For those switching from Canon to D300: question on low-iso noise

mp101 · Nov 2, 2008

I'm thinking to switch from Canon to D300 but I'm worried about the noise at low iso, especially in dark areas.

That's because I'm finding posts of people complaining about this.

Usually you are used at noise in High Iso, but low iso should be cleaner.

So, I would like to some suggestion from people that had the opportunity to use both Canon cameras and D300.

Thanks

TOF guy · Nov 2, 2008

I don't see a problem with noise at low iso with the d300. But what works for one person may not work for another. Why don't you look at low iso d300 images posted here and make your own judgements. In addition to images posted by dpreview, there are other sites which let you see similar pictures taken with both Canon and Nikon cameras, as well.

Then you can decide for yourself whether there is noise in the shots, and if there is, whether it is acceptable to you or not.

Unless you have invested little in your gear, I question whether the switch is worth any advantage the D300 may have over your current camera.

Good luck no matter which way you choose.
--
Thierry

Baywing · Nov 2, 2008

I think the D300 is like any other camera, if your shot is properly exposed and you aren't trying to post process the life out it, it's fine. I regularly shoot my D300 at it's native 200 ISO and haven't encountered any issues, even when underexposing by 0.3-0.7 stops. I have heard that if you take the D300 below the native ISO of 200, things start to deteriorate, but I've never gone there. If I really need ISO 100, I grab my D2x.
--

'I may not know much about art, but I know what I like' John Cleese, Monty Python
http://www.pbase.com/baywing

David Nall · Nov 2, 2008

Here is a large picture that I took the other day, and it has lots of dark areas, but I don't see any noise. Perhaps if you blow it up and pixel peep one might see some. In my opinion it is a non issue. Dave
D300 Tamron 28 75 2.8 macro ISO 200 1/640th 28mm f2.8

--
Visit my gallery at http://www.poperotzy.smugmug.com
There is a link for saving 5.OO on your own Smugmug account.

dumbo · Nov 3, 2008

I find than in most cases people complain about that they have used active D-lighting, which lifts the shadows and therefor also give more noise.

In real world situations/applications I don't really see noise as an issue with the D300 weather it's in low or high ISO. Then, some other people might be more picky than I am...

Edit:

I might add that I've not switched from Canon, but used Canons some, though I have friends that shoot Canon (300D, 400D and 40D).

Nikonworks · Nov 3, 2008

So you distilled your comparative process to your stated issue of 'noise in shadows of low ISO D300 images'.

Well relax, there is no shadow noise in low ISO D300 images.

The only way you will see noise in D300 image shadows is if you do no properly expose your shot. This applies to all digital cameras by the way.

When you say ' That's because I'm finding posts of people complaining about this.'
you are actually finding posts by people not using their D300 properly.

I switched from 5D to D300, I am extremely happy and after almost a year I know my Nikon stuff helps me be a better phtographer more than my Canon stuff did.
Not to knock Canon. This is just my expierence.

You are considering a major expenditure, so I humbly suggest, that you base your decisions on facts, not on every statement you read on the WWW.

Start here in DPReview's D300 review. No better place to obtain the facts on the D300 and others.

mp101 · Nov 3, 2008

Actually I already invested a lot of money in Canon, with L lenses etc, but there is always something wrong.

Mainly the AF accuracy (static subjects, the simplest), in my experience. Even after many AF calibration from the service.

I was thinking to 50D, that has the AF fine tuning but I'm afraid of buying someting else from Canon, as I was never satisfied.
You by a 1200$ lens and then you have to go to the service... frustrating...

I'm sure D300 will be good for me, but the only doubt I have is for noise.

You can see from any review that the black patch is clearly higher (at ISO

But the reviews are not so important.

The fact is that, looking at photo posted, I found examples that made me think about. I found examples at 200 ISO where the was a clearly visible noise (example on a black horse).
I suppose the problem (if exists) is between ISO 200 and ISO 400.

I would like to see other examples, if possible.

Regards

mp101 · Nov 3, 2008

Just to give an example of what you can find:

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/D300/YDSC_1392.HTM

or directly:

You can look at the head of black horse.

Overall it is a goo photo ( i think.)

chevysales · Nov 3, 2008

i am toying seriously with the idea and from my online comparisons of pictures shot by users who know what they are dooing i don't see a difference in low iso noise. the 40d may extract a tiny bit more detail out of the shadows but i do not see more low iso noise.

and by that i mean iso 400 and under properly exposed comparisons.

--

Forty-Dee paired with the Seventy-Two Hundred IS f4L and the Seventeen-FiftyFive IS f2.8 capped off with B+W MRC UV filters, B+W Kaesemann Circular Polarizers, Phottix Wireless Remote, Manfrotto 055xprob/488rc2. All comfortably carried with Kata R102 backpack... adding as needed :> )

chevysales · Nov 3, 2008

very good point.

and a very true statement to many in the last paragraph. having not a ton invested but what many would consider a decent amount of time has made me really llok harder than normal. if it was the d700 it wouldn't even be a thought but i wish to stay cropped scamera.

.... if only the 17-55 f2.8 was vr as i wont give up the f2.8, but i may have to give up coffee and cigs.... hey this may not be so bad after all

--

Forty-Dee paired with the Seventy-Two Hundred IS f4L and the Seventeen-FiftyFive IS f2.8 capped off with B+W MRC UV filters, B+W Kaesemann Circular Polarizers, Phottix Wireless Remote, Manfrotto 055xprob/488rc2. All comfortably carried with Kata R102 backpack... adding as needed :> )

chevysales · Nov 3, 2008

thank you for your post to the OP.

as i too am looking to switch.
--

Forty-Dee paired with the Seventy-Two Hundred IS f4L and the Seventeen-FiftyFive IS f2.8 capped off with B+W MRC UV filters, B+W Kaesemann Circular Polarizers, Phottix Wireless Remote, Manfrotto 055xprob/488rc2. All comfortably carried with Kata R102 backpack... adding as needed :> )

KennyKB · Nov 3, 2008

I've scrutinized the head of the black horse and I don't see any noise even at 100%. Maybe it's just me but if there is any noise it's too tiny to worry about.

97C5L · Nov 3, 2008

Maybe I need a new monitor but I can't find any noise.
--

When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle. Edmund Burke

dewayne howse · Nov 3, 2008

I made the switch from Canon to Nikon and I'm glad I did, no regrets. The menu system, ergonomics, and focusing system are tops. Sensor noise is not a problem all the way to 1600 iso. If you look at the 300d's review and also the 50d's review, I would think they are spot with what you'd expect noise to be like if your using ACR. It has been a long known fact that ACR introduces more noise in its processing. But ACR give some extremely user friendly controls, and that is why its still the standard for raw processing.

Now as for the Picture of the grazing horses we are not looking at low iso noise we are looking at, shadow clipping which could have been lessened with a color balanced fill flash.

Bernd Schmidt · Nov 3, 2008

Over the weekend I had a friend over with his D300, and I shot some test images with it and my EOS 350D (RAW and decoded with dcraw). I find the reviews on this site somewhat sloppy so I wanted to do a few tests myself.

My test didn't exactly cover the low ISO range you asked about; I only used ISO 400 and ISO 1600. From a noise point of view, it turns out that the two cameras were virtually identical. To my (Canon user's) eye the 350D appears to have minimally less noise at ISO 1600, while the D300 has a bit more highlight headroom. That's at a per-pixel level; the D300 resolution advantage should help when looking at the image as a whole. The result is that for myself, I've confirmed that the D300 is a really nice camera.

I might post some images in a separate thread if there's interest.

Note that most cameras have noise at low ISO. On my 350D it's noticeable if I have to push exposure by a stop or so at ISO 200. It's not something I'd worry about.

MikeV99 · Nov 3, 2008

I am trying to make a decision between the 50D and 300D. Based on the ratings posted in the dp review of both cameras, one might conclude the 300D is a better choice? I want to do wildlife at reasonably fast shutter speeds, with good DOF control, sharp images with minimal noise issues. I want something significantly better than a 20D. Anyone have experience using both the 50D and 300D that can offer a comparison?

Nikkor Nick · Nov 3, 2008

I have thousands of d300 photos shot at every iso available at

nickkessler.smugmug.com just go through the weddings galleries or portraits or other.

have fun!
--
Nick Kessler

mp101 · Nov 3, 2008

Yes, please,

I would appreciate if you could post some examples, if available.

Thanks

OleThorsen · Nov 3, 2008

I haven't used any Canon DSLRs so I can't compare, but I've never had any noise problems in shadows at low ISO with the D300. There has been some postings with users getting noisy skies, but I have never seen this.

Here is a D300 ISO200 sample taken with the Nikon 28-70 f2.8 lens, 12bit NEF converted with CaptureNX, based on the D2XMODE3 Picture Control.

Resized for web

100% crop (bottom left)

100% crop (middle)

100% crop (extreme right edge)

100% crop (top)

Here is a comparison of the D3 D300 and D2X cameras at ISO100, 12bit NEFs converted with CaptureNX, USM 50,5,1 applied

Fullsize JPGs:
D3: http://www.pbase.com/ole_thorsen/image/90439776
D300: http://www.pbase.com/ole_thorsen/image/90439777
D2X: http://www.pbase.com/ole_thorsen/image/90439774

Regards
Ole Thorsen
http://www.pbase.com/ole_thorsen

OMNISCIENCE

Knowing what
thou knowest not
is in a sense
omniscience.
(Grook by Piet Hein)

Ikeepem · Nov 3, 2008

--asking over in the Canon forum or are you just a confused chicken?? LOL! Sorry couldn't help it

I'll stick with the default answer..if your heavily invested in Canon gear, I don't see the purpose. You learn the strengths and weaknesses of any camera brand and deal with it...

'I am what I am and thats all I am' Popeye 1960. Favorite famous Hollywood celebrity. Don't have time for the rest.....

For those switching from Canon to D300: question on low-iso noise

Well-known member

Community Leader

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Leading Member

Senior Member

Forum Enthusiast

Member

Well-known member

Leading Member

Well-known member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts