D-300 Noise...Disappointed

<p>I've had the D-300 for several months now.</p>

<p>First; it is a wonderful camera in many ways..perhaps one of the best in the APS-C sensor arena.</p>

<p>I am somewhat disappointed in it's low light ISO performance even at ISO 400-800.<br>

I know it's an improvement over the D-200 in sensor design, but still, it seems this sensor will not produce professional quality images at even ISO 400.</p>

<p>Here's a sample I shot with the SB-600 and simply dragges the shutter a little.<br>

Personally, for me, it's unusable.</p>

<p>I wonder if anyone has feels the same?<br>

Comments that you should have bought a 700 or D3 are forgone conclusions.</p><div></div>

<p>You have a well-lit foreground and a dimly lit background.</p>

<p>That is, imho, the challenge here, not the camera.</p>

<p>Thanks Peter, BUT,</p>

<p>Even the referee is not that acceptable noise wise.<br>

Again, great canera, but IMO lacking in low light higher ISO's.<br>

I really expected ISO 400-800 to be better.</p>

<p>Since it looks like you shoot sports, and often the games are in the evening, I generally use ISO 1600 or higher. I always use noise reduction software in post processing. This should solve the problem. Do a search of the forums for recommendations on noise reduction software and techniques. </p>

<p>Kevin, what is "acceptable" noise or grain is very subjective. Also, factors such as raw processing, amount of sharpening, exposure and final printed size are all important factors in determining what is acceptable or not, IMO. I shoot available light with D70 and D80 all the time at iso 1600 and get very acceptable results. Here's a shot at iso 400 with some bounce flash in a dark room. Shot in raw with D80, processed in ACR in CS4 with no sharpening. Processed to full size at 300 ppi, which would make a roughly 8.5 x 13 inch print at 100%. I even sharpened some with smartsharpen at amount=200, radius =0.3 at the final size. What do you think of the amount of noise here? </p><div></div>

<p>here's full frame</p><div></div>

<p>That sample photo of the referee is too small to see any noise. Are you referring to luminance noise, chroma noise or artifacts from editing and JPEG compression?</p>

<p>Steve, Thanks.</p>

<p>Seriously? I find the level of noise I'm seeing in these two shots unacceptable for anything except snapshot printing for family & friends. Please; I intend no disrespect; it's my honest evaluation.</p>

<p>I'm fairly well versed in PP noise reduction, but all those basically do is a reverse engineering of gaussian blur and often make the image worse. I'm ok with (selective) NR, such as a large expanses of sky, but not on facial skin tones.</p>

<p>My OP was not so much a complaint as it was expressing my disappointment.<br>

Other than that, I think the D-300 rocks!<br>

Perhaps in the next generation of APS-C sensors, the engineers will continue to improve in this area. It's either that or I will soon be purchasing a FX body since I do shoot some sports and submit images to magazines.</p>

<p>Thanks Lex....</p>

<p>The original was shot RAW lossless compressed.<br>

The histogram was great (ignoring the clouds)..I think I did 1/3 stop down exp comp as the ref was a little high in the whites. I set Capture NX at 249-249-249 as my clip level.<br>

Chroma noise is present and very heavy where I expect it to be (blue channel)<br>

All was saved as JPG at the max setting via Capture NX.</p>

<p>I realize it's difficult to analyze photos from the web, but believe me, this image of the ref, (ignore the clouds) would not survive the scrutiny of a magazine submission based on the noise in the Ref's shirt and hat.</p>

<p>When I first got my D-300 I was also expecting better noise characteristics, then two things changed my mind. First I went back and reviewed my D80 images and the noise was definitely worse (probably because the D80 was constantly blowing the highlights, which the D300 does not, and I had to constantly dial in -0.7 EV or so). AND I recently started scanning a bunch of my slide and negative collections. Boy, talk about noise! We are all spoiled by todays generation of DSLRs compared to transparency and negatives from 10 years ago.<br>

If the D300 is too noisy for you then it is the wrong tool - perhaps a full frame D700 would suite you better, but if you really look you can find noise in its images as well.<br>

Also, remember that you need to ETTR (expose to the right) to get the least noise in your images with the D300.<br>

My 2 cents - John</p>

<p>Not wanting to beat a dead horse..here is the last sample image I'll post.<br>

Same night...ISO 800..shot RAW. Facial?..No way.<br>

Still; I was only wondering if anyone else felt as I did?</p><div></div>

<p>Perhaps you'd rather the noise of high-ISO film?</p>

<p>How big are you printing that you are seeing this noise in the prints? Or how do you use them?</p>

<p>John, I think you are correct..The D-700 will probably suit me better for this type of shooting; esp when I need to go up to ISO 1,600.</p>

<p>Peter, the 2nd test image was going to go to a magazine, but I'm afraid to even send it to them. For lack of a better term, the quality sucks! LOL..I know it was a difficult shooting scenario getting the white pants and shirt stripes not to blow out and still render acceptable exposure of the faces. I believe a FX sensor would have rendered the faces considerably better (Less noise artifacts) </p>

