Reading mode: Light Dark

D2H and D70 @ISO1600 noise comparison

Go to last post
Daniel Wee said:
I decided to put the Nikon D2H and the D70 to a test to compare the
noise performance at ISO1600. I noticed that at ISO1600, the D70 is
about 1/3 to 2/3 of a stop darker than the D2H. Also noted was that
apparent color moire was more severe in the D2H compared to the
D70. The following are 100% crops taken with a 50mm at F2, using
RAW/NEF with only WB adjustments and Color Moire noise reduction
set to "High".

Taken with D2H



Taken with D70 (+0.3EV)



Taken with D70 but pushed +0.67EV in NC4.1



As above but resized to similar to D2H Crop



My personal conclusions is that the D2H doesn't do too badly in
terms of noise and would be equal for the most part although it
does seem to have bigger noise "grains" and hence more apparent
color moire issues but the NC4.1 Color moire noise reduction takes
care of it nicely.

The fact that the D70 has higher resolution means that upon
resizing, it should have less noise at comparable size than the D2H
but this is to be expected. That advantage doesn't seem too big
though from the resized sample above.

Finally, the D2H seems to perform increasingly better against the
D70 as we go down in ISO so that at ISO800, for example, it would
have gained in terms of noise performance over the D70. It would be
interesting to see how or what Nikon can do with the rumoured
firmware upgrade and how that would impact the noise performance.

Daniel Wee
  • D2H ISO1600 more sensitive than D70 ISO1600 by 1/3-2/3 stops
  • WB on D2H and D70 gives different slightly results, D2H more
saturated
  • Noise in D2H better than D70 the lower the ISO from 1600
  • D2H worse color noise and bigger noise "grain"
Click to expand...
 
greg n said:
Daniel Wee said:
I decided to put the Nikon D2H and the D70 to a test to compare the
noise performance at ISO1600. I noticed that at ISO1600, the D70 is
about 1/3 to 2/3 of a stop darker than the D2H. Also noted was that
apparent color moire was more severe in the D2H compared to the
D70. The following are 100% crops taken with a 50mm at F2, using
RAW/NEF with only WB adjustments and Color Moire noise reduction
set to "High".

Taken with D2H



Taken with D70 (+0.3EV)



Taken with D70 but pushed +0.67EV in NC4.1



As above but resized to similar to D2H Crop



My personal conclusions is that the D2H doesn't do too badly in
terms of noise and would be equal for the most part although it
does seem to have bigger noise "grains" and hence more apparent
color moire issues but the NC4.1 Color moire noise reduction takes
care of it nicely.

The fact that the D70 has higher resolution means that upon
resizing, it should have less noise at comparable size than the D2H
but this is to be expected. That advantage doesn't seem too big
though from the resized sample above.

Finally, the D2H seems to perform increasingly better against the
D70 as we go down in ISO so that at ISO800, for example, it would
have gained in terms of noise performance over the D70. It would be
interesting to see how or what Nikon can do with the rumoured
firmware upgrade and how that would impact the noise performance.

Daniel Wee
  • D2H ISO1600 more sensitive than D70 ISO1600 by 1/3-2/3 stops
  • WB on D2H and D70 gives different slightly results, D2H more
saturated
  • Noise in D2H better than D70 the lower the ISO from 1600
  • D2H worse color noise and bigger noise "grain"
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
Dave Cheatham
 
Daniel:

Thanks for doing the test and taking the time to post results. I found it very helpful as I have been thinking of a D70 as a backup to the D2H if noise was better at high ISOs. The test showed me that I'd gain nothing in noise and lose a lot in handling and features, like AF performance and build quality. I think I'll wait for the D2X and continue to rely upon film for my primary capture media at weddings.

Why do people have to be so mean over such trivial matters?
 
Daniel,

First of all thanks for posting the tests you did. I also think they are very informative.

Secondly excellent PJ work. Quite frankly even though I can see why you want to use the best equipment possible, with the excellent composition of your photos they could have been shot with an FM and Tri-x film. (LOL) It's great to see a photographer of your caliber as interested in quality and composition at the same time. There is a great lesson to be learned here that goes far beyond the noise level of these boards.

