d200 camera

[wesleyfarnsworth]

<p>I've not had a chance to play with my d200 in low lighting. Can anyone tell me what it's high end iso is before you start getting alot of noise in the photos? I just bought a 50mm 1.8 lens and can't wait to play with it when it gets here!</p>

[anthony_bez]

<p>I was happy with results up to 800 iso... Some people are happy with higher iso, and some with less.<br />You need to find your own level of satisfaction.</p>

[andreas_manessinger]

If you're willing to apply noise reduction like NoiseNinja, NeatImage, etc, and if you have correctly exposed, you may be happy with ISO 1600. In general I was not. ISO 800 is definitely OK.

[hans_janssen]

<p>When you work carefully with the exposure and DxO 5, for NEF pp, you can go up till 2500 iso, there will be noise, but not that pronounced.</p>

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

[arun_seetharam]

<p>D200 is an excellent camera believe me. But only upto ISO 600 or 800. Pretty bad after that. High end?? Forget it!! It is terrible.<br>

I am sure some noise reduction tools might help, but still the D200 ability ties their hands. There is always a compromise between noise reduction and sharpening.</p>

[photo5]

<p>The only Nikon I've used with good high ISO performance is the D700. Even the D300 can't come close to what the D700 can do at high ISOs. In fact, there is only a one stop difference between the D200 and the D300 in terms of noise, not a big jump. In a pinch I'll shoot at ISO 1600 with my D200, and it's OK, but I try to use VR at stay at 800 or below when I can. Even the D80 is slightly better at high ISOs than the D200.</p>

[evilsivan]

<p>I understand that the D200 is similar to the D80 for high ISO (I have the D80). I wouldn't go past 800, but if you do go high, say 400-1600 ISO, make sure your exposure is bright enough because bringing a dark exposure up in post-processing will give you terrible results.</p>

[frank_skomial]

<p>If you do not intend to remove noise in post processing, then set High ISO Noise Removal to High. It wll do pretty good noise removal in the camera and you can shoot all the way up to 1600 ISO. Your picture quality or color and contrast, will be reduced a bit, but sometimes is better to shoot like that instead of not shoot at all.</p>

[acarodp]

<p>I agree on 800 ISO. A side problem you don't mention is the significant loss in dynamic range and color sturation when you go up, so high iso will not impact the same way all images. But 800 gets you generally quite usable images, especially with some moderate use of Noise Ninja. You actually pushed me to look back to my gallery in this respect, and for what it is worth at web size, <a href="../photo/7772571&size=lg">this</a> , <a href="../photo/7845135&size=lg">this</a> and <a href="../photo/8277538&size=lg">this</a> photos are all at 800 ISO (I'm surprised to find so many...). <a href="../photo/6997853&size=lg">This one</a> should be even more, perhaps 1600 (I haven't noted it in the page, should look at home), but as you clearly see I was really in an emergency situation. Bottom line, you can still easily get keepers at 800 if you are not after great DR, the finest detail or the smoothest tones. Above, it starts to be quite a delicate business.</p>

<p>L.</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<p>Agree with what has been said so far - ISO 800 is usually OK. When going above, it is crucial to get exposure right - rather overexpose a little than risk even the slightest amount of underexposure. I have done shots with the D200 at ISO1600 I am happy with - and on the other hand have taken a few with the D300 at the same ISO that I am not - they were underexposed to begin with and recovery in post-processing really brought out the noise.</p>

[photo5]

<p>I took this photo at ISO 1600 with my D80 in Japan. I thought the camera maintained color saturation pretty well.<br>

<img src="http://hull534.smugmug.com/photos/113271390_mpTdf-L.jpg" alt="" width="402" height="600" /></p>

[photo5]

<p>I should have added that the photo I attached is a JPG from the camera, the RAW converted through NX looks a lot nicer.</p>

[ted_raper1]

<p>I'm satisfied with my D200 at up to ISO 800; I also use a D80, same story. For me, and my film background (I shot Kodachrome 25 and 64 for 30 years!), anything above that just doesn't cut it, even with in-camera noise reduction and post processing tricks. </p>

[borgis_karl_johan]

<p>Has anyone in this esteemed forum ever used Agfachrome 1000? Once in the dim analog past -maybe in the early 1980s- I used to carry this film for bad light conditions together with a regular ASA 50 or 100 film - the brand varied (Fuji- Ekta- Kodachrome).<br /> I am unsure whether this film was ever marketed in the US. Contrasted with the images of ASA 1000 slide film ANY digital image with the D200 is pure heavens :-)<br /> Now please do not take this comment TOO seriously...</p>

