link to a low iso comparison: D2X, D300 and D3

[mike_s.3]

Here is a link to an interesting post on dpreview. I did a quick look and did

not see any mention of this in the Nikon forum. My apologies if I missed it.

There have been a lot of high iso comparisons posted on various sites but I was

quite interested to see a low iso comparison. It looked like a reasonable job

at contrasting the 3 cameras. Although the D2X has more noise it really hangs

in there in terms of detail vs. the D3:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1039&thread=26062480&page=1

[photo5]

Yes, I posted these same images to the Nikon forum here a couple weeks ago.

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00Ndgd

[mike_s.3]

Thanks Dave I see that now. It may still be worth a look for those interested since Ole Thorsen included some indoor shots as well and has provided some useful crops. Finally, credit and thanks should also go to Marianne Oelund who is the originator of the images.

 

Dave do you have access to the original NEF files? They are no longer on Marianne's site.

[elliot1]

When comparing images from newest Nikon DSLR cameras (D3, D300) to older models (D200, D80, D40, etc), noise (up to ISO 1600 and possibly even 3200) and color/contrast differences are a really a non-issue at this point in time.

 

There are numerous advanced NR programs available that level the playing field, making higher ISO shots look like lower ISO shots with virtually no loss of image sharpness. In addition to improved sensors and software, the D3 and D300 employ advanced noise reduction within the camera to achieve great results out of the camera (even if high ISO noise reduction is turned off). Similar low noise results can be achieved with probably all other current Nikon DSLR cameras by applying NR during PP.

 

A camera's settings determine the color/contrast in the image. While it may be difficult to match images out of the camera, PP can make different images look the same.

 

I have yet to see a series of side-by-side fully post processed images comparing Nikon's newest to the oldest. That, to me, would me quite interesting and revealing.

 

It is my opinion that the test images from the three cameras used in the test could be made to look virtually identical so that even pixel peepers would not see any difference.

[ilkka_nissila]

There is no such thing as noise reduction without detail loss.

[elliot1]

Ilkka, until recently I would have agreed with you.

[mike_s.3]

Elliot - your point is why I am looking for the original NEF files from the shots above. I am curious to see what application of some NR and PP would do.

[photo5]

No, sorry, I deleted the original NEF files after saving them as JPG files. I also didn't see much

good information in the indoor files, so I didn't include them.

[eric_arnold]

it would be interesting to compare these results to bill claff's nikon DR comparison : http://www.nikonians.org/dcforum/DCForumID71/18129.html

 

this test pits all the d-series nikons head to head across the entire ISO spectrum. the results are fairly interesting for ISO hounds.

 

believe it or not, the d40x outscored the d200 at ISO 100, while the apparently extremely underrated d50 was third behind the d3 and d300 from 200 to 1600. at 3200 ISO, the d300 far surpasses the d200's ISO 1600 performance. perhaps unsurprisingly, the only thing that comes close to the d3 at any ISO is the d3 (dx mode), except at ISOs 100 and 200, where the dx-enabled d3 is edged out by the d300. bill's test also confirms the d40/d40x to have more dynamic range than the d200 and d80 at every ISO except 200, where it matches the d200. here's the rub: the d2x came in last in every single setting across the entire range and is almost 2EV behind the d300 at both ISO 1600 and ISO 3200.