GenoP
Daniel Wee said:
Michael Klein said:
Why dont you take the same picture using the D2H and D70 outdoors
without any post processing..use the same exact lens..lets see how
the two cameras do against each other...I'd rather see that then
the noise issue....
Click to expand...
I know what you mean, but that's a separate test that does not
invalidate the noise test. I have both and quite honestly, I prefer
the D2H by far and in every respect. Notwithstanding that, I'm
still very interested in how the two cameras are similar or differ
because I will be using both and would need to know the details of
the differences. I see a lot of people who go from one to another
camera basically expecting them to perform the same but that's
simply not the case (eg. D2H ISO1600 is more sensitive than D70).
IMO there is a totally legitimate place for technical comparisons
and tests, and it's not like we're being innundated with tests -
only questions.

In my usage, a little post-processing doesn't bother me. In fact,
it's mostly the final image that counts, regardless of the
equipment, the cost, or the post-processing. If you are interested
to see some of the latest D2H images, you can look at them here:-

http://www.tsebi.com/Bam
http://www.tsebi.com/Bam/Garmi
http://www.tsebi.com/reviews/Bam

I've not shot anything serious with the D70, partly because I'm so
comfortable with the D2H as it is. Ie. D2H does the job and from
this test, it looks like even at ISO1600, I can keep using the D2H.
The only times I may need the D70 would be when I need the
additional resolution, or when I want something light.

Daniel Wee
Click to expand...
--
Web: http://www.pbase.com/genop754
Send eMail to: [email protected]
 
my friend.

Regards

Raul
Daniel Wee said:
I decided to put the Nikon D2H and the D70 to a test to compare the
noise performance at ISO1600. I noticed that at ISO1600, the D70 is
about 1/3 to 2/3 of a stop darker than the D2H. Also noted was that
apparent color moire was more severe in the D2H compared to the
D70. The following are 100% crops taken with a 50mm at F2, using
RAW/NEF with only WB adjustments and Color Moire noise reduction
set to "High".

Taken with D2H



Taken with D70 (+0.3EV)



Taken with D70 but pushed +0.67EV in NC4.1



As above but resized to similar to D2H Crop



My personal conclusions is that the D2H doesn't do too badly in
terms of noise and would be equal for the most part although it
does seem to have bigger noise "grains" and hence more apparent
color moire issues but the NC4.1 Color moire noise reduction takes
care of it nicely.

The fact that the D70 has higher resolution means that upon
resizing, it should have less noise at comparable size than the D2H
but this is to be expected. That advantage doesn't seem too big
though from the resized sample above.

Finally, the D2H seems to perform increasingly better against the
D70 as we go down in ISO so that at ISO800, for example, it would
have gained in terms of noise performance over the D70. It would be
interesting to see how or what Nikon can do with the rumoured
firmware upgrade and how that would impact the noise performance.

Daniel Wee
  • D2H ISO1600 more sensitive than D70 ISO1600 by 1/3-2/3 stops
  • WB on D2H and D70 gives different slightly results, D2H more
saturated
  • Noise in D2H better than D70 the lower the ISO from 1600
  • D2H worse color noise and bigger noise "grain"
Click to expand...
 
Daniel Wee said:
Furthermore, I do not see the so-called point of your post
since you are not providing any information, useful or otherwise.

Daniel
Click to expand...
I couldn't have said it better myself. My point is that your comparison is not providing any information, useful or otherwise.

Dave
 
Dave Harpe said:
I couldn't have said it better myself. My point is that your
comparison is not providing any information, useful or otherwise.
Click to expand...
Why don't we let the forum users be the judge of that then?

Daniel
 
Care to elaborate?

Daniel
 
I find myself very interested in the comparison as a D2H shooter does it makes sense to make room in the bag for a D70?

