My take on D2H noise.

Peter Bendheim said:

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.

Click to expand...

Peter Bendheim said:

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.

Click to expand...

Vtie said:

One of the things I do a lot with my D100 images is selectively
brighten
shadow parts. Suppose that I have a scene with a sun lit, snow covered
mountain in the distance and a forest in the shadow in the foreground.
If I take an exposure that covers the mountain correctly, the forest
will come out way too dark. The obvious solution is to take the
forest and other dark parts and selectively brighten it. With the
D100,
you can do this to a reasonable extent without having too much noise.
It's a good way of cheating a little with the limited dynamic range of
a digital camera, at the expense of some noise.

Now what you are telling is that you can't do this with the D2h,
because
noise pops up very fast as soon as you brighten underexposed pixels.
This sounds very bad to me because there are many circumstances where