My take on D2H noise.

I'm no expert at measurabating - I just take photographs, but with my new D2H having arrived a few days ago and on holiday soon, I've been spending a lot of time poring over the manuals and experimenting with the camera and trying to get a feel for the exposure system.

Every camera is a bit diffrent and it normally takes me a week or two before I really feel comfortable with each one's idiosyncrasies. When I first got the D100, having migrated from an S2Pro, I was inititially a bit disappointed, but after a while I really mastered it to the point that I got outstanding exposures every time. But now, it's sold.

One of the things I've been doing with the D2H is taking the same shot, bracketed 5 times from -.7EV to +.7EV, setting the motor drive at 5 shots per second. I've then been reviewing and analysing the histogram with each picture.

Set on ISO1600 which I will only rarely use, I've found the following. If I'v got the exposure right ( which means that there is a fair amount of the data to the right hand side of the histogram, just before the highlights get blown) the images are silky smooth and amazingly virtually noise-free.

To the left and you are in trouble. Once I get into Capture and bring the exposure compensation down to the right point (from left to right, to 0 or nearby), the image looks just perfect. However, if you are in Capture and you find you have to move the compensation slider from right to left to ad EV's then you get noise that increases.

So get the exposure right as per the method above, and you will have silky smooth images.

The other thing that I tried which I found interesting was as follows - one indoor picture, made two copies of it. Both were slightly underexposed. The one I upped the EV's in Capture, and there was SOME noise. The other, identical image, I did not adjust the compensation at all, rather I fiddled with the curves - and GUESS - there was RADICALLY less noise.

You can try these things for yourself.

Personally I don't think that there is a noise problem with the camera, rather I think people are not exposing correctly or undertanding light, or living with the natural Nikon tendency to underexpose slightly to avoid blowing out the highlights.

As to highlights I also want to say that one of the best things I read here recently is how can one possibly expect a camera to retain highlights that even the eye can't see. We have lots of contrast in South Africa. When I take a picturt of someone with a white shirt in the bright sun, I can't even see any detail, so why should my camera? I reviewed quite a few of my film shots the other day and many opf those prints suffer from blown highlights. Maybe we are asking too much and maybe the odd blown highlight is not a bad thing.

To repeat, I think that the exposures have to be mastered properly. The D2H is not any old point and shoot and one needs to work on understanding it. In the right hands it produces very acceptable images at higher ISO's in terms of noise. The final pictures, especially at lower ISO's seem to have a mixture of the silkiness of Canon and the photographic texture of Nikon. Must be the LBCAST sensor.

I believe that Nikon have produced a brilliant camera in the D2H, streets ahead of any of their other digital offerings, ever. But you must take the time to understand how best to work with it.
--
Peter Bendheim
http://www.imagessouthafrica.co.za

Peter Bendheim said:

I believe that Nikon have produced a brilliant camera in the D2H,
streets ahead of any of their other digital offerings, ever. But
you must take the time to understand how best to work with it.

Click to expand...

I think the problem resides there ... They might not take enough time ...

Peter Bendheim said:

--
Peter Bendheim
http://www.imagessouthafrica.co.za

Click to expand...

--
Yves P.
Share the Knowledge

PBASE Supporter

Some pictures I like:
http://www.pbase.com/yp8/root

A good post, cause even though I haven't been overly happy with the noise level in the Nikon, I will agree it isn't as bad as what people make out. It's about a notch below the Canon 1D, which is pretty close and within an acceptable range.

I am glad you didn't mention noise fixing software. If people keep relying on this software, Nikon will only become complacent, placing more resourses on other issues, thinking Nikon users are happy to use software to fix noise issues.

Noise software can definately help, but should not be considered durin the picture taking process. It is a last try option and should be purchased/used sparingly. Nikon has to learn someday...better sooner than later

Yves P. said:

Yves P. said:

I believe that Nikon have produced a brilliant camera in the D2H,
streets ahead of any of their other digital offerings, ever. But
you must take the time to understand how best to work with it.

Click to expand...

I think the problem resides there ... They might not take enough
time ...

Yves P. said:

--
Peter Bendheim
http://www.imagessouthafrica.co.za

Click to expand...

--
Yves P.
Share the Knowledge

PBASE Supporter

Some pictures I like:
http://www.pbase.com/yp8/root

Click to expand...

Yves :

Yves P. said:

Yves P. said:

I believe that Nikon have produced a brilliant camera in the D2H,
streets ahead of any of their other digital offerings, ever. But
you must take the time to understand how best to work with it.

