Why do people dismiss the capability of the D50 when it comes to high ISO shots? Yes, it's just your basic consumer dSLR and it's old, but my D50 1600 ISO shots rival that of my D300. Can't wait to scoop up another one for cheap ($200 for the last one, sold it for $350).

Checkity check it for yourselves.

My D50's ISO 1600 doesn't even come close to my D300's ISO 1600. Not only better sensor, but the compression of larger files "hides" the noise better.

PS - I can't view your photos (blocked here at work )

The problem with the D50 isn't high ISO quality. It's lack of resolution. I've been using D50's now for over a year and half with my photo students, and really don't like any images from those cameras at larger print sizes. Even my wife's old D70 is better.

Additionally, I hate the buried controls in the D60, D50, D40 and D40x. Even the D70 has some controls buried that are much more accessible on the three digit D series cameras (D100, D200, D300). Sometimes this really has a bearing on whether you can get the shot, even if the ultimate image quality were the same.

Gerald

I've printed as big as 16X20 and it looked great. in fact one of my most favored 16X20 prints of the kids was shot w/ the 18-55 kit lens!!!

Yes, it's true that the controls are buried in the camera. but after almost 2 years with mine, i can access anything pretty fast.

I have prints that are printed 16x20 on both the D300 and D50 at the same low ISO's and you can seen the crisp detail of the D300 print. The D300 vs the D200 print had a noticeable difference. The print holds up well when far away, all of them do but when you go in for fine details this is where the 6 MP of the D50 lack and even the D200 MP's lack in clarity of fine details. I am a firm believer in the D300 and I will continue to use it for everything I do. I just sold my D50 and although it was my first camera, it was a good sale and I wouldn't look back at it.

There is just something about the clarity and detail of the D3 series. People shots or sports shots or landscape shots. The detail and clarity is just out of this world. I enjoy it every bit.

Chris

No doubt the D50 was/is a gem. I wish they still made it over the D40.

I have a 30"x20" print here taken with my D50 and it's super sharp and looks great. I agree with Andre, I'd much rather have an updated D50 than a D40[X]/60 because of its size and motor drive. Put a D300 sensor in a D50, call it the D90 and sort out the menus a tiny bit and it'll sell like hot cakes.

okay everyone, back to the topic. High ISO D50.

The D40/D40X/D60 also have pretty darn good ISO1600 results. In fact, Nikon has been "cleaning up" their act (sorry couldn't resist) this most recent generation and the one previous (incl. the D50 and D80). All are capable of good ISO1600 results. The D300 is the first though that can say it's capable at ISO3200 in the same manner, which is just the next evolution in high ISO shooting. (The D3 is another story again)...

The bigger difference though is in handling, speed, controls and build... but that's not the point of this topic I realize...

i have pretty decent high isos from my D70 too. My D40 really amazes me. But the D300 will just do the trick, even if the lighting is really garbish.

Nevertheless i like to share a few from the D40

iso1600 on a D40 @ 1/30 F4.5

I'm still using a D50, and I really don't like the high iso performance. It is okay in lighter situations, but the shadows are always EXTREMELY noisy.