D200 and real world noise

Hi folks,

Was wondering if anyone could give some real world answers to the noise question. I've read the reviews seen the movies etc.

I previously owned a Canon 20D which focussed poorly. Switched to a Minolta 5d which focusses very well but as a result of Minolta exiting the market I want to change. My budget is around £3,000. This would bring the 200d/Canon 5d and EOS 30d into my budget.

The 5d is obvisouly very attractive except on occasion I want a long reach and the FF doesn't give you that. That leaves the 30d which makes me a little nervous becuase of my experience with the 20d or the 200d which feels fantastic. The only thing that puts me off is all I've read about noise on this camera. I have previsouly taken some shots in a church with the 20d and the Minolta 5d which were remarkably noise free. The church was poorly lit and I simply cranked the ISO up to 1600. It was great. The 20d was very smooth indeed. How would the 200d behave in a similiar situation or would the pictures be somewhat marginal? Does anyone have any examples

Lenses I am considering are from this group

sigma 10-20 or 15-30 or 12-24 or nikon 12-24
Tamron 28-75 2.8
nikon 80-400 or sigma 80-400 or sigma 50-500 (bigma)
tamron 28-300 for an all round walk around lens

Can anyone help?

G

If you compare it to the 5D I don't doubt the Canon wins, but I think the noise 'problem' has been blown out of all proportion. If you get the exposure right and don't need to fix it in PP (much) I don't think it should be a problem.

Nonns said:

Hi folks,

Was wondering if anyone could give some real world answers to the
noise question. I've read the reviews seen the movies etc.

I previously owned a Canon 20D which focussed poorly. Switched to a
Minolta 5d which focusses very well but as a result of Minolta
exiting the market I want to change. My budget is around £3,000.
This would bring the 200d/Canon 5d and EOS 30d into my budget.

The 5d is obvisouly very attractive except on occasion I want a
long reach and the FF doesn't give you that.

Click to expand...

If you don't need 12MP then cropping 5D image to smaller size is not different from a 1.5 crop camera. This is math
A 200mm lens on D200 will give you 10MP 30mm equivalent image.
Same 200mm lens on a 5D will give you 5.65MP 300mm equivalent

image. As you may know 5.65MP (close to 6MP) is plenty for prints up to 10X15. Unless you always want to print 20X30 you won't see any difference between 10MP and 5.65MP. Consider 5D is cleaner at ISO 1600.

That leaves the 30d

Nonns said:

which makes me a little nervous becuase of my experience with the
20d or the 200d which feels fantastic. The only thing that puts me
off is all I've read about noise on this camera. I have previsouly
taken some shots in a church with the 20d and the Minolta 5d which
were remarkably noise free. The church was poorly lit and I simply
cranked the ISO up to 1600. It was great. The 20d was very smooth
indeed. How would the 200d behave in a similiar situation or would
the pictures be somewhat marginal? Does anyone have any examples

Click to expand...

D200 is not bad either. If you compare side by side blown out image at 100% you will see a difference. But in real life you won't see any difference up to 10X15 even at ISO 1600.

Nonns said:

Lenses I am considering are from this group

sigma 10-20 or 15-30 or 12-24 or nikon 12-24
Tamron 28-75 2.8
nikon 80-400 or sigma 80-400 or sigma 50-500 (bigma)
tamron 28-300 for an all round walk around lens

Can anyone help?

G

Click to expand...

--
Jemini Joseph

http://www.birdsimages.com

Thank you for the response.

I am somewhat surpised that I've only had one response to this message. Normally people are keen to defend their cameras. Not that I was atacking the d200 in any case. I really would like buy the d200 but am simply not sure. WHat about the lenses I mentioned? A sensible selection or am I crazy?

I should have added the Tamron 17-35 as an option also.

I love the D200, the 20D is a toy build wise vs the D200. The D200 has a much more ergonomic design, physically operates quicker, and i have found the AF faster and more accurate.

Noise wise i find the D200 fine up to ISO 800 with little NR, oddly i found the 20D to be as noisy at ISO800, esp in DPP which showed the noise as it truely is with no NR, the 20D has alot of colour noise, the D200 though has alot of luminance noise which has a grainy film look.

In all i'm glad i changed from the 20D to the D200.

Wow and i havent even mentioned the 20D's annoying shutter, noise... dam i just have...
--



http://paulgibbs.fotoblog.co.uk/

The 5D is going to have better high ISO performance over the D200, period. That being said, the D200 noise is quite film-like and managable if you properly expose your shots. The difference in the printed image isn't going to be that big. However, if you underexpose, your shadow noise is going to be quite high.

Take into account that higher noise levels is also going to impact the amount of +EV exposure compensation you're going to be able to apply after the fact. So you have to ask yourself. Can properly expose your shots when they really count? Or do you find yourself being off by .5 - 1 EV and just pull it up later?

Here is a gallery of low res shots I took recently on my d200.

D200
ISO3200
Nikkor 17-55 F2.8
1/40 - 1/100 sec
PP with NC4.4, batch processed with noise ninja w/o sharpening.
No exposure compensation was applied.

http://chris.emptyfortunecookie.com/the_big_sleep/

I hope this helps.

Canon sensors have more chroma noise. Nikon sensors have less chroma noise and more luminance noise.