Click to expand...

I think the problem resides there ... They might not take enough
time ...

Click to expand...

There's a distinct echo in these discussions of problems with the D100 (which I have), the D70, the...

As I noted in an another thread sometime back ( http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=9489200 ), almost the whole discussion around "noise" revolves around photographer choices in their work. It's darned difficult to use the various DSLRs to their utmost, to be sure, but it's not terribly difficult to learn to use the basic features.

I can say with confidence that 90%+, perhaps more than 99% {wry smile}, of my "bad" photos are the result of the photographer, me . I'd love to be able to blame the camera maker or gremlins, but every time I dash things off without thought, I tend to lose photos. Occasionally, things work out OK for me ( http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=9431686 ), but generally, matters of bad photos, be it noise, exposure (over and under),, what have you, are my own damn' fault.

John P.

Your comments raise an interesting question.

Most agree that the D2H noise becomes a problem only at high ISO levels. As you, and others have pointed out, if you expose correctly the pictures come out fairly clean even at ISO 1600. The only problem may be blown highlights.

My question is, if you are using ISO 1600, you should be in a relatively poor lighting environment. In that case, how many times are you going to have enough light that whites will get blown out? The only time I could see this happen is if the lighting is inconsistent such as with stage or spot lights, and in that case you have a VERY hard time taking a properly exposed picture anyway. Not seeing the details in a white shirt lit by a bright spot would be the least of my worries in that situation. I am more concerned on having enough light to get a proper exposure for the majority of the frame.

Am I off base here? Are there everyday situations other than this where you would use a high ISO and still blow the highlights?

Note: I do NOT own the D2H. I shoot with the D100 in a lot of poor lighting situations at high ISO. I am thinking of moving to the D2H but this continuing noise debate is holding me back. That and the ever present "is 4MP enough if you have to crop" debate. ;-) I usually shoot full manual with spot metering.

--
Pat

http://www.iceshots.smugmug.com

Sorry, maybe my comments were a bit misleading

I was shooting images of my glass vase collection in a darkened room at night where the vases were only lit by spotlights - hence there were bits and pieces of crystal that had some very stong reflected light on them.

But in general terms, you wont have that at high ISO's unless you have very strong lights reflecting off something...as in my case.

But expose with a good bit of the histogram to the right and it's all do-able and fixable.

Then again, I only ever shoot in raw, so I can't speak for JPEGS.

I wouldn't let the noise hold you back on a purchase, if I was you.
--
Peter Bendheim
http://www.imagessouthafrica.co.za

It's either noise reducing software for Nikon or sharpening software for Canon. Take you pick. I prefer noise reducing software since I can control the output better than the built in Canon NR IMO.

Joe

Nikonombi said:

I am glad you didn't mention noise fixing software. If people keep
relying on this software, Nikon will only become complacent,
placing more resourses on other issues, thinking Nikon users are
happy to use software to fix noise issues.

Noise software can definately help, but should not be considered
durin the picture taking process. It is a last try option and
should be purchased/used sparingly. Nikon has to learn
someday...better sooner than later

Yves P. said:

Nikonombi said:

I believe that Nikon have produced a brilliant camera in the D2H,
streets ahead of any of their other digital offerings, ever. But
you must take the time to understand how best to work with it.

Click to expand...

I think the problem resides there ... They might not take enough
time ...

Nikonombi said:

--
Peter Bendheim
http://www.imagessouthafrica.co.za

Click to expand...

--
Yves P.
Share the Knowledge

PBASE Supporter

Some pictures I like:
http://www.pbase.com/yp8/root

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Peter,

I think your noise logic is right on the mark

Since your D2h is new I will give you one more tip which has been a real help to me. I will credit Ron Reznick and some others for giving me this tip. I almost always set my camera to the low contrast setting, especially when I am shooting outside on sunny days. This setting will help you get as much of an extended tonal range as you can get. I shoot a lot of motor sports, and since most of the action has to be captured in rotten mid-day light, this tip has been a great boon to me. It really helps you get detail on the tops of cars, while keeping detail on the side pods. All of the sponsors want to be able to read their decals.

As for the people who have commented about low light situations not being prone to blown highlights, this is the exact oposit of what I have found. The trouble with most of the music shots I do is that there is way too much dynamic range in most of the scenes. The only way to get a lot of shots to come out is to blow some highlights on purpose.

You have bought a really great camera. I love mine.

--
John Cote
http://www.centralprepress.com

'Cameras are just cr@p we have to lug around because there is no direct brain to printer connection...yet!'

I can think of a real good case where you have to use High ISO and still have the possiblity of blown highlights--- Indoor Rock Concerts, Jazz festivals, Theater productions.

I shoot these things with the D2h every weekend.

PFR said:

Your comments raise an interesting question.

Most agree that the D2H noise becomes a problem only at high ISO
levels. As you, and others have pointed out, if you expose
correctly the pictures come out fairly clean even at ISO 1600. The
only problem may be blown highlights.

My question is, if you are using ISO 1600, you should be in a
relatively poor lighting environment. In that case, how many times
are you going to have enough light that whites will get blown out?
The only time I could see this happen is if the lighting is
inconsistent such as with stage or spot lights, and in that case
you have a VERY hard time taking a properly exposed picture anyway.
Not seeing the details in a white shirt lit by a bright spot would
be the least of my worries in that situation. I am more concerned
on having enough light to get a proper exposure for the majority of
the frame.

Am I off base here? Are there everyday situations other than this
where you would use a high ISO and still blow the highlights?

Note: I do NOT own the D2H. I shoot with the D100 in a lot of poor
lighting situations at high ISO. I am thinking of moving to the D2H
but this continuing noise debate is holding me back. That and the
ever present "is 4MP enough if you have to crop" debate. ;-) I
usually shoot full manual with spot metering.

--
Pat

http://www.iceshots.smugmug.com

Click to expand...

I agree.

The amount of noise present in an image shot by the D2h is directly proportional to the exposure and by extension the actual skill and familiarity the photographer has with the camera.

I would add proper WB to noise reduction mix, especially if Nikon Capture is used to post-process NEFs.

--
no text

Take a D70 and shoot a particular subject. Underexpose it 2 stops and it still looks good. Do the same thing with a D2H and it comes out all noisy. Expose the D2H right or even a stop brighter and it makes a big difference with less noise. I think it's important to shoot with fast glass on the D2H. 2 stops off on the D2H and you're screwed.

I wish the D2H was as forgiving as the D70.

--
inhousephoto inc. digital / photography / media
http://www.inhousephoto.com (ver 2.0)

That's a good point but I beleive the Nikon D2H would not be alone with blowing out highlights in a stage spot lit scene. All dig cameras would do this as there are usually two extremes of the dynamic range spectrum to record- impossible for today's cameras, even film.

This has nothing to do with ISO. The D2H blows out highlights (like mnay other dig cams) at any ISO, so one has to be be careful no matter what the ISO. Usually for stage i try to meter about half a stop under the highlights and then use an off camera flash to ligh the subject, if flash is permitted. Otherwise you learn to live with blown out highlights. People don't usually expect more anyway cause they were traditionally used to this with film too.

PFR said:

Your comments raise an interesting question.

Most agree that the D2H noise becomes a problem only at high ISO
levels. As you, and others have pointed out, if you expose
correctly the pictures come out fairly clean even at ISO 1600. The
only problem may be blown highlights.

My question is, if you are using ISO 1600, you should be in a
relatively poor lighting environment. In that case, how many times
are you going to have enough light that whites will get blown out?
The only time I could see this happen is if the lighting is
inconsistent such as with stage or spot lights, and in that case
you have a VERY hard time taking a properly exposed picture anyway.
Not seeing the details in a white shirt lit by a bright spot would
be the least of my worries in that situation. I am more concerned
on having enough light to get a proper exposure for the majority of
the frame.

Am I off base here? Are there everyday situations other than this
where you would use a high ISO and still blow the highlights?

Note: I do NOT own the D2H. I shoot with the D100 in a lot of poor
lighting situations at high ISO. I am thinking of moving to the D2H
but this continuing noise debate is holding me back. That and the
ever present "is 4MP enough if you have to crop" debate. ;-) I
usually shoot full manual with spot metering.

--
Pat

http://www.iceshots.smugmug.com

Click to expand...

Good comment, but I still find that the low contrast setting is still not forgiving enough. Blown out highlights are still an issue even with ISO 200 off camera (correctly exposed) flash shots where a flash hot spot appeared on the subject's head. Next time I'll bounce off a reflector, but you can't carry around a studio shooting journalistic on location work- oh well, maybe a diffuser for the SB-600 is on the board?

