Reading mode: Light Dark

Nikon D90 VS D40 High ISO Performance.

Go to last post
Debankur Mukherjee

Debankur Mukherjee

Leading Member
Messages
695
Reaction score
1
Location
Kolkata, West Bengal, IN
Dear All,

Planning of upgrading from D40 to D90. I am mostly interested in low light high ISO Performance and taking photographs in available light without flash. Does the D90 have better High ISO Performance than the D40.

Kindly suggest.
Thanks.

--
D.Mukherjee
 
Yes, with qualifications. At iso ratings above 800 the difference is noticeable especially as long as you do not try to view the D90 images at 100%. They clean up superbly at lower resolutions. Viewed at 100% they can be disappointing, but at lower resolutions they are really clean at 1600 and usable but not in the great category up to 3200. If I had to put a number on the difference it would probably be around 1 stop or maybe slightly less compared to the 40. At 800 and below, I would just as soon be using my d40. There is just something about the images from the D40 that I really like. For indoor low light there is nothing between the two that wouldn't be better addressed with a good flash. Outdoors or in instances where the flash can't handle the reach, then I grab the D90 if there is a chance of getting to 1600 and beyond. For normal uses, I can live with the D90 up to around 2500.
 
I personally don't think there is a noticeable difference between the D40/D40X/D60/D70/D70S/D80/D90/D100/D200/D300 images at high ISO ... particularly when you actually make prints.

The only clear difference between these cameras is the resolution and your ability to crop a photo and maintain fine details.

Yes, I'm certain you can do pixel peeping and computerized testing procedures to come out with some chart that says the D90 has less chroma noise at high ISO than the D40 or D40X, but I'm talking about what the human eyes can see when you're NOT doing a 100 percent magnification of an image.

I shoot with Nikon, Pentax and Olympus cameras and I work with other professional photographers who use a variety of Nikon, Fuji, Canon, Pentax, and Olympus cameras. I've edited images from just about every DSLR produced by those companies since 2001. I make prints ranging in size from 4x6 up to 20x30 and I prep files for display in online galleries for clients.

Bottom line, when viewed by human beings who are looking at prints or looking at images that have been resized for the web the high ISO performance of the D40 and D90 are the same. The only difference you'll see with human eyes are the fine details when cropped because of the higher resolution of the D90. That said, I regularly make 16x20 prints from the image files from 6mp cameras, so unless you always crop heavily and always make 20x30 prints then I don't see an obvious advantage to the D90 over the D40.

You will probably be much better off getting a new lens that allows you to do available light photography with ease ... such as the new AF-S 50mm 1.4 or AF-S 35mm 1.8 lenses.

The DSLRs with FX sensors (D700/D3/D3X) do have a noticeable improvement in high ISO performance, but even with those cameras there are times that I cannot tell the difference between a D700 image shot at ISO 3200 and a D200 image shot at ISO 3200.

--
http://www.jjjphotography.com
See 'The Big Picture' at http://jjjphotography.blogspot.com/
 
I'll let someone else dispute the previous poster as not seeing any difference between the camera list he put out

The new sensor just makes things easier at high isos and in poor light that in itself is worth the upgrade.
--
blink and remember.................. http://www.imantskrumins.com/
 
Debankur Mukherjee said:
Dear All,

Planning of upgrading from D40 to D90. I am mostly interested in low
light high ISO Performance and taking photographs in available light
without flash. Does the D90 have better High ISO Performance than the
D40.

Kindly suggest.
Thanks.

--
D.Mukherjee
Click to expand...
Up to ISO 1600 there is not much difference, above that the D90 pulls ahead and is clearly better at 3200 and 6400.

--
http://dslr-video.com/blogmag/
 
JJJPhoto said:
I personally don't think there is a noticeable difference between the
D40/D40X/D60/D70/D70S/D80/D90/D100/D200/D300 images at high ISO ...
particularly when you actually make prints.

The only clear difference between these cameras is the resolution and
your ability to crop a photo and maintain fine details.

Yes, I'm certain you can do pixel peeping and computerized testing
procedures to come out with some chart that says the D90 has less
chroma noise at high ISO than the D40 or D40X, but I'm talking about
what the human eyes can see when you're NOT doing a 100 percent
magnification of an image.

I shoot with Nikon, Pentax and Olympus cameras and I work with other
professional photographers who use a variety of Nikon, Fuji, Canon,
Pentax, and Olympus cameras. I've edited images from just about every
DSLR produced by those companies since 2001. I make prints ranging in
size from 4x6 up to 20x30 and I prep files for display in online
galleries for clients.

Bottom line, when viewed by human beings who are looking at prints or
looking at images that have been resized for the web the high ISO
performance of the D40 and D90 are the same. The only difference
you'll see with human eyes are the fine details when cropped because
of the higher resolution of the D90. That said, I regularly make
16x20 prints from the image files from 6mp cameras, so unless you
always crop heavily and always make 20x30 prints then I don't see an
obvious advantage to the D90 over the D40.

You will probably be much better off getting a new lens that allows
you to do available light photography with ease ... such as the new
AF-S 50mm 1.4 or AF-S 35mm 1.8 lenses.

The DSLRs with FX sensors (D700/D3/D3X) do have a noticeable
improvement in high ISO performance, but even with those cameras
there are times that I cannot tell the difference between a D700
image shot at ISO 3200 and a D200 image shot at ISO 3200.

--
http://www.jjjphotography.com
See 'The Big Picture' at http://jjjphotography.blogspot.com/
Click to expand...
--

Refreshing to read posts like this from an experienced and knowledgeable person who isn't caught up in the 100% pixel peeping minutia but draws his findings in the form of the final product , ( finished prints) of commonly used sizes..

I realized the above conclusions 2 yrs ago . Significant differences were only slightly visible and only at such uncommon large sizes that weren't ever likely to be used by me so I returned my D80 and kept the D40 and never looked back.
 
JJJPhoto said:
I personally don't think there is a noticeable difference between the
D40/D40X/D60/D70/D70S/D80/D90/D100/D200/D300 images at high ISO ...
particularly when you actually make prints.

The only clear difference between these cameras is the resolution and
your ability to crop a photo and maintain fine details.

Yes, I'm certain you can do pixel peeping and computerized testing
procedures to come out with some chart that says the D90 has less
chroma noise at high ISO than the D40 or D40X, but I'm talking about
what the human eyes can see when you're NOT doing a 100 percent
magnification of an image.

I shoot with Nikon, Pentax and Olympus cameras and I work with other
professional photographers who use a variety of Nikon, Fuji, Canon,
Pentax, and Olympus cameras. I've edited images from just about every
DSLR produced by those companies since 2001. I make prints ranging in
size from 4x6 up to 20x30 and I prep files for display in online
galleries for clients.

Bottom line, when viewed by human beings who are looking at prints or
looking at images that have been resized for the web the high ISO
performance of the D40 and D90 are the same. The only difference
you'll see with human eyes are the fine details when cropped because
of the higher resolution of the D90. That said, I regularly make
16x20 prints from the image files from 6mp cameras, so unless you
always crop heavily and always make 20x30 prints then I don't see an
obvious advantage to the D90 over the D40.

You will probably be much better off getting a new lens that allows
you to do available light photography with ease ... such as the new
AF-S 50mm 1.4 or AF-S 35mm 1.8 lenses.

The DSLRs with FX sensors (D700/D3/D3X) do have a noticeable
improvement in high ISO performance, but even with those cameras
there are times that I cannot tell the difference between a D700
image shot at ISO 3200 and a D200 image shot at ISO 3200.

--
http://www.jjjphotography.com
See 'The Big Picture' at http://jjjphotography.blogspot.com/
Click to expand...
Nicely put and a very sensible comment. Thanks a lot for that!
We need sober statements like this for a change ........

After all my years as a digital photographer eager to get better and better quality in my pictures I have settled down with my D40 - I use it all the time and really love the results!
As you said: get better lenses instead of a new camera!

Thanks again!

--
Kjell
........................................................

Panasonic LX3, plus my Nikon D60/D40. Have earlier owned Canon/Pentax/Olympus DSLRs and others.
Mac user shooting RAW and editing in Lightroom
 
JJJPhoto said:
I personally don't think there is a noticeable difference between the
D40/D40X/D60/D70/D70S/D80/D90/D100/D200/D300 images at high ISO ...
particularly when you actually make prints.

The only clear difference between these cameras is the resolution and
your ability to crop a photo and maintain fine details.

Yes, I'm certain you can do pixel peeping and computerized testing
procedures to come out with some chart that says the D90 has less
chroma noise at high ISO than the D40 or D40X, but I'm talking about
what the human eyes can see when you're NOT doing a 100 percent
magnification of an image.
Click to expand...
There is no difference in high ISO performance between ANY of the Nikon APS-C cameras?

Well, since I have owned the D100, D50, D200, D40, D300, D90 and used D70, and further more worked with files from virtually all high end DSLRs from Nikon and Canon, I dont agree.

Try to shot low light indoor sports at ISO 1600, 3200, or more, and you will see a difference between models. That is a real world situation, not a computerized test.
--
http://dslr-video.com/blogmag/
 
PerL said:
Try to shot low light indoor sports at ISO 1600, 3200, or more, and
you will see a difference between models. That is a real world
situation, not a computerized test.
Click to expand...
I am speaking about "real world" situations ... not a computerized test. That was my point. I don't cover indoor sports on a regular basis but I do cover indoor weddings and receptions that usually have even worse lighting than what I see at indoor sports arenas.

I'm making those statements based on my personal experience editing ISO 1600+ image files from these various cameras. I can't imagine that the high ISO performance of these cameras is wildly different at high ISO just because of the different white balance of the lights at indoor sports arenas.

I have to do virtually the same amount of noise reduction to an ISO 1600 image from an Olympus E-330 as I do to an ISO 1600 image from a D70 or D300. There are subtle variations to the ISO noise that are visible to the naked eye under magnification, but again ... at resolutions used for web galleries or when printed you can't see a difference. It's not like the difference between a compact point and shoot and a DSLR sensor.

Of course, everyone is welcome to their own opinion. As I often say, gear choice is mostly a subjective matter. Use whatever tools work for you.

--
http://www.jjjphotography.com
See 'The Big Picture' at http://jjjphotography.blogspot.com/
 
JJJPhoto said:
JJJPhoto wrote:
I personally don't think there is a noticeable difference between the
D40/D40X/D60/D70/D70S/D80/D90/D100/D200/D300 images at high ISO ...
particularly when you actually make prints.
Click to expand...
You are spot on....to a certain extent. It depends on the size of the prints too. If you are printing under A4, you will proabably see no differences even if you throw a few full frame cams in the equation. If your planning on doing huge wall hung portraits then you could see differences especially in details.

But to answer the posters "outright" question. Yes, without a shadow of a doubt......the D90 does have better High ISO than the D40. You might not see it on a lot of prints, but if you even like to view your images on a decent sized monitor you would clearly can see it at ISO3200. These kind of color blobs stick out a mile in the crops below.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/fatboy15/3334399518/sizes/o/

