Shadow Noise of D300 and D700?

[chanh_nguyen1]

<p>Does the D700 has higher dynamic range and/or better shadow noise than the D300 variants (300s, 90) at low ISO?<br>

I often find myself with high contrast scene that would best be taken with a split ND filter or multiple exposures which is not always possible (not carrying a tripod or filters). To make a picture from a single exposure, I try not to clip the highlight too much (.5 to 1 stop usually) and bring up the shadow details in post processing. As the details emerge, so does noise. The more I have to crank up the lowlights, the higher the noise as expected. And the higher the ISO, the worse it gets, also as expected. Will I get cleaner shadows (boosted by the same amount) with the D700 than with the D300 if the image is taken at base ISO?<br>

I like my D200 a lot. While I can use better AF and high ISO noise, getting clearly visible improvement in pushing the limit of shadow details vs. noise in high contrast situations would be worth upgrading for me. I am very impressed with the high ISO performance of the D700 (and hopefully even more with the D700s:-) but that may not result in similar improvement for shadow noise or dynamic range. Any info on this will be much appreciated.</p>

[mark_sirota1]

<p>You can compare the sensors at <a href="http://dxomark.com/index.php/en/Camera-Sensor/Compare-sensors">dxomark.com</a>.</p>

[photo5]

<p>No, according to dpreview.com, the D300 has higher dynamic range than the D700. However, the D700 will exhibit less shadow noise than the D300 (I found this out of experience).<br>

The D200 has a huge amount of noise at high ISOs. Much higher than the D300 (found this from experience too).<br>

Again, the main advantage to the D700 is high ISO performance. Other than that, the D300s is a better upgrade from the D200, unless you already have a lot of FX lenses. And remember, FX lenses are more expensive than their DX counterparts.</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>While the D300 certainly has better noise behavior than the D200 in absolute terms (I use them both), what more important is the <em>nature</em> of the noise. The D200 exhibits much worse chroma noise, by comparison. Of course it gets noisier quicker, at lower ISOs than the D300, but as you see noise intruding into the image, the D300's is more likeable, if you know what I mean.<br /><br />But more importantly: how will you be printing/seeing the images? Even noise that looks awful in pixel-peeping mode can be of no consequence at many normal printing sizes, or when down-sampled for typical on-screen viewing.</p>

[chanh_nguyen1]

<p>@Mark: Thanks for the link. Interesting data.<br>

@Dave: I don't understand the dpreview results which I actually learned from your post in another thread. Dynamic range at ISO 800 shouldn't be higher than at ISO 200. Anyway, your experience that the D700 has better shadow noise seems to suggest that it has better "useful dynamic range". The comparison at dxomark.com shows higher DR for the D700. But I can't imagine that my lowly D200 has a DR of 11 EV. They must have used a pretty low SNR for the low end. I am also surprised by the SNR at 18%: Both D200 and D300 are very similar at ISO 800 and below! Maybe they use a calculation that does not take into account the most important factor of human perception and the nature of the noise which is very different between the two cameras as Matt pointed out.<br>

I do have an adequate set of FX lenses. My heart tells me to get the funding ready for a D700 replacement while my brain says there is no compelling reason to upgrade the D200 to shoot landscape/travel pictures at this point.<br>

Thank you all for your input.</p>

[rob_piontek]

<p>With my D300, exposing for highlights at sunset, at ISO 200, I was pretty surprised how noisy the shadows were when trying to bring them up in post, say 1-2 stops. </p>

[elliot1]

<p>An underexposed image will reveal noise in the shadows even at low ISO.</p>

[tore_helming]

<p>Yes, even my D3s shows surprisingly much noise at ISO 200-400 if underexposed.</p>