<p>I too, have a D300 after upgrading from a D200. I see a bigger improvement overall in my purchase of the higher grade 2.8 Nikon Zooms. The noise is less with the D300, but I must say the original reviews touted ISO as high as 1200-1600 with acceptable results. I disagree as well. I set my D300 usually to no higher than 800. I also agree that using noise redux in PS4 rather than Aperture gives WAY better results due to the amount of control. I have also started to stay away from Sharpen in aperture and the noise in the background is greatly reduced. There are so many variables it really takes a while to see what works best for each shooting situation, then post.</p>

<p>For some strange reason I find the D300 performs better at ISO 1600 than 800. When I look at the "this vs. that" camera reviews (DPR) the D300, still leads the pack in high ISO noise performance. So, like it or not, there isn't anything better out there in APS size sensor DSLR's, in my opinion. </p>

<p>John... please explain ETTR Expose to the right.</p>

<p>It's hard to tell anything from small jpgs, we need 100% crops. Unless they mag is printing it as a double page spread I can't imagine the D300 at iso 400 not cutting it, I'm sure not all sports shooters are using D3/D700s.<br>

If the noise is unacceptable in the faces did you underexpose at all? *ANY* change of exposure/brightness in post seems to really being out the noise. NX2 is also much better than anything else I have tried at dealing with it.</p>

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

<p>yes, the second image doesn't tell us much without 100% crops.</p>

<p>Tom, ETTR, means that you try and get your histogram to "kiss" the right side of the scale (highlights) rather than the left side (shadows). The difference between those two images would be humongous, potentially.</p>

<p>ETTR-ed images on a D300 should be nearly as good as it gets with high ISO these days. Again, what are you comparing it to that you've used in the past?</p>

<p>sorry, i'm just not seeing the problem here.</p>

<p>i've printed as big as 16x20 and found noise levels acceptable, even at high ISOs.</p>

<p>to each his own, i suppose.</p>

<p>get better glass. not everyone uses a full frame camera or for that matter the latest gear on the market. plus these conditions your shooting in aren't a piece of cake either. also i agree with some of the other posters saying that we need a 100% crop to accurately judge. </p>

<p>I can't tell anything from your small jpgs except that you have badly burnt out the whites.</p>

<p>Thanks all for the responses.<br>

Sure, I can post 100% crop when I get home if you are all curious.</p>

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

 

<blockquote>

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

 

</blockquote>

<p>Why?</p>

<p>David, thanks..and I whole heartedly agree; the conditions last night were terrible...poorly lit stadium and relying on the flash to carry the day is not the best scenario. I was hoping to balance the fill with available, not last night with the low light.</p>

<p>Mark; I'm a firm believer is "face-masking" and did so with the 2nd image..Histogram looked well balanced with no wild fluctuations or low levels buried in the noise floor.</p>

<p>I appreciate all the input on my disappointment; not my complaint..I'll say it again; despite this, I find the D-300 a great piece of hardware.</p>

 

<p>Hmmmm. My example printed at 8.5 x13 would not exhibit any noticeable noise at normal viewing distances. Another consideration is that if I were to print at 8.5 x13 in. or larger I would only have selectively sharpened a few details on the girl's face and dress, meaning the out of focus areas would be even less noisy. In ACR I turn up chroma noise reduction all the way and leave luminance noise reduction at zero. Can you do that in NX? On your second shot the only problem I see is blown highlights. In assessing noise one has to determine final image or print size. How big do you want these prints? Only then can you asses noise acceptability.<br>

As others have noted, it would be nice to see your examples at 100%.</p>

 

<p>Steve, Thanks again.<br>

I could have exposed for the ref's pants but then the faces would be wayyyyyy too dark. LOL<br>

It was just a tuff shooting situation at night and using straight on flash.<br>

The faces are still underexposed a bit; curious when I consider I used FV lock off the facial tones for my TTL metering; but that is off my main disappointment posting.<br>

I'm going to re-shoot the ref crew in daylight with balanced fill.<br>

I know better then to try to pull off a shot like this under such conditions, but it was a assignment I agreed too w/o fully evaluating the D-300 low light high ISO performance. Usually I have more time before accepting a assignment where I will bring additional lighting etc..I was caught off guard and have only myself to blame.<br>

The guys in the photo are rated #8 out of 165 Ref Crews, so I have to do this over; and better. :)<br>

I'll get a 100% crop later for you all to examine.</p>

<p>I've pretty much concluded the S/N is less with the D-300 than it's FX counterpart...I think my research may well prove this when I get home.</p>

<p>I agree that the samples provided don't help us see the noise at all. 100% crops of a section of the photo with low jpeg compression would tell us more. Also, it would help if we knew the shutter speed and aperture that was used. Also, the type of lens makes a huge difference. When I started shooting with my D300 with a 2.8 lens in a indoor concert setting I was very happy with the noise compared to previous generation digital cameras.<br>

Using a monopod or tripod would allow you to use a slower shutter speed with less camera movement/blurring. This allows more light in and therefore less noise. But I'm curious as to the original shutter speed used in the examples photos.</p>