Noise at 800 and beyond?

[david_pessein]

I am new to photo.net, but was wondering if anyone had some answers for me. I have been reading all

the forums pertaining to the Nikon d200 vs. Canon 30d and for the most part the people all agree that

if you do much work at 800 or above you will be better off with the Canon. I am a wedding

photographer that shot previously with a E-1 with terrible noise and a 10d, which I never noticed too

much noise. I shoot during the ceremony without flash, so I use 400-800 with tripod, but the rest of

the time it is on 100-200 with flash on a stroboframe handheld. So here lies my question. I love

Nikons and really like the feel and the weight and the general build of the Nikon bodies, and am

interested in getting the d200, but everyone keeps talking about the noise at 800 and above. Is the

noise difference that noticeable or are people just overly critical. If anyone can answer this question for

me I could finally put this past me and get my next digicam.

[dave_thielen]

I don't find noise an issue with the D200 even at 3200. No it's not as nice as 100, but then if you are using speed that high it's because you are in the dark hole of Calcutta anyhow and don't have a choice.

[jacob_brown]

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos30d/page20.asp

[stephen dohring]

I will disagree with Dave at 3200 it's flat out unacceptable though fixable (neat image/noise ninja) and your post is correct at 800 you need lots of light. Most people that have a lot of noise trouble are underexposed and the dark clothing comes in noisy fairly often, get good light and you are ok. At 800 outside I see grain. 800 inside with good light is not bad. I generally shoot at 400 with my SB-800 and do well. If you do get a noisy shot neat image will fix it fast and perfect. Canon's low noise is superior - no question but I like Nikon, the lighting system is better and the low light focusing is great too.

[iambaxter]

If you are looking at the D200 you should also look at the Fuji S5.

Fuji buys the D200 body from Nikon, puts in their own sensor and software. The S5 has better dynamic range, lower noise at high ISO and Fuji's are known for better skin tones. Do a search to find more information from other users.

[marknagel]

No experience with Nikon, but going from my 5D vs. 20D is night and day. 1600 on the 5D is like 400 in the 20D.

 

M

[conraderb]

mark - 1600 on the 5D is like 400 on the 20D? that's quite a statement...and that's enough to make me want to buy two 5D bodies! are you sure about that? can you send me samples?

 

ce

[dave_thielen]

Here's two samples straight out of the camera, no photoshop or anything boy is 3200 the other is 800

[gregstuckeyaus]

Steve, just wondering, does being able to 'see' grain make ISO 800 make it unacceptble to you?

 

Regards Greg

[gregstuckeyaus]

Hi David,

 

See for your self 30D 1/200 f2.8 ISO 1600 no noise reduction applied, some mild sharpening and vignette added otherwise out of the camera. I Didn't mind grain with film, don't mind it with Digital.

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/5986229

 

Regards

Greg

[ben_rubinstein___mancheste1664880652]

I will concur with David and I have two 5D bodies!

 

Could I suggest with the OP that he invest in some very fast primes which might alleviate the situation somewhat as well as giving an incredible 3D look to the photos?

[stephen dohring]

I guess its subjective, looking at Daves picture it is not bad or awfull but not the quality level I want to provide. Look at the pink shirt in the back, not a smooth bouquet at all. Now imagine that at a reception or in a black tux - forget it you will see red dots all over the black tuxes, I have seen it in my own shots when not lighted properly at 800. I see a lot of grain in Dave's looking almost jpg artifacting and I don't like it. Of course some B&W conversions look ok with a little grain but on the whole in a wedding situation I will use 800 if I have white low ceilings but I try to stay at 400. Overall I don't think the D200 is a better value than any other Nikon model or any Canon model. Canon is far better with noise but Nikon makes up for it in other areas and if you already have Canon lenses I would look at the 5D. Noise should not be the main factor a great shooter can do fine with either. Look at the money regarding your lenses and hold both cameras and make the call.

[stephen dohring]

"Overall I don't think the D200 is a better value than any other Nikon model or any Canon model"

 

I meant I DO think it is a better value than any other Nikon model or Canon model.... sorry

[gerald_donnelly]

If you like Nikon Equipment & are worried about noise check out the Fugi S5. It's a Nikon D200 body with a fugi sensor. I've got the S3 & regulary shoot 1600 & have no problem with noise.

[robbie_caswell]

Why not shoot a few rolls of Delta 3200 at ISO800 and ISO1600 to see if you like it?

 

A Leica M3 with vintage Summilux can be had for about $1500 and will allow you another stop, or more if the subject is static. Great for unobtrusive shots and getting ready images.

 

If available light isn't your primary style, then I would resist the urge to switch and seek another option.

 

I do love the Canon 5D, but detest the digital workflow. The D200 was a fabulous camera and prefer the 5D only for the files and wide fast glass.

 

For my next wedding the bride OK'd the use of B+W since there will be a second photographer.

[bruce_stenman2]

I shoot the D200 at weddings and my second photographer shoots Mark II cameras. I compare thousands of images under identical lighting conditions. They both are fine up to ISO 1250 at which point noise starts to jump with both cameras. The big difference with the Mark II (and this does not apply per se to the D20/D30 cameras and their smaller sensors and smaller pixels) is that an underexposed image and be pushed much further later in Photoshop than files from the D200 or D2x(ISO 800 max).

 

The D200 and the Nikon lenses and Nikon flash is far superior to those from Canon. A Nikon 50mm f1.4 is $1000 less than the Canon 50mm f1.2 which is a lot to pay for 1/2 f-stop.

 

If you want low noise at high iso, get the Canon 5D. If you want high ISO performance and fast autofocus in low light get the Mark III. The 20D/30D are good backup cameras for the 5D. Of course with many Canon lenses like the 24-70mm f2.8 you also need backup lenses as well.

 

Bruce

[jim_simon6]

Don't shoot professionally, but for fun. Have shot a couple weddings since I got my 20D, one paid, one as a guest. I've never hesitated to shoot @3200. Now I might not be as demanding as many on this forum, but to my eye 3200 looks great. Ever shoot 1600 speed color film? 3200 was relegated to grainy B&W film just a few years ago. Anybody that complains about high ISO digi files (that can be cleaned up in software BTW) either never shot film or forgot where they came from.

 

Available light with an 85/1.8 and ISO 1600/3200 is incredible (possibly the best thing to ever come from the digital revolution - is that too over the top?)

 

Jim