Is D80 photo noise at high ISO, really a problem for low light photography ??

gardener10 said:

Thank you Brian! Your post is really helpful! This is the type of
detail I've been looking for. I understand you point about the D3
and D300. Are you saying that the D40 would "visually" show less
noise at 800 ISO and above because of the the lower resolution ? (or
lower pixel number) I've struggled to understand this point about
the 6 MP and the 10 MP Nikon DSLR's.

Click to expand...

Cheers! If you shoot the same subject at ISO 1600 with a D40 and a D80, you'll see a similar level of detail and texture in a print at the same size, or if you resize to a lower resolution. The full resolution D80 file will have more pixels but there is less detail and more noise per pixel. If you are looking at a 100% or higher image on screen the D40 pixels will look cleaner. At ISO 800 or below the D80 will show more detail than any 6-mpix body because of its extra pixels. Subjectively, I like the detail on the D80 up to ISO 400 and I like the D40 up to ISO 800.

A D300 at ISO 800/1600 will have similar per-pixel noise as the D40 but twice the pixels. A Canon 5D or any of the new Nikon/Canon pro bodies will have lower per-pixel noise and more pixels and will just crush the lower cost bodies. Wait for the hypothetical D90 (D300 sensor in a plastic body) if you want a cheap low-noise Nikon.

On the D80, there is quite a bit of NR in jpg even when the "high iso nr" shooting menu is set to "off". This is the trend. The D40 has mandatory (non-adjustable) noise reduction but it is not as obtrusive at ISO 1600 because the sensor is cleaner to start with. At ISO 3200 the D40 looks terrible.

Canon has had NR in the chips for a long time so that it gets applied even to the raw file and the D3 is the same way. But the D3 is so sensitive that it only starts looking waxy and nasty at super high ISO like above 6400.

What would be your planned use for the camera. The D80 would be much cleaner than a point and shoot. The D40 could be a better choice. I have not used a D40 but it does appear that the image quality is very good. From the samples I have viewed the D40 seems to be very sharp like my old d70 was. Comparing my D80 images to my old D70 images the D70 seems to be a little sharper if viewing at 100% if I resample the D80 images to the same size as the D70 images then they are about the same. If I just get on with making prints up to 8x10 inchs from the d80 jpgs then the prints are very good regardless of the ISO I shot at. If I shoot RAW and use neat image to remove noise then the images are even better. There is nothing wrong with noise reduction if it get you a better print. The trick is not to use too much you don't have to remove all of the noise just enough to make a better looking print.

But this is only because exessive noise reduction kicks in above iso 400 im the D80. Imo the D300 has at least one stop advantage if you consider the noise/detail relation.
--
Heinz
http://pbase.com/wembly

Hi rhlpetrus,
Let me add a little to what you said...
DIRECT flash would have killed this picture.

As a non family member, I might say that the grain makes the picture look a little spooky, but I don't know the people in the picture so I have no personal connections to affect my reference of how the situation was. It's not a criticism but it's just how the graininess hits my eye.

Also, I'm not sure that women like to have motled looking skin using pseudo ISO3200 like in this picture. It might have been possible to bounce flash (maybe even straight behind you or to the right wall to maintain a non flash look and be able to raise the ISO a bit (ISO800 or even ISO400). But of course sometimes you simply can't use flash and you gotta do what you can to preserve the memory.

The D80 in-camera generated pseudo ISO3200 hasn't enticed me to upgrade from the D50, so I am waiting a little longer to upgrade. If I didn't have the D50 and only had a D80 then I might find a use for the ISO3200 but the slowness of the technology to upgrade chip sensitivity has nudged me over to thinking about working on flash technique instead of always pushing the low light ISO limits.

After taking many thousands of ISO1600 pictures, it's nice to have some low light ISO400 (flash) shots that simply have more information in the picture to post process.

And also ever since I started working on my flash technique, I find that I spend less time on this forum lusting over and trying to anticipate the next boost in ISO sensitivity. I'm having fun sculpting the lighting and find myself thinking differently about scenes so it becomes less black and white from "How can I maintain a reasonable shutter speed?" to "How can I help this scene with a bit of side or back lighting and shadows?"

So I would recommend to anyone to first find your camera's low light limits and your abilities, then try to find a way to play with flash. Natural light pictures can sort of be body/sensor dependent whereas flash technique can work for all cameras.

