Would be helpful if you chose a subject where noise is going to be visible and likely to be a problem - i.e. the purples and the reds. Showing a large white space reveals nothing. If I take a picture of a room with a white wall and a lady in a red dress and a dark skinned boy with a blue shirt at high ISO settings I am going to see very little noise on the white wall and the most noise on the face of the boy. It is the face of the boy that I am concerned about as noise here can destroy the value of the picture.
Nikon knows that people put a lot more emphasis on the number of pixels when deciding which camera to buy than they do on high ISO performance, and for the most part they are correct in doing so.
Putting a quality lens like the 24-70mm or 17-55mm on any DSLR and getting rid of the kit lens is going to have the biggest impact on image quality and this has nothing to do with the number of megapixels or the theoretical high ISO amplification settings provided.
Curious as to why no one who wants to do these types of tests does not compare images taken with a camera using the 18-55 kit lens versus the 17-55mm lens. The difference in IQ would be truly startling to most people.
elkhornsun wrote:
Would be helpful if you chose a subject where noise is going to be visible and likely to be a problem - i.e. the purples and the reds. Showing a large white space reveals nothing. If I take a picture of a room with a white wall and a lady in a red dress and a dark skinned boy with a blue shirt at high ISO settings I am going to see very little noise on the white wall and the most noise on the face of the boy. It is the face of the boy that I am concerned about as noise here can destroy the value of the picture.
Nikon knows that people put a lot more emphasis on the number of pixels when deciding which camera to buy than they do on high ISO performance, and for the most part they are correct in doing so.
Putting a quality lens like the 24-70mm or 17-55mm on any DSLR and getting rid of the kit lens is going to have the biggest impact on image quality and this has nothing to do with the number of megapixels or the theoretical high ISO amplification settings provided.
Curious as to why no one who wants to do these types of tests does not compare images taken with a camera using the 18-55 kit lens versus the 17-55mm lens. The difference in IQ would be truly startling to most people....Show more →
He just did a quick test for us, internet strangers, when the camera showed up at his work.
I for one, am gratefull for the photos, found them useful.
I don't think it looks as good as a D700 though,
elkhornsun wrote:
Would be helpful if you chose a subject where noise is going to be visible and likely to be a problem - i.e. the purples and the reds. Showing a large white space reveals nothing. If I take a picture of a room with a white wall and a lady in a red dress and a dark skinned boy with a blue shirt at high ISO settings I am going to see very little noise on the white wall and the most noise on the face of the boy. It is the face of the boy that I am concerned about as noise here can destroy the value of the picture.
Nikon knows that people put a lot more emphasis on the number of pixels when deciding which camera to buy than they do on high ISO performance, and for the most part they are correct in doing so.
Putting a quality lens like the 24-70mm or 17-55mm on any DSLR and getting rid of the kit lens is going to have the biggest impact on image quality and this has nothing to do with the number of megapixels or the theoretical high ISO amplification settings provided.
Curious as to why no one who wants to do these types of tests does not compare images taken with a camera using the 18-55 kit lens versus the 17-55mm lens. The difference in IQ would be truly startling to most people....Show more →
If I had the time to do other tests, I would gladly do it. I did this when I was at work, where there was a bit of a lull in foot traffic through the store. I don't really have access to anything to give a "real" tests while at work. I actually think this test shows a good amount of info, but that's just me personally. You can look into details on a lot of things. There are a decent amount of colors in the pictures, as well as the ability to see where grain is showing up and what it is doing to details.
Also, I would of gladly used better lenses, but since I work at one of the smallest Best Buys in the country, I didn't really have access to them. I don't bring my gear bag to work, since I'm not expected to take any photos and since I'd rather my gear doesn't get stolen, misplaced or used by the hundreds of people that are in and out all day.
The title says rough, not perfect. I literally did this test, put the photos online and posted all within 15 minutes. Sorry it wasn't up to your standards.
ExtendedPuppet wrote:
He just did a quick test for us, internet strangers, when the camera showed up at his work.
I for one, am gratefull for the photos, found them useful.
