uhmm the iso200 file from the D3 looks like the iso25 file i wish my D2x could deliver. so no worries about noise and all on iso200 and the LO0.3, 0.7 and 1 have the same fine characteristics the D3 delivers at iso200.
Sep 15, 2007 at 03:29 PM
Andre Labonte Offline • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
DragonflyDM wrote:
I don't think is a "if I had to choose" but ....why finally offer ISO 100 and not try to keep that in the goodie bag!?
But they did keep it in the goodie bag with the LO setting. So it's not in the standard range, but you have access to it whenever you want. The D300 effectively has ISO 100-6400. I'm sure the D300 IQ @ 100 and 200 are the same and that the D300 @200 is as good or better than the D200 @100. It's all good. Maybe Nikon should not have advertised it as a LO setting but just made the dial go from 100-6400 and you would be happy.
grmedhat1 wrote:
I'm not sure what spoiled has to do with anything and having to just 'manage' is the point. I'd rather use a lower iso than slap a ND filter on the front. Hi iso has it's benefits as do lower ones.
I'm sorry, but high ISO capability is infinitely more important than low ISO capability - that's just not even an argument. And I used "manage" a little loosely there, because I have never personally needed less than 200, but I find myself needing 1600+ all the time. Either way, like I said before, I'm sure that Nikon made a conscious engineering decision about this.
I vote for the 100% crop as well. That image looks fine three inches tall but how about printed at 12 x 18? Great scoop on getting the picture so I am not complaining.
I can give you space on Pbase if you like, or on my own file server (in a data center in Texas), so it doesn't suck your bandwidth. And I have very fast connections on my file server.
Well, I did want to show a small file. I'm not one for pixel peeing ISO 6400 pics at 100%. Are they useful, do they appear to do the job? I've seen some pretty incrediblly bad photos at ISO 1600 that you can tell are bad in a 800x600 pic file.
dpreview, needless to say will have all the correct and proper tests.
However, on this occasion, I yield for the greater good.
The red arrow is pointing to the railing that runs at the top of the house. You can still make it out , from that distance, shot at f2.8, in the dark.
OK, now I'm sold. Nikon has another sale (and a convert).
It's also pretty impressive that with just marginal size reduction, the noise is barely noticable. I also expect that it would take a small amount of software noise reduction pretty well.
This is what 3200 looks like on my Canon 20D, which doesn't have a 6400.
I agree. I don't have noise reduction software on the laptop, so I can't give a before and after comparison. Generally, my workflow would be to do some minor NR on the files.
I can't tell you what the RAW files will look like. Will they squeeze a tiny bit more out of it, and allow the user to adjust the NR to their liking in post. Maybe, we'll see. Again, Phil Askey is the man!
Cubfan wrote:
OK, now I'm sold. Nikon has another sale (and a convert).
It's also pretty impressive that with just marginal size reduction, the noise is barely noticable. I also expect that it would take a small amount of software noise reduction pretty well.
This is what 3200 looks like on my Canon 20D, which doesn't have a 6400.
Boy, I hope people aren't making buying decisions based on a photo by a photographer that gets tipsy after a glass of wine!
That looks very good given the conditions. I'm not afraid to get the d300 to backup the d3.
The choice of ISO 200 as the lowest regular ISO isn't really a choice. Based on the sensor design, the native ISO of the sensor is equivalent to 200. Just a fact of life.