I owned both lenses. Both are sharp for the range. May be sharper than Bigma. I found VR on Nikon is more effective. It's almost difficult to fail the VR. You can see when the image is stabilized and have enough time to take picture. But with sigma I missed many shots. It works the same way. But I believe when your hand shakes, Sigma tries to achieve the new point for stabilization. If you click in that moment you might lose the advantage. Well, not a scientifict test.

AF on Sigma is better for sure. It has the internal moror like HSM (or AF-S). But it's not silent like Bigma. Speed wise they should be same or 80-400 be better.

--
Jemini Joseph

http://www.birdsimages.com

Thank you thats very helpful

The lens test for the Sigma 80-400 OS indicates that the OS is only effective for 1 to 1 1/2 stops for most apertures. Nikon claims up to three stops for their 80-400 and I've seen posts that confirm tht number. I bought the 80-400 Nikon and expect my 200D to arrive today.

Mark

I've read a side-by-side test in a U.K. photo mag (can't remember the mag title) that compared the 30D to the D200 for noise and the result was that they were fairly equivalent up to 800 ISO but that the Canon was much better at 1600 ISO. However, they mentioned that in real life the difference was not that noticable and they still preferred the D200.

Mark

You asked for a shot inside a church. Here is one from a wedding I did last fall. It was before the D200 came out. I took this with my D70 cranked up to ISO 1600 so I could get the shot. I think this image is very acceptable. And it prints well up to at least 11"x14". Having said that, tests I have done comparing the D70 to my D200 show the D200 does a little better with noise across all ISO speeds. So, you can easily expect shots this clean or better with a D200 inside a church at high ISO. There is no post processing noise reduction employed in this image.



Here is a shot with the D200 at ISO 1600. It was taken at SeaWorld San Antonio. I had to crank up the ISO in order to obtain a fast enough shutter speed to freeze the action. Lens was 18-200VR. Again, noise is well controlled.



Here is another dark interior shot. In this case, the engine control room inside the USS Lexington aircraft carrier in Corpus Christi, Texas. The ISO was dialed up to 1250 and the shutter speed with the 18-200VR was only 1/15sec. The combination of VR and high ISO enabled me to grab this shot handheld. This would have been unthinkable in the film days.



Finally, I should mention that color performance at higher ISO has been greatly improved in the D200 over the D70. I can detect very little loss in color accuracy or saturation at ISO 1600 or even 3200 compared to ISO 100 or 200. This is a remarkable achievement. The D70 does exhibit a noticable color shift and saturation loss as the ISO is increased.

--
Steve

D200 performs well in terms of high ISO noise. The key is to expose well. So, don't mess up and you'll be fine. The noise is relatively pleasent especially in Black and white shots.

Here are a couple of samples:

ISO 1600 (A friend has a 16 x 20 print of this one hanging up in his living room)



ISO 1600 (published at about 10.5' x 10.5'



ISO 1600 (published at about 10.5 x 10.5)



tearsheet



ISO 1600 (macro)



ISO 3200 (I have an 11 x 14 that looks very nice)



Bojan

Thank you. Have you done any shots at iso 3200? Is it usable? I know this is fairly academic as you'd probably never have to use it but i'm interested.

Well, If I had to, I would use it. The last shot was taken at ISO 3200. Again, good exposure is crucial - there is very little room for exposure adjustments later in the process. You just have to nail it. Again it looks better, IMO, black and white.

Bojan

If you shoot in poor lit conditions, then D200 may disappoint you. But in normal condition it is great even in ISO800, especially after pp.

Nonns said:

Hi folks,

Was wondering if anyone could give some real world answers to the
noise question. I've read the reviews seen the movies etc.

I previously owned a Canon 20D which focussed poorly. Switched to a
Minolta 5d which focusses very well but as a result of Minolta
exiting the market I want to change. My budget is around £3,000.
This would bring the 200d/Canon 5d and EOS 30d into my budget.

The 5d is obvisouly very attractive except on occasion I want a
long reach and the FF doesn't give you that. That leaves the 30d
which makes me a little nervous becuase of my experience with the
20d or the 200d which feels fantastic. The only thing that puts me
off is all I've read about noise on this camera. I have previsouly
taken some shots in a church with the 20d and the Minolta 5d which
were remarkably noise free. The church was poorly lit and I simply
cranked the ISO up to 1600. It was great. The 20d was very smooth
indeed. How would the 200d behave in a similiar situation or would
the pictures be somewhat marginal? Does anyone have any examples

Lenses I am considering are from this group

sigma 10-20 or 15-30 or 12-24 or nikon 12-24
Tamron 28-75 2.8
nikon 80-400 or sigma 80-400 or sigma 50-500 (bigma)
tamron 28-300 for an all round walk around lens

Can anyone help?

G

Click to expand...

Hi,

I never shot with a Canon so I can't compare it with the D200. I think 1600 is pretty usable if the light conditions are not too marginal, but like I said I can't judge it against Canon.

This link has an interesting conversation about D200 in the dark against D2X. It might be of your interest:
http://www.sportsshooter.com/message_display.html?tid=20992

And about the Tamron; I've owned a 28-75 for two years and it is a very good lens, but I recommend that you try the new Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 before making a decision. This 17-50 is simply excellent!

Good luck with your choice.

Best Regards,

Pablo

Check this thread

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=19187630