D300 at 3500iso

<p>Okay...so I have seen examples of what the D700 can do at 3500iso. Can anyone tell me about how high the D300 can go without getting noisy? And how important 3500 vs 2000 iso actually is. Thanks in advance.</p>

<p>In my D300 portfolio that accompanied photo.net's D300 review, I have a few ISO 1600 and 3200 images. Take a look at the night and indoor shots there, e.g. the first three images. The ISO used is specified in each image: <a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=792355">http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=792355</a></p>

<p>The D700 is about 1 to 1.5 stops better than the D300 in terms of high-ISO results.</p>

<p>Thank you Shun. This is what I needed. So your alleyway shot enlarges nicely? It looks just awesome from here.</p>

<p>Shun... There is something I still don't understand about noise at high ISO.<br>

For example, if you shoot at iso 3200 and you have expossed your shot well you might get no noise or some level of noise depending in the camera you use. Then, if you do the same shot but it is under expossed then the noise levels will always be higher. I am correct on this? Cheers!</p>

<p>Keep in mind that underexposure greatly contributes to noise. You can shoot at the base ISO 100 or 200 (depending on the camera); if you underexpose, you can still have serious noise issues.<br>

If you shoot indoors, the artificial lighting is frequently very uneven. That is why some dark areas, shadows tend to have problems.</p>

<p>Rene' - it is actually quite simple. Say you have noise that causes your individual pixel values to vary by 1 or 2 bits. Or even 5 or 6 or so. You can see that against a black (bit value zero) or other dark background as it represents a rather high noise to signal level (or more conventionally a low signal to noise ratio). On the other hand if you have a signal in the mid 100's range or higher (I'm using 8 bit values) a variation of this small amount will be less noticeable. </p>

<p>Try it. </p>

<p>Yep that is why I went with a 5d (didnt have the extra 1800 for the D700). The D300 image is as unusable at 1600 as my D200 was. youch.</p><div></div>

<p>Shun...do you have something to say about Dan's post?</p>

<p><em>"The D300 image is as unusable at 1600 as my D200 was."</em> Dan, this statement is simply <strong>not true</strong> .</p>

<p>Tiffany, at higher ISOs, even at ISO 6400, noise can be completely eliminated, but at the cost of detail. While it is easy to eliminate noise through noise reduction programs, detail is typically lost in the process. Usually the more noise reduction you apply, the more detail you loose. Some noise reduction programs work better than others at maintaining detail or at least minimizing loss of detail while reducing noise.</p>

<p>If you shoot RAW and have good image processing software and technique, ISO 3200 images from the D300 can be made to look excellent. Getting the exposure right (not underexposing) is critical. While I rarely shot above ISO 1600 when I had my D300, my ISO 1600 images, once processed, looked as if they were shot at ISO 200 or ISO 400, having excellent color, contrast and detail.</p>

<p>I did a series of comparison shots between the the D200, D300 and 5D a while back. You can view the comparisons crops between the three cameras here (:</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/photo/7560336&size=lg</p>

<p>The entire series of shots I took can be viewed here:</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=848760</p>

<p>(the entire frame can be viewed in the last frame of the series so you can see how much I cropped by.)</p>

<p>Tiffany, as you are probably aware, the production of noise in an image captured by a sensor, such as the CMOS sensor in the D300, is a complex issue that depends a lot on the pure physics of how light(in the form of photons) is collected by the photosites on the sensor, combined with how the electronic circuitry in the camera transfers the energy from the photosites(a stream of electrons) to the processor(which Nikon calls EXPEED) to the buffer and then to the CF card for storage. When you move up from base iso(200 on the D300) to higher iso levels, the camera is amplifying the signal from the sensor, and also amplifying the inherant noise in the signal. This noise comes from a lot of sources. Light isn't a perfect blend of photons, so you can think of some noise as stray photons. The surrounding electronics in the camera introduce background noise(referred to as amp noise). We see this in our images as luminance noise(variations in pixel brightness) and chroma noise(variations in pixel colors).<br>

When you record a digital image there is more data at the high end of brightness, so small variations are less obvious in brightly lit areas of an image. As you move toward the darker range of the image(shadows), there are less photons and less data, so small imperfections in the data are more noticeable. That's why we see more noise in the shadows, and why more noise shows up if we try to adjust the exposure up when processing an underexposed image. With this in mind, it makes sense to shoot to the right of your luminance histogram(taking care not to blow out the highlights), and adjust your exposure down in post processing if necessary. You will generally see less noise that way.<br>

The D300 is great up to iso 800-1000, and very usable at 1600. Above 1600 the noise, especially in the shadows, is bothersome, but can be acceptable for some images. As Shun has noted, the D700 is better. Still, you are always amplifying noise above base iso. So, it is always best to shoot at the base iso if it works for your shot.</p>

<p>Elliot I fully understand what you are saying. I even use some noise reduction software myself (Neat Image). And I want everyone to know I am definetly not knocking Nikon one bit. I am convinced that Nikon make some of the best camera bodies and lenses around. But aps sized sensors (except for a few lower mp standouts like the nikon d40/50 or canon 20d) are not particularly suited for high iso shooting. That is not saying they can't do it but the pixel density and subsequent noise gets in the way. With my D200 I found after iso 640/800 that the image was not of a quality I could see myself being happy with. I tried for 2 years to use my D200 as a lowlight manual focus camera but never had mutch success. I can shoot the 5d at iso 1600/3200 with no issues. I could shoot a D700 at the same iso's and more with no issues as well (I just cant afford one :).</p>

