Stretching the available light envelope.

[adam zyto]

<p><!--StartFragment-->

<p >I really enjoy available light indoor photography. Mostly family and friends around the house. I own a D80, several lenses including the 50mm f1.8 and my favorite, the 17-55mm f2.8. I’m looking to upgrade to the D300 primarily for its low light capabilities. I can’t afford the D3 and am not considering the D700 due to the fact that my current lenses would be less than ideal with the D700. So I’m probably going for a used D300 which can now be had for about $1,000. Now for my question:</p>

<p >Using my 50mm 1.8 or perhaps purchasing a VR wide zoom, and going to say 1250-3200 ISO, what results can I realistically expect my hand held pics to yield on a D300? Thanks. </p>

<!--EndFragment--></p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>you can expect a one-stop improvement in ISO over the d80. everything else depends on technique and lighting. your current lenses should be fine, although you may want to look into something like the sigma 30/1.4 for the times when the 50 is too long to properly frame the shot.</p><div></div>

[Two23]

<p>I too found I just gained a stop when going from the D80 to D300. As for lenses, a cheap but decent lens is the Sigma 28mm f1.8. Almost as fast as the 30mm f1.4 but a lot less $$ used on eBoy.<br>

Kent in SD</p>

[seismiccwave]

<p>If you like low light performance and didn't want the D700 I would seriously look at the D90. I have the D300, D90 and D700 and the D90 is also one stop better than the D300. So if you go from a D80 to D90 you actually gain 2 stops. The D90 is not weather resistant and is slower in autofocus and doesn't meter with some of the older Nikkor lenses but the low light performance is very good indeed.</p>

 

[jefmwols]

<p>I think you may be a bit happier putting the money into the F/1.4 lenas with a less expensive body like the D90. I love my D300, but I boutght it because I needed extremely fast AF and very good longevity. When in doubt, spend your money on the glass!</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>"the D90 is also one stop better than the D300."</p>

<p>really? i find this hard to believe (and so did DPReview, who found the d90 comparable to the d300 but with more smearing at high ISO due to weaker low-pass filter). </p>

[seismiccwave]

<p>Eric, my D90 has a bit less noise at ISO 3200 where as my D300 was fairly noisy at ISO 3200. My D700 is very clean at ISO 3200. I don't have any real scientific proof for the claim. It was simply a personal preference. The DxOmark website also put the D90 slightly ahead of the D300 in high ISO performance.<br>

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng/Image-Quality-Database/Compare-cameras/(appareil1)/262|0/(appareil2)/202|0/(onglet)/0/(brand)/Nikon/(brand2)/Nikon<br>

Not that I would trust all online reviews completely but I was pleasantly surprised when I traded my D300 for the D90.</p>

[adam zyto]

<p><!--StartFragment-->

<p >Thanks everyone for your advice.</p>

<p >Hansen, the link you provided was interesting. Quite a difference in ISO performance with the edge to the D90 over the D300. Surprising. </p>

<p >The recommendations of a 30/1.4 or 28/1.8 also are appreciated. My 50 1.8 seems to never be “wide enough” so I don’t use it as often as I anticipated. </p>

<!--EndFragment--></p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>Hansen, not that i doubt your own experience, but i think there's a difference between a bit less noise and one full stop. if true, that would put the d90 on a D3/d700 level, which certainly sounds like wishful thinking.</p>

<p>while it's not uncommon for later-gen Nikons to improve in DR and high-ISO Noise from their older, more expensive siblings, according to DPreview (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond90/page34.asp) , what you're categorizing as 'better' performance by the d90 is actually more noise reduction which actually provides less detail. and i quote:</p>

<p>"The level of detail retained seems comparable with the D300 at ISO 1600 and above (presumably because noise reduction is blurring away any of the super-fine detail that the D300 captures but that eludes the D90)."</p>

<p>the review also states: "The processing settings from the D90 and D300 can be swapped between cameras, suggesting the output intent is the same. Yet, for all the similarities in publically announced sensor specifications and consistent color rendering, there are clear differences in per-pixel-sharpness and contrast. Both are shot with the same lens but no amount of re-shooting could get the D90 to match the D300's output."</p>

<p>now here's their ISO 3200 comparison:</p>

<p> </p>

<table border="0" width="498" align="center">

<tbody>

<tr>

<td width="50%"><img src="http://a.img-dpreview.com/reviews/NikonD90/Samples/Comparedto/Studio/HiISO/D90_3200.jpg" alt="" width="240" height="180" /></td>

<td width="50%"><img src="http://a.img-dpreview.com/reviews/NikonD90/Samples/Comparedto/Studio/HiISO/d80-iso3200.jpg" alt="" width="240" height="180" /></td>

</tr>

<tr>

<th>Nikon D90 </th> <th>Nikon D80 (Equiv*) </th>

</tr>

<tr>

<td><img src="http://a.img-dpreview.com/reviews/NikonD90/Samples/Comparedto/Studio/HiISO/K20D_ISO3200-001.jpg" alt="" width="240" height="180" /></td>

<td><img src="http://a.img-dpreview.com/reviews/NikonD90/Samples/Comparedto/Studio/HiISO/D300_3200.jpg" alt="" width="240" height="180" /></td>

</tr>

<tr>

<th><strong>Pentax K20D</strong> </th> <th><strong>Nikon D300</strong> </th>

</tr>

</tbody>

</table>

<h3><br /></h3>

<p>that sure doesnt look like the d90 is <strong>one full stop</strong> better at 3200 to me as you claim, Hansen.</p>

<p>DxO's shocking results aside, here's another take (http://megaz.arbuz.com/2008/12/25/nikon-d300-vs-d90-high-iso-noise-comparison):</p>

<p>"As expected, both D90 and D300 produce almost identical results in ISO 200-800. Seems like the on-camera image processing is identical for this ISO range. However, starting from ISO 1600 and above, I noticed that D90 performs a little better in controlling noise. Looks like Nikon is using a different method of on-camera noise reduction on D90. My main purpose of this test was to test whether D90 images are sharper in higher ISOs than D300, as claimed by (KR). I can now conclude that (KR's) D300 definitely has focusing issues, since I did not see any sharpness differences between both cameras in my tests. In fact, I think D90 actually applies more noise reduction than D300, resulting in less noise in higher ISOs. Look at ISO 6400 - D90 grains look “squished” together (which typically happens because of more aggressive noise reduction), while D300 is showing more “normal” grain."</p>

<p>so while the d90 might appear a squeench better at ISO 3200, it's still no d3. and the differences may come down to aesthetics, i.e. natural grain vs. digital smearing. FWIW, i wouldnt trade my d300 for a d90.</p>