Playing with flash has been a more constructive use of my time as I wait for the next camera upgrade. I feel like I'm learning something rather than just sitting on my hands waiting.

Guy Moscoso

rhlpetrus said:

Here is one at 3200 ISO, which I think is quite appropriate for the
theme (candid, ambient indoor light, evening). Flash would have
destroyed it (closer left side would get blown). Finished with
Capture NX, I've finally learned how to get the grain to look sharp
but not artificial.



--
Regards, RHLPedrosa

Click to expand...

rhlpetrus said:

gardener10 said:

Brian Caulfield said:

Nikon had to market the D80 with high ISO settings even though it
goes downhill starting at ISO 800. So they put in a heap of JPG
engine noise reduction which cannot be turned off. As with any
in-camera NR it destroys low-contrast texture like hair. The only way
to avoid the NR is raw processing and you still have to accept that
detail suffers a lot above ISO 800.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

You can turn high ISO NR also in jpegs. I don't understand this remark.

Click to expand...

Even when "high iso nr" is turned off in the menu, it is actually still performed on any jpg you shoot from ISO 800 up. If you want to avoid the in-camera NR you have to shoot raw. That's all I meant.

rhlpetrus said:

But people here should have a better perspective on noise. For
low-light shooting w/o flash, results form ISO 3200 with D80 are
about equivalent to ISO 800 on film (in fact, I have tested the D80
in many situations and compared to my old 400 ASA b&w pics and in
many cases the D80's images are better reagarding noise/grain). So,
even though there are better cameras already available, it's not the
disaster pleople here seems to imply. And I like the results for b&w
very much.

Click to expand...

Yes, a D80 is better than 35mm film in low light. But among DSLRs on the market, the D80 has poor high ISO noise performance. A $400 (new) Canon 350D blows it away at ISO 1600, and that's the worst high-ISO DSLR Canon sells today. The original poster said "I'd really like to be able to take low light shots without the noise." A D80 is just about the worst choice on the market for that. If the original poster wants a Nikon to shoot in low light, the D300 is it and the D80 is not.

gmosc said:

And also ever since I started working on my flash technique, I find
that I spend less time on this forum lusting over and trying to
anticipate the next boost in ISO sensitivity. I'm having fun
sculpting the lighting and find myself thinking differently about
scenes so it becomes less black and white from "How can I maintain a
reasonable shutter speed?" to "How can I help this scene with a bit
of side or back lighting and shadows?"

Click to expand...

I too find that the idea of lighting with flash removes the need for low light capability. I can get very nice images at 3200iso with my D2Hs, yet I generally do not like the look of images shot in low light. Images lit properly by flash have far more detail in them and far fewer harsh shadows, where the low light cannot penetrate.

gmosc said:

So I would recommend to anyone to first find your camera's low light
limits and your abilities, then try to find a way to play with flash.
Natural light pictures can sort of be body/sensor dependent whereas
flash technique can work for all cameras.

Playing with flash has been a more constructive use of my time as I
wait for the next camera upgrade. I feel like I'm learning something
rather than just sitting on my hands waiting.

Click to expand...

Totally agree. http://strobist.blogspot.com is a great place to start, the lighting 101 section and then the assignment section. Very interesting stuff.

--
http://letkeman.net/Photos
http://kimletkeman.blogspot.com

Stujomo said:

What would be your planned use for the camera. The D80 would be much
cleaner than a point and shoot. The D40 could be a better choice. I
have not used a D40 but it does appear that the image quality is very
good. From the samples I have viewed the D40 seems to be very sharp
like my old d70 was. Comparing my D80 images to my old D70 images the
D70 seems to be a little sharper if viewing at 100% if I resample the
D80 images to the same size as the D70 images then they are about the
same. If I just get on with making prints up to 8x10 inchs from the
d80 jpgs then the prints are very good regardless of the ISO I shot
at. If I shoot RAW and use neat image to remove noise then the images
are even better. There is nothing wrong with noise reduction if it
get you a better print. The trick is not to use too much you don't
have to remove all of the noise just enough to make a better looking
print.

Click to expand...

