hello,
according to you which is the best nikon till 200 iso'?
thanks

Is there a price range you are looking in, or you just are asking a question?

hi bsijani:
no price range, sometimes I hear the d2x offers the best low iso IQ of ALL nikon cameras.
I wonder if this is a general opinion.
bests

D3x

I like the output of the d200 at low ISO. It's an excellent low ISO camera and withstood heavy processing better than prior cams I've used. Dunno about the d2x, but I would assume the same. Lots of folks have always raved about the d2x output at low ISO, so it is reasonable to conclude that it is as good as any. I know of a couple of people that have d300s or d3s, that kept their d2x for low ISO shooting.

IMO the d300 is probably just as good, if you don't use the heavy processing picture controls. Using the neutral PC or d2x PCs, aRGB, you have a very clean file and a lot of latitude, with good exposures. 14-bit gives you a little more latitude for pushing pixels around before you posterize the image. But, if you nail the exposure and don't need much processing, they're all good.

But, if I were to guess, my guess would be that "best" low ISO camera for pixel peepers, would be the d3x.

In a blind print test of normal sized prints, up to about 12x18, I rather doubt that anyone, could tell which photo came from which camera.

I heard that the Kodak Full Frame DCS-14n is the best low ISO camera (which uses nikon lenses)

The D200 is better than the D300 at low ISO.

Gerald

What are you doing with the camera? At this point virtually any Nikon DSLR is going to give you excellent results at 200 ISO. If you're doing full page spreads in Vogue, the selection might be a bit more limited...

Chris Dees wrote:
D3x

Hehehe, there's really no competition is there?

chemprof wrote:
The D200 is better than the D300 at low ISO.

Gerald


I laughed when I first heard that until I was looking at a landscape photography magazine and noticed that ALL of the photos that were credited to a nikon camera were with the D200. This was really surprising to me when i realized this.

chemprof wrote:
The D200 is better than the D300 at low ISO.

Gerald

In what way is it better?

I didn't like the high iso of the D200 so I got the D700 (and it's much better)

Rags

Rags Hef wrote:
I didn't like the high iso of the D200 so I got the D700 (and it's much better)

Rags


How is that relative to the low iso comparisons that we are talking about

Interesting enough there are quite a few shooters around who grab their D2x's instead of their D3's in good light

D2X

Kerry Pierce wrote:
chemprof wrote:
The D200 is better than the D300 at low ISO.

Gerald

In what way is it better?




The D300 has noticable noise at the base iso of ISO200. Particularly blue skies. Mine does. Not to say it's not removable with NR software but it's always there in skies which is kinda annoying really.

Of course this is balanced by it's superb high ISO capabilities, esp. compared to the D200 (my previous camera).

I would think best body for low ISO work would be the D700/D3/D3x depending on your budget. If I didn't need the crop factor for birds then I would have already got a D700 or a used D3.

Andy

cadman342001 wrote:

The D300 has noticable noise at the base iso of ISO200. Particularly blue skies. Mine does. Not to say it's not removable with NR software but it's always there in skies which is kinda annoying really.

Of course this is balanced by it's superb high ISO capabilities, esp. compared to the D200 (my previous camera).

Andy

Are you shooting NEF and not using the picture controls like standard or vivid, active dlighting?

I don't see any significant difference between the low ISO shots of the d200 vs d300, or d700 for that matter. The cameras meter differently and have different tone curves and color response, but once you turn off the heavy PC stuff, the d300 looks fine to me.

gunner.sip wrote:
hi bsijani:
no price range, sometimes I hear the d2x offers the best low iso IQ of ALL nikon cameras.
I wonder if this is a general opinion.
bests

Having used most of the digital Nikons and even after only a few shots with the D3x...in my opinion the D3x wins hands down.

