Reading mode: Light Dark

This just in... Nikons rock at high ISO...

Go to last post
Ed_C said:
The thing I notice on this forum is that some people see grain in
EVERYTHING. I have to laugh over and over again at some of the noise
comments in this forum where some people seemingly think that if
there is any grain or noise you might as well have not taken the shot.
Click to expand...
A lot of people in this and other forums do nothing but look at 100% crops. Personally, I'd rather be out shooting.
Ed_C said:
I prefer to start with a clean image and add grain if I want it. I
would still rather capture a grainy moment and deal with it than to
not capture the moment at all.
Click to expand...
I agree 100%, which is why I went from a D200 to a 5D. I find the 5D produces more pleasing images to begin with, under a greater variety of existing light conditions. When I had the D200, I had to be ultra careful not to underexpose or else end up with tons of luminance noise.
 
the canon 5D outperforms EVER camera I own at ISO 1600 and 3200.
I've tested it again my D100, D70, D2h, D2x and SLR/n and it smokes them all.
so much so that I borrow it whenever I have a "big" concert to shoot.
thank you to my gf btw
--
-----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.returntothepit.com



pictures up within hours of the show
 
BillCarr said:
I'm shocked that you deleted all the EXIF information from those
photos. I can't tell anything at all from them.
Click to expand...
Deleted EXIF info? Sorry but you've got that wrong all together. Not sure if it's photobucket or what part of the pp process that does that... but it wasn't a "delete" as you suggest. For pp, here it is...

Open file (batch) in Capture NX. Correct WB (was initially set 4200K, was too warm after viewing on monitor - went .98 on red and 1.04 on blue using grey point). I cropped a few photos using NX too, and ran a slight USM on some photos (max 18/12/8 levels). I converted RAW file and saved as same file name as jpeg file. Open results using Corel Paint Shop Pro X, resize to 800 max width / height for upload to photobucket. Add the border (batch) using X, save as upload file name.

Before you make accusations in a harsh tone, you might want to verify your information - it makes the forum a much more tolerable place. There was no "delete" of exif info. If you want to see full size images, I'll email them. I don't upload files over 800 pixels for obvious posting and uploading reasons.

Specifically what exif info on what shot was it you were looking for... I'll get you the details...
--
Nikon gear
 
Daniel Roos said:
That's because D2H has the worst high ISO.
Try the upgrade D2Hs instead. It outperforms 1D MarkIII at high ISO.
Click to expand...
That's why i want to see a D3H soon. I am on the verge of getting Canon for low light sports work - used a 1dMkIIn with a 200 F1.8 and was pleased. D2Hs is a great camera but the file size is too small for the option of the clients printing big (they don't want use GF etc). Bottom line the client wants the larger files so i have to comply.
 
Benjammer said:
Who said the D2h is supposed to be a high noise camera? I Heard its
great at high iso's, better than the D200 or D2x at least, but thats
when comparing full size 100 percent photos I guess, and the D2x and
D200 are higher res, so your looking closer.

--
Meow
Link removed
If you'd like to see my photography site, let me know
Click to expand...
I hear it all the time, and frankly it is likely a noisier camera in my experience than my D200, ever slightly, at ISO's above 800. My point - again - was that pixel peeping to see if there's any evidence of noise existing has become so commonplace and so ridiculous that you'd swear people believe they're unusable at high ISO. Since then, it seems to have taken on a life of its own. ;) Some say the "s" model is better for controlling noise - and I can't comment with any valid experience.

Again, I'd take good color saturation and rendition over completely noise-free images any time... but what do I know?

--
Nikon gear
 
individual camera reviews and go to certain sections - "exposure" and "samples" are the two tabs you want to look at. They will give you extremely detailed test results AND real life images shot at all ISO values at 100%. Plenty of comparison tables on things like noise, dynamic range, etc.

Take a close look at the D40, D80, D50. Compare them to the Canons. The differences are negligible except at ISO3200 where the 1D3 really shines.
 
DJ Dunzie:

1. Nice images, thanks for sharing them.

2. Using high ISO settings of more recent Nikon DSLRs have not bothered me at all or cause me any reasons for concern.
--
BRJR....(My cameras & lenses are listed in my profile)
 
There is no question that Canon destroys Nikon in this regard.

