exposure vs noise - FM Forums

Moderated by: guardian

Visit the FM Store · Image Upload · Buy & Sell
FM Forum Rules
Nikon SLRs, primes, and zooms lenses reviews

FM Forums | Nikon-mount SLRs | Join Image Upload

2 end

akreager
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #1 · exposure vs noise

I am getting ready to buy a D2X. I have seen so much conflicting information regarding noise. It seems to me to boil mostly down to this.

The D2X defaults to slight underexposer in order to maintain highlights. In low light dark scenes underexposure can be really bad on noise.

White balence is very important and auto white balance does not work really well in indoor mixed light situations.

Oversharpening can be murder on noise.

Take all that into account and properly expose, get the right white balance, use proper post processing and there should be no problem. it seems to work this way with my D70.

I have read some things that say how good the D50 is with high iso. I think the default just meters different (over expose by a third maybe) and have the in camera default curve set a bit diferent - both of which are doable in post. I also note that the 50 RAW format is uncompressed - a very small advantage maybe compare to the 70 but the X has uncompressed available. Is there really anything else about the 50 that results in better high iso performance (the chip, the AA filter, the in camera analog to digital processing

?). If it truely were a significant improvement over the D70 or D2X I would consider getting one with a couple fast primes as my indoor low light set up. Otherwise I will continue to do the stuff mentioned above. It has worked pretty well so far.

Edited on Sep 28, 2005 at 05:18 PM

Sep 27, 2005 at 02:33 PM

jmcfadden
Online
Image Upload: On

p.1 #2 · exposure vs noise

You are Thinking TOO much my friend and reading too much drivel on the internet

The D2x is a different beast all together. It has different "rules" to any other camera I have ever shot , this is true. In a low contrast setting you can push this camera in a high contrast setting you have to preserve the highlights judiciously.

The Auto White Balance is perhaps the best on any dslr ever. This is supported by independent review so I do not know where you read that might be a problem. Too many people with keyboards and opinions and too little skill are skewing truth on the web , you need a better BS filter on your machine I think

The D2x will never be a great high iso camera , can it get some work done ? yes it can. And stop believing that any Real sales from ISO 6400 are going to happen with Any camera system. This is a High Resolution camera, with photosites galore , it has a competetive signal/noise ratio and that's all that matters. ISO 800 is a Very nice look with this camera. All the real pros I know shot film and their Limit was ISO 200 speed , things are crazy in paradise if folks thing true pros are shooting above ISO 800 all the time. The real big guns shoot in well lit areanas with strobes etc.

Get the X and have some fun

J

Edited on Sep 28, 2005 at 05:18 PM

Sep 27, 2005 at 02:43 PM

akreager
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #3 · exposure vs noise

I like the idea of installing a BS filter on my computer or in my brain. Can I get one of those on Ebay or mail order.

I am not looking for the D2X to be a true high iso machine. If I can get good results out of it at 800 that IS good enough for me. I do believe there are good tools available for low light (fast primes, tripods, monopods, properly done flash) and do not think it is that much of an issue.

Technology has become a negative in the respect it moves so fast that rather that say I have a great tool available (better than ever) so I will get it and learn to use it over time, we are tempted to wait for an EASY solution to our issues - A camera the size of a postage stamp clean iso 12800...........

I am just waiting to pull the trigger (getting good results with the D70 and only limited in a few respects) and your right - I am doing to much thinking/reading in the meantime.

Edited on Sep 28, 2005 at 05:18 PM

Sep 27, 2005 at 03:07 PM

Ryder
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #4 · exposure vs noise

I'll have one BS Filter.... to go please.
Could you SuperSize that!

Thanks for the laugh.

Cheers,
Craig Ryder

Edited on Sep 28, 2005 at 05:18 PM

Sep 27, 2005 at 03:54 PM

GSteele
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #5 · exposure vs noise

As usual John has hit the nail on the head. I am not a Pro like John talked about, but I just don't understand the need to go with the high ISO's (above 400). I never shot film using ISO 400 because it was just too grainy for me. I actually perferred using the old Kodachrome 25 when I was shooting film. I believe that the need for higher ISO's is due more to the person using the camera than the actual need for it.

