D50 better than D300 in ISO

<p>I had seen some reports that this was true, but after buying a D300 and making the comparison now I know for myself. There is so much hype around the D300 and it's ISO capabilities, it's hard to know what is what.</p>

<p>What I found, comparing RAW images in Lightroom with no NR, was that the D50 is better at both ISO 200 and 1600 than the D300. The D50 is close to noise free at 200, but the D300 is definitely not. At 1600 I expected the D300 to be better, but it's just not the case.</p>

<p>I tried resizing the ISO 200 D300 image to a 6MP image, the same as the D50, and then the noise is basically the same between the two. Slight edge to the D300, as the resolution of the resized D300 image seemed better than the original D50 image if I looked at fine text which was just below the resolution limit of the D50.</p>

<p>Anyway, I just wanted to post this. If I had known this beforehand I might not have bought the D300.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I'm not sure if this is the case but often times lower MP sensor show less noise. With the noise reduction on and at higher ISO's the advantage would probably go to the D300. Usually when adding MP to the same size sensor will increase noise as a side effect.</p>

<p>why don't you post some samples. I find it hard to believe- I'm curious now</p>

Rob, I guess you know that, If you don't post some images, many people is going to find difficult to take you seriously.

<p>

Also, It really impresses me that the only reason to buy a body like the D300 is the High ISO capability. I only have the D40x myself and I am allways thinking about buying the D200. They have the same ISO quality but D200 offers much more to me than the D40x.

<p>

The same happens with the D300, even if what you say It's true, I guess that D300 It is just much more than ISO noise compared to the D50.

<p>Yes, of course you are right. But years have passed since the D50 was introduced. I had hoped that better ISO performance would offset the increase in pixel count.</p>

<p>I have the D300 and the D50. I shoot almost exclusively raw with both cameras and process with Capture NX2. I dearly love the D50 because it is compact and light. But you are wrong. When processed properly the D50 images aren't as good as those from the D300. Maybe it's because you are processing them with Lightroom rather than NX2. NX2 is the ONLY program that reads all the information in a Nikon raw file.</p>

<p>There was an old published report and graph that compared dynamic range of Nikon and perhaps few other brand cameras. Surprisingly to some and challenged by others, the D50 (6 MP CCD sensor) camera had higher dynamic range than some 10 MP CCD and 12 MP CMOS cameras. I bet someone remembers that report and graph ? - perhaps from 2007.</p>

<p>wow, I didn't know my little d50 (bought used for $299) had such a fine little engine inside!<br>

But what about the hype about the new cmos sensor high iso performance of the d90, 300 or 700?<br>

I am still planning to upgrade, for other reasons as well as the (may be not?) better high iso performance.</p>

<p>Even the noisiest of images can have the noise removed. But reduced noise generally results in loss of detail. A lot has to do with camera settings, format being shot (RAW vs JPG) and of course post processing. While the D300's sensor is not a huge improvement over older cameras (like the D3/D700 and now D90 do), it does offer noticeable/visable improvement over older cameras. If you refer to the DXOMark site, there is little difference in the Low Light ISO rating between the two cameras - the important differences can be found elsewhere - the D300 has higher dynamic range, color range and and overall higher sensor score. These differences combine together to give the D300 a solid advantage over older Nikon DSLR cameras including the D50.</p>

<p>I'm still waiting to see samples before I believe any of this, because high-ISO performance is something the D300 is touted for.</p>

<p>I've used both cameras. This is false. </p>

<p>Both cameras have been tested thoroughly by many publications and pro's so this is not just me saying this. The d90 ISO performance is no better then the D300 either. If anything they are nearly same w/ a slight edge going to the D300. </p>

<p>One issue I see with the original poster is the fact he's using lightroom and shooting in RAW. All camera settings are lost so I'm sure the images look pretty dull compared to a JPEG in Lightroom or using RAW images in Capture NX. As far as I know lightroom cannot read the camera settings on a D300 shooting in RAW. Can anyone confirm this?</p>

<p>I do find this hard to believe.<br /> Please provide NEF RAW files from both cameras of the exact same subject shot under the exact same circumstances so we can compare ourselves by processing them. Maybe you're confusing it with all the consumer blows & whistles (I think that's the expression) that come with a consumer body just to ensure that jpgs look good out of camera. Oh & I should add that I now own a D70 (not the D50 for sure) but it's no where near the camera my D300 is. <br /> I don't want to see any small 700 pixel shots for this one.<br /> Thank you & eagerly awaiting those RAW files. :-)<br /> Lil :-)</p>

<p>Indeed, this can not be taken seriously without examples.</p>

<p>The D50 is from before my time in the digital world - however, I started off with a D40, 6mp like the D50, perhaps the same sensor? When I switched to my current D90, similar to the D300, I noticed a major improvement in high ISO performance.</p>

<p>Please post sample images to corroborate your observations.</p>

 

<p>Look here:</p>

<p>http://dustylens.com/D300-ISO-200.jpg</p>

<p>These were converted with ACR, which should be the same as Lightroom. Look closely at the color chart and you can see the noise at ISO 200. If the same scene was shot with the D50 you wouldn't see this. At ISO 400 from this same site, you don't have to look close any more to see the noise in the D300 image. I'm telling you the D50 would keep a slight advantage to 1600. I have heard other people on the web talking about the noise present on the D300 at low ISO. I'm not the only one. Since I had seen these comments before I bought the camera, I figured at least the D300 would shine at 1600, but I don't see it.</p>

<p>If you look around, you will find plenty of people, from a few years ago, saying that the D50's ISO was/is better than the D200/D80. Based on this as well it's not off the wall to think that it can keep up with the D300.</p>

<p>Of course it's also 6MP vs 12MP. A better test would be in large prints - who wins resolution or noise? Probably the D300 enlarges a bit better.</p>

<p>Anway, I don't really feel the need to convince anyone of anything. I Just wanted to share my experience. To summarize I would simply tell those of you looking at a new camera not to expect anything spectacular in terms of noise performance from the D300. If you're coming from the D40X/D60/D80/D200 maybe it's a bit better. But not from the D40/D50/D70. Wait for FX if better ISO is what you really want. If you don't believe me, fine, but I'd challenge you to make the same side by side test, using Lightroom. Maybe I wll try NX, too.</p>

<p>Not to highjack this thread, but regarding the reference to LR and processing RAW files: LR uses ACR to convert the RAW images. While ACR may not translate every bit of NEF metadata, ACR is certainly capable of translating the sensor bits. With modest effort one can easily come up with default settings in ACR that will do more than an adequate job of rendering sharp, colorful images from the RAW files. As to the OP's original statement - as someone else suggested, please post images.</p>

 

<p>I have and use both cameras...I bought the D50 upon it's release the images from the little guy are pretty incredible..I've done 8 x 40 inch pano's and had some 36 x 48 images printed from that camera....and they are tack sharp......<br>

but the D300 is superior in all aspects...including noise....I have at 1600 iso with both and D300 is much better.... images from the D50 at 1600 are usable..but require some tweaking....</p>

<p>Here's another guy who came to the same conclusion as me, but with camera jpegs:</p>

<p>http://www.flickr.com/groups/d40/discuss/72157606973945716/</p>

<p>Rob, you are making statements which are contrary to results most others experience or expect so substantiating your findings can be important.</p>

<p>Rob, since you have both cameras, could you provide some side-by-side A/B comparisons between the D50 and D300 at the same ISO, same lens, same aperture ... essentially same everything else to demonstrate your claim?<br>

Since you mentioned both ISO 200 and 1600, could you provide two sets of comparisons at those ISOs, respectively?</p>

<P>

P.S. The dustylens.com link Rob provided above is Steve Bingham's site. That is not Rob's own image.

</P>

<p>Rob -<br>

now I see you mention camera's jpgs.<br>

Stop right there - we want RAW NEFs side by side comparison please.<br>

So - please since you have both cameras, would you mind taking some side by side, same lens, shots at the same time with the same RAW settings so that we truly can compare.</p>

<p>Thank you<br>

Lil :-)</p>

<p>I recall being very impressed with the D50's high ISO performance when it first came out. Heck, I may still grab a used one to replace my ailing Olympus C-3040Z P&S. Most objective tests done at that time showed it was better at ISO 1600 than my D2H.</p>

<p>But the reviews I've seen that use standard testing methodology, such as dpreview, do show that the D300 has an observable edge over the D50.</p>

<p>I can't show you RAW files right now because I'm home and I don't have fast internet. Looking again, right now, the ISO 200 files are pretty close, there is not much noise in either, but still a very slight edge to the D40. By the way, these crops are with the D40, not the D50. So, here, ISO 1600. First the D300.</p><div></div>

And here is the D50 file...<div></div>

<p>Yeah, there is some noise even at 200 in my D300. It doesn't really matter, though, in practical use...still it's worth noting that the D50 sensor is pretty solid. Isn't that the sensor that was in the Epson RD-1, also?</p>

<p>Jay</p>

<p>To me the D40 looks better. You might say they are the same, but there is no way the D300 is better. If you say they are the same, then you are better off with 12MP than 6MP. This all only applies to this test, of course! YMMV!</p>

<p>I guess I will add that these were shot inside, of course, window light, tripod. 17-55 2.8 at 5.6 and 1/25s at 1600. I adjusted the WB by hand in LR.</p>