[carl_becker2]

<p>I was not pleased with the noise over 400 ISO with my D200. I now have a D700 and am satisfied with 1600 ISO when needed.</p>

[williamchuttonjr]

<p>My experience is similar to the above reports . At ISO 400 the D200 is very nice. At ISO 800 color image quality is mediocre. Keep in mind that exposure becomes critical at ISO 800. Underexposure should be avoided. I have some ISO 800 color shots that are acceptable. But in general I avoid ISO 800 on the D200.<br>

I do like B&W versions of D200 RAW files taken at ISO 800 (I use LR to convert to B&W) . In B&W images the noise can resemble film grain. To my eye it looks good for certain sunjects/scenes.</p>

[photo5]

<p>Carl, I hear you. Even the D300 has ugly noise at ISO 400, and from 800 and up has too much noise reduction. The D700 solves all those problems. I liked it, but it left me wanting more resolution at the same time. It's like "it looks great! I want more detail!" is how I felt when I looked at images from that camera. That and the size and price, just didn't work for me. A $600 D200 is a very satisfying camera for me right now, while I want for technology to catch up to my needs, which may take a couple years yet.<br>

I do find the in-camera noise reduction to be pretty ugly, however, on my D200. At least in black and white images, the natural sensor noise is quite film-like.</p>

[peter]

<p>I too tend to think that D200 shooting needs to be kept at 800 ASA or below. Color noise in particular can get nasty pretty quickly above this in low lighting. Higher speeds shot under better lighting conditions can produce acceptable results though - but hen again why go there unless absolutely necessary and in such condiitons you can susually drop the ASA to a lower level.</p>

[acarodp]

<blockquote>

<p>I am unsure whether this film was ever marketed in the US. Contrasted with the images of ASA 1000 slide film ANY digital image with the D200 is pure heavens :-)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes and no, dynamic range tended to increase with sensibility in film if I remember correctly, which was in principle a better behavior, since when you have limited light you quite often have strong contrasts (think concert / theatre). About grain/noise I agree: it is a LOT better in digital.</p>

<p>L.</p>

[carl_becker2]

<p>Dave, I really enjoyed the D200, its a great camera. I just started taking bird pictures and needed a higher shutter speed to freeze some of these quick little guys. I also like having base 100 ISO for showing motion. I had to sell the D200 to fund the D700 and it still hurt a bit but I believe I'm good for a long while. Just have to add a ND filter now.</p>

[dan_brown4]

<p>I have always felt the ISO 640 was good to go. Once I dialed to ISO 800 (& up), I felt I was trading faster shutter speed for noticeable noise.</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>I've always been able to get nice, workable results from a D200 at 640, and can live with carefully exposed shots at ISO 800. Higher than that? You just have to have a compelling reason to tolerate the noise, or get creative and do a B&W conversion to get around the noice (it's the chroma noise that's the problem, not the "graininess," per se). <strong><a href="../photo/8488548">Here's one from a D200, using the same 50/1.8 you're talking about</a></strong>. Had only poor overhead incandescent light, and shot at ISO 1000. It actually wasn't all that bad in color, but it was more appealing in B&W.<br /><br />I've produced hundreds of sellable image at ISO 800 with a D200. Most customers aren't pixel peepers! Content is king. Context is the prime minister. Noise is... eh, just between us nerds, most of the time.</p>

[wedding-photography-denver]

<p>800 IMO</p>

[bsd230]

<p>I think 800 is about the tops for me, but as you can see from some of the photos submitted with the right software it's possible to shoot at higher ISO's (han's picture). I shot some pictures of my nephews graduation indoors with a slow 18-200 lens, I shot at 800-1600 and some of the photos had a lot of noise. I generally try to shoot below 400 whenever possible.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>As Matt observed, chroma noise tends to be the most objectionable at high ISOs with many digital cameras. That can easily be selectively minimized using Noise Ninja, Noiseware or other full featured noise reduction software. I use it routinely for my D2H photos, which even show enough chroma noise at ISO 400 to spoil the delicate gradations in closeups of faces. It can easily be treated without any loss of sharpness by not reducing luminance noise.</p>

<p>But expectations of high ISO performance are extremely high now, so what I consider acceptable may not be to someone else.</p>