BTW - where is your exif data?

The results you are demonstrating here - aside from color balance issues - are not standard for any current Nikon body at 1600 or 3200 ISO.

Maybe you go the majic Nikon - but otherwise I would say that this post isn't genuine...

Sorry,
Peter
--
Currenlty shooting w/Nikon gear
 
wupeide said:
There is no question that Canon destroys Nikon in this regard.

BTW - where is your exif data?

The results you are demonstrating here - aside from color balance
issues - are not standard for any current Nikon body at 1600 or 3200
ISO.

Maybe you go the majic Nikon - but otherwise I would say that this
post isn't genuine...

Sorry,
Peter
--
Currenlty shooting w/Nikon gear
Click to expand...
There's another thread here on Nikon luminance noise that shows the ugly side of Nikon noise, especially in underexposed shadows:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=24058698

I think this is similar to what many people have experienced/complain about.
 
You don't need to underexpose, see?

That, and there are no real heavy shadow areas in that hockey rink, so there's no reason to call them fakes. Perhaps he's just able to expose correctly? ;)
 
That's not exactly what I am trying to get at. I'm not so upset with D2X high ISO noise that I am willing to change to Canon. I HATE their ergonomics and feel that I would miss a lot of shots just for a bit less noise that can usually be solved in post anyway.

The noise that seems to get so many people so upset also just doesn't bother me that much. In my experience it doesn't show up so much in prints enough for clients to care at all or even in web presentations when prepared properly.

I am very thankful that I'm not one of the people who see noise everywhere and have to see 100% crops to be happy with a photo. I'm more concerned with the artistic merit of the shot.

--
Ed C.
 
Okay now I have gone from being ridiculed for believing Nikon cameras are capable high ISO machines - despite the overblown hype to the contrary - to now I am being accused of deleting exif data and manipulating opinion by altering and faking my posts and images.

You people just don't get it. Sorry... I'll rephrase... many of you do! Thanks for your comments and your input... it is good to see that there are people out there who use their gear and enjoy it instead of spending all their time caught up in internet forum debate. DPReview sometimes gets labelled as being a home for trolls and non-shooters who want to debate nothing. It's good to see there are lots of capable shooters who enjoy their gear and in helping others.

For those of you who like to be accusational... here you go.

Here is one of my images, tweaked in NX only. Apparently this is not where the loss of exif data happens, but rather either through the resize or border adding if done through PSP X. This was actually the cropped image, but apparently photobucket doesn't accept the full image and resizes automatically. Check the exif data if you need to, it is available according to photobucket.



Now, I resized in Capture NX so that I wouldn't have to upload and post humungous photos...



Then - only because you people kill me - I cropped a 100+ percent portion of the original jpg conversion (I'm told it ends up 106% crop or so)...



You'll notice that I don't have the nice custom border I created previously, unfortunately, because apparently that is the application where I lose the exif data (or as so eloquently put I conveniently delete it so that I can post ISO200 images and claim they're ISO1600... which is, of course, what I'm all about).

I pray to God I won't be asked to repost all my images... I will be quitting this discussion soon, because I am losing too much patience with the negativity and accusations, despite some very good discussion that intermingles with it. Enjoy and criticize the noisy Nikon images at 100% to your heart's content.

Or, better yet, just go shoot with your damn gear. Yes, you will find noise in Nikon images if you NEED to look for it on a 24 inch monitor. Yes, Canons are likely better at removing noise and noisy artifacts from images at ISO3200 in camera - at least SOME Canons vs SOME Nikons. And yes, you can see noise in dark regions more than properly exposed ice surfaces. You all have missed my point if this is what you choose to focus on.

My point is, you CAN use Nikon cameras to produce terrific results even if your shooting requires you use ISO1600 and ISO3200 as MINE DOES. Heck, I'm not even a very accomplished photographer in my own estimation, but I do understand the importance of proper exposure (in this case, you'll notice... OVERexposure as is required to shoot hockey) and proper levels.

Look, I don't criticize anyone who genuinely believes another brand of gear will make their shooting experience more enjoyable... at all. In fact, in some situations for some shooters, they're likely making a good decision. I just wish people would stop buying into the hype that Nikons are UNUSABLE above ISO640. I have a lot of large prints that prove it just ain't so, and happy hockey parents that'll back up my claims.

--
Nikon gear
 
You are the one who named your thread...."This just in... Nikons rock at high ISO..." It's obvious to most photographers that have both Nikons and Canons that Nikons do NOT rock at high ISO. Some in this forum, including revaaron have both brands and shoot hundreds of high ISO pics every week. Check his concert website out.

Instead of "This just in... Nikons rock at high ISO..." why didn't you just post something like..."Got Some Nice High ISO Pics Out of my Nikon." You'd still recieve several replies about how your pics are not the type that normally show noise, but at least it wouldn't be so controversial.

What did you mean by "this just in?" Are you saying that YOU JUST discovered that Nikons are great at high ISO?

To most on this forum, it doesn't matter that Nikon's are not great at high ISO...they don't shoot regularly with limited light and they like all the other great virtues of Nikon's cameras.

On a side note, I wouldn't go to the Canon forums and title a post "This just in...Canon Flash Systems Rock..." just because I got some good pics out of my Canon when everyone knows that the Canon flash systems are not up to par with the Nikons.
DJ Dunzie said:
Okay now I have gone from being ridiculed for believing Nikon cameras
are capable high ISO machines - despite the overblown hype to the
contrary - to now I am being accused of deleting exif data and
manipulating opinion by altering and faking my posts and images.

You people just don't get it. Sorry... I'll rephrase... many of you
do! Thanks for your comments and your input... it is good to see
that there are people out there who use their gear and enjoy it
instead of spending all their time caught up in internet forum
debate. DPReview sometimes gets labelled as being a home for trolls
and non-shooters who want to debate nothing. It's good to see there
are lots of capable shooters who enjoy their gear and in helping
others.

For those of you who like to be accusational... here you go.

Here is one of my images, tweaked in NX only. Apparently this is not
where the loss of exif data happens, but rather either through the
resize or border adding if done through PSP X. This was actually the
cropped image, but apparently photobucket doesn't accept the full
image and resizes automatically. Check the exif data if you need to,
it is available according to photobucket.



Now, I resized in Capture NX so that I wouldn't have to upload and
post humungous photos...



Then - only because you people kill me - I cropped a 100+ percent
portion of the original jpg conversion (I'm told it ends up 106% crop
or so)...



You'll notice that I don't have the nice custom border I created
previously, unfortunately, because apparently that is the application
where I lose the exif data (or as so eloquently put I conveniently
delete it so that I can post ISO200 images and claim they're
ISO1600... which is, of course, what I'm all about).

I pray to God I won't be asked to repost all my images... I will be
quitting this discussion soon, because I am losing too much patience
with the negativity and accusations, despite some very good
discussion that intermingles with it. Enjoy and criticize the noisy
Nikon images at 100% to your heart's content.

Or, better yet, just go shoot with your damn gear. Yes, you will
find noise in Nikon images if you NEED to look for it on a 24 inch
monitor. Yes, Canons are likely better at removing noise and noisy
artifacts from images at ISO3200 in camera - at least SOME Canons vs
SOME Nikons. And yes, you can see noise in dark regions more than
properly exposed ice surfaces. You all have missed my point if this
is what you choose to focus on.

My point is, you CAN use Nikon cameras to produce terrific results
even if your shooting requires you use ISO1600 and ISO3200 as MINE
DOES. Heck, I'm not even a very accomplished photographer in my own
estimation, but I do understand the importance of proper exposure (in
this case, you'll notice... OVERexposure as is required to shoot
hockey) and proper levels.

Look, I don't criticize anyone who genuinely believes another brand
of gear will make their shooting experience more enjoyable... at all.
In fact, in some situations for some shooters, they're likely making
a good decision. I just wish people would stop buying into the hype
that Nikons are UNUSABLE above ISO640. I have a lot of large prints
that prove it just ain't so, and happy hockey parents that'll back up
my claims.

--
Nikon gear
Click to expand...
 
Lenny C said:
You are the one who named your thread...."This just in... Nikons rock
at high ISO..." It's obvious to most photographers that have both
Nikons and Canons that Nikons do NOT rock at high ISO. Some in this
forum, including revaaron have both brands and shoot hundreds of high
ISO pics every week. Check his concert website out.

Instead of "This just in... Nikons rock at high ISO..." why didn't
you just post something like..."Got Some Nice High ISO Pics Out of my
Nikon." You'd still recieve several replies about how your pics are
not the type that normally show noise, but at least it wouldn't be so
controversial.

What did you mean by "this just in?" Are you saying that YOU JUST
discovered that Nikons are great at high ISO?
Click to expand...
Lenny, I do see your point here, honest... however the title was chosen tongue in cheek in a frustrated response to all the - as I've termed it - "overhype" over how noisy Nikons are. It was clearly intended as a very sarcastic way to draw attention to my point that you CAN get clean results with a Nikon at high ISO.

I did not just "discover" my beliefs, I just happened to have cause to use my cameras at very high ISO's for the first time for sports shooting (been pampered with ISO400 to ISO800 shooting baseball this summer) in a while, and have been reading SOOOOO many posts about how terrible Nikons perform at high ISO and I guess I decided I would make it a mission to make a statement.

However, I do see how you and others would take stake at my title in the assumption I was trying to prove that Nikons outperform Canons. It's just misunderstood. I freely acknowledge that tests have shown using scientific data that some newer Canon models can outdo their Nikon counterparts (particularly the pro bodies) at removing noise artifacts in camera. I just hate that so many people are making such a big deal about ONE aspect of camera performance. Do a search for "NIKON NOISE" on this forum. Maybe you'll see where I'm coming from. It's nuts.

Further, I'm also the one who's being accused of posting fake or altered images and the sort all of a sudden. These kind of personal attacks - in my opinion at least - are not only unfair but counterproductive in discussions, agreed?

Thanks for the comment though, I do see your point.
 
Saying Nikon rocks at high ISO doesn't in any way imply Canon doesn't. By your logic saying The Who rocks would imply that Led Zeppelin doesn't. (or insert any 2 groups that you think are good in)

Not that he owes you grammatical perfection but I believe that what the OP was trying to share with people that might believe all the hype that you can't shoot Nikon above 640 ISO is that you can if you get the exposure correct.

--
Ed C.
 
Ed_C said:
Saying Nikon rocks at high ISO doesn't in any way imply Canon
doesn't. By your logic saying The Who rocks would imply that Led
Zeppelin doesn't. (or insert any 2 groups that you think are good in)

Not that he owes you grammatical perfection but I believe that what
the OP was trying to share with people that might believe all the
hype that you can't shoot Nikon above 640 ISO is that you can if you
get the exposure correct.
Click to expand...
Led Zeppelin doesn't rock?!!! Oh man, I need to start a new thread... ;)
 
OK, Ford Pintos rocked on safety issues! (I had a Ford Pinto in the 1970s and it was hit hard from behind twice and my gas tank never blew up).

Ford Explorers with Firestone tires rock at cornering! (I had a 90s era Ford Explorer with Firestone tires and I never had a blowout nor flipped my vehicle over).

Dell laptops from 2006 have great batteries and run cool! (I had one and it worked fine despite that Dell recalled 4.1 million laptops to fix the problem).

My point is I had all these products and they were notorious for certain negative idiosynchrocies yet I had no problems (but realized there were indeed problems under certain conditions).
Ed_C said:
Saying Nikon rocks at high ISO doesn't in any way imply Canon
doesn't. By your logic saying The Who rocks would imply that Led
Zeppelin doesn't. (or insert any 2 groups that you think are good in)

Not that he owes you grammatical perfection but I believe that what
the OP was trying to share with people that might believe all the
hype that you can't shoot Nikon above 640 ISO is that you can if you
get the exposure correct.

--
Ed C.
Click to expand...
 
Well, I am the member who called the D2H rubbish at high ISO and I still maintain that viewpoint.

Take the camera out of an arena that has a white, highly light reflective surface and also has white walls up to say 4 feet into a dimly lit basket ball stadium/ gymnasium and mixed lighting. It is a totally different environment to what you have shown.

By the way, the images you have taken are good and I am happy that you are contented with the results from your D2H.
--
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

 
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