David's results give me a basis for comparison with which I'm familiar.
Raul said:
Regards

Raul
Daniel Wee said:
I decided to put the Nikon D2H and the D70 to a test to compare the
noise performance at ISO1600. I noticed that at ISO1600, the D70 is
about 1/3 to 2/3 of a stop darker than the D2H. Also noted was that
apparent color moire was more severe in the D2H compared to the
D70. The following are 100% crops taken with a 50mm at F2, using
RAW/NEF with only WB adjustments and Color Moire noise reduction
set to "High".

Taken with D2H



Taken with D70 (+0.3EV)



Taken with D70 but pushed +0.67EV in NC4.1



As above but resized to similar to D2H Crop



My personal conclusions is that the D2H doesn't do too badly in
terms of noise and would be equal for the most part although it
does seem to have bigger noise "grains" and hence more apparent
color moire issues but the NC4.1 Color moire noise reduction takes
care of it nicely.

The fact that the D70 has higher resolution means that upon
resizing, it should have less noise at comparable size than the D2H
but this is to be expected. That advantage doesn't seem too big
though from the resized sample above.

Finally, the D2H seems to perform increasingly better against the
D70 as we go down in ISO so that at ISO800, for example, it would
have gained in terms of noise performance over the D70. It would be
interesting to see how or what Nikon can do with the rumoured
firmware upgrade and how that would impact the noise performance.

Daniel Wee
  • D2H ISO1600 more sensitive than D70 ISO1600 by 1/3-2/3 stops
  • WB on D2H and D70 gives different slightly results, D2H more
saturated
  • Noise in D2H better than D70 the lower the ISO from 1600
  • D2H worse color noise and bigger noise "grain"
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
Shad
-----------------------------------------------------
What piano should I buy if I want to play like Mozart?

...Kit in profile...
...pbase supporter...
...Nikonians supporter...
...Charter Member Team Yellow Hands...
 
Daniel, Dave,

Both of you did good jobs of explaining your positions on the matter until the discussion degraded into an argument. I think both views have merit depending on the perspective of the observer.

Daniel -- True, having an objective measure of the differences allows individuals wishing to get an idea of the differences to have something to reference. However it does not guarantee that they will be making their choice based on all the options they should possibly be considering. As Dave mentioned, regardless of noise performance the D2h will have a highier likelyhood of capturing moments than the D70, which is as he asserts one of the chief reasons for purchasing a body with high fps capabilities.

Dave -- True, having the body that is more likely to capture the moment is most important to owners of the D2h and may win sales due to this ability over the D70 in some instances but many users are buying it for use in other areas of photography (rightly or wrongly) and would like to know how it stacks up in those other areas against bodies in completely different catagories like the D70. For example, the D2h is great at those high fps "moment" capturing tasks but it would be less competitive in comparison to the D70 when capturing high detail landscape images.

The individual user and prospective purchaser must evaluate their own mix of needs against what the body offers and how they will shoot it. You both made valid points. One should always be able to dispassionately analyse the logically presented points of view of others, in fact it has been an instrumental technique to eliciting revelations in many areas (science, mathematics,history...etc.) of human endeavor. The usefulness of any information is directly proportional to the openness of the evaluating mind.

Regards,
Daniel Wee said:
Dave Harpe said:
I couldn't have said it better myself. My point is that your
comparison is not providing any information, useful or otherwise.
Click to expand...
Why don't we let the forum users be the judge of that then?

Daniel
Click to expand...
--

 
David SL said:
Both of you did good jobs of explaining your positions on the
matter until the discussion degraded into an argument. I think both
views have merit depending on the perspective of the observer.
Click to expand...
Hi David, thanks for chipping in. I do feel it is getting somewhat out of hand here. Personally I have both cameras, and others as well, and have no interest in defending one or the other. To me they are just tools and I am just presenting test results for the benefit of those who do not have both cameras. What irked me was how Dave decided to appoint himself thought and information police. I mean, if it's not helpful to him, fine, don't read the thread. Would it please him more if I were to cease posting test results altogether? Or to only post results of tests approved by him? I don't quite get what he wants here.

