ISO 3200(HI-2) D2X

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

Jack OBrien
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #1 · ISO 3200(HI-2) D2X

I must be living in the twilight zone, and as I read posts about how the high ISO images from a D2X suck, hmmmm.... I begin to wonder. I have to admit I do virtually no lowlight shooting, but I'm beginning to think that I must be the only person left in the world that uses sunshine for light anymore. So, just for fun, I took this crap shot of my wife, as ISO3200, and I processed it in ACR with zero noise reduction. Folks, what am I missing? I think the quality is great. I have ISO 400 film scans that look horrible compared to this ISO 3200. Of course, maybe that's my problem, I'm trying to compare digital to film.

Anyway, here's the image, which is totally abnormal, since I would never use this high ISO...
Nikon D2X, ISO3200, NR off, No PP NR, Sigma 105 at f4

This image is copyrighted by the owner

Here's a 100% crop...

This image is copyrighted by the owner

I also processed this image in NC with Normal HighISO NR on, and it looks even better. Is there noise? Sure, but crap man, it sure looks fine to me. I hope my wife doesn't shoot me for posting this

Jack

Edited on Nov 08, 2005 at 04:04 AM

Nov 04, 2005 at 01:45 AM

tonyfield
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #2 · ISO 3200(HI-2) D2X

Yep you have rox in your head - d2X CANNOT shoot at iso 3200. :-)

Nice job. The camera is actually very fine at esoteric ISO values in "daylight" mode and works quite well in Tungsten if you give full exposure. Just shot a dance performance with 16 and 3200 with "good" success. However, when push comes to shove.......

Edited on Nov 08, 2005 at 04:04 AM

Nov 04, 2005 at 01:49 AM

Hawkbug
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #3 · ISO 3200(HI-2) D2X

I guess it really depends on your audience. For family and friends the noise in this image would work fine, but you would have a tough time getting past the critical eye of an art director, or stock photo house.

Edited on Nov 08, 2005 at 04:04 AM

Nov 04, 2005 at 02:11 AM

tdawg
Offline
Buy and Sell: On

p.1 #4 · ISO 3200(HI-2) D2X

Looks good to me. I'm still trying to figure out why it's now crucial to have noise-free high-ISO images; anybody that argues over image noise remember shooting high-ISO film? I seem to remember ISO 1600 film being quite grainy.

Maybe it's just me :shrug

Edited on Nov 08, 2005 at 04:04 AM

Nov 04, 2005 at 02:17 AM

Jack OBrien
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #5 · ISO 3200(HI-2) D2X

Hawkbug wrote:
I guess it really depends on your audience. For family and friends the noise in this image would work fine, but you would have a tough time getting past the critical eye of an art director, or stock photo house.

To begin with, I don't shoot/submit ISO3200 images for stock. However, I have sold ISO1600 images that DID get by the art director. The point I am making is, THIS image has NO noise reduction, but with normal NR turned on, it's a complete different quality. I make my money at ISO 100-800 anyway.

Edited on Nov 08, 2005 at 04:04 AM

Nov 04, 2005 at 02:17 AM

Jack OBrien
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #6 · ISO 3200(HI-2) D2X

tdawg wrote:
Looks good to me. I'm still trying to figure out why it's now crucial to have noise-free high-ISO images; anybody that argues over image noise remember shooting high-ISO film? I seem to remember ISO 1600 film being quite grainy.

Maybe it's just me :shrug

It's not as crucial as many try to make it. ISO1600 film is nasty looking in comparison. I guess most people these days shoot their images so they can pixelpeep for noise. I shoot for print media, and nobody has ever even commented about any of my high ISO prints as being 'noisy'. Point is, you can't see in a print what you can see at 100% pixelpeeping.

Edited on Nov 08, 2005 at 04:04 AM

Nov 04, 2005 at 02:21 AM

tdawg
Offline
Buy and Sell: On

p.1 #7 · ISO 3200(HI-2) D2X

jacko wrote:
tdawg wrote:
Looks good to me. I'm still trying to figure out why it's now crucial to have noise-free high-ISO images; anybody that argues over image noise remember shooting high-ISO film? I seem to remember ISO 1600 film being quite grainy.

Maybe it's just me :shrug

It's not as crucial as many try to make it. ISO1600 film is nasty looking in comparison. I guess most people these days shoot their images so they can pixelpeep for noise. I shoot for print media, and nobody has ever even commented about any of my high ISO prints as being 'noisy'. Point is, you can't see in a print what you can see at 100% pixelpeeping.