John Cote said:

Peter,

I think your noise logic is right on the mark

Since your D2h is new I will give you one more tip which has been a
real help to me. I will credit Ron Reznick and some others for
giving me this tip. I almost always set my camera to the low
contrast setting, especially when I am shooting outside on sunny
days. This setting will help you get as much of an extended tonal
range as you can get. I shoot a lot of motor sports, and since most
of the action has to be captured in rotten mid-day light, this tip
has been a great boon to me. It really helps you get detail on the
tops of cars, while keeping detail on the side pods. All of the
sponsors want to be able to read their decals.

As for the people who have commented about low light situations not
being prone to blown highlights, this is the exact oposit of what I
have found. The trouble with most of the music shots I do is that
there is way too much dynamic range in most of the scenes. The only
way to get a lot of shots to come out is to blow some highlights on
purpose.

You have bought a really great camera. I love mine.

--
John Cote
http://www.centralprepress.com
'Cameras are just cr@p we have to lug around because there is no
direct brain to printer connection...yet!'

Click to expand...

Nikonombi said:

Good comment, but I still find that the low contrast setting is
still not forgiving enough. Blown out highlights are still an issue
even with ISO 200 off camera (correctly exposed) flash shots where
a flash hot spot appeared on the subject's head. Next time I'll
bounce off a reflector, but you can't carry around a studio
shooting journalistic on location work- oh well, maybe a diffuser
for the SB-600 is on the board?

Click to expand...

Niko,

With respect, how can you say that a shot with blown highlights is properly exposed???? Any camera will blow highlights. Canon and Nikon and any other camera will blow highlights. Cameras make exposure decisions based on a bunch of programed in criteria. If they programed in that the camera should never blow highlights we would all be yelling because too many of our shots would be under exposed. If you are getting blown highlights that you don't want YOU are not exposing the scene properly. The photographer still has to make some decisions (thank God). It's the same thing with the flash.

--
John Cote
http://www.centralprepress.com

'Cameras are just cr@p we have to lug around because there is no direct brain to printer connection...yet!'

In the 1st one look please on the faces color
in the 2nd one look on the man head...
inside photos but with very strong lights that comes from the big windows





Hadari
http://www.hadari.com

I am just so tired of all these D2Her's trying to rationalize the fact that the D2H is simply the NOISIEST CAMERA among the competition, and as such is far more SENSITIVE to extreme conditions like underexposure, low lite etc. its still a good camera in many other respects, but NOT in this category, and I dont care how "good" a photographer you are. Thats like saying that some great pro can somehow "avoid" the 14n's weird artifacts and fringing. sorry, thats Kodak's fault not yours.

Now:
Yes, the D2H is still less noisy than Press 800 film, that is not the point.
Yes, its results can still be acceptable for certain situations.

And, yes, proper exposure where you dont underexpose will give you BETTER results.

but face facts people: even in ISO 200 in completely brite and "perfect" conditions for noise, it is still noisier than the D100, 10d, Mark II etc etc.

The D2H has bigger "grain" to its noise, I can certainly spot it. and this is why photogs who PREVIOUSLY had not paid so much attention to noise are going nuts with the D2H, cuz now its a problem with a 1/2 stop underexposure, when they're used to much more "forgiving" DSLRS.

now, if anyone were to post image comparisons, and prove me wong, I would love to see it: but I would truly be shocked if:
1)they could find any similar DSLR with worse noise in the same scene:

D70, D100, 10d, 1D, Mark II, 1ds etc etc. I do not remember exactly, but on Phils noise chart the D2H may have fared the worst across (most, if not the entire) ISO range relative to the competition, even at 200. and:

2) that any other camera would show as MUCH SENSITIVITY to underexposure as the D2H does. Underexposing a D2h shot is NOT THE SAME as underexposing a D100 shot for example in terms of noise.

granted I do not use the D2H all the time, but this is "the book" on this cam until is proven otherwise: great handling, poor noise performance. just as the book on the 14n is: great resolution, bad artifacting.

until someone out there can line up shots from any other similar camera

"Cameras make exposure decisions based on a bunch of programed in criteria"

Well what do you mean we made the exposure?

John Cote said:

John Cote said:

Of course I make all exposure decisions as I always shoot in manual, and you reply on the camera to do the right thing, and yes, you CAN have a correctly exposed scene WITH blown out highlights. This is a fact regardless of digital or film. But highlights that should be within dynamic range is what I am complaining about. Some areas blow out too easily like flash on the forehead. The main exposure and flahs exposure are correct, but a spot on the head that is a touch brighter cannot hold detail- this is not good enough in my opinion, and needs to be improved.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Why must we always wait for next generation solutions, when Nikon is hinting at perfect exposures and calculations in marketing material NOW?