Edited on Sep 28, 2005 at 05:18 PM

Sep 27, 2005 at 04:03 PM

Ryder
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #6 · exposure vs noise

GSteele wrote:
As usual John has hit the nail on the head. I am not a Pro like John talked about, but I just don't understand the need to go with the high ISO's (above 400). I never shot film using ISO 400 because it was just too grainy for me. I actually perferred using the old Kodachrome 25 when I was shooting film. I believe that the need for higher ISO's is due more to the person using the camera than the actual need for it.

Hi:

I'm no pro either, far from it. But, for example, if you want to shoot birds in flight it is very nice to keep a very high SS (1/2000+). Often you need to boost your ISO in order to do it.

Same is true for a lot of sports (and I'm sure other things). HIgh ISO requirements do not equal a loose nut behind the camera.

The Actual need exists!

Cheers,
Craig Ryder

Edited on Sep 28, 2005 at 05:18 PM

Sep 27, 2005 at 04:18 PM

brandofamily
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #7 · exposure vs noise

GSteele wrote:
I believe that the need for higher ISO's is due more to the person using the camera than the actual need for it.

I'm not following that comment....
Not to be argumentative, but I find higher ISO very useful and somewhat necessary in shooting night time sporting events and theatrical performances at which a flash is either prohibited or would ruin the mood of the scene created by the lighting effects. I guess it all depends on what you are shooting. I'd love to use ISO 200-400 all the time, but for me it's just not practical.

Edited on Sep 28, 2005 at 05:18 PM

Sep 27, 2005 at 04:22 PM

jmcfadden
Online
Image Upload: On

p.1 #8 · exposure vs noise

Hey Gary

I think you have shot a few birds

, I never need 1/2000th for in flight shots , what say YE ?

J

Edited on Sep 28, 2005 at 05:18 PM

Sep 27, 2005 at 04:55 PM

GSteele
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #9 · exposure vs noise

Craig,

Not to argue the facts but I never shoot flying birds at above ISO 200 and a shutter speed of 1/2000 isn't needed to make those captures.

D2h, ISO 200, shutter 1/500 to preserve wing tip blur.

This image is copyrighted by the owner

Anthony,

This was taken with the old Crappy Kodak 14nx at ISO 160 with the 70-200mm without a flash. It can be done!

Edited on Sep 28, 2005 at 05:18 PM

Sep 27, 2005 at 04:57 PM

jmcfadden
Online
Image Upload: On

p.1 #10 · exposure vs noise

D1x ISO 800 85mm f1.4 1/50th

you should see this print

J

Edited on Sep 28, 2005 at 05:18 PM

Sep 27, 2005 at 05:03 PM

Jack OBrien
Online
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #11 · exposure vs noise

Ditto the comments by John M and others. I find it appalling that all this crap floats around the internet, and it has to be from people that have never used the D2X. Here is an ISO 800 shot, processed in CS2 with absolutely no noise reduction. I even use the Shadow/Highligh tool to open up the shadows, so there should be tons of noise if I believe what I read on the internet.

Nikon D2X, ISO 800

This image is copyrighted by the owner

Here's a 100% crop, in what should be the noisiest part of the image!

This image is copyrighted by the owner

Jack

Edited on Sep 28, 2005 at 05:18 PM

Sep 27, 2005 at 06:29 PM

akreager
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #12 · exposure vs noise

Jako the Train Man - Why would you take at iso 800? It seems quite well lit. Were you looking for higher DOF and a faster shutter speed to freeze train movement? Was it moving that fast?

Edited on Sep 28, 2005 at 05:18 PM

Sep 27, 2005 at 06:50 PM

Jack OBrien
Online
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #13 · exposure vs noise

akreager wrote:
Jako the Train Man - Why would you take at iso 800? It seems quite well lit. Were you looking for higher DOF and a faster shutter speed to freeze train movement? Was it moving that fast?