As for the D2x, although I still own mine and still use it sometimes it has issues even at low iso settings. It simply does not have the dynamic range because of shadow noise issues even at low iso settings. The D2x sensor is just not even close to being up to competing with the newer sensors. In a studio with controled lighting it is OK but take it out to the race track on a bright day and it will not come close to capturing the range of a scene. I will take files from my D3 any day (studio or ambient light).

Just my opinion after thousands of clicks....and I could be wrong...have been before.

JohnC

Isn't the base ISO indicative of how good the camera is in good light? D200 is ISO 100 while the D300 is ISO 200.

stompyq wrote:
Isn't the base ISO indicative of how good the camera is in good light? D200 is ISO 100 while the D300 is ISO 200.

No. Base ISO is where the sensor is optimized to perform its best for all considerations, ie noise, DR, color fidelity, etc. The d300, d700, and d3 are all optimized for a base ISO 200, which gives them the headroom they need to optimize the higher ISO's. All of them have Low ISO settings, down to ISO 100. Supposedly, the L settings lose a little DR, but I can't tell the difference in that regard. I don't much like pixel peeping to the extreme, so I'm really not very good at that stuff......

For example, after reading the earlier comments about the d200 being better at low ISOs and sky noise in the d300, I took a couple of test shots. I shot NEFs and processed them in NX, turning off all of the PC stuff. I even overexposed the d200 shot slightly, to give it an edge, d200 3sec at f/5.6 and d300 2sec at f/5.6. I can't tell the difference between d200 ISO 100 and d300 ISO 125. They look almost identical to me.

I can post the files to my web site, if you wish.

Kerry Pierce wrote:
cadman342001 wrote:

The D300 has noticable noise at the base iso of ISO200. Particularly blue skies. Mine does. Not to say it's not removable with NR software but it's always there in skies which is kinda annoying really.

Of course this is balanced by it's superb high ISO capabilities, esp. compared to the D200 (my previous camera).

Andy

Are you shooting NEF and not using the picture controls like standard or vivid, active dlighting?

I don't see any significant difference between the low ISO shots of the d200 vs d300, or d700 for that matter. The cameras meter differently and have different tone curves and color response, but once you turn off the heavy PC stuff, the d300 looks fine to me.



Yep, RAW, nothing turned on. The sky noise of the D300 at ISO200 has been well documented and I notice it all the time. Sure it's correctable but it's there.
and yes, the D300 takes lovely pics but so did my D200 at lower ISO's.

Andy

Since the issue has come up, my D200 produces markedly better images at its base ISO of 100 than my D700 produces at its base of ISO 200.

Have been waiting to do more tests before posting this, as it surprised me. But I have done three side by side comparisons, and the D200 was better every time.

By "better," I mean several things. The first noticable thing in the tests is that the D200 images are more subjectively pleasing. On closer inspection, the D200 gives more transparent shadows with lower noise, and holds more detail in the highlights. Under processing in NX2, I can get a better image from the D200 files than those of the D700.

Notably, I was testing to see what the two cameras could do at base ISO, where I find the D200 wins. But of course, higher ISOs are handy for a lot of real world shooting, and when higher ISOs are needed, the D700 far outclasses the D200. But for macro and scenics, where the camera is on the tripod and I can shoot at base ISO, the older camera produces better files.

Details:

In my three tests, NEF files of matched scenes were taken with as little as possible in-camera processing. All were done under diffused strobe light, with camera on a tripod with the mirror locked up, using an electronic release and manual focus. Shutter speeds were changed to give a variety of exposures from underexposed through overexposed. Best exposures were compared in each case. Same lens used in all cases (80-400 Nikkor zoom). Aperture was f/8 for the D200 and F/11 for the D700--settings at which the apparent depth of field was closely matched. Zoom was adjusted to give same field of view for each camera (obviously necessary because the D700 uses more of the image circle)--but was always well within the sweet spot for this zoom.

My intent has been to do additional tests and make the NEF files available for download, but current committments make that impossible for the next month or so.

Cheers,

--Chris

Edit to correct detail section: Sorry, I shouldn't write when tired. Two of the tests were done under diffuse strobe light, with strobe output changed to provide a variety of exposures. One test was done under available light, with shutter speed changed to provide a variety of exposures. Sorry!

Interesting stuff, Chris.

Here are the files that I mentioned earlier. Both were processed with NX with all of the stuff turned off and then converted to JPG. As I said before, I don't see any significant difference between the files, even though I gave a +EV edge to the d200 by using a longer exposure for it, while also using ISO 125 (Lo .7) on the d300. I'd like to know if you see the marked difference you noted with the ISO100 vs ISO200 tests you made.

The shots were taken under incandescent lighting, 2 60w bulbs lighting the entire room. WB was set using an Expodisk. The lens used was the 70-180 micro, attached to a tripod. I must have bumped the zoom ring when changing bodies, because the FL is slightly different. For purposes of noise pixel peeping, that shouldn't matter much. The poor lighting should produce as much noise as any situation.

The full size files are at the following links.
http://www.pbase.com/kerrypierce/image/107952192
http://www.pbase.com/kerrypierce/image/107952186

d300

Kerry, it's present in your images also. The tonal transitions in the upper right corner of the D200 image are better and the shadows are "slightly" less grainy.

Exactly what I've observed. If you want a low ISO landscape camera the D200 is still the champ. Better highlight handling than D2X, just as enlargeable as D300.

I've printed quite a few 17x25 in prints, and with proper processing they are indistinguishable. The D300 takes more processing, however to get the same result. Also, I still have not come to grips with the colors it sometimes produces, no matter what type of processing is applied. In addition, the added any detail the D300 provides is insignificant at those sizes, given the images are properly upressed using a good program, like Genuine Fractals.

Additionally, I think the "proven" high ISO advantage of the D300 is also a myth. It's, in my opinion, just a little better than the D200, probably less than one stop. My feeling is that the entire difference is in the processing, not a higher quality sensor.

Lastly, I DO find there to be a LARGE difference in focus capability. Even for non moving subjects, the D300's focus is just plain more accurate and more consistent.

This is what I have come up with after making many prints from both, and shooting them in parallel over the course of the last year. And noticing better colors (sometimes) on the D200 in similar images. And finding that matching the colors between the two under these conditions is sometimes very difficult.

If I were to consider upgrading to a new camera now from my D200, would I buy a D300? The answer is MAYBE. It would really depend on how much cash I had stashed, and if I could afford to keep my D200. In my opinion, unless your main consideration is the improved focus, and image quality is secondary, I would NOT spend the additional money on the D300. Don't get me wrong, it's a great camera, but it's not worth 2X the price on the used market if AF is not your primary concern.

Gerald

I think the D50 I had has been better than my D2H and D300 at ISO200.

Kerry, thanks for posting your files.

Agreed, when I do more robust testing, checking ISO 100 vs 200 is one of the things I should do. Among the things I would like to know: Now that I think see that D200 is better than the D700 at base ISO, and quite the opposite is true at high ISOs, I'd like to find out where the crossover point is.

Of note is that in my base ISO tests, the superiority of the D200 is quite dramatic--not at all something that requires pixel peeping to see. When I did my first test, I was strongly expecting the D700 to be better, and thought I must have had the images mixed up. Of course, the metadata showed this was not the case.

But then, I should expect a dramatic difference, right? Am going to shoot my mouth off here without checking facts--am hurrying off to a job. So if I'm wrong, I won't object to being corrected. But if I recall correctly, both the D200 and D300 are CCD cameras, whereas the D700 uses a CMOS chip, as does the D3 and presumably, the D3x. I would expect a CCD and CMOS to render the world in quite different ways. So testing a CCD camera against a CMOS camera at base ISO might well be expected to show dramatic differences.

Again, my intent is to do a more thorough, bomb-proof test later on when time permits. Only brought the point out now because it is under discussion.

Best,

--Chris