D-300 Noise...Disappointed

<blockquote>

<p>ETTR is pretty meaningless in low light levels.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I disagree. A 'pulled' shot at a higher iso works better than a 'pushed' shot at a lower iso.</p>

<blockquote>

 

</blockquote>

<blockquote>

<p>For the second shot you could have used a tripod.</p>

</blockquote>

<blockquote>

<p>Why?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>A longer shutter speed with lower iso could have been used while keeping the same detail in the background. I assume the reason you used a higher iso in the first place was due to trying to handhold?</p>

<p>Welllllll;<br>

I was at 125th VR engaged...too much slower than that would risk subject blur.<br>

The shot was not 100% flash.</p>

<p>Here's the image zoomewd to 100% or actual pixels..EXIF date is intact.<br>

My opinion?..Horrible chroma & Luminosity noise. Unacceptable IMO.</p><div></div>

<p>All I see in the second picture is insanely high contrast, such that the faces are the ONLY places you can see any detail. How is a magazine supposed to work with that, anyway? The hyper-vivid stripes make my eyes ring, but there's nothing in that picture that looks like sensor noise.</p>

 

<p>Kevin, how many pictures you submitted to magazines were refused because of noise? I'm curious. The D300 is one of the best APS-C cameras around when it comes to low noise. I'm not a pro but I know many sports pros shoot D300 or similar quality APS-C cameras so if that's not good enough I wonder what is.<br>

Of course the S/N is less with the D300 than its FX counterparts. If you expected that to be different it's no wonder you are disappointed. Still, it's good enough for most.</p>

<p>In that last picture the face looks to me like an attempt at salvaging a slightly misfocused image by relatively large amounts of deconvolution sharpening, which causes some speckles. Not saying that is the case, only that if I do that it looks like this. I see the same speckles in the black stripes but I don't see any chroma noise worth mentioning in the background or in the black stripes, but that might be because of the contrast, or a high black point or low color saturation.</p>

<p>Shoot Film. No noise!</p>

<p>I actually think that both pictures of the ref are pretty good, and I don't see any grain. Maybe that's my problem.</p>

<p>Based on the 100% crop with good post processing that should be fine.</p>

<p>Also there is no way you would have got subject blur on that shot, the guys are lit almost entirely by flash and even then I have got portraits at 1/30 with zero subject blur. You could have shot that at much lower iso especially shooting at 27mm (135 equiv)</p>

<p>I can get really good results, even out to 3200, so I think you are not using the cameras picture controls and Active D lighting features properly</p>

<p>I'll take some samples and post them up. If you search the Nikon threads you will find all sorts of tips on this.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I think you are not using the cameras picture controls and Active D lighting features properly</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>hmm...i try to turn active d-lighting off at higher ISOs, especially with people shots...i had it set at low, then finally turned it off altogether. IMO it works best at lower ISOs...as far as the d300 goes, i've gotten good no-flash shots up to 2500...</p>

<p>I felt somewhat as you do when I first got my D300. But within a short time I learned that I through effective post processing I could get superb ISO 1600 images with the D300 that rivaled ISO 200 and ISO 400 for detail and IQ. </p>

<p>Too me what seems unusable isn't this "noise" debacle but the content an composition/balance of the photograph. <br>

If you want 100% noise free images why not paint-over the areas? 98% of people who aren't photographers don't even notice or care.</p>

<p>I think noise is over-rated, i.e. over-discussed. What we are looking for is clarity of expression. Getting that encompasses much more: image sharpness; lens resolution; accuracy of focus; tonal range and highlights are way more important to carry "reality;" fine discrimination of and among colors; what we used to call micro-contrast. I get many wonderful images from several low-megapixel, point and shoots of the past because these particular cameras had (maybe by blind luck at times!) accurate focus, uniform sharpness across the image, and what I like to call "plasticity" of the lens. Hopefully, as digital matures, there will be more opportunity to exploit and celebrate the character of individual lenses. Those were trying conditions. And, yes, there is nothing wrong with a tripod.</p>

<p>I agree with Eric Arnold that ADL should be off at high ISO. I also find it messed up flash exposure (with a SB600, in aperture mode), somehow seemed to induce a lower flash output (while SB600 was not at max), causing a rather severe underexposure. Which in turn lead to a lot more noise.<br>

Sure the D300 is not noise-free, but ISO1600 is usable, and ISO800 is perfectly usable for larger prints. For ISO1600, getting the proper exposure is very important though.<br>

Chroma noise, by the way, I never really saw on any D300 file unless exposure was way off, or when it was ISO1600 processed with Adobe RAW converters.</p>

<p>By the way, your second picture looks quite over-processed to me. Too much noise reduction, and too much sharpening somehow (2 activities that bite each other). For a magazine, I would reject such picture for that, not the first one for alleged noise. But my job is nothing like that, so take that for what it's worth (not much).</p>

<p>I think this subject has really been beat to death. Though he's not using a D300, I've got to agree with Steve Murray. He says it very well.<br>

I've used the D300 for quite some time & have no problem with the results, unless I screw up the shot</p>

<p>Again, as others have said, it depends on how large you are going to print. The resolution certainly is not spectacular (not surprising with no tripod), but it is probably adequate. I'm not seeing the noise.</p>

<p>I think that you have a decent picture (based on the one offered as a 100% crop) provided that you don't expect it to be printed too large.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p>Expectations--buy a new camera and all noise goes away<br>

Don't happen. The vast majority of the noise in any image is from the light not the camera. Photon shot noise, statistically dependent and caused by the random emission of photons that make the photo electrons that make the image. Fancy way of saying more light , less noise. <br>

But worth keeping in the back of your mind since the same laws of physics say to half the photon noise you need to make the pixels four times larger. Which you don't do when you move to a full frame camera.<br>

Pros end up with better pics in part by using faster full frame lens but mostly by using better techniques. Since the noise in the ref's shirt bothers the OP, he should mask it and and then clean it up using a decent wavelet noise reduction package. Wavelet noise reduction loves large areas of black and white with no detail.<br>

My two pennies.</p>

<p>Crap light, high contrast processing => noise.</p>

<p>kevin d-<br>

i have looked at both of myour nimages in pse7. and i find no noise that is objectionable. if you are thinking that you images should have no noise at all, it will never happen. forme, the images are finde. i cxome from a background of 32yrs of shooting slides. i would have given almost anything to have image that are as noise free, as not only your 2 but ANY DSLR CURRENT DSLR. compared to film they are all noise free.<br>

also, in pse7, the histogram shows both images have both the shadows and the highlightts blown. in other words you are trying to capture an image from a scene that has a larger dr than your d300 can capture with its sensor. you tried to get the whole scene, what happened is that you blew both ends of the histograms. you, like a lot of users, will have to decide whether you value and wish to get the highlights OR the shadows and shoot for THAT. in such a scene all parts of the dr is just not possible. and if you thinking of going to a d700, do not bother. the histogram shows it is heavily blown on both ends, the histo line was crawling heavily up both the right and left walls. personally, i would have shot for the highlights and made that work. as a side benefit, since the exposure would be less the noise would be reduced as well. i used noise ninja on both images to check for noise amounts. the first image showed almost zero noise, while the second showed very light amounts. perhaps it is best if you describe what you see as noise, since the images do not show heavy noise at all.</p>

 

<p>In the days before digital cameras, photographers understood that shooting under certain lighting conditions and boosting the ISO of your film lead to certain image compromises. Also, the final goal was a print, usually 8x10 in size. Now people have expensive DSLR "imaging Devices" which are expected to make every mediocre shot a winner. Also you can enlarge details in Photoshop to ridiculous magnifications invisible to the human eye, which leads to a sort of photographic hypochondria. <br>

Have you made prints of any of these shots? If so at what size? How does the noise look on the finished print? I see no serious grain issues in the relatively small shots posted here. As I see it you have a couple of options if you're not satisfied with the D300; sell it and get another body. Get some superior post processing software. Or understand how photographic images are made with digital cameras and that they are not perfect.</p>

 

<p>The scene presents extreme conditions, and the short range flash which cannot light the dark background is no solution for the entire scene -- it compounds the dynamic differences. The scene exceeds the dynamic range of a very good sensor. It would likely do so on the D700 (I have both) as well or any other digital camera too. If you want more dynamic range, consider going to print film which can give you several extra stops. (Slide film with its narrow dynamic range would present the same limits as a digital sensor.) To ask more from a digital camera is not reasonable under those condtions.</p>

<p>Opening the first jpg in NX2 shows the histogram to be blown at both ends of the range. There is a LOT of information to be drawn from the shadows in NX2, even for a jpg. If the noise from the dark areas does not meet the standards of a small size print found in many magazines, then it is time for more sophisticated post processing than a couple of sliders. It's not the camera's fault in my estimate.</p>

<p>Just my two cents.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I switched from my D300 to a D90 for the same reason, Noise was just unacceptable for me, but I use ISO 1600 all the time, the D300 can not even come close!</p>

<p>http://www.stepanovphotography.com</p>

<p>I do not use Nikon, I use Canon but I have to say I still can not see a distracting noise issue in any of the samples posted.</p>

<p>The fact is that the D300 does produce pro quality results even at high ISOs.<br>

The defects of any image become apparent usually at large magnifications on monitors. This are not the usual viewing conditions for professional images.<br>

Professional images (especially of this type) are printed 4 color at sizes much smaller than A4, displayed on the web and only infrequently printed larger than 11x14. None of these conditions would reveal noise artifacts to any distracting degree. More importantly, sports photography trends to news style imagery where the capture of a great play overrides technical concerns.</p>

<p>I feel others have addressed this similarly in saying that noise issues are over emphasized.</p>

<p>Noise is the new megapixel war.</p>

 

<p>Kevin,<br>

For what it's worth....I used to use Adobe Camera Raw as my first processing tool, including the ACR sharpening device. Often I noticed considerable moise in shadow and under-exposed areas and blamed myself, the camera and everything but ACR. (This was on my venerable 5D!)<br>

Since changing to Lightroom and using a different capture and post processing sharpening the noise problem is back under control. I wonder if your excellent D300 is being hamstrung by the order and amount of sharpening.<br>

Last bit of gratuitous advice...make a print or portion thereof the size you expect to have the picture reproduced and exanmine that...everything can look dodgy on the screen at 100%.</p>

<p>I assure you, there are plenty of working professional sports photographers using the D300 and getting their images published. The camera is not the issue here if your concern is in getting your work out there.</p>

<p>I've been considering upgrading to FX for precisely this reason. "All the noise, noise, noise," (A quote from the Grinch). At a relative's wedding recently, I toted along my D300 to take photos for my wife mostly. They had already hired a photog and I try not to do weddings, especially for family. I was asked not to use my flash during the ceremony to cut down on distraction. No problem, I'll just crank my ISO to 800 to get the sp I need. The noise was horrible, almost to the point I didn't even want to show them to my wife.</p>

<p>While this wasn't a surprise, it's frustrating and a bit demoralizing getting that kind of results, especially when so many tout this as a great camera for low light. The wedding photog had two D3s hanging on his neck. We spoke at various times throughout the night and he showed me shots taken at 5000 ISO. No noticeable noise - zip. I double checked the photos once he published them online and they looked incredible for that ISO. So Kevin, definitely feel your pain.</p>