Why is D200 that much noiser than D80?

Started Jun 2, 2007 | Discussions thread
OP egrc Junior Member • Posts: 32
Re: Some more thoughts. Re: AS a Swede.......... Re: Great First post ...

LilKnytt wrote:

egrc wrote:

Signal processing gets better with time as camera manufacturers are
doing research, and D80 was released almost a year after D200.
Thus, it is in no way impossible that the noise reduction
algorithms differ between the two cameras and maybe is better in
D80.
This is ofcourse no proof.

How logical of you.

Well, it was to prove that your logic was falty The fact that D200 (as well as D70) is (was) more of an enthusiast camera does not necessarily implicate that the produced pictures are better. If I remember correct even the raws from D50 was better because of some falty design in D70 where heat lead to increased noise in one of the corners.

But ofcourse. But there is some really heavy signal processing
going around in moderna cameras. Even the digitized signal from the
alleged low noise sensor of the canon cmos in 400D is going through
noise reduction.

Again, many have posted this - - the D80 is made more to shoot jpgs
while the D200 is aimed for RAW. With RAW there are lots of noise
software which can be used.

And, thus, they have impared the jpeg engine to make it harder to shoot jpegs? Nikon may have taken different things into consideration when they choose the settings for the jpeg engines in D80 and D200, such as more conservative default sharpening, but hardly less detail at the same noise levels. There is just NO reason to do anything like that, or is there?

That's your opinion & you're entitled to it. It is however based
upon a faulty premise. The faulty premise is that the D80 is made
more for the jpg shooter & therefore out of the camera produces
probably better jpgs. The D200 is made more for RAW & that requires
PP. Something we can't be sure even the DPR tester did in the test.
Therefore your logic is mute.

I said the D80 seemed to produce better jpegs and you here state that the D80 produces better jpegs and therefore my logic is mute?!?!? Strange reasoning.

I never speculated in the reason for Nikons decision to find a better jpeg engine for D80, and it may have been to satisfy point and shooters. However, that in no way influence the possible fact that D80 produces better jpegs than D200. If anything it strengthens the assumption that the jpeg engine in D80 is superior to the one in D200. The question is WHY, if this is the case, Nikon doesn't port this to D200? Isn't it possible? Is there any other aspects that makes it less interesting for Nikon? Is the processing taking much longer time and thus interferes with the higher shooting speed of D200? Is it simply because Nikon doesn't think that any D200 user is using jpeg (if they do I think they are wrong)? I don't know. This is what I want to discuss.

As I said, if D80 produces better jpegs (over all) than D200, why doesn't Nikon port the D80 engine to D200? They have, as I see it, nothing to loose and only things to win by doing so.

Therefore my suggestion is this. Go to a camera store & bring a CF
card. Shoot some shots with both cameras at the ISOs you choose.
Shoot with the SAME camera settings. Either shoot RAW or JPG,
though I would HIGHLY recommend RAW as that's where you'll see the
camera's true colors.

Well, a camera is much more than the quality of raw.

If the quality of raw had been the only important factor, then no one would use D200 and most people had been using Canons. I see this is not the case and I therefore make the assumption that things beside raw is of importance.

One of the things besides quality of raw that is of importance is the quality of the produced jpeg, but this is not the reason for my original post.

Of course it would be of interest to compare the quality of the raw images between D80 and D200 since this could give some insight into why the D80 jpeg engine is better (if it really is).

If you wish for High ISO - go with a Canon since I keep hearing how
great they are at high ISO. Personally I rarely shoot higher than
ISO 400. I take the easy route, faster lenses 50 f/1.4 or any f/1.4
comes to mind. Or I just use the on board built in flash or
just one or both of my SB-800s.

Flash nor fast lenses can compensate for noise in all cases.

With the light you have available to you right now in Sweden you
should not have to shoot at such high ISOs. I live in Los Angeles &
I can tell you I KNOW you have MORE LIGHT than I have most of the
time this time of the year. This is not mid winter - we're heading
for Midsommar.

You are orrect. But I do take pictures when it isn't that much light either. As you know the light in the winter is much less here than in Los Angeles.

If you are truly considering a semipro camera, then at least spend
the money on fast lenses.

That's why 5D is out of the question.

Med vänliga hälsningar
Lil

Med vänliga hälsningar,
Erik

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow