D70 IQ limit or skill/technique?

<p>Hi there,<br>

For 5 years I use a D70, recently only w/5omm 1.4. I thought about upgrading and with the help from input from this forum I decided just to stick a little longer with my old D70 to learn more and develop my skills, exploring the M and A setting and playing with WB and exposure compensation etc.. Of course since then I made a lot more bad pics then before, but I'm not discouraged and keep on clicking ;-)<br>

Here's a snapshot I just to took with low candescendent light 10ft away, ISO 1600, f1.4 and 1/30s from app. 1ft from subject.<br /> Just the plain, untouched RAW/NEF straight out of the camera.<br>

Aside from the composition clearly this is a very noisy, low IQ shot. ;-)<br>

I was just wondering: is this what you'd call pushing it to the limit with a D70, IQ/ noisewise? Would a D90 or D300(s) give me a realy big upgrade in IQ in the same situation? As far as lenses go I guess I could not really ask for more than the 50mm 1.4...<br>

Or has this more to do with mys skills/technique.<br>

Or am I being unrealistic about low light shooting without flash or tripod?</p>

<p>Thanx for your feedback!<br>

Ray</p><div></div>

<p>A d90 would make the image slightly better, and a D300 would likely assist in getting better autofocus results. The next leap in image quality, though, as far as high ISO would be a D700. An upgrade would help you, likely, but I would save for a full frame camera and then probably not upgrade again until the year 2025. =o)</p>

<p>I do think ISO 1600 with a D70 is probably pushing the limit noise-wise, yes. Upgrading to a D90 or 300s will certainly give you better ISO 1600 performance, but it's not going to be the magic "wow all of a sudden I'm a better photographer" thing. Using a tripod and a flash with the D70 would probably help you just as much as the upgrade, and personally, I think I'd explore the flash/tripod thing with the 50mm 1.4 before spending the bucks on a new camera.</p>

<p>Hi Robert,<br>

Yes, if upgrading my camera I definitely plan keeping it for some time DX or FX...<br>

Same with lenses; I first want to fully explore the possibilities of this 50mm and just slowly build on a very select prime collection (just add a 20 or 24 and a 85 or just maybe a 105/135/180).<br>

I forgot to mention that I also wondered if PP in Aperture or Lightroom could do any wonders on a pic like this? on one hand I actually hope not....I am actually not much of a computer type and hope to lear to take pictures that require only minor adjustments... :-)<br>

So basically the question remains if it's skills or tools with pictures like this. The D700 has crossed my mind already but it's very much money and I feel a bit awkward regarding my skills versus such a camera ;-)</p>

<p>Hi Ted,<br>

Thanx, and yes, I will also invest in a tripod an flash some time, but I am very attracted to learn to shoot handheld without flash in low light...</p>

<p>Bad lighting is bad lighting - the identical image shot using the same settings with a D700 would not look all that different (unless you were pixel peeping). An unprocessed RAW file is not a fair comparison either as no noise reduction and sharpening are likely being applied. There are numerous programs available to you that can do a good job on an ISO 1600 image even from your camera. A well exposed ISO 1600 image from a D70 can actually be made to look pretty good (depending on print size).</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Hi Elliot,<br>

I saw that (of course) the image I uploaded is now a jpeg; I imported it with Aperture and than sent it as a mail attachment without adjusting anything.<br>

What programs (or tools in Aperture...which I really not yet have explored...) would you suggest to enhance such a noisy ISO1600 image?</p>

<p>The uploaded image does not look noisey to me. How big do you intend to print your shots.</p>

<p>Hi Stuart,<br>

I view my images mostly on a laptop or iPod/Imageviewer on the road, or on a flatscreen TV as a iPhoto slideshow for family. I rarely print, but if i do it's small size, maybe max. 20x30 cm or in a A4 sized web-order album.</p>

<p>I must say (of course)...the posted image, downsized an converted to jpeg does indeed look not so bad as the RAW on full screen.... but still...</p>

<p> A D3s would make your way of working a lot easier with its 102,400 ISO. As Robert wrote above, a D90 and D300 would make for visible improvements. For me, the better AF would be the thing.</p>

<p> Otherwise, a good noise program, and if you can deal with the change in working methodology, a tripod and a used flash for use with your present camera & lens. I would have a hard time living with only a 50mm on a Dx body. For strong-light use, I would consider a used 18-70 Nikkor.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Ray, I use and recommend DXO - their newest release, Version 6 is now availabe. It offers an excellent RAW converter and superb NR with minimal loss in detail. Other programs like Bibble, Noise Ninja, etc. can also do a grfeat job. (FWIW - DXO offers a free 30 day trial.)</p>

<p>When DXO Version 5 came out, I did a series of test shots at ISO 3200. You can view the results here:</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=785421</p>

<p>Version 6 offers noticeably better high ISO results compared to Version 5 so you can expect even better results than the above linked samples.</p>

<p>Hi Luis,<br>

For a number of reasons (money, size, 'matching skills-tools') I'm really only flrting with the D90 or D300 (s) as a possible upgrade (with a preference to de 300).<br /> I really begin to realize that I should spend some time behind a computer and learn on post processing programs...:-) :-(<br>

Elliot, thanx for the info and link. That looks really amazing indeed! ISO 1600 DXO almost as good as ISO100 RAW??? wow...<br>

Hope it's easy to use for a computerphobe? :-)</p>

<p>A new camera will not help you get a better understanding of what a RAW file is nor will it help improve your technique. The fact that you don't make prints very often and instead simply view on small lcd screens only reinforces that. Looking at 100% views of rendered RAW files with no adjustments is completely unnecessary.</p>

<p>The hardware is not to blame here. In my opinion, you need more experience and more understanding of what your D70 is actually doing.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Sorry if I missed this, but:</p>

<p>1/30th is not terribly realistic for hand-holding a 50mm, especially at high mag (1 foot). If you had exceptional skills, braced elbows, three-shot bursts, maybe, but I'd "aim higher". The main problem with this shot that I see is either camera shake or subject movement (or both). Perhaps this is what folks meant by suggesting a tripod.</p>

<p>Like the OP, I enjoy hand-held low light photography. When shooting indoors, I tend to find or map out the "pools of light", the conversation areas that are directly under the overhead lights, the seats next to the table lamp, etc. I find the exposure values for those areas, and then await "targets of opportunity". If something is happening in the shadows, I either ignore it or reach for a flash.</p><div></div>

<p>1600 with a D70 is pushing it but that is really a side issue on this shot:</p>

<p>At that range at f1.4 the dof is probably only a few of cm anyway and looks like you missed the focus<br /> At 1/30 it has suffered from one or more of the following: camera shake, subject movement</p>

<p>Other than a bit less noise it would look just the same from a newer/more expensive camera. If your pics are not sharp at web jpg size there is something seriously wrong.</p>

<p>I sometimes use neat image with my D1h and D80 ISO 3200 shots and it does a pretty good job at making the noise less visible. One thing to remember is to avoid underexposure at hi ISOs because if you underexpose and have to brighten the image in post processing then the noise will show even more. Another thing is that sharpening makes noise more visible so avoid over sharpening also. Another thing is to take advantage of the noise and go for a grainy kind of shot if you like that kind of thing.</p>

<p>Ray, your inclination to work on your SKILLS is a good one, because technique can ALWAYS be improved.</p>

<p>That said, a D90 would give you noticeably better IQ than your D70. The D90 will work with your 18-70 mm DX lens. If you want to make another jump in quality later, consider the 16-85 mm DX VRII lens. VR isn't going to work miracles, but it would have helped make your cat photo a bit sharper.</p>

<p>By the way, I don't think this photo was taken in "bad light." If it had been just a bit sharper it would have been a very strong and moving image.</p>

<p>Here is one from the D1h at ISO 6400 I had to use neat image to get a decent 8x10 print.<br>

Shot with a 50mm 1.8 at F2 and 1/100 sec.</p><div></div>

<p>Of course a camera with ISO 12800 should help a lot to make this image. However, the D70 can properly handle this situation. You do only need to work around your shooting technique and composition. </p>

<p>When I got my D90, I got Vincent Bockaert's copy of his 123 of digital imaging. He goes right into how a camera works, and specifically the digital camera. How it captures the image and processes it. Then he helps to understand the use of light. In photography it is all about the correct lighting on the subject. Getting a good ebook or book on photography would be a huge help to you, it would give you the answers and reasons for doing it like this or that way. It is a small price to pay for getting more personal satisfaction from your light capturing tool, the camera. He is not the only person to offer their experience.</p>

<p>Wow guys! Thank you all for your helpful comments!<br>

Looks like indeed I have to learn and pratice more in getting sharp images; Todd's approach to map the pools of light and target the opportunities is a keeper for me :-)<br>

Also I feel that I won't escape some learning about RAW and RAW processing....as much though as I'd like to do without computer-fiddling and get good images just right after clicking :-)<br>

That said...I also pick up that, although it's not about the hardware (ISO performance of the D70), an upgrade to the D90 (or D300) isn't a stupid thing to do either ...<br>

And the joy of of a new tool could actually add to my motivation to work on shotting skills and PP-skills :-)</p>

<p>Beautiful images by the way! Thanx!<br>

If I could achieve that one day.... :-)</p>

<p>Ray,</p>

<p>Downloading and blowing up your image - you don't have serious noise problems, but you missed the focus a bit. Actually given low shutter speed, high ISO, wide open lens, and how squirmy your subject normally is - it's a good shot. <br>

Have you printed a 5 x 7 or 8 x 10 of this shot?</p>

<p>Hey Glenn,<br>

Thanx for taking all the trouble; you are quicker than I am: I just took the shot, sitting on the couch after dinner, playing with the D70 and posting the image here spontaneously:-)<br>

Would be worthwhile to print it one of these days though...<br>

Your comment further confirms the need to improve my focussing skills, especially with shallow DOF/1.4<br>

In that respect I can imagine a better/bigger/brighter viewfinder and a better/faster/more accurate AF system would make sense...</p>

 

<p>I did indeed noticed that the AF was hunting when I tried to focus on the eyes....it only locked when I moved just sideways to the left..guess it picked up more contrast there...<br /> I disabled the AF assist light for these situations...<br>

I guess this specific shot was a difficult one for the D70 and I will probably get much better shots easier in better light situations.<br /> I'll go practising! :-)</p>