Noise on DSLRs. Is it overblown ?

[garylester]

<p>Noise is just one of many potential details that need to be managed. Digital or film.. it's still photography.</p>

 

[ty_mickan]

<p>It has just become a pissing contest for manufacturers now. Instead of consumers buying fast lenses, they stick a medium speed f2.8 lens on and crank it up. This is part of the reason why zooms are so popular. so with these ridiculously high iso's, and image stabalised lenses and bodies, it won't be too long before slr's are as good as rangefinders for low light shooting, although focusing will still be an issue. most people who think they need over 3200 iso probably need to upgrade their technique.</p>

[joshloeser]

<p>I really missed out on some excellent photo opportunities on Thursday evening while it was still light out because I didn't have my D700 with me while strolling toward the light rail station on Mill Avenue. I only had my N80 with me, and that didn't get me what I wanted. I came back almost two hours later with my D700 and got some very good shots (at least in my mind). <br>

<img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2654/4000179910_28b42b22db.jpg" alt="" width="500" height="333" /></p>

<p>That shot was taken at 25,600 ISO. Not too bad, all things considering. I used my 85.1.8 at 1.8. I used a variety of ISO settings that night, going anywhere from 1250 or so (for a relatively long exposure at 1/20) to 25,600, probably using 6400/10,000 the most. I didn't use those settings just because I could, but because it was the only way to get good shots in near-darkness without using a distracting flash.</p>

[andrew_fedon]

<blockquote>

<strong>That is if anybody still prints...</strong>

</blockquote>

Russ, how true. Something I've often wondered, and has the makings of a new discussion, now that everyone takes 300 shots instead of 36ish, do they still print ?, but I digress the discussion.... I have to add my tupence worth and say that this argument is a non-argument. There is no comparison to the awesome capabilities of high iso pictures from the <strong>current </strong>digital cameras such as D700/D3 etc to high iso films of the past. Don't forget that with high iso films of 400 onwards, it wasn't only the grain that increased, but the contrast dropped dramatically in proportion and you usually ended up with some pretty drab looking prints the higher you went. Not the case anymore.

[doug_santo]

<p>I think a camera with good high ISO performance is a luxury. But owning such a camera does make one lazy. If good tools are available and one can afford them, why not use them? Good tools improve one's work. Last Sunday I went to the local gardens to photograph hummingbirds. The day was overcast with poor light conditions. I normally use a D200 with my long lenses and teleconverters to maximize focal length. But this day the light was so poor, I used my D700 and left the teleconverters at home. I used a 300/2.8 lens. I used shutter priorty with an exposure time around 1/1250s which forced the aperture wide open. I let ISO vary. At this aperture and shutter speed ISO was between 2500 to 3200. The D200 body would have produced poor results at these settings. The D700 produced really surprising results in my opinion (see below). If I only had a D200, I would not have been able to capture a really good series of images. The image below is a camera jpg. The image is cropped not quite 1:1, but pretty close. A little sharpening and contrast enhancement, no other changes. D700, 300/2.8 lens, f/2.8, 1/1250s, ISO 2500, spot metered, shutter priorty. </p><div></div>

[andrew_fedon]

<p>Lovely shot Doug ! Another thing I really liked about my high iso D700 is that it made my crappy 70-300mm Sigma lens into an acceptable performer. On my F4/film set-up at the 300mm end, and usually wide open, the results were pretty crappy, unusable. I was going to get rid of it. On the D700 and higher iso's , the lens usually operates at f/11 or f/16'ish, and at higher shutter speeds, and instantly its like WOW !, totally acceptable results, is this the same lens ? If there is a tad more noise in the background, small price to pay. Needless to say, I'm not getting rid of it anymore.</p>

[dan_south]

<p>Nice shots, folks! Great examples of the D700's remarkable high-ISO performance!</p>

[philip gleeson]

<p>I bought a D70s a few years ago. Everyone said that the most impressive thing about it was the noise it made when you took a photo - real quality noise, very professional!!</p>

[angkordave]

<p>Although it goes against the grain to say: it I dont like the clean noise free look from digital black and white images!<br>

If i'm producing a bw print I add noise in PS to give texture to sky areas especially. I like the grainy look of old fashined high speed film.<br>

The wonderfull thing about digital is you can control the image noise to get virtualy any level size or style of grain you want depending on picture size.</p>

<div></div>