I posted this shot in the people section, but am more interested in getting feedback on the noise issue than the photo itself. This was shot at 1600 in a poorly lit gymnasium. I was a little underwhelmed with the performance of the D300. I don't see it as a huge step up from my D80. I'll post a D80 shot below too.

Is this what I should be expecting from the camera? I know I can't hope for D3-like noise, but I guess I just expected... more...

D300


D80

Totally different conditions, and both look fine at web size.

Additionally, I find my D300 at ISO 1600 to be *appreciably better* than my D200, but not overwhelmingly so. I would expect the D80 to be very similar to my D200.

Gerald

very very different conditions, with some NR the Clinton picture would be fine

Are they both full images or are they crops?

These are both full images. Here are 100% crops of 2 shots of Clinton.

With most digital cameras, no matter the brand or the model number, you have to be careful not to underexpose the original shot if you are later looking to minimize noise in post processing.

I'm pretty underwhelmed with those shots as well, actually. That looks more like what I get out of an ISO3200 shot with my D300. Here's an ISO3200 100% crop from two nights ago:



Was any post processing done? Shot JPG or NEF?

I'm not overly impressed with either file .. look at the reds in the flag behind Bill and the bokeh behind Obama. Any NR applied to either?

Can't judge anything without knowing more... what's the histogram look like on the unprocessed file? What did you do in post? What Picture Control settings were you at? Any NR?

Here's an untouched ISO2000 shot from the D300 and a 100+% crop:

Mike Mahoney wrote:
I'm not overly impressed with either file .. look at the reds in the flag behind Bill and the bokeh behind Obama. Any NR applied to either?
That was a straight RAW conversion, no NR at all. Not sure why you would judge a high ISO file on the bokeh, underexposed areas are where noise is going to go crazy and it certainly wasn't exposed for the audience behind him.

In any event, though, the point wasn't that it was a stellar example of an ISO3200 capture, just that the amount of noise was similar at a stop higher ISO - so I didn't think the ISO1600 examples were typical of the D300's performance.

Edited by binary visions on Apr 19, 2008 at 12:51 PM GMT

Mike Mahoney wrote:
I'm not overly impressed with either file .. look at the reds in the flag behind Bill and the bokeh behind Obama. Any NR applied to either?

My shots are were Raw, no NR in camera. I used Adobe Lightoom to process and didn't adjust exposure, just brightness. In LR I used a color NR of 35.

I'm including 3 new screenshots, a different shot (resized for web), a 100% crop and a Lightroom screenshot to see the settings. I

That Lightroom screen shot is very telling.

Your brightness is at +68 That's contributing heavily to your noise problems.

You really can't increase exposure via any means (brightness, curves, exposure) at these higher ISO's and expect low noise.

My shots mirror dunzie's, you've got to nail exposure when you shoot.

I agree with the others. You have to properly expose, not underexpose the shot, with any camera. Increasing the brightness by 2/3s of a stop is telling you that you underexposed the shot by -.6EV.

I always try to overexpose high ISO shots by at least +.3EV, which results in even less noise.

Kerry Pierce wrote:
I agree with the others. You have to properly expose, not underexpose the shot, with any camera. Increasing the brightness by 2/3s of a stop is telling you that you underexposed the shot by -.6EV.

I always try to overexpose high ISO shots by at least +.3EV, which results in even less noise.

+1 .. exposing to the right is important to keeping native noise at the lowest possible levels ... but not always possible, in particular with shots where a minimum shutter speed must be maintained to stop subject movement and you're already at your wide open aperture and highest ISO. So you're forced to underexpose on the basis of a noisy file being preferable to a blurred one.

In those cases how well a file responds to slight exposure increases in post-processing becomes important.

Looks a little underexposed to me.

CRFTony wrote:
I'm including 3 new screenshots, a different shot (resized for web), a 100% crop and a Lightroom screenshot to see the settings. I


The problem is with the reds, the skin tones look fairly good. I'd bet that a good Noise Ninja profile would take a lot of that out.

Mike Mahoney wrote:

+1 .. exposing to the right is important to keeping native noise at the lowest possible levels ...

Proper exposure is the responsibility of the photographer. No excuses. The d3 is the high ISO king, ATM, and there certainly are photo ops that it can not do, without showing noise and/or other image issues. Sometimes there just isn't enough light. That's something every photographer has to deal with as best he can with the equipment that he has chosen. It is not the fault of the gear, if the photographer makes bad choices.


but not always possible,

True. But not in this instance, nor in the vast majority of instances. There are lots of things that can be done to achieve the correct exposure, including the use of flash, faster lenses, higher ISO, etc.


highest ISO. So you're forced to underexpose on the basis of a noisy file being preferable to a blurred one.

True again. So, when you know that you're not doing what you need to do to get the correct exposure, what's the problem with accepting and dealing with the noise that results?


In those cases how well a file responds to slight exposure increases in post-processing becomes important.

Well, if you're going to use digital EV comp in the computer, you should know how to deal with the noise that becomes apparent because of your actions. You should also know and use proper noise reduction tools.

A suggestion to the O.P. - I noticed in the EXIF you were shooting at 1/400th. While that's certainly a preferable speed if you can get it to capture a moving subject, it may have behooved you to gain the extra stop of light by shooting at 1/200th, and simply firing in bursts to capture a sharp shot.

CRFTony wrote:
My shots are were Raw, no NR in camera. I used Adobe Lightoom to process and didn't adjust exposure, just brightness.

Respectfully, that's even worse - now you're taking the latitude you have in the ability to adjust exposure with RAW out of the equation... it probably would have been less destructive.

The +68 in the screenshot is IMHO the reason you weren't impressed with the results. A D3 or 1D3 would have suffered similarly...

In so many cases I see posted about high ISO noise complaints, you can circle back to nailing exposure being the most critical element of performance, regardless of camera... and while it's not a bad shot, or even a horrible performance, your D300 could have done a lot better

Quick question. Lightroom automatically adjusts some settings on my Raw files when "developing" the nef file. Brightness is always at +50, Contrast at +25, Blacks at +5, etc. I always season to taste, but I assumed that it was a given that these basic changes were expected of raw files. That's why I figured going up an extra couple of points in brightness wasn't a huge deal. Should I be zero'ing everything out instead?

Regardless, I took some exterior shots at ISO 1600 today and was very pleased with the performance.