Question of noise on the D200

[john_.]

does anyone using the D200 find the noise above 800 to be really bad? i tried

it tonight and was disettled with it/// if you have images above 800 id like to

see it...

[ShunCheung]

Here is an example at ISO 1600, D200 body with 17-55mm DX at 22mm, 1/80 sec f2.8. I'll show a crop at the pixel level in the next post.<div></div>

[ShunCheung]

Here is the pixel level. I would say the noise is pretty bad.<div></div>

[john_.]

does it make you want to switch to canon?

[tom_luongo1]

70-200/f2.8 hand held at 200mm, 1/200" at f2.8 - 100% crop - Image was underexposed about 1/2 a stop which tends to increase noise.<div></div>

[tom_luongo1]

Following image is same file with a commercial noise filter applied with default settings. (For some reason, the above image does not look right in my browser compared to downloading it off photo.net and viewing it in photoshop!)<div></div>

[ShunCheung]

For the kind of stuffs I shoot, I rarely need ISO 1600 or even 800. So high-ISO performance isn't an important issue.

To me, the more important problem with Nikon is their emphasis on consumer-level equipment. On the higher end/pro level equipment, Nikon is falling farther and farther behind. If Nikon does not address that soon, it is just a matter of time that I'll need to add some Canon stuffs to fill those holes.

 

But that is another topic altogether.

[tom_luongo1]

Oops! My crops should have had levels applied. I won't bother correcting it here.

 

Shun, did you use ACR to open your file? Or is it the jpeg created by the camera? The in-camera jpeg always adds noise reduction at ISO 800+. (My image is from RAW with no luminance smoothing and no color noise reduction.)

 

Does this make me want to switch to Canon? No.<div></div>

[ShunCheung]

My file is a Nikon NEF/RAW original, and I opened it in Adobe Camera RAW (ACR) with nothing applied (no noise reduction). I almost never shoot JPEGs or even RAW + JPEG.

[ShunCheung]

Here is an ISO 800 sample, at the pixel level, shot within minutes of the other one, same lady. IMO things are much better at ISO 800.<div></div>

[kaiyen]

Which "commercial" noise filter was used in the earlier example? Just curious. I really wish there was a Lightroom module for Noise Ninja or Neat Image...

 

allan

[dbcooper]

<sigh> so do I.

[richard_baer]

I just use Noise Ninja in PSE5 and be done with it. I will second the motion to get in in LR (I guess it would be thirds, not seconds).

rb

[elliot1]

DXO software has excellent noise reduction as part of their image processing program. Their claim is that it will make an image shot at ISO 1600 look like it was shot at ISO 400. I don't shoot at high ISOs very often with my d200 but on the occasion or two I have tried it out, it has worked well without affecting image sharpness. Most noise reduction programs seem to blur the image slightly as they remove the noise. DXO doesn't.

 

My son shot an event with me recently. He was using the d40 with the sb-400 and kit lens. Most of his shots were at ISO 1600 and looked pretty good straight out of the camera. Once processed with DXO and printed, they looked great - virtually noise free. I was amazed!

 

You get try a full version DXO for free for 1 month at www.dxo.com.

 

Rather than switch to Canon, consider a d40! (Amazing little camera, especially for the price, and yes, I am just kidding around.)

[dan park]

I sometimes find the noise at 400 bad. That's one of my only complaints with the D200 (the other is focus issues). It's also the reason why I hung onto my D50.

[seland]

The second pic is not just noise, it has artifacts from bad noise removal software and/or sharpening. Post a jpeg without artifacts, I hope you shoot raw/NEF.

[bill_keane2]

Has anyone tried the noise reduction on Capture NX, and would it be better to deal with noise in post-processing or set it in camera?

[dennis_j_smith]

On film... you probably get the same noise... oh wait... grain shooting 800 or even 1600. Or is the point that other DSLR's don't have as much grain... oh wait... noise?

[greg jansen]

John, do you have the High ISO noice reduction turned on or off in the camera for those shots?

 

Any DSLR (yes, even Canon) is going to produce noise at higher ISO's. It's how much noise reduction the manufacturers decide to add to the image processing that makes the difference straight out of the camera.

 

It would be nice if manuafacturers had simple adjustable noise reduction for each ISO over 400, selectable from none to a bunch.

 

That would save having to apply it in software later.

 

Just depends on the job. Important job, fewer shots, apply it later to each shot. Lots of images, event type thing, apply all the reduction at time of capture.

[tom_luongo1]

The "commercial noise filter" I used in the example is Noise Ninja. I usually use less noise reduction than the default settings.

 

In my high ISO shots, I often get a lot of that unsightly purple/yellow discoloration as is evident in the lower stripe of the flag. Noise Ninja, ACR, and I assume any other decent noise removal software permits color noise to be removed separately from luminance noise.

 

If 1600 ISO is underexposed by a stop, would the resulting noise be equivalent noise to 3200 ISO?

[briany]

Shun's image has been taken in very yellow light. This always increases noise, because there is an inherent boost in effective ISO. The sensor is roughly daylight balanced, so in order to get a true sense of high ISO capability, one would have to use a blue color correction filter to balance the inputs the sensor sees. To then get the same exposure, one would have to increase the exposure or up the ISO further to compensate for the filter.

 

If you do a high ISO test on a sunny day outside, you'll find that the results Always look much better than inside with tungsten lights. Which is a large part of the reason why, when I see a test of the latest greatest camera's high ISO capability looking at a shot taken outside with very few shadow areas, I often think, "man, my camera's high ISO shots (often taken in yellow tungsten light with lots of shadow areas) don't look like that..." This is the D80, not the D200, but it shows that high ISO under good light can look pretty good: http://hull534.smugmug.com/gallery/2921101#157426324

[rjacksonphoto]

So, if you have to put a blue filter on and lose 2 stops of light, what is the point?

 

I agree that other cameras have better low light performance. I also agree that film could have a lot more grain. And I don't always think grain or noise looks bad-- in fact it can be aesthetically pleasing. To each his own.

[briany]

My point was merely that if you'd have to put on a blue filter with a +2 compensation factor, you're seeing the results of the red and green channels at ISO 1600 and the blue channel at ISO 6400.

 

Agree that film is way worse and that the whole issue of noise, IMHO, is way overhyped.

[ShunCheung]

The earlier images I posted were shot at a restaurant/club. We were watching their show after dinner, and I used the opportunity to test high ISO performance on my new D200. I would think the lighting there is fairly typical for indoor situations when ISO 1600 is needed.

 

Here is a totally different shot. This is the city of Rio de Janeiro shortly after sunset. So we have a mix of twilight and some street light. Again, it was with a D200 at ISO 1600 and straight from ACR. I'll show a crop of the water-front area with some trees and street light reflections.<div></div>

[ShunCheung]

Here is the crop at the pixel level. Again, I haven't tried any noise-reduction software.<div></div>