D300, but I do know that it is pretty good at 1600 ISO, particularly with some mild Noise Ninja applied with the proper profile. In the attached image, I apologize for cutting off the bird's tail, but I wanted to keep within the 700 pixel limit for online presentation. I don't care which is better, only that the D50 is very usable.</p><div></div>

<p>While it is not at all impossible that the statement is true and the dpreview test can be interpreted to point in this direction, the actual side by side test is fairly easy to execute, so why not do it and show? It is, of course, a bit hard to compare the considerable difference in resolution, but that can be approached in several ways.</p>

<p>Evaluating noise in images is a tricky business. So it is no surprise that without a controlled side by side comparison anybody can claim anything and nobody will believe it :-P</p>

 

<p>I have a D40 and a D300. The truth is that improvements in CCD/CMOS technology has been relatively undramatic. Both cameras can shoot really good pictures - even enlarging up to 20x30. The D300 can do more, work with more lenses, do CLS, etc. </p>

<p>But the trusty little old D40 sure is nice and light weight when you are out hiking.</p>

<p>It just proves a couple of things. To the average Joe, the need to upgrade continuously is a marketing con because unless you are printing big images, you don't need a big sensor. Another thing is that NX2 certainly gets more out of a .nef file than Lightroom...as you'd expect. Nikon aren't going to give all their IP to Adobe, are they? I've just spent a week discovering that. Had the images been uploaded to NX2, saved as a .tiff, and then imported into Lightroom, you would see the difference.<br>

I bought a D300 because of its quality and body integrity, depth of picture controls and compatibility with my old, but fast, manual lenses. It's purchase will protect my long accumulated Nikon investment. I doubt that my limited expertise will ever exercise its capability, so why would I want anything more? One day I might go to a D700, but not for now.<br>

Any 6mp+ digital camera with a good lens will produce nice pictures. My Canon G7 with its 2.8 lens is one. I bought it for that lens, not the body. Its only when you want instant startup, fast focus, big viewfinder, big LCD, interchangeable lenses, would you need to go further. Horses for courses.</p>

<p>"Anyway, I just wanted to post this. If I had known this beforehand I might not have bought the D300." Some people don't get it and never will. </p>

<p>If you just bought camera, simple return it to store for refund. D300 never was hi ISO camera and never meant to be, pixels too small. That's why D700 better in hi ISO then D3X.</p>

 

<p>So first off, the science behind matters such as these is beyond the comprehension of most of us.....but let’s get beyond the crazy enlargements, and ridiculous comparison of minor amounts of noise difference. Until just a few days ago I owned the d70, d50, d200, and d300, and their noise performance was in my opinion, ranked in the same order. I know from actual use, that the d300 is better in all situations.... I don't need to post controlled tests, at a standard setting, and blow it up to 300x to know that. Why? because I see it in real life! If I sound irritated it’s because people continue to post hostile threads like this that seem like they are intended solely to stir up controversy. Seriously, do these infinitesimally small details really matter to the photographer? Or just the gear jockey? I implore all of you to get out and shoot, use your experiences to be the judge of a cameras performance, and stop staring at numbers and graphs and giant enlargements of another guys OFFICE! Ps....I love all of those cameras, and it’s a pity I couldn’t keep them all! </p>

<p>Rob, you still haven't posted RAW photos as requested multiple times. Please take a number of identical pairs of exposure using the D50 and D300 on a tripod and post the RAW files.</p>

<p>This should not surprise you if you take the following in account:</p>

<ol>

<li>CMOS is a inherently noisier technology than CCD. The main reason for the move to CMOS is that CCD is much more power hungry. </li>

<li>With the same sensor size the higher the resolution the higher the noise</li>

<li>It was common knowledge that the D50 of the 6MP nikons D50, D70, D100 all using basically the same sensor, had the cleanest files.</li>

</ol>

<p>In the end the D300 wins out with better processing, and higher Dynamic range.<br>

I do not understand that the OP is not willing to put up two shots in nef; they do not even have to be processed as this is the nikon forum most of us posses the tools to download the file and procesit for them selves.<br>

An other point is that when using the latest version of nx you are basically processing the D50 file with the same engine as in the d300, as that is a software redering of the expeed chip and the same algorithms are used in both.<br>

In the end the D50 is profiting from the improved noise reduction on the cmos camera's.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>So I would challenge those of you who say the D300 is clearly better than the D40/50 to show us the goods!</p>

</blockquote>

<p>So a claim is posted, backed up with at best anecdotal evidence and then the naysayers are challenged to prove their point? This isn't politics, this is science and technology and seems to me that you don't know how scientific research and debate is done.<br>

FWIW, I upgraded to a D300 from D70. The ergonomic improvements are considerable (better manual focus, better AF, better viewfinder, more rigid body, meters on manual lenses, PC sync and cable release sockets), but in a 8x12" print there is a clear difference in favor of the D300 due to the resolution advantage.</p>

<p>I will post the corresponding RAW files on Monday. You can see for yourself and decide for yourself. I have only dial up this weekend.</p>

<p>Looking at them in NX2, though, I would argue that Nikon is not passing NR algorithms from new cameras to the old. It makes sense. Why would a camera company want to make images from old cameras look better. In LR the RAW images look pretty similar, slightly different color, different resolution, slightly different noise. NX2 must be designed to give you the same JPEGs you get out of the camera, not necessarily more recent improvements which come from software. This is just my interpretation.</p>

<p>Also, I had other reasons for buying the D300 besides noise. If I only cared about noise and thought I could get it from the 12mp DX chip I would have bought the D90 or D5000. Nor did I say that the D50/40 is a better camera. It was not my intention to start controversy or imply that the D300 is not a great camera. I was simply surprised, and a bit disappointed when I compared, and felt it was worth sharing. Nothing more. Take it or leave it it's up to you, if you don't care then I totally understand, but there's no need to insult me. I'm just a guy with these cameras who took a closer look.</p>

<p>I used to have a D50, and now own a D300. So this thread made me curious (curious enough to sign up). I checked RAW files from both yesterday in ViewNX. Unedited files, shot at ISO800 and 200.<br>

It is somewhat true that the D300 is not noise-free at ISO200, though it's more a fine grain than anything else. At 800, I find the D300 really good. 1600 is very usable.<br />The D50 at 800 is good, I found 1600 quite bad; hardly ever used it.<br />Another thing: I've used ACR in the past, but the handling of ACR on D300 ISO1600 files made me buy Capture NX2. I find it seriously below par, far too much need to use noise reduction with the inevitable loss of detail. Nikon software handles them far far better (IMHO). For the D50 and D80 RAWs, I never had any issue with ACR, so using Adobe products to compare does not do the D300 any justice in my view.<br>

However, to me the biggest difference is not so much the amount of noise but the type of noise. The D50 has colour noise (at ISO800), the D300 luminance noise. Colour noise is plain ugly, luminance noise looks like a grain which is fine by me.<br />And because of that, I would not say that the D50 is better at higher ISO than the D300. Maybe the amount of noise may be equal, but the way it looks sure doesn't.</p>

<p>All 3 points Erwin listed are incorrect:</p>

<ul>

<li>Modern CMOS image sensor technology is much superior to CCD in noise, speed and power. The pixel architecture termed '4T' or 4-transistor per pixel is actually a little CCD in each pixel, complete with a pinned photodiode, a transfer gate and a sense node.</li>

<li>A smaller pixel will typically hold less charge so the signal-to-noise ratio is degraded, but not the noise, which is due to the readout circuitry, not the pixel size. Higher resolution lowers the SNR but has no impact on noise.</li>

<li><a href="http://www.bythom.com/d50review.htm">From this review</a>: <em>"</em><em>The CCD sensor the D50 uses is unique. No, it's not the one used in the D100 or D70 models, though it is certainly derived from the same technology." </em>In the same review, it is noted that the D50 tends to overexpose leading to blown out highlights. Since noise is typically less evident in overexposed images, this may help explain Rob's observations.</li>

</ul>

<blockquote>

<p><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=2399373">Erwin Baeyens</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"></a>, Jun 06, 2009; 01:49 a.m.</p>

<p>This should not surprise you if you take the following in account:</p>

<ol>

<li>CMOS is a inherently noisier technology than CCD. The main reason for the move to CMOS is that CCD is much more power hungry. </li>

<li>With the same sensor size the higher the resolution the higher the noise</li>

<li>It was common knowledge that the D50 of the 6MP nikons D50, D70, D100 all using basically the same sensor, had the cleanest files.</li>

</ol></blockquote>

<p>These were shot in M, there was no metering involved, and the exposures are pretty close, about 1/3 stop I'd day.</p>

<p>I think I basically just figured it out, why everyone thinks the D300 is so much better. Here I will post the JPEGs, from NX2, then imported to LR to do the crop. I'm sorry the crops are slightly different than the above. I think I left the exif in this time so take a look if you're inclined. Here is the D300 from NX2...</p><div></div>

<p>And here the D50 NX2 image...</p><div></div>

<p>And one more time, converted from LR, with the same crop... D300....</p><div></div>

<p>D50 convert in LR, same crop as above...</p><div></div>

<p>What I really notice flipping back between these, is that NX2 really crushes the blacks in the D300 RAW, but this is not the case with the D50. Look at the black between the two D50 images. Looks the same, but less noisy in NX2 compared to LR. Now compare the D300 LR and NX2.<br>

It's also interesting to compare the file sizes. From NX2 to LR the file size change is more dramatic for the D300 file than the D50. This could be interpreted, I think, as NX2 being more aggressive with NR in the D300 image.<br>

I agree with the comment about color noise. But LR can remove color noise no problem. It's the luminance that is more difficult, at least this is my impression, and I agree that I have never been happy with what LR is doing here. </p>

<p>By the way in NX2 I left everything to whatever default settings are. I only adjusted the WB.</p>