One of the few times I really examined landscape photos was while in Cannon Beach. There is a shop where the photographer has some of those 20x30 and larger photos and all were shot with a D2X. Looked very sharp to me. I was impressed.
Richard.P wrote:
All information I've seen on the subject says that noise doesn't depend on what is the camera's lowest ISO setting, but on what is its base ISO setting.
I have a D300 which, like the D3, has a base ISO of 200. That means, ISO200 has the least noise. The D200 has a base ISO of 100, therefore it has the least noise at ISO100. You can set the D3/D300/D700 to Lo-1, which is equivalent to ISO100, but it's "pulled back" i.e. not a native ISO setting and will therefore have slightly less quality than ISO200.
The D3 sensor is optimised for ISO200, so that in noise terms, it is the same as other cameras at ISO100, ISO64 or whatever ISO is the base ISO for their sensor. By the way, the D3 is renowned for its low-noise characteristics - if it's amazing at ISO1600, what are the odds at 200 ...Show more →
Well, I don't know about the principles behind this exactly, but my D300 DOES have more noise at ISO 200 than 100. It also has BETTER dynamic range at ISO 200 than at ISO 100.
If I were to look for clean base ISO files, though, I would say that my D200 is better than my D300. The D200 is clearly cleaner at ISO 100 than my D300 is at ISO 200. I have not done a direct ISO 100 to ISO 100 comparison. What I can say is that I NEVER used any noise reduction at ISO 100 on my D200, and that I sometimes feel like I need to use some on my D300 files at ISO 200.
Mark Kenfield wrote:
If it makes you feel any better, the D3 should produce more detailed landscape photos than 35mm film ever did.
Which leads me to the question swirling about my mind while reading this thread .... why would fanatical landscape photogs be playing with miniscule 35mm based gear?
I mean if you are that serious you will stick your nose up to a wall mural, shoot with the appropriate gear right?
chemprof wrote:
Well, I don't know about the principles behind this exactly, but my D300 DOES have more noise at ISO 200 than 100. It also has BETTER dynamic range at ISO 200 than at ISO 100.
If I were to look for clean base ISO files, though, I would say that my D200 is better than my D300. The D200 is clearly cleaner at ISO 100 than my D300 is at ISO 200. I have not done a direct ISO 100 to ISO 100 comparison. What I can say is that I NEVER used any noise reduction at ISO 100 on my D200, and that I sometimes feel like I need to use some on my D300 files at ISO 200.
Gerald ...Show more →
I'm not a physicist myself, so take it for what it's worth The thing is, the comparisons I've read seem evenly divided on whether the D300's ISO200 or Lo-1 has the least noise. Given that the D300's sensor has a base sensitivity of 200, it seemed reasonable to assume this would be best (I haven't bothered with any pixel-peeping of my own). Also, some of the comparisons led me to suspect that the testers were confusing lowest with base. Lo-1 being a "pulled" sensitivity, higher quality here seemed unlikely (I believe Nikon said this themselves), so I was doubtful of the accuracy of noise graphs showing lowest levels at ISO100. It sometimes seemed that the testers simply assumed that "all sensors start and are best at ISO100".
I've never tried the D200, though I understand that CCDs inherently have lower noise while CMOS designs are better at suppressing it. I see "sky noise" on the D300 as well (especially with the low-radius, high-amount sharpening I often use) though to be honest I don't care much. Interesting titbit about lower noise at Lo-1. Would make sense - "pushed" ISOs are noisier apparently, so "pulled" might be expected to be smoother, while DR would nonetheless suffer at an "artificial" setting.
because the alternatives have their compromises. a 60MP medium format back costs 7 times as much as a D3. a scanning large format back takes 2 minute exposures and causes strange time-related effects. nether are easy to carry. stitching with the highest resolution camera with the desired noise and dynamic range that is portable enough to do the job and any others it may be called on to do in one body and the answer is a 24MP D3X. since that hasn't been announced yet, the D3 or D300 is next.
Herb...
Qranc wrote:
Which leads me to the question swirling about my mind while reading this thread .... why would fanatical landscape photogs be playing with miniscule 35mm based gear?
I mean if you are that serious you will stick your nose up to a wall mural, shoot with the appropriate gear right?
HerbChong wrote:
because the alternatives have their compromises. a 60MP medium format back costs 7 times as much as a D3. a scanning large format back takes 2 minute exposures and causes strange time-related effects. nether are easy to carry. stitching with the highest resolution camera with the desired noise and dynamic range that is portable enough to do the job and any others it may be called on to do in one body and the answer is a 24MP D3X. since that hasn't been announced yet, the D3 or D300 is next.
Herb...
You missed my point.
Of course there are reasons and I am fully aware of some of them. The point I truly was making is we each choose where to apply the fine filter. For example the ultra critical landscape photographer will make ultra critical criticisms of prints only to relax those same discerning qualities in the names of savings or convenience.
You can apply my principle to any argument, be it Canon vs Nikon, editing/processing software, OS/platform etc. We each have our fine tooth combs to weed out the chaff but apply it only selectively.
It doesn't make the D3x any less significant for you but the principles sheds light on the narrowness of ones scope. As Jack had put it, courses for horses.
Let me put it this way, when considering the OP's question the first thing that came to mind as a response was nevermind the D3, how is the PHOTOGRAPHER at landscape.
Hah! 2 min exposures for landscape? Why rush? good things come to those who wait.
Anyway, just some of my thoughts, take it as you will (with salt if you need).
you obviously haven't seen seen the effect of a long exposure on a scanning back with something moving like ocean waves. it makes the capture weird and usually not worth doing. stitched panoramas don't have the effect even though they have other effects.
as for the D3, i use it because for now it is a compromise i am willing to live with, just as the D3X at 24MP is also a compromise i am willing to live with. it just compromises a little less. a 39MP medium format system is probably in my future, but not any time soon. the Seitz 6x17 has a good chance of being in my future if it is still around in 3 or 4 years.
Herb...
Qranc wrote:
Hah! 2 min exposures for landscape? Why rush? good things come to those who wait.
The thing is, the comparisons I've read seem evenly divided on whether the D300's ISO200 or Lo-1 has the least noise. Given that the D300's sensor has a base sensitivity of 200, it seemed reasonable to assume this would be best (I haven't bothered with any pixel-peeping of my own). Also, some of the comparisons led me to suspect that the testers were confusing lowest with base. Lo-1 being a "pulled" sensitivity, higher quality here seemed unlikely (I believe Nikon said this themselves), so I was doubtful of the accuracy of noise graphs showing lowest levels at ISO100. It sometimes seemed that the testers simply assumed that "all sensors start and are best at ISO100".