I don't think it looks as good as a D700 though,
I'm glad they were able to help. I don't think they look as good as the D700, but they're not too bad and depending on the situation, they are very useable. The base 100 ISO is nice too (I think it's 200 base on the D700?). I can't wait to do the D7000 and see how those turn out.
Jammy Straub wrote:
Thank you! (for fixing the post and posting examples)
Once you equalize resolution that's at least a stop better than my D300 @ 3200 & 6400, that'd put it right about even with the D700. Looks like Chase wasn't far off base with his comparison to D700 class ISO.
Are you on crack? They're aren't that good. Still impressive but don't start pulling out comparisons to the D700.
Hi1 and Hi2 are getting noisy in the shadows under the shelves, and chroma noise creeping in seen on the grey shelf brackets...big deal. To think some people are faulting the examples and the results on the lowest level entry level camera Nikon makes, which even in these rough tests shows that it blows away D300s and is giving the D700 a run.
I am impressed. What else could do this below $1500?
Just a couple years ago it took $5000 to get this level. It looks like this lightweight compact DSLR is suitable as a second or travel camera for people who are serious. A lot of people got D90s for this function because nothing else could offer the DR in such a light body. Now they have a cheaper, smaller choice that gives at least a stop better high ISO performance. I can't wait to give the D7k a workout.
Paul.K wrote:
Are you on crack? They're aren't that good. Still impressive but don't start pulling out comparisons to the D700.
I agree. I'm looking forward to the D7k myself, but I'm not under any delusions that it will come near the D700. I just want the D7k IQ = D90 IQ. Expecting the D3100 or D7000 to match the D700 is nuts! BTW, the ISO3200 image here looks like my old D700 @ ISO6400-9000 (which is to say, good), but the ISO12800 looks very noticeably worse than the D700 @ ISO25600. It looks to me to be about 1-1/2 stop behind the D700...which is where my D90 was, which is perfectly exceptable to me.
Sep 20, 2010 at 08:37 AM
Andre Labonte Offline • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
thursdaylsr wrote:
If I get a chance tomorrow I'll take some RAW examples and run them through LR3, not sure how busy I'll be.
Overall, I actually really like the camera. If it was able to AF more lenses, I might actually look into it as a travel camera. It's even smaller than the D40.
Thanks for posting these.
LR 3.2 does not support the D3100, I'd expect support to appear with 3.3/ACR 6.3.
I'm interested in your comment on size vs. the D40. What's the difference? Is it possible for you to post a shot of the two cameras side-by-side?
LR 3.2 does not support the D3100, I'd expect support to appear with 3.3/ACR 6.3.
I'm interested in your comment on size vs. the D40. What's the difference? Is it possible for you to post a shot of the two cameras side-by-side?
Thanks!
Yea, I would of done the RAW shots until I heard that LR isn't updated yet to convert the files. The funny thing is yesterday was the first day I was allowed to sell the camera and there aren't any programs accepting the RAW files yet.
I don't have a D40 or access to one, so I can't compare the sizes that way. But, I do have access to everything below the D90 on the Nikon side and the 50D on the Canon side. So any requests and I will try to snap a few shots. As for the size though, I have average sized hands and my pinky and ring finger weren't on the grip because it was so small. It's super light as well (obviously). They were able to make the body smaller it seems by moving some of the controls to the top of the camera.
Todd Adamson wrote:
I don't mind that the D3s outperforms my D3 at high ISO. But to see a $700 consumer body threatening to invade that same territory of noise control brings a little tear to my eye.
edymoreno wrote:
Capture NX2 supports the D3100 NEF files.
I have LR3 and CS5. If someone has NX2 and wants to convert the files and run NR and sharpening to the pictures, I'll try and take some next time I work.
snapsy wrote:
EXIF for the ISO 3200 file reveals that High ISO NR was set to "Normal"
I use ViewNX 1.5 and it doesn't say nothing about High ISO NR from the downloaded full res pics.
BTW i think too NR is applied: 3200iso is full of NR....Bleah.....
.