Stujomo

First of all, I have a Canon Powershot S1 IS (3.2 MP). I've had it for about 3 1/2 years. I've used almost every feature on the camera. I've experimented with exposure, different flash intensities, different compositions and ISO settings. I like it because it's light and easy to carry around. Currently, I am disappointed with the limitations of the camera in low light settings. The camera also seems to have occasional problems with focus. I frequently have to make adjustments in PS Elements to get the pictures to look better. After alot of research I've realized that I need to get a DSLR to be able to get the kind of control I need over my pictures. I realize that occasionally you have to make adjustments to your camera settings in order to get the best photo. I don't mind having to make camera adjustments.

I'd like to be able to take photos of landscapes, nature photography(when hiking or walking), football games, birthday parties, macro shots of my garden, sunsets and sunrises. I have experimented (with various degrees of success) with using flash. I like to try to use as much of the natural light as possible. I'm intrigued by the effects of lower light settings. I find alot of my disappointing pictures come when I try to take photos of sunsets and of people indoors (at night using incandescent lighting).

I really like the Nikon DSLR's. They feel great in your hands and seemed to be impeccably designed. I was almost ready to get the D80 until I found out that the D300 was coming out. I assumed ( incorrectly) that Nikon might likely pass these features down to a D80 successor. Now ( after the PMA) I know that that's not going to happen any time too soon. So I began to look at the D80 again and saw a post about the about noise problems above 800 ISO. Given that I like to be able to control alot of the features of my photos, I'm not sure the D40 would be the best option ( although I do like it's weight). I have looked at the Canon 40D and have been impressed by it's low light performance, but have somewhat disappointed by it's size and limited lens options. I can just barely afford it now. The D300 is a great camera but way out of my price range. Sorry to be so "long winded" but I hope that gives you some sense of my current dilemma.

I thought that I'd post a few photos from my Canon PS that illustrate the low light issues I'm concerned about. I'll go from the worst noise to more acceptable noise.













So, I am open to any ideas people have about a DSLR purchase.
Should I go with a D80 and a 18-200mm VR lens, a Canon 40D
with a 28-135 mm IS the Nikon D40 or something else??. I really
don't want to have to wait alot longer, there are pictures that
need taken...( humor, but mostly true).

Gardener10

Just a general comment on your comment: I use flash too (have a SB600), but I don't mind sacrificing detail in some cases for some intimacy of shooting w/o one. And you may need it at a club or a social gathering where flash is not allowed.

And I agree that the quest for perfect high ISO is a bit overblown, even though I wouldn't mind having the D3 capability in a smaller and cheaper body

And there's a very interesting thing I've learned while trying to process noisy images into b&w: the final amount of grain, it's size and quality, can be much altered depending how you do it, in particular how you do sharpening.

If you start with more sharpening at full size and just adjust at final downsizing (for internet posting for example), you'd get larger grain than if if you start with very little sharpening and then do many little sharpening steps while gradually diminishing size. I realized this after I had posted that image.

Here are two different versions of same NEF (3200 ISO), both shot in the same session as the previous image, processed differently (but no NR applied to either):

1. 1: less grain (to me quite nice from noise/grain pov)

1. 2: more grain (similar process as done for first image posted in previous post)

gmosc said:

Hi rhlpetrus,
Let me add a little to what you said...
DIRECT flash would have killed this picture.
As a non family member, I might say that the grain makes the picture
look a little spooky, but I don't know the people in the picture so I
have no personal connections to affect my reference of how the
situation was. It's not a criticism but it's just how the graininess
hits my eye.

Also, I'm not sure that women like to have motled looking skin using
pseudo ISO3200 like in this picture. It might have been possible to
bounce flash (maybe even straight behind you or to the right wall to
maintain a non flash look and be able to raise the ISO a bit (ISO800
or even ISO400). But of course sometimes you simply can't use flash
and you gotta do what you can to preserve the memory.

The D80 in-camera generated pseudo ISO3200 hasn't enticed me to
upgrade from the D50, so I am waiting a little longer to upgrade. If
I didn't have the D50 and only had a D80 then I might find a use for
the ISO3200 but the slowness of the technology to upgrade chip
sensitivity has nudged me over to thinking about working on flash
technique instead of always pushing the low light ISO limits.
After taking many thousands of ISO1600 pictures, it's nice to have
some low light ISO400 (flash) shots that simply have more information
in the picture to post process.

And also ever since I started working on my flash technique, I find
that I spend less time on this forum lusting over and trying to
anticipate the next boost in ISO sensitivity. I'm having fun
sculpting the lighting and find myself thinking differently about
scenes so it becomes less black and white from "How can I maintain a
reasonable shutter speed?" to "How can I help this scene with a bit
of side or back lighting and shadows?"