<p>Shun, from what I can see in your D300 portfolio, its high ISO performance is no better than that of my D40--if not slightly worse. I was probably going to upgrade to the 300 but this has made me think twice. I always knew that the D700 had a one stop advantage over the D300, but I also thought the D300 had a one-stop advantage over my camera.</p>

<p>Just wanted to add another iso 3200 shot that went through neat image noise reduction software.</p><div></div>

<p>I have never actually used a D40 although I have handled a few. And I have zero interest in the Canon 5D or 5D Mark II, as I really need good AF capability in my DSLRs, and I can't use my Nikon lenses on them (at least not in my definition of "can use.")</p>

<p>I also have a D200. I think the D200 is ok up to ISO 800 and it is marginal at 1600. The D300 is a stop better and the D3/D700 is yet another stop to a stop and half better.<br>

In other words, at least for Nikon DSLRs, the rule of thumb is that you will get fairly good results all the way to one stop below the highest rated ISO (not the extended range). At the top rated ISO, it is acceptable but not that great any more. For example, the D200 is rated from 100 to 1600, and it is pretty good up to 800 and it is acceptable at 1600. The D200 is rated from 200 to 3200, and it is pretty good up to 1600 and acceptable at 3200.</p>

<p>Eli... I don't know about a D40 but with my D80 I didn't like the results over ISO 400 and the most I would use it was at ISO 800. With my D300 I use ISO auto with a limit at 1600. I get very good shots at ISO 1600. Some of them I don't like because they have more noise. That is why I asked the question above but most of my shots come out pretty good. I am sure that at ISO 200 both D40 and D300 might be same but I'm almost sure that at 1600 you would get better results with a D300 than with a D40.</p>

<p>Thank you, both of you. Dad has a D80 and its high ISO performance doesn't impress me--the D40 is better. But that's really sort of expected because they have the same (CCD) image sensor, but one has more MP.</p>

<p>Maybe I'll just wait on the D400 and see how it turns out.</p>

<p>Tiffany,</p>

<p>You will find many opinions concerning this ISO being usable and that ISO being unusable.<br>

Color, overall scene luminosity as already mentioned will play a role in noise generation.<br>

These sort of discussions often get a little annoying after a while as too many seem to think ISO blah blah blah is some sort of limit. What about when one WANTS to introduce noise/grain? The question will ultimately be "at what ISO is the image unusable to you?"<br>

Other than scene light dynamics, how large you intend to print will play a role as well.<br>

I am posting a photo I shot a year and a half ago when I first purchased the D-300. I was shooting anything and everything as the camera was a day old; but with purpose...all photographers should know the strengths and weaknesses of their equipment. This photo was shot at ISO 1,600 with NO post processing whatsoever; it is as it came from the camera in jpeg.<br>

Hopefully this will silence some critics out there. Can I enlarge this to 16x20 w/o visible noise? Probably not even with NR software. How about a 8x10? Probably.</p>

<p>Pete </p><div></div>

<p>Pete, I agree and that photo is consistent with my iso 1600 shots from the D300.<br>

Dick</p>

<p>PS..Here is a portion cropped at 100%</p><div></div>

<p>I'm shooting a D200 side by side with a D300. The D300's behavior at ISO 1600 is substantially better than the D200. With a little bit of noise reduction, the D300's ISO 3200 images, when well exposed, are - to my eye - more workable than the D200's ISO 800 images. There are other qualitative issues at work there, of course. Pixel peepers may quibble, but in real life, the D300's high ISO performance is remarkable. Yes, the D3/700 is more delicious. But in practical terms, for a lot of shooting, it's academic.<br /><br />I just grabbed the D300, and took a quick shot at ISO 3200. I put two props on the table in front of me - something white, and something black, with a textured surface below. Here's the full frame: </p><div></div>

<p>And here's a 100% crop from near the center. Yes, I applied a routine touch of noise reduction, using Capture NX2. </p><div></div>

<p>Matt, these are great examples of how the D300 can really shine. But, as you would expect, I've found the noise is really noticable when you are trying to shoot at 3200 in low light. Looks like pretty good light here. Plus, you own the same table and chairs that I have!<br>

Dick</p>

<p>If I'm recalling correctly, Tiffany's primary interest is portraiture. It might be helpful to provide sample photos taken of people at high ISOs using the D300 to illustrate characteristic noise problems and how to solve them.</p>

<p>Since my only Nikon dSLR is the D2H, a noisy beast, I'll confine my comments to noting that chroma noise can be quite ugly in the shadow areas in photos of people at high ISOs. And this varies with skin tone, blemishes, etc. Even a slight white balance problem can exaggerate the unappealing character of chroma noise. Check under the jaw, the neck, etc., where high ISO chroma noise may be considered more aesthetically unappealing than in photos of inanimate objects, pets, etc.</p>

<p>You're right, Lex. I'll try to come up with something. I have a shoot early tomorrow morning, and may have just the opportunity. In the meantime, just for Richard's sake, I've made the table-top light much worse. Here's the D300 again, still at ISO 3200. But now we're dealing with only a dimmed overhead incandescent fixture... requiring a quarter of a second. Crappy light indeed. Of course there's some noise... but it's flippin' ISO 3200! And I've not even attempted to use any fancy-pants NR software. Just a simple pass with the canned Nikon tools. Again... printed at a relatively normal size? The noise would completely insignificant, given the subject matter.<br /><br />So, to wit:</p><div></div>

<p>And, straight off of the Pixel Peeper Express, the view you'd get if the print was 30 or so inches across, and you were holding it up to your nose.</p><div></div>