Jump to content

D5000 Poor High-ISO Performance?

glenn_c1

By glenn_c1
in Nikon

 Share

Recommended Posts

glenn_c1

glenn_c1

Posted
Posted

<p>I was glancing through a photo magazine at a newsstand recently and looked at a test of the new Nikon D5000. They commented that it surprisingly had high-ISO performance "at least" one full stop worse than that of the D90 - basically, a bit more than one stop under most conditions. A real surprise, if true. I think - but am not sure - that it was Popular Photography.</p>

<p>Anybody seen any evidence or corroboration of this? If true then it certainly changes the calculus when it comes to buying or recommending one of these. </p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
dansutton

dansutton

Posted
Posted

<p>"If there was one thing I hadn’t planned on it was this; I fell in love with the D-5000. In fact, I’m keeping it. I was absolutely shocked at its high ISO performance. I took shots, hand held at 1250 ISO in a square in the town of Siena, and when my brother and I looked at them that night—full screen on my computer, you could barely see any noise at all. It was like ISO 400 on my D300. "<br>

"So, what’s going to happen to my beloved D300? I’m selling it. It was my back-up camera, and the one I used for travel photography, but now I have a new low-noise, lightweight, replacement that even shoots video, so it’s time to wave bye to my D300 (and its sale will help offset the cost of my original problem)."</p>

<p>the above is taken from scott kelby's blog. i'm not sure how much we are allowed to cut and copy from others' blogs, so if this is a violation of terms, please let me know or delete the post. </p>

<p>but the gist is that scott kelby had to buy a replacement camera in tuscany, got a d5000 and planned to yab-e (backwards) it when he got back. he is now selling the d300 instead apparently. </p>

<p>nikon rumors quotes this and implies that a d300s or something is coming out, but that seems to be reading too far into the post than is warranted, at least to my eyes. but he seems to trumpet the ISO performance. </p>

<p>i have a d700 so i don't know what iso 400 looks like on a 300. but scott is a talented photographer and gear head so his recommendation should, i suppose, carry some weight. </p>

<p>to see his whole post, go here :<br>

http://www.scottkelby.com/blog/2009/archives/5202</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites
waltflanagan

waltflanagan

Posted
Posted

<p>A few years ago the D200 came out. A version of that sensor went into the D80 then D40X/D60.</p>

<p>The reviews I read said that for JPEGs the high ISO performance increased about 1/2 stop each time because Nikon had 6-18 months to improve it. I think the RAW quality was the same.</p>

<p>Then two years ago the D300 came out. A version of that sensor went into the D90 then D5000.</p>

<p>The same thing appears to be happening this time. Kelby mentions that at least for some of his pictures he was shooting JPEG. Based on the earlier Nikon sensor track record I would expect a D5000 ISO 800 JPEG to have the same noise as a D300 ISO 400 JPEG. Basically a 1 stop advantage rather than the 1 2/3 stops he mentions.</p>

<p>Since I shoot RAW I would be more interested in how the RAW files compared.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites
paul_wheeler1

paul_wheeler1

Posted
Posted
<p>I think you will find that the reason there is less noise at high ISO on the D5000 Jpgs, is that the D5000 reduces noise at the expense of detail. There will be more detail on the D300 images. Comparing RAW is more accurate comparison of the high ISO performance. I would expect them to about the same.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chris_vicino

chris_vicino

Posted
Posted
<p>I own a D5000 and I think it is an excellent camera. I have had no issues with high ISO. I can not compare it to the D90 but I would assume it would be the same considring it has the same sensor. I have been way more happier than expected with this camera in all aspects.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites
lex_jenkins

lex_jenkins

Posted
Posted

<p>Ditto what Paul Wheeler wrote. Compare the performance very carefully using info from dpreview (and DxO, if available). In several cases recently when I read those reports, cameras with claims of decreased noise often appear to impose heavier in-camera noise reduction. So it's debatable whether this is actually a reduction in noise through increased sensor performance, or the illusion of better performance through heavier in-camera NR.</p>

<p>Compare the actual detail. In some cases it may be preferable to use a "noisier" camera (little or no in-camera NR), and use your own NR software carefully and selectively to control noise while retaining fine detail.</p>

<p>Personally, I'd rather have in-camera NR limited to chroma noise and not mess with the luminance noise. I'll take care of that myself if it bothers me.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites
andylynn

andylynn

Posted
Posted

<p>So on DXOMark, the D300 trails the D90 and D5000 in every metric, and the D90 edges the D5000 by a bit, very consistently, on everything.</p>

<p>I wonder if by the time they got to the D5000, Nikon held back just a bit because they figured out they were making the cheap cameras too good :)</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites
lex_jenkins

lex_jenkins

Posted
Posted

<p>That interpretation of the DxO data has come up before here, regarding the D90 being "better" than the D300. Take a closer look at the DxO data. The D300 appears to have less in-camera NR. This would appear to fit the usual pattern followed by Nikon for their pro and high end dSLRs. They leave the most important processing choices to the photographers, rather than imposing in-camera processing that can't easily be undone.</p>

<p>The high resolution sample photos I've seen online from the D90 and D300 appear to confirm this. Some of the D90 images show very slightly less real detail than the D300. This isn't a factor in some types of images in which smooth gradations are more important than minute detail. So that performance may be acceptable to many folks, especially if they want to save time in post processing.</p>

<p>The D90 in-camera processing seems to walk that line between the heavy in-camera processing of P&S digicams and entry level dSLRs, and the true raw images generated by Nikon's pro dSLRs. That's pretty much why I'm considering it. I really don't enjoy routine post processing for minor tweaks.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites
walterh

walterh

Posted
Posted

<p>Believe it or not there are no miracles possible in noise reduction.</p>

<p>It is no piece of art to reduce noise extremely - but at the expense of detail.<br>

This is OK if noise is the #1 enemy for you. If that is the case chances are you want an aggressive sharpening as well :-P In this case noise needs to be reduced as aggressive because otherwise you enhance noise by the sharpening tremendously.</p>

<p>Sharpening and noise reduction work best for me if I have full control and can see make all adjustments in finla size and at 100% crop mode. Only then is it possible to get the best compromize. No camera image processor knows the level of detail I want to keep or get rid of.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 4 months later...
jay_poel

jay_poel

Posted
Posted

<p>For what it's worth - those shooting JPEGs with the D90/D5000 will gain the benefit of the processor doing the noise reduction while the file is still 12 bit vs the final 8 bit that you would be working with in PS. <br>

Of course, it doesn't matter to those working with RAW files, they are 12 bit. I think Kelby says he shoots mainly JPEG and this may have something to do with his preference of the D5000 over the D300.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...