No doubt. If the print looks good, what else matters?

Edited on Nov 08, 2005 at 04:04 AM

Nov 04, 2005 at 02:40 AM

Mert
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #8 · ISO 3200(HI-2) D2X

Very good quality and good use of light.Btw:What was your light source?
'ISO1600 film is nasty looking in comparison. I guess most people these days shoot their images so they can pixelpeep for noise. I shoot for print media, and nobody has ever even commented about any of my high ISO prints as being 'noisy'. Point is, you can't see in a print what you can see at 100% pixelpeeping. ' %100 right again.

Edited on Nov 08, 2005 at 04:04 AM

Nov 04, 2005 at 03:37 AM

Jack OBrien
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #9 · ISO 3200(HI-2) D2X

Mert wrote:
Very good quality and good use of light.Btw:What was your light source?
'ISO1600 film is nasty looking in comparison. I guess most people these days shoot their images so they can pixelpeep for noise. I shoot for print media, and nobody has ever even commented about any of my high ISO prints as being 'noisy'. Point is, you can't see in a print what you can see at 100% pixelpeeping. ' %100 right again.

Light was a single 28 year old flash head shot into an umbrella

Edited on Nov 08, 2005 at 04:04 AM

Nov 04, 2005 at 04:05 AM

JunSawa
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.1 #10 · ISO 3200(HI-2) D2X

damn the images aren't coming up for me i really wanted to see jack!!!

Edited on Nov 08, 2005 at 04:04 AM

Nov 04, 2005 at 04:33 AM

jperkinson
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #11 · ISO 3200(HI-2) D2X

Looks good to me. I bet a print would look fine (even without noise reduction).

Edited on Nov 08, 2005 at 04:04 AM

Nov 04, 2005 at 04:33 AM

JunSawa
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.1 #12 · ISO 3200(HI-2) D2X

Hmmm something wrong with my internet if you guys can view the pics...

Edited on Nov 08, 2005 at 04:04 AM

Nov 04, 2005 at 04:39 AM

Mert
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #13 · ISO 3200(HI-2) D2X

JunSawa wrote:
Hmmm something wrong with my internet if you guys can view the pics...

You must be 18 years or older to view those images.Do you have parental filter?

Edited on Nov 08, 2005 at 04:04 AM

Nov 04, 2005 at 06:10 AM

JunSawa
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.1 #14 · ISO 3200(HI-2) D2X

Mert wrote:
JunSawa wrote:
Hmmm something wrong with my internet if you guys can view the pics...

You must be 18 years or older to view those images.Do you have parental filter?

haha its Jun proof i reckon...

Edited on Nov 08, 2005 at 04:04 AM

Nov 04, 2005 at 06:15 AM

Mert
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #15 · ISO 3200(HI-2) D2X

Edited on Nov 08, 2005 at 04:04 AM

Nov 04, 2005 at 06:17 AM

WSLam
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #16 · ISO 3200(HI-2) D2X

jacko wrote:
I must be living in the twilight zone, and as I read posts about how the high ISO images from a D2X suck, hmmmm.... I begin to wonder. I have to admit I do virtually no lowlight shooting, but I'm beginning to think that I must be the only person left in the world that uses sunshine for light anymore. So, just for fun, I took this crap shot of my wife, as ISO3200, and I processed it in ACR with zero noise reduction. Folks, what am I missing? I think the quality is great. I have ISO 400 film scans that look horrible compared to this ISO 3200. Of course, maybe that's my problem, I'm trying to compare digital to film.

Jack, when you said no Noise Reduction in NR, do you mean you set Color Noise Reduction and Luminance Smoothing both to 0? It looks like to me Luminance Smoothing was set to 0, but it looks to me that you must have used SOME Color Noise Reduction to control the Chroma Noise? If you really set both to 0, then Nikon has managed to outdo not just the D2x by quite a large margin, but also the current 'noise king' 5D as well.

Edited on Nov 08, 2005 at 04:04 AM

Nov 04, 2005 at 07:39 AM

andylaiphoto
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #17 · ISO 3200(HI-2) D2X

This is a very nice illustration Jack...but unfortunately the results are different when you shoot in low available light.