--
Regards,
Fatboy
 
JJJPhoto said:
PerL said:
Try to shot low light indoor sports at ISO 1600, 3200, or more, and
you will see a difference between models. That is a real world
situation, not a computerized test.
Click to expand...
I am speaking about "real world" situations ... not computerized
test. That was my point. I don't cover indoor sports on a regular
basis but I do cover indoor weddings and receptions that usually have
even worse lighting than what I see at indoor sports arenas.
Click to expand...
The light may be worse in a wedding, but the need for high shutterspeeds forces the high ISOs at indoor sports.
JJJPhoto said:
I'm making those statements based on my personal experience editing
ISO 1600+ image files from these various cameras. I can't imagine
that the high ISO performance of these cameras is wildly different at
high ISO just because of the different white balance of the lights at
indoor sports arenas.
Click to expand...
The white balance problems makes the high ISO noise worse, since the color channels must be boosted differently to compensate.
JJJPhoto said:
I have to do virtually the same mount of noise reduction to an ISO
1600 image from an Olympus E-330 as I do to an ISO 1600 image from a
D70 or D300. There are subtle variations to the ISO noise that are
visible to the naked eye under magnification, but again ... at
resolutions used for web galleries or when printed you can't see a
difference. It's not like the difference between a compact point and
shoot and a DSLR sensor.
Click to expand...
I make layouts and editing for magazines and the noise is often what decides which images can be blown up. Often images that has good content cant be used because the noise is just too bad.
JJJPhoto said:
Of course, everyone is welcome to their own opinion. As I often say,
gear choice is mostly a subjective matter. Use whatever tools work
for you.

--
http://www.jjjphotography.com
See 'The Big Picture' at http://jjjphotography.blogspot.com/
Click to expand...
--
http://dslr-video.com/blogmag/
 
I have a D50 and a D90. Generally speaking the image quality from both cameras is about the same. The D90 body offers way more features than the D50 and gives you an opportunity to be more creative. With that being said, if your only criteria is image quality than I suggest you keep your D40.
 
Kindly look at the high iso test of D700 and D90 at iso 1600 & 3200 in dpreview. Is the D90 having less noise then D700 ? Kindly confirm.
--
D.Mukherjee
 
Boy , while I only have a D50 and a D80, IMHO, there is a huge difference in noise between those 2 cameras with the D50 clearly superior.
--
Gene from Western Pa

http://imageevent.com/grc6
http://grc225.zenfolio.com/
FZ10....20 and 30 and FZ18

D50 ....D80 - 18 to 200VR- 50mm 1.8 - 80 to 400 OS



Just trying to learn and it's slow going!
 
The D90 has twice the amount of pixels on the same sized sensor as the D40. So to say that the D90 is as good in the noise department as the D40 up to ISO1600, and then much better anywhere beyond, is giving the D90 a HUGE compliment.

You get the same noise capabilities as a 6MP camera in the D90, but you get all of the cropping abilities of a 12MP sensor. Very nice.
 
It seems from the chroma. and lumi. chart comparison at 1600 & 3200 the d90 has less noise then d700...please see the dpreview noise test for both the cameras.
--
D.Mukherjee
 
Debankur Mukherjee said:
It seems from the chroma. and lumi. chart comparison at 1600 & 3200
the d90 has less noise then d700...please see the dpreview noise test
for both the cameras.
--
D.Mukherjee
Click to expand...
Sorry, I did not first realize that you were the opening poster. As for the question, I am convinced that in real conditions the D700 will at least be a stop better, even though the D90 is very good for a APS-C camera. I dont think the charts tell the whole story. I have seen myself files from the Olympics from the D3 (same sensor as D700) with amazing high ISO quality.
--
http://dslr-video.com/blogmag/
 
You'll get MUCH better results with a fast (1.8) lens on your D40 than with a "kit" (3.5) lens on the D90.

Buy a (cheap) 35mm 1.8 Nikkor, and you'll be happy, not only for low light shooting, but also for the DOF you could play with.
André
 
cmvsm said:
The D90 has twice the amount of pixels on the same sized sensor as
the D40. So to say that the D90 is as good in the noise department as
the D40 up to ISO1600, and then much better anywhere beyond, is
giving the D90 a HUGE compliment.

You get the same noise capabilities as a 6MP camera in the D90, but
you get all of the cropping abilities of a 12MP sensor. Very nice.
Click to expand...
Exactly the point I was going to make. It almost sounds like people are disappointed the D90 isn't that much better than the D40 in the ISO department! In fact it is an amazing achievement to get the same noise level as a 6mp camera with bigger photosites!
--



http://www.flickr.com/photos/commodore/
 
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