John Cote said:

Nikonombi said:

Good comment, but I still find that the low contrast setting is
still not forgiving enough. Blown out highlights are still an issue
even with ISO 200 off camera (correctly exposed) flash shots where
a flash hot spot appeared on the subject's head. Next time I'll
bounce off a reflector, but you can't carry around a studio
shooting journalistic on location work- oh well, maybe a diffuser
for the SB-600 is on the board?

Click to expand...

Niko,

With respect, how can you say that a shot with blown highlights is
properly exposed???? Any camera will blow highlights. Canon and
Nikon and any other camera will blow highlights. Cameras make
exposure decisions based on a bunch of programed in criteria. If
they programed in that the camera should never blow highlights we
would all be yelling because too many of our shots would be under
exposed. If you are getting blown highlights that you don't want
YOU are not exposing the scene properly. The photographer still has
to make some decisions (thank God). It's the same thing with the
flash.

--
John Cote
http://www.centralprepress.com
'Cameras are just cr@p we have to lug around because there is no
direct brain to printer connection...yet!'

Click to expand...

Well put...

rjbc said:

I am just so tired of all these D2Her's trying to rationalize the
fact that the D2H is simply the NOISIEST CAMERA among the
competition, and as such is far more SENSITIVE to extreme
conditions like underexposure, low lite etc. its still a good
camera in many other respects, but NOT in this category, and I dont
care how "good" a photographer you are. Thats like saying that some
great pro can somehow "avoid" the 14n's weird artifacts and
fringing. sorry, thats Kodak's fault not yours.

Now:
Yes, the D2H is still less noisy than Press 800 film, that is not
the point.
Yes, its results can still be acceptable for certain situations.
And, yes, proper exposure where you dont underexpose will give you
BETTER results.

but face facts people: even in ISO 200 in completely brite and
"perfect" conditions for noise, it is still noisier than the D100,
10d, Mark II etc etc.
The D2H has bigger "grain" to its noise, I can certainly spot it.
and this is why photogs who PREVIOUSLY had not paid so much
attention to noise are going nuts with the D2H, cuz now its a
problem with a 1/2 stop underexposure, when they're used to much
more "forgiving" DSLRS.

now, if anyone were to post image comparisons, and prove me wong, I
would love to see it: but I would truly be shocked if:
1)they could find any similar DSLR with worse noise in the same scene:
D70, D100, 10d, 1D, Mark II, 1ds etc etc. I do not remember
exactly, but on Phils noise chart the D2H may have fared the worst
across (most, if not the entire) ISO range relative to the
competition, even at 200. and:

2) that any other camera would show as MUCH SENSITIVITY to
underexposure as the D2H does. Underexposing a D2h shot is NOT THE
SAME as underexposing a D100 shot for example in terms of noise.

granted I do not use the D2H all the time, but this is "the book"
on this cam until is proven otherwise: great handling, poor noise
performance. just as the book on the 14n is: great resolution, bad
artifacting.

until someone out there can line up shots from any other similar
camera

Click to expand...

Nikonombi said:

Nikonombi said:

"Cameras make exposure decisions based on a bunch of programed in

Click to expand...

Well what do you mean we made the exposure?

Click to expand...

You have the metering hardware built into your eye? The camera makes the metering decisions - you chose to accept them or tweak them but you don't MAKE them.

Nikonombi said:

Nikonombi said:

Nikonombi said:

Of course I make all exposure decisions as I always shoot in manual, and you reply on the camera to do the right thing, and yes, you CAN have a correctly exposed scene WITH blown out highlights. This is a fact regardless of digital or film. But highlights that should be within dynamic range is what I am complaining about. Some areas blow out too easily like flash on the forehead. The main exposure and flahs exposure are correct, but a spot on the head that is a touch brighter cannot hold detail- this is not good enough in my opinion, and needs to be improved.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Why must we always wait for next generation solutions, when Nikon
is hinting at perfect exposures and calculations in marketing
material NOW?

Click to expand...

Don't ever confuse marketing material with fact. And seriously, what's so hard about perfect exposure? Have you ever shot slides? I did and loved it. I guess I never got spoiled by the ultra-forgiving film world where metering was always optional. The D2H=slide film and I couldn't be happier since I prefer the contrast/saturation of slides (I shot Velvia).

Joe