Reading mode: Light Dark

D80 ISO1600 sample

Go to last post
some of the previous linked images......and where they can be found. If people are going to post these threads and make complaints I think specific examples need to be referenced (not in reference to the op but, rather the trolls infiltrating the Nikon forum right now.)

a previously posted D80 review:
http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/cda/review/2006/08/18/4415.html
for the 30d
http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/cda/review/2006/04/04/3571.html

note that the images with the 30d were taken with the EF-S 17-85mm F4-5.6 IS USM while the images taken with the D80 were with the 18-135 kit lens.

Compare the bunny rabbit fur if you want to see the level of detail retention in the D80.

and for the 400d (unfortunately they don't have the same test from above up yet):
http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/cda/dslr/2006/08/28/4486.html
http://photo-cafe.jp/scoop/index.html

and I found this at imaging resource.



it also goes on to explain about the difference between a pentaprism of the D80 vs. the pentamirror of all other consumer grade cameras.

and, some more pages where you can find more D80 links and info.
http://www.pbase.com/dlcmh/nikon_d80_sneak_pictures
http://www.nikond80links.com/nikon-d80-reviews#JapaneseD80Samples
--
http://www.ianz28.smugmug.com

 
I suspect most other reviews are probably going to use the 18-135 as well. Not for everything, but for most "real world" shots, considering it is the kit lens.

Tests with the 17-55 2.8 on the D80 would probably alleviate my remaining concerns. Assuming all other settings permit the camera to retrieve the highest possible amount of detail without NR.
--
JC Mason
 
The shots were taken with noise reduction ON. They look out of focus and soft as well.

We need a real, thorough review of the kind put out by DPREVIEW and others to know for sure what the noise performance is like. And real life reviews from folks shooting pics of real things, not brick walls and newspaper prints.

Get the camera, go to a low light event, shoot it carefully (avoiding camera shakes using good technique) with a 35mm prime set at F2.8 at 1/60th of a second at ISO 1600 and take a look.
 
SW Kim said:
Get the camera, go to a low light event, shoot it carefully
(avoiding camera shakes using good technique) with a 35mm prime set
at F2.8 at 1/60th of a second at ISO 1600 and take a look.
Click to expand...
Please tell me why you would like 1/60 and not 1/ 200 for instance to make certain that camera shake isnt a problem. The other suggestions make sense but not the 1/60 one.

Best wishes

Jakob
 
jagge said:
jagge said:
Get the camera, go to a low light event, shoot it carefully
(avoiding camera shakes using good technique) with a 35mm prime set
at F2.8 at 1/60th of a second at ISO 1600 and take a look.
Click to expand...
Please tell me why you would like 1/60 and not 1/ 200 for instance
to make certain that camera shake isnt a problem. The other
suggestions make sense but not the 1/60 one.

Best wishes

Jakob
Click to expand...
It is a bit low, for a test I'd expect to see shake below about 1/100th at 100% in PS. Some people can probably get shots with no shake at this speed but they are in a tiny minority.

As an aside most of us will get shots that are perfectly usable at 1/60th but are bound to be slated by the pixel peepers "oh my god there's shake!!!!!!" anyone looked at Nat Geo recently? Or the many press photos that win awards, or HCB's work? Look close enough and there is often a degree of shake evident.

Jamie H
 
JH1 said:
It is a bit low, for a test I'd expect to see shake below about
1/100th at 100% in PS. Some people can probably get shots with no
shake at this speed but they are in a tiny minority.
Click to expand...
My point exactly. It need to be beyond 1/200 to get rid of all doubt. Its all about limiting the possibility of other influences than the sensor itself, and 1/60 is ceartainly not enough to not warrant attention.

Best wishes

Jakob
 
The D70 has more color noise, which is lacking in the D50. Both are fairly sharp for being shot at ISO 1600. The d70 also seems sharper then the D50. Easy for me to see this since I have used both cameras at 1600.