So I would recommend to anyone to first find your camera's low light
limits and your abilities, then try to find a way to play with flash.
Natural light pictures can sort of be body/sensor dependent whereas
flash technique can work for all cameras.

Playing with flash has been a more constructive use of my time as I
wait for the next camera upgrade. I feel like I'm learning something
rather than just sitting on my hands waiting.

Guy Moscoso

Click to expand...

gmosc said:

gmosc said:

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
Regards, RHLPedrosa

gardener10 said:

So, I am open to any ideas people have about a DSLR purchase.
Should I go with a D80 and a 18-200mm VR lens, a Canon 40D
with a 28-135 mm IS the Nikon D40 or something else??. I really
don't want to have to wait alot longer, there are pictures that
need taken...( humor, but mostly true).

Gardener10

Click to expand...

The Canon 40D has probably the best high ISO noise performance of the bunch, very close to the D300.

If you really like Nikon, maybe wait a bit for D90, will probably be same as D300 in that aspect (same sensor and soft).

All, including D40/D80, will give you much better performance than your P&S at lowlight and other aspects, especially regarding low-light focus ability and very little shutter lag.

Up to ISO800, they are all very similar, above that you'll start to see differences.

Have you checked the "comparometer" at Imaging Resource:

http://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM

You can select 2 cameras and then images posted for them of same subjects. Check the different iso images of still life (image with bottles, cloth, etc). Very good to check IQ from cameras (even though theses are jpegs, so all aspects, detail sharpness, color and noise depend on camera settings, using RAW (digital file) and software you can manipulate all of them).

Good luck.

--
Regards, RHLPedrosa

Many say D40 is "better" than D80 re noise. Some qualify it saying that after resizing it's about same.

Imaging resource has images at all ISO settings for botgh cameras. I chose ISO1600 to check. Here are 100% crops:

D80 100%



D40 100%



Now D80 downsized (in capture NX) to match D40 100% size with same FOV (77%):



I see D80 better even at 100%. At 3200 difference is even bigger.

Notice that when downsizing one usually needs some extra-sharpening to get detail back, but in this case detail is better in D80's image (check letter in dial and bottles).

So my verdict: D40 better is myth.

--
Regards, RHLPedrosa

rhlpetrus,

mmmm "D3 capabilty in a smaller and cheaper body " (said with a Homer Simpson voice)
That's what I'm waiting for, too!

That 's good noise reductionish PP work on the first image, although I suspect that if it was shot in jpeg it would have been closer from the start.

The two examples you show here remind me that I've been meaning to start a thread about D50 ISO1600 jpeg shooting. I've experienced that second example's noise when I shot NEF. It disappears when I shoot jpeg. I use as an advantage the natural noise reduction/smoothing that comes with shooting in jpeg.

I personally have no desire to work on noise reduction on each image. (I had lack of success doing batch noise reduction with Neat image and noise ninja.)

Since I didn't "grow up with film" and have no preferences or opinions on film grain, I don't think about it much. I sort of let the technology improve around me and reap the benefits as they come. I don't have an eye for using the grain to the benefit of the composition. I think more and more people are going to be in that boat, too since film grain (or digital approximations) are eventually going to work like a photoshop plug-in where you dial it in to "get nostalgic". You know, just like how people make a modern video jitter and look like it has the actual film shooting by as an effect.

Guy Moscoso

rhlpetrus said:

Here are two different versions of same NEF (3200 ISO), both shot in
the same session as the previous image, processed differently (but no
NR applied to either):

1. 1: less grain (to me quite nice from noise/grain pov)

1. 2: more grain (similar process as done for first image posted in

previous post)

Click to expand...

BDMYSTIFY said:

eNo said:

BDMYSTIFY said:

It's well worth the Low Noise at High ISOs performance.

Click to expand...

Out of curiosity, is this better noise performance evident in RAW
(NEF) output, or only in JPG?

Click to expand...

So far, all of the D300 RAW files that I've opened in Capture NX look
better than the D80 RAW files at higher ISOs. As I think it's been
mentioned, it seems that that's so because the D300 has a better
in-camera noise reduction. I've never noticed any difference between
RAW (output) noise vs. JPG (output) noise because embedded within the
RAW data is that same JPG file. Someday, I might do a test just to
be sure. Great question!

Click to expand...