I do agree that no tests are perfect and needs vary. Hence I post them only as my own tests, my own opinions. I've no problems if someone says that a test isn't useful to him personally. It's that self-appointed police attitude that I really dislike, hence drawing me into this prolonged exchange.

With that, I really should stop this admittedly childish and pedantic exchange.

Daniel Wee
 
they look to me like noise instead of moire. Moire is generated by repeated fine struction and in the images there I see none.
Daniel Wee said:
Daniel Wee said:
The reason the color moire is not visible here is because I used
the Color Moire reduction feature in NC4.1. It seems to work pretty
well with no degradation of details (but it doesn't reduce regular
noise either, just color noise). If I get the time, I will do the
crops to show the color moire in the D2H.

Daniel Wee
Click to expand...
BTW, I put up a post a little earlier showing a crop of a D2H
ISO1600 image before and after the NC4.1 Color moire reduction. You
can see it here:-

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=8031564

Daniel Wee
Click to expand...
--

Nikon N6006 & FM bodies; Nikkor 50/1.4 AF, 80-200/2.8D AF, 35-80D AF, Tokina 20-35 AF

Preordered D70 kit on 1/29! Still waiting...
 
Photobug said:
they look to me like noise instead of moire. Moire is generated by
repeated fine struction and in the images there I see none.
Click to expand...
I see where you are coming from but I'm thinking of color moire as being a little different from regular moire. I may well be wrong but it seems that what NC4.1 calls "Color moire" is dealt with differently from regular noise. My guess is that it has to do with the weaker AA filter and how that interacts with the bayer filter that results in the "color moire". I tried reading up a little but it was rather boring stuff and I forgot most of it. I suppose what is of greatest concern for me is that the NC4.1 "Color moire" setting works really well in getting rid of the blotchiness/color noise, with no apparent degradation of the image details. I'm just happy to get a better image for nothing more than a mouse click.

Daniel Wee
 
Thanks for the test. I find it useful.
TOM
Daniel Wee said:
David SL said:
Both of you did good jobs of explaining your positions on the
matter until the discussion degraded into an argument. I think both
views have merit depending on the perspective of the observer.
Click to expand...
Hi David, thanks for chipping in. I do feel it is getting somewhat
out of hand here. Personally I have both cameras, and others as
well, and have no interest in defending one or the other. To me
they are just tools and I am just presenting test results for the
benefit of those who do not have both cameras. What irked me was
how Dave decided to appoint himself thought and information police.
I mean, if it's not helpful to him, fine, don't read the thread.
Would it please him more if I were to cease posting test results
altogether? Or to only post results of tests approved by him? I
don't quite get what he wants here.

I do agree that no tests are perfect and needs vary. Hence I post
them only as my own tests, my own opinions. I've no problems if
someone says that a test isn't useful to him personally. It's that
self-appointed police attitude that I really dislike, hence drawing
me into this prolonged exchange.

With that, I really should stop this admittedly childish and
pedantic exchange.

Daniel Wee
Click to expand...
--
Regards,
TOM
 
I understand. Yeah it's good as long as it works.
Daniel Wee said:
Photobug said:
they look to me like noise instead of moire. Moire is generated by
repeated fine struction and in the images there I see none.
Click to expand...
I see where you are coming from but I'm thinking of color moire as
being a little different from regular moire. I may well be wrong
but it seems that what NC4.1 calls "Color moire" is dealt with
differently from regular noise. My guess is that it has to do with
the weaker AA filter and how that interacts with the bayer filter
that results in the "color moire". I tried reading up a little but
it was rather boring stuff and I forgot most of it. I suppose what
is of greatest concern for me is that the NC4.1 "Color moire"
setting works really well in getting rid of the blotchiness/color
noise, with no apparent degradation of the image details. I'm just
happy to get a better image for nothing more than a mouse click.

Daniel Wee
Click to expand...
--

Nikon N6006 & FM bodies; Nikkor 50/1.4 AF, 80-200/2.8D AF, 35-80D AF, Tokina 20-35 AF

Preordered D70 kit 1/29 (OneCall) and 2/3 (Ritz)
 
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