My D300s samples, worried about noise and lack of sharpness

<p>First of all, yes, there is noise in the darker background areas. But, no, it does not matter. You would need a very, very large print, and look at that with a magnifying glass to see it. Have you ever looked at film with that detail?</p>

<p>This amount of noise is unavoidable. It is a matter of signal to noise. The areas have little information and low signal, so you see even the slightest noise. You could smoothen it out with software, but why should you?</p>

<p>Don't worry, the aspects of the images that concern you are not issues with the camera behaving irrationally or improperly.</p>

<p>I've shot about 10,000 images with a D300 in the last year, and what I see looks familiar and consistent with the light on those subjects. Looking at an image on a computer monitor is only a rough approximation of what the image will look like as a print or optimized for display on a monitor. (I suspect all of them, without any other tweaks, would make a clean 8x10 at the very least.) A compact camera's images will often look "better" than a DSLR in a certain narrow set of circumstances. Attach a wide angle lens on an SLR, stop it down to f11, and shoot with a lot of light - and it'll look a lot more like a compact camera. The longer the lens, the bigger the sensor, the more light you need, and the more care you need in terms of technique to get the image to really pop. That doesn't mean that a compact is better than a DSLR, because a compact will never adapt to as many situations as a DSLR.</p>

<p>When I moved to a D300 after the D40, I had quite a learning curve to adapt to the D300. Its not as forgiving a camera as the D40, and requires a deeper understanding of light to fully exploit. I can now outdo my D40 in any situation, but that's not how things worked out early on. At first I thought it was about learning how to work all the buttons, I soon learned that wasn't the answer - the answer was learning how to see light, to understand how the sensor renders light at different intensities. How different quality lenses affect the image (hint, try a 50mm 1.8). I still have a lot to learn - I'm not suggesting that I've mastered this topic.</p>

<p>The bottom line I'm trying to express, your images look appropriate for the conditions under which they were shot, and my foray into the D300 forced me to rethink what I thought I knew about photography. Its been frustrating at times, but well worth the effort.</p>

<p>Best,<br>

Bob</p>

<p>I am surprised that this has not been discussed more. I think that most D300 users look at the results, grasp what is happening, and are thankful. I can put up a D80 image beside a D300 image on the screen and enlarge. I can pick out the D300 image (base ISO) every time based on the grain. I also prefer the D300 image every time.</p>

<p>I think it's a lens issue. Your pics remind me of an issue I had with an 18-200mm lens. Here is the link to the chat on that. <a href="http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00SLxG">http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00SLxG</a><br>

I just sold the lens and bought a 105 2.8 VR. The difference is so unbelievable that I can hardly put it into words. It was my first camera and full DSLR (D80 and this 18-200 lens) and I though Nikon was crap, coming from a P&S Canon S2 IS. Well, it's the lens, nothing else in my opinion. The picture of the hairdresser is the sort of result I got in the first day, hand holding in sunsets, no tripod or none of all the rest. Either the lens works or it doesn't. I'm sticking to pro glass from now on (50 mm, 24-70, 105) and none of the consuler grade stuff. The better the camera, the worse the results will look imho.</p>

<p>There are cameras on the market who deal very well with noise, D300s is not one IMHO, some like his output, no problem with me... or don't care.<br>

"I think the 5D shots are really a class in front and would suggest you get a second one if you need a second body and just sell the D300." I prefer this answer :)</p>

<p>Did you take these shots on a tripod? Did you shut VR off? What was the aperture setting you were using? With that lens, that's probably as good as you're going to get.</p>

<p>David, sure you can like the answer "the 5D does way better" more, but that does not change the validity of the other comments. There is nothing wrong regarding noise with these pictures. Prints from these files will hold up to very considerable sizes. Sure, one can do better with a full frame, and maybe you like the 5D better as a tool. That is personal preference, and everybody is entitled to such preference. But <em>technically</em> , is there an issue here with the D300 or the 16-85 (which is a very sharp lens stopped down a bit, but which is not a macro lens and hence not at its best close focussed) - no, really not.</p>

<p>Frankly, I think you're too much pixel-peeping, but that's just my opinion. If the D300 does not make you happy, get a camera that does :-)</p>

<p>@<a href="/photodb/user?user_id=5189561">Wouter Willemse</a><br>

Onestly, I like very much your response., and yes, I seem to be a pixel peeper.<br>

