Reading mode: Light Dark

D2HS or D40x, which is the low noise jpeg winner?

Go to last post
Daves602

Daves602

Veteran Member
Messages
5,640
Reaction score
3
Location
NSW, AU
I am going spare over this.

I was all set to go the D1H route for ISO 1600 work, but now I am very impressed with the D40X at ISO 1600. Do the jpegs that come out of the D2HS look any cleaner at ISO1600 than the D40X 1600 images? If you own or have used both, please let me know, I am about to buy and am loosing sleep....and hair over this. lol.
--
Warm regards, Dave.

Need some help posting images on this forum? Click here for some help http://www.davidstanton.com.au/how_to_post_photos_on_forums.html

 
I don't know much about the d40x but the D2hs is very good on high ISO.
I use this cam at most for concert and eventshootings.
The results from 800 - 3200 are very good for me.

:-)
--

Nikon D2X, D2hs, AFS12-24/4.0 DX, AFS 17-55/2.8 DX, AFS 70-200/2.8 VR, AFD 85mm/1.4, TC-1.4E II, SB-800

Nikon F5, AFD 28-105/3.5-4.5, AFD 70-210/4.0-5.6 /
 
I'd say the JPEG noise winner should be the D40, but that's maybe out of consideration...

BG
 
The D40 is visibly better at 1600 than the D2Hs, and by all accounts it is better than the D40X. If you are considering the D2Hs, you apparently are not a pixel counter (as in gotta have em whether I need them or not), instead of considering and comparing the 40X with it, why not consider and compare the 40 with it. Less money yet and less noisy high iso to go along with it.
 
Sebastian, could you please send me a full sized jpeg fine straight from the camera that was shot at ISO 1600? No editing, no noise reduction at time of taking the shot, just a shot showing low noise capability.
My email is [email protected]
Thankyou for this if you can.
--
Warm regards, Dave.

Need some help posting images on this forum? Click here for some help http://www.davidstanton.com.au/how_to_post_photos_on_forums.html

 
D40 can do it for me, but I have checked some images and thought the D40X was the better noise performer. I was willing to go the D1H with a file size of 2.7 meg for clean images, so a D40 is good too.
--
Warm regards, Dave.

Need some help posting images on this forum? Click here for some help http://www.davidstanton.com.au/how_to_post_photos_on_forums.html

 
Can you post a link to that test?

Here are links to the test that I think is the toughest noise test picture around. Dave does this same pic for all cameras. It is more realistic, it is portrait, low light, high iso. Download these full size images to your computer and play with them all you want. On this one the D40 wins. But I would like to see the test you refer to. Also, here on dp review, the D40 seems to be the lower of the two in their noise tests.

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/ND40/FULLRES/ND40INI1600.HTM

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/D40X/FULLRES/D40XINI1600.HTM
 
Maybe if you downsize the D40x output to 6 MP, things might change?
 
Tried that, it didn't help. I keep trying to convince myself that someday they will cure the noise situation and make 10mp as good as 6, but I haven't seen enough to convince me yet.
 
Daves602 said:
This link was given to me by Mike Parker.
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1034&message=22756124
Click to expand...
It's an impressive test, but IMO it should be repeated without flash on a dim lit subject as we usually use higher ISO's to shoot photo's with natural light. Haven't I read somewhere that the large quanities of IR in flash light can trigger noise on the 6MP sensors? From experience I knew that a B+W 486 helped a lot to avoid IR contamination on the D70...

Frank
 
Good is a relative term - meaning you can't just compare these two bodies... If you are shooting at ISO 1600 and want decent results, you shouldn't be using Nikon. You should be using Canon. I hope this will change the rumored D3, but for now anyone who says differently is in denial.

--
Currenlty shooting w/Nikon gear
 
Good poiints. In the links I posted above from IR test reviews, it is a portrait in low light without flash. I have seen many high iso tests done in good light or even with flash that showed questionable results, the results usually being much less noise than in images taken in low light at high iso. This is where I need the high iso and this is where the advantages of lower noise sensors really shine.
 
I haven't done any D40 vs D2Hs comparisons, but I was very surprised when shooting in a theatre in Istanbul to find that the ISO1000+ images from my wife's D40 far outclassed those from my D2x. Not only that, the D40 auto-WB was FAR more accurate in mixed lighting than the D2x. I suppose the technology is just moving very fast. Roll on the D3.....

pi

http://www.pbase.com/ibbo
 
wupeide said:
Good is a relative term - meaning you can't just compare these two
bodies... If you are shooting at ISO 1600 and want decent results,
you shouldn't be using Nikon. You should be using Canon. I hope
this will change the rumored D3, but for now anyone who says
differently is in denial.
Click to expand...
Which is Nikon and which is Canon (D40 vs Xt350D), ISO 1600?



To be fair, the Canon Xt has a little higher sensitivity, (which is gone with the Xti).
wupeide said:
--
Currenlty shooting w/Nikon gear
Click to expand...
--
Small D200 gallery:
http://www.pbase.com/interactive/d200_12
Small D40 gallery:
http://www.pbase.com/interactive/d40_12
Small Nikon P5000 gallery:
http://www.pbase.com/interactive/nikonp5000_12
http://www.pbase.com/interactive
 
You didn't want it to be too challenging intellectually, huh? At the left is a smaller (6 MP?) file with name DSCXXX, at the right is a larger (8 MP?) file with the name IMGXXX... :-)

BG
 
wupeide said:
Good is a relative term - meaning you can't just compare these two
bodies... If you are shooting at ISO 1600 and want decent results,
you shouldn't be using Nikon. You should be using Canon. I hope
this will change the rumored D3, but for now anyone who says
differently is in denial.

--
Currenlty shooting w/Nikon gear
Click to expand...
While this notion is generally true, I think that the D40 may be an exception. Its ISO 1600 performance is easily the best I've seen from a Nikon, and may very well be competitive with noise from similar Canon cameras.
--



Derek

http://www.derekealy.com
 
wupeide said:
Good is a relative term - meaning you can't just compare these two
bodies... If you are shooting at ISO 1600 and want decent results,
you shouldn't be using Nikon. You should be using Canon. I hope
this will change the rumored D3, but for now anyone who says
differently is in denial.
Click to expand...
I think the pros shooting indoor sports might agree with you...The D2Hs is the best high iso performer in the Pro Nikon stable and it doesn't compare to the Canon pro line performance. For me it doesn't matter much and certainly not worth spending the bucks to acheive.
wupeide said:
--
Currenlty shooting w/Nikon gear
Click to expand...
--
http://grant247.smugmug.com/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top