I had stumbled across the beautiful 'look' of ISO 800 on the D2X when printed. Just as an experiment, I shot the same scene with the D100 at ISO 200, and the D2X at ISO 800, then printed them 24x36 on my Epson SP7600 printer. The ISO 800 D2X print will blow your mind it looks so good. Personally, I think it looks better than the ISO200 image from the D100, because it has wonderfully tight grain, with the appearance of a fine grained film. But then, that's just me......and that's the reason I took this picture

Jack

Edited on Sep 28, 2005 at 05:18 PM

Sep 27, 2005 at 08:05 PM

Mark Jamison
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #14 · exposure vs noise

Absolutely true. Though the same is true for AF, (Which wasn't around when you see that fantastic shot in B&W of Ali towering over a defeated opponent), and any other modern toy.

Do we truly need AF or high ISO? The answer is no. However is it a wonderful tool that allows us to take shortcuts.

Of course when shooting indoors having high ISO is a wonderful thing.

Edited on Sep 28, 2005 at 05:18 PM

Sep 27, 2005 at 08:19 PM

GSteele
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #15 · exposure vs noise

Mark,

I agree that the availability to have higher ISO's is nice and AF and VR/IS are wonderful tools. There just seems to be just an infatuation with the ultra high ISO's and the like, that I feel that some people are just missing out on what photography can be. It is the ability to compose and execute the capture you want with what ever you have available to you. Not in believing that without such things, that good photography is not possible.

I have been looking in at Nature and Wildlife and see people believing that you must shoot with a shutter speed of at least 1/1000 sec or higher in order to get the best captures. VR/IS and auto focus are also discussed at great lengths. I believe that if you can't get handle on the basic's of photography then all these features will not get you where you want to be. In fact I have a Post over there showing explaining (probably not very well) that AF sometimes can not be used and VR/IS and high ISO's are not necessarily needed as well .

Now, if we didn't invent and use some these new fangled devices we would still be doing business with pencil and paper rather than computers. We change with the times, but you must admit that sometimes a pencil and paper is a more practical approach.

Edited on Sep 28, 2005 at 05:18 PM

Sep 27, 2005 at 09:03 PM

brandofamily
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #16 · exposure vs noise

Gary...great image of the dancer on stage. I'm not trying to start a p'ing contest as to if high ISO is needed for everyone in all situations, and I'm sure I would lose such a contest w/ my limited experience w/ photography, but (there's always a but isn't there) the following was shot ISO 1600 w/ 50mm at f/1.8 using a D70 (I know it's not in the league of the D2x but it's all I have) about 3 weeks after I bought the camera. I had 3 attempts at the shot since I saw 3 performances of the show (my daughter's in the pic) and was not able to get it w/o ISO 1600.
Now you may not like the image or feel it's worthy of even comment, but for me and those in the production, we thought its was quite a nice capture.

This image is copyrighted by the owner

I don't know, but to me the available light in the dancer image is pretty bgight compared to many of the theatrical dance scenes I've tried shooting.

Edited on Sep 28, 2005 at 05:18 PM

Sep 27, 2005 at 09:37 PM

hir0
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #17 · exposure vs noise

for the most part, i don't normally need to exceed iso 400. the exception is when using teleconverters in less than great lighting. losing 1-2 stops plus stopping down 1 or 2 stops for better sharpness or DOF can leave you with very slow shutter speeds.

Edited on Sep 28, 2005 at 05:18 PM

Sep 27, 2005 at 10:03 PM

MPerdomo
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #18 · exposure vs noise

If I were truly concerned about potential noise for a D2X file, i would download a sample file from Moose Peterson's site, and print it as large as i thought I would print.

If the print looks good, then you dont have much to worry about.

I thought noise from my D70 at ISO 1600 was bad, but printed an out of camera JPEG at 8*12 and could not find any noise.

Edit: And I do a lot of low light photography....namely concerts, by available light, so check out my galleries if you want to see how much im at ISO 1600:

http://markperdomo.smugmug.com/Events/56757

Edited on Sep 28, 2005 at 05:18 PM

Sep 27, 2005 at 10:35 PM

Jack OBrien
Online
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #19 · exposure vs noise

Mark, I believe the people that make the most noise about digital noise have never looked at a piece of film under a loupe. If they had, they'd be shouting hallelujah at the quality we get from digital at such high ISO's. Further, I don't think they have many images printed either, because as you said, you just can't see it in the print. Pixel peeping is killing us....

Edited on Sep 28, 2005 at 05:18 PM

Sep 27, 2005 at 11:02 PM

MPerdomo
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #20 · exposure vs noise

jacko wrote:
Mark, I believe the people that make the most noise about digital noise have never looked at a piece of film under a loupe. If they had, they'd be shouting hallelujah at the quality we get from digital at such high ISO's. Further, I don't think they have many images printed either, because as you said, you just can't see it in the print. Pixel peeping is killing us....

You can talk theory about noise all day, but when push comes to shove and you actually go out and take pictures, your camera will take care of you!

Edited on Sep 28, 2005 at 05:18 PM

Sep 27, 2005 at 11:08 PM

Christian S
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.1 #21 · exposure vs noise

If you hang out long enough you will find, like I have that the Nikon forum is the best BS filter you can have at your finger tips,

.

Edited on Sep 28, 2005 at 05:18 PM

Sep 27, 2005 at 11:58 PM

GSteele
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #22 · exposure vs noise

Anthony,

I would be proud to have your picture in my collection. I am not sure about the lighting on the Dancer and couldn't remember the shutter speed until I got home and looked it up. It was at 1/30 sec.

I normally don't shoot performing arts, but my granddaughter was in this one. My intent when going was to take a lot of backstage photos of the people in the performance, not to be trying to capture the performance itself on the first time around. I felt on the second performance I would simply take my D2h which handles the higher ISO's much better, hence the selection of the Kodak 14nx, which does not perform well at all on ISO's over the 200 range. I was there, I had plenty of CF cards and while watching the performance I thought "what the heck", I might as well take some photos while watching. I had seen the rehearsal and knew that the shots would be limited. I was spot metering the dancers on different parts of the stage while watching and waited until I found an area where I thought my best success would come from. At this point in the performance I took 4 shots trying to get a point where they were holding there positions long enough to be successful and this one turned out the best.

The original poster was questioning the noise levels at the higher ISO's of the D2x. My point was and still is, not to worry about the higher ISO's performance. If you work you shot, you can accomplish what you want with a lower ISO level. Those of us on the darkside don't need the 3200 and up ISO's to take pictures. I didn't mean to start such a ruckus.

Think for a moment back prior to DSLR's of all the great photographs produced. The highest ISO color film was 400 and most photograhers used 125. They took great pictures of the performing arts, football and other sports at night, birds in flight, lions on the chase and many other situations where I am sure they wished that a good higher ISO film were available. They used what they had and still amazed us with their work, even today.

Edited on Sep 28, 2005 at 05:18 PM

Sep 28, 2005 at 12:35 AM

uccmmcpo
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #23 · exposure vs noise

brandofamily wrote:
GSteele wrote:
I believe that the need for higher ISO's is due more to the person using the camera than the actual need for it.

Sep 28, 2005 at 12:43 AM

brandofamily
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #24 · exposure vs noise

Thank you for the nice comment on the image. I would like to blow it up to poster size and may someday. I'm not sure how it would come out but you never know.
I do understand your point about high ISO, but I never really shot film. Learned most of what I know from digital and quite a bit from this forum and my D70 over the past year that I have owned it.
By the way, that pics was shot JPEG, I did not know enough to even shoot RAW at the time.....

Edited on Sep 28, 2005 at 05:18 PM

Sep 28, 2005 at 12:48 AM

brandofamily
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #25 · exposure vs noise

John, truthfully I was going to buy into Canon (I've only been shooting the D70 for 13 months, shot Olympus C-700 UZ before that) until the Ritz camera guy put the D70 in my hand. I know I was only looking at the Rebel (could not afford more at the time.) but the D70 felt much better. Now I have too much invested in Nikon to switch. I am a poor teacher...not a pro. photog....
I'm sure if I was on the "other" side I'd be switching gear often, just like the other Canonites do.
I'm glad I went to the dark side.....

Edited on Sep 28, 2005 at 05:18 PM

Sep 28, 2005 at 12:54 AM


FM Forums \| Nikon-mount SLRs \| Join Image Upload 1 2 end