Now you’re right about the D80, it was shot JPEG. But is there that much of a difference between RAW and JPEG? Probably a little sharper if the image was shot RAW. The image from the D80 is cleaner. Cleaner then the D70 and D50. But the image is smeared, why? Was it due to noise reduction on normal or shaky hands? Both of my images were shot at hand held & I don't have the most stable hands. And yet, my images were not smeared. That concerns me a little. Hopefully it won't be like this when NR is turned off.

I do agree the best comparison will be using the same lens, same subject and lighting.

Mark
Dayd3 said:
It's impossible to compare this images.
D50 image is more underexposed compared to others.
D50 and D70 images are converted RAW files while D80 is jpg with
NR turned on.
Click to expand...
--



Church Event Photographer

Full time auto tech, part time photographer. Just wished it were the other way around. Mark Thompson/MTT
Louisville, KY. USA

http://mtt.smugmug.com/
 
ianz28 said:
Compare the bunny rabbit fur if you want to see the level of detail
retention in the D80.
Click to expand...
Yes and look at the 30D if you want to see what iso1600 can look like. Smooth, sharp and with details retained. Sorry but my PERSONAL view is that Nikon just cant keep up with that.

Best wishes

Jakob
 
no text
 
Yeah, I am also getting tired of seeing boring, snapshot-like 'test pictures' that just don't make any sense. Hand holding at 1/30 something and supposed to be sharp??

How about taking a fully manual RAW shot, in decent lighting and by someone who kind of knows what they are doing (no offense anyone) and compare it to the same exact shot using a different, better lens, like the 50mm 1.4. Comparing shots using different aps and focal points is like comparing apples and oranges IMO.

Lisa
--

 
I just used 1/60 as the typical shutter speed you find in a low light environment such as a church interior with some window light. It would be ideal to shoot at 1/200 but probably not realistic.
 
... then the D200 NEF files won't have NR applied to the RAW data -- it's just tagged like everything else. I imagine the D80 will be like that also.

Man
RiverSide Photography said:
David Chin said:
http://www.dpreview.com/articles/nikond80/page9.asp

High ISO NR
• Normal
• Low
• High
• Off

Similar to the D200.
Click to expand...
doesn't the D200 still do NR above ISO800.. that's what I wanted to
know ..if the D80 borrows the same 'firmware' and does some form of
NR despite it being set to OFF.

--
I see dead pixels
Click to expand...
--



Just another amateur learning to paint w/ 'the light of the world.' (John 8:12)
'Cameras are for making photos, not war...'
See my profile for some useful resources.
As usual, YMMV + caveat emptor.
Contact me at [email protected]
Indulge my fancies at http://www.pbase.com/mandnwong
 
In that case use a tripod. At 1/60th you'll see shake which will detract from the clarity of the test if you are handholding.

Jamie H
 
Grant said:
With Nikon, you have a choice of low noise or high detail but not
both. I'd expect that tradition to continue through at least the
next generation of cameras. If you can't wait then buy a Canon 5D
or the newest rebel.

--
That it will never come again is what makes life so sweet....ED

http://grant247.smugmug.com/
Click to expand...
That's only true if you use the in-camera noise reduction. If you use Neat Image or some other third party solution, you can have high sharpness and low noise. That sample does look poor compared to the D200. It looks more like ISO 3200. Maybe the exposure was too short and they pushed it?

Leif
 
Have a look at the shots. They arent as sharp and noise free as you are eluding too. Feel free to post a sample because the link straight above yours shows a really noisy picture.

--
Jessie
http://jessiethe3rd.zenfolio.com

'The creative act lasts but a brief moment, a lightning instant of give-and-take, just long enough for you to level the camera and to trap the fleeting prey in your little box'
  • Henn Cartier-Besson, Magnum Photos cofounder
 
we should note the lens used with the 30d. It's the 17-85 IS lens which has been shown to be somewhat "poor" optically. Definitely not a Canon lens I'd get.
--
http://www.ianz28.smugmug.com

 
I preordered a D80, I'm not a troll. And I don't think I'll shot at 1600 more than 1% of the cases.

Although in the test shown 30d is a clear winner in noise and detail retention. By far.

g
 
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