I asked this same question in the D300 forum, and the folks there indicated the D300 chip has better noise performance.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1039&message=26806468

This is good news since NR has the counter-compromise of loss of detail. I would want the RAW to be, as captured by the chip, less noisy and not NR'ed post capture (let me do that in PP, if I care to). This appears to be the case in the D300, and if it's also the case in its upcoming little brother (D90?), I may very tempted to pick up a body...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Test everything; hold on to the good.



Old photos: http://esuastegui.esmartweb.com/c2020z
New photos: http://esuastegui.esmartweb.com/D80

This weekend I was in a dimly lit restaurant at in the evening. To preserve the privacy of my company I won't post the pics so I ask you to take my word on my observations.

I know this may not come as a big surprise to most people here, but I will say what I have learned anyway--an adequately exposed shot at 3200 is much more workable in PP than an dimly exposed shot at 1600. Indeed, since I use Auto ISO indoors much of the time I rarely ventured about 1600. But on the weekend I cranked her up and bit the bullet and got some shots at 3200 that denoise and sharpen well enough to make for acceptable prints up to 5x7, and perhaps even 8x10. And this was with the on-camera denoising set to the default of NORM. Next time I will experiment with that setting too.

And I agree with the assertions that indoors one should really go with flash if possible. I have an SB-600 and to this day the best indoor people shots I have taken have been planned and with bounced or diffused flash.

But flash isn't always feasible. Indeed, I am very keen to hone my high ISO low light no flash skills to be ready for the arrival of our baby this summer. This is the main reason I have invested in faster lenses (Sigma 30mm F1.4 and 70mm F2.8) and have been using the flash less inside. I want to be ready

My D40 is on loan so I can't toss myself into the d40 vs. d80 high noise debate. But as a rank amateur I can assert that, for me, with adequate exposure I can produce pretty pleasing high ISO shots at 1600 on the D70 and D80, and above on the D80. But it is a tradeoff--I know that when I crank the ISO I correspondingly lower my expectations. And oftentimes I am pleasantly surprised--my recent ISO3200 adventure was a case in point.

FWIW, I should say that the ability to adjust ISO from shot to shot is one of the greatest advantages of digital over film shooting. The flexibility and power, if properly harnessed and respected, can provide great creative freedom. In the "old" days, the only way you could really have so many options in the field was to have several cameras weighing down your neck, like the Dennis Hopper character in Apocalype Now

Les

We had a dinner this past Sat at home and I used 3200 w/o flash to get people in funny and interesting situations, flash wouldn't allow for that.

Try b&w, they'll come out nicely.

Best.

shrinkie1964 said:

This weekend I was in a dimly lit restaurant at in the evening. To
preserve the privacy of my company I won't post the pics so I ask you
to take my word on my observations.

I know this may not come as a big surprise to most people here, but I
will say what I have learned anyway--an adequately exposed shot at
3200 is much more workable in PP than an dimly exposed shot at 1600.
Indeed, since I use Auto ISO indoors much of the time I rarely
ventured about 1600. But on the weekend I cranked her up and bit the
bullet and got some shots at 3200 that denoise and sharpen well
enough to make for acceptable prints up to 5x7, and perhaps even
8x10. And this was with the on-camera denoising set to the default of
NORM. Next time I will experiment with that setting too.

And I agree with the assertions that indoors one should really go
with flash if possible. I have an SB-600 and to this day the best
indoor people shots I have taken have been planned and with bounced
or diffused flash.

But flash isn't always feasible. Indeed, I am very keen to hone my
high ISO low light no flash skills to be ready for the arrival of our
baby this summer. This is the main reason I have invested in faster
lenses (Sigma 30mm F1.4 and 70mm F2.8) and have been using the flash
less inside. I want to be ready

My D40 is on loan so I can't toss myself into the d40 vs. d80 high
noise debate. But as a rank amateur I can assert that, for me, with
adequate exposure I can produce pretty pleasing high ISO shots at
1600 on the D70 and D80, and above on the D80. But it is a
tradeoff--I know that when I crank the ISO I correspondingly lower my
expectations. And oftentimes I am pleasantly surprised--my recent
ISO3200 adventure was a case in point.

FWIW, I should say that the ability to adjust ISO from shot to shot
is one of the greatest advantages of digital over film shooting. The
flexibility and power, if properly harnessed and respected, can
provide great creative freedom. In the "old" days, the only way you
could really have so many options in the field was to have several
cameras weighing down your neck, like the Dennis Hopper character in
Apocalype Now

Les

Click to expand...

--
Regards, RHLPedrosa

If you hear some folks (both here and from canon's forums), not only D80 is "the worse" camera there is for noise in the market now, but all Canons are so much better, starting with 350D, etc.

Using IR images here are 100% crops of 1600 ISO from both cameras. Not only D80's image is pretty good, but 40D shows banding in dark part (check cup), and detail is about same, with much less chroma noise from D80. I also think noise from D80 looks more "film-like".

1. 1 D80

1. 2 40D

--
Regards, RHLPedrosa

impressive, but honestly my D80 looks like this at iso 400 not 1600 :-( In fact the 40d is almost as good as the D300 in high iso.
--
Heinz
http://pbase.com/wembly

gmosc said:

rhlpetrus,

mmmm "D3 capabilty in a smaller and cheaper body " (said with a
Homer Simpson voice)
That's what I'm waiting for, too!

Click to expand...

So let's write Nikon about that!!

gmosc said:

That 's good noise reductionish PP work on the first image, although
I suspect that if it was shot in jpeg it would have been closer from
the start.

Click to expand...

Maybe, but I really only use jpegs for fast vieweing to choose images for PPing. My workflow is really arts&crafts style, slowphotog movement member here.

gmosc said:

The two examples you show here remind me that I've been meaning to
start a thread about D50 ISO1600 jpeg shooting. I've experienced that
second example's noise when I shot NEF. It disappears when I shoot
jpeg. I use as an advantage the natural noise reduction/smoothing
that comes with shooting in jpeg.
I personally have no desire to work on noise reduction on each image.
(I had lack of success doing batch noise reduction with Neat image
and noise ninja.)

Click to expand...

It's funny. Sharpening jpegs has some advantages, if your image doesn't have those smooth monochromatic surgfaces like blue skies, nice close-up skin, snow, etc. At least with NX, it seems to work faster (lower settings), and sometimes work very well.

With these images, if I tried to get from NEF best possible sharpening right at full size and then again at resizing, I got the second type of image. As I mentioned, first image I got with many small sharpening steps, resizing and going always to 100%.

gmosc said:

Since I didn't "grow up with film" and have no preferences or
opinions on film grain, I don't think about it much. I sort of let
the technology improve around me and reap the benefits as they come.
I don't have an eye for using the grain to the benefit of the
composition. I think more and more people are going to be in that
boat, too since film grain (or digital approximations) are eventually
going to work like a photoshop plug-in where you dial it in to "get
nostalgic". You know, just like how people make a modern video jitter
and look like it has the actual film shooting by as an effect.

Click to expand...

I'm not looking actually for a film type image, just get as much detail and good contrast and for that noise/grain cannot be muddy.

See what a real film print from a 400 ISO looked like in the old days (here the developer was AGFA Rodinal, known to push grain up but with very sharp texture). This is from 1977 (print included), Leica M3, Tri-X, Ektalure Paper. It's a bit too warm, I didn't correct WB.



--
Regards, RHLPedrosa

take into account that all these shots were taken under optimal lighting in studio, tripod, high quality prime lenses, etc. Anyway, at least conditions are same for all cameras.

My point is just that all these claims of vast superiority of one camera/brand over another re any IQ aspect usually don't survive carefully controlled scrutiny. This is what I call myth. It may well be that in some real life lighting conditions one is slightly better thamn the other, but Iread claim above that D80 is such a piece of cr@p re noise that shouldn't be even considered. That's BS, and these shots show that.

Moreover, this is impoprtant for the OPer who is moving from P&S to a dslr. He'll get very similar results with any of these cameras, should choose based on other aspects, like features (AF on D80 is better than on D40/D40X), size, if it focus with older lenses, dials, etc.

Best, Renato.

Heinz said:

impressive, but honestly my D80 looks like this at iso 400 not 1600
:-( In fact the 40d is almost as good as the D300 in high iso.
--
Heinz
http://pbase.com/wembly

Click to expand...

--
Regards, RHLPedrosa

Very good examples Dez!
--
Regards, RHLPedrosa

I see your point. All cameras i had performed worse than in these tests. And i didn't test the 40D of my own. I'm with you that the improovements are small increments no leaps how some people claim.
--
Heinz
http://pbase.com/wembly