Edited on Nov 08, 2005 at 04:04 AM

Nov 04, 2005 at 07:55 AM

Remy
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #18 · ISO 3200(HI-2) D2X

The amount of detail it can keep on ISO 3200 plus the not so intrusive noise (do I hear 'film grain' anywhere?

) makes that it is definitely usable and looks fine to me too

Edited on Nov 08, 2005 at 04:04 AM

Nov 04, 2005 at 08:13 AM

Greg Matty
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #19 · ISO 3200(HI-2) D2X

Nice Jack.

Do you ever shoot many photos with the intention of converting to black and white? I love old B&W photos where you can see some film grain. I figured maybe ISO 3200 converted to B&W might have a cool look. Then again, the grain is tough to see unless one is viewing a 100% crop which means more grain might need to be added. This would only work for me when shooting an old ghost town or the like. I haven't gotten around to trying it yet but maybe someone here has?

Greg

Edited on Nov 08, 2005 at 04:04 AM

Nov 07, 2005 at 03:03 PM

Bert MacGregor
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #20 · ISO 3200(HI-2) D2X

andylaiphoto wrote:
This is a very nice illustration Jack...but unfortunately the results are different when you shoot in low available light.

Interesting comment and I'm not arguing your point but why would the results be different in available light? I thought proper exposure was the key to low noise.

Edited on Nov 08, 2005 at 04:04 AM

Nov 07, 2005 at 03:29 PM

dtomasula
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #21 · ISO 3200(HI-2) D2X

I think a lot of the criticism of hi ISO noise in the D2X and how you "can't shoot it" above ISO 200 is just people regurgitating rumors they have read on the forums. Most of these people don't even own a D2X. Certainly they have never shot hi speed film. Heck, I remember when Tri-X was grainy as hell (before the days of 1600 and 3200 film).

Edited on Nov 08, 2005 at 04:04 AM

Nov 07, 2005 at 03:52 PM

johnnymg
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #22 · ISO 3200(HI-2) D2X

Bert MacGregor wrote:
andylaiphoto wrote:
This is a very nice illustration Jack...but unfortunately the results are different when you shoot in low available light.

Interesting comment and I'm not arguing your point but why would the results be different in available light? I thought proper exposure was the key to low noise.

I have also observed that shadow noise on my D70 is 'not so great' for non-flash high ISO pics. Also, my D2H generated pretty bad non-flash high ISO pics even when the histogram was "pushed to the right".

In my experience: throw some flash at a scene and things look a lot different even with high ISO. This is just my casual observation................ not a conclusion. Perhaps someone with more experience could help with the reasons for this.

JohnG

Edited on Nov 08, 2005 at 04:04 AM

Nov 07, 2005 at 03:55 PM

LeifG
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #23 · ISO 3200(HI-2) D2X

"In my experience: throw some flash at a scene and things look a lot different even with high ISO. This is just my casual observation................ not a conclusion. Perhaps someone with more experience could help with the reasons for this."

Just a guess, but maybe the flash reduces the exposure time, and hence thermal noise etc is less problematic? I would guess that the random background signal noise is just that, random. Hence do a long exposure, and you pick up lots. Do a short exposure, and you pick up a little. As I say, this is no more than a guess.

Leif

Edited on Nov 08, 2005 at 04:04 AM

Nov 07, 2005 at 06:22 PM

Jack OBrien
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #24 · ISO 3200(HI-2) D2X

andylaiphoto wrote:
This is a very nice illustration Jack...but unfortunately the results are different when you shoot in low available light.

Does 'low available light' translate into underexposure?

Edited on Nov 08, 2005 at 04:04 AM

Nov 07, 2005 at 11:18 PM

Jack OBrien
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #25 · ISO 3200(HI-2) D2X

Greg Matty wrote:
Nice Jack.

Do you ever shoot many photos with the intention of converting to black and white? I love old B&W photos where you can see some film grain. I figured maybe ISO 3200 converted to B&W might have a cool look. Then again, the grain is tough to see unless one is viewing a 100% crop which means more grain might need to be added. This would only work for me when shooting an old ghost town or the like. I haven't gotten around to trying it yet but maybe someone here has?

Greg

Hi Greg. This is one of the things I like about the noise on the X. I deliberately jack up the ISO to get the grain effect I want, and to me, looks great as a B&W. I usually have to increase the contrast too, but overall, a nice effect.

Edited on Nov 08, 2005 at 04:04 AM

Nov 07, 2005 at 11:21 PM


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