@<a href="/photodb/user?user_id=330926">Aaron Linsdau</a> <br>

No tripod, VR ON, handheld, you can read the exif for the other settings.<br>

The exposure times were confortable as you can see.</p>

 

<p>One more sample/comparison, one more challenge :<br>

(I agree, <strong>not really fair</strong> speaking of equipment in different class used !! but the NIkon could have dealt better with skin tones):<br>

<strong>Nikon D300s with built-in flash, </strong><strong>85mm, f/5.6, 1/60s, </strong><br>

<strong>ISO 200</strong> , <strong>VR ON, handheld</strong> <br>

<a href="http://dl.fisier.ro/files/74b77nijffeii4a/DSC_0708.jpg.html">http://dl.fisier.ro/files/74b77nijffeii4a/DSC_0708.jpg.html</a><br>

<strong>Canon 5D, 70-200 f/4 IS USM, 580EX II flash, </strong><strong>200mm, f/5.6, 1/200s, </strong><br>

<strong>ISO 100, IS ON, handheld</strong><br>

<a href="http://dl.fisier.ro/files/rmb43jlmg3jjgre/IMG_0436.JPG.html">http://dl.fisier.ro/files/rmb43jlmg3jjgre/IMG_0436.JPG.html</a><br>

Please do not "criticise" the framing, the photos are for testing the cameras, only judge "technical" quality - exposure, color, noise, sharpness.<br>

Can I say that the amount of light is somehow "balanced" between the two shots ?<br>

Of course the 580 ex II flash is more powerful, but at 1/200s not 1/60s, at iso 100 not iso 200, and at greater distance from the subject...</p>

<p>Looks fine to me. No banding or obvious noise on my laptop. You need to print one to really see if you are dealing with a problem. In my opinion you are being too fussy. Do you have a fast prime to use to compare? The 16-85 is ok, but there are better Nikon lenses.<br>

The D700 would do better, but you are expecting a lot from a $2k camera. If it was an M9 etc you would be expecting better.</p>

<p>What bothered me looking at that picture <a rel="nofollow" href="http://dl.fisier.ro/files/74b77nijffeii4a/DSC_0708.jpg.html" target="_blank">http://dl.fisier.ro/files/74b77nijffeii4a/DSC_0708.jpg.html</a>)<br />is that the colors are not so good (no comment on sharpness and noise, maybe some will find it OOF :p), and no matter what post processing I do to the NEF file, the results are not getting better. Skin tone, saturation, WB ... impossible to match those that the 5D got out of the camera (with my custom Picture Style of course).<br />A comparison between DPP and Capture NX in terms of adjusting saturation:<br />Canon DPP: <a href="http://dl.fisier.ro/files/g474hmlrg3d4jnc/Canon_DPP.JPG.html">http://dl.fisier.ro/files/g474hmlrg3d4jnc/Canon_DPP.JPG.html</a><br />Capture NX: <a href="http://dl.fisier.ro/files/8nreg31i5hnaa2k/Nikon_CAPTURE_NX2.JPG.html">http://dl.fisier.ro/files/8nreg31i5hnaa2k/Nikon_CAPTURE_NX2.JPG.html</a><br />WB is very poor in that kind light I must agree and a problem to most cameras...<br />I want just your opinions and to know how would you process the RAW file to give better output !</p>

<p>Down loaded several of the files, resized them to 16x10 with a resolution of 300. Then did my sharpening magic in PS. The photos do appear to be soft. I would guess it's the lens you are using along with the f-stop. I also shoot with the D300 and have only experience this type of problem with various lenses.</p>

<p>David,</p>

<p>These things have been tested using very exacting procedures and what you have is the highest signal-to-noise-ratio, best color rendering camera on the market with an APS-C or smaller sensor. Your lens is the sharpest zoom lens available in the "high-enthusiast" class.</p>

<p>If you don't like the results, what you need is to use more noise reduction and different color settings in your raw processing, or to stop using APS-C cameras and use only 36x24mm full-frame. There's really nothing else to say about this.</p>

<p>BTW, if you have a Canon 5D, why did you get a Nikon D300S? If you want a crop sensor backup body, get a 50D. If the problem is that you have too much money and enjoy pixel peeping, what you need is a Leica M9.</p>

<p>The idea was to have a second body to give me speed for action (5d has 3fps only), the much appreciated 51 point AF, covering a big part of the frame, a decent walkaround lens who is very sharp according to photozone tests... a different 14bit color response, 2 card slot, video was never of interest for me because of BIG limitations on SLR.<br />D300s was going to be that "backup camera" but I'm going to return it ...</p>

<p>Oh, then what you want is a Canon 7D.</p>

<p>.. and Canon has lately begun to throw in too much megapixels. So the 50D, 7D.. not so good for me...<br>

IMHO: Most Nikon owners frustrated by the lack of megapixels go to Canon, and Canon frustrated owners go to Nkon particularly for the AF system, very good LCD and VF, body construction, clever custom options.etc.<br>

I found the D300s to be an EXCELLENT body, but I'm sorry for his final image quality- that matters the most to me</p>

<p>Hi david.<br>

D300s is actually one of the new releases from Nikon that have a very low default sharpness processing, and its done in part because pros have sugested that pp sharpening is superior to in camera algorithms, so by default it does come very low. if you need images right out from camera then you can bump some sharpening on the profiles.. I always process my raws and ad some sharpness afterwards not only for nikons dslr's.<br>

as for the noise.. I think you are trying too hard to find some. a steady hand would also help for your OOF images.<br>

Regards. J.A.R.T.</p>

<p>David, given the noise reduction settings that you used, I would not be at all concerned.</p>

<p>You mention the 5D, which is interesting to me because my first use of the 5D three years ago disappointed me in terms of softness. Over time it became obvious that the softness was in part due to Canon's rather aggressive noise reduction algorithm. I got used to the limitations of the camera and went on to get some very good shots with it, but I still cringe when I look at several of them and see a near water-coloring effect from the noise reduction.</p>

<p>The sharpest sensor I ever used was on the Kodak 14n, but I only got good results in good light. Otherwise, the noise was horrible, and the noise reduction was even worse. I think that you have some very usable files for printing at considerable size, and so I wouldn't worry in the least to see very even grain such as you are seeing. Yes, it is noise, but it is not objectionable at the sizes at which you will likely ever use the files.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I want just your opinions and to know how would you process the RAW file to give better output !</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Upload one of your NEF files.</p>

<p>I think you are comparing apples and oranges..the canon 70-200 lens against the 16-85 nikon is like putting Roger Federer up against Martina Navatalova...come on! Try calling NIkon and get some suggestions about settings. Every camera is different and need tweaks to get them to behave at their very best. I have a D90 and always do a manuel WB..works for me..and the color comes out much better then auto or any of the pre sets. </p>

<p>Frankly, I think you're being a silly pixel peeper. I doubt that any camera, no matter the sensor size, will make you happy. If you're really that bent over noise, pop $60 for Neat Image Pro and be done with it.</p>

<p>don't worry how they look on the screen, it's the print that counts</p>

<p>1. More megapixels with the same sensor size (smaller pixel sizes) produces more noise and thus you need more aggressive noise suppression which goes at cost of sharpness. The new canon models show just that. This is a consequence of that pixel sites can capture less light, and with constant exposure time you need to amplify the signal more (meaning you start by default from actually a higher iso value).<br>

2. By the same argument, a d300 at base iso will produce more noise than a d700, but less than the newer canon supermegapixel-DX sensors.<br>

3. Noise increases in shadow because the sensor signal (linear responses with luminance) has to be gamma corrected (compressive, nonlinear curve) which amplifies darker pixels more than brighter ones. Put in a simple way, the in-camera processing applies more iso to darker regions than to brighter ones, even at "base iso". So, as Rene pointed out earlier, this gives you a worse SNR in darker regions and you see more noise.<br>

4. The noise in your images is a pleasing type of noise (obtained usually from agressive color noise suppression, less luminance noise suppression)<br>

5. Sharpness issues sure come from the lens, a glimpse at your photos gives the impression that center sharpness is good but it declines towards the corners. Try a performer, e.g. AF-50mm/f1.8 at 3.2 , or a AF-85mmf1.4 at 2.8 (or any other good prime lens) to investigate - I think the zoom lens you had does not permit definitive conclusion.</p>

<p>I don't think there is noise in the images. It is only a grain , like film . This effect as per my openion is due to the quality of lens and focus problems . Try this with sturdy tripod and 105 mm f/2.8 AFS- VR . But there is nothing wrong in the images like NOISE.</p>

<p>Dave, your D300s is among the best DSLRs yet made, and pixel peeping can become a compulsive disorder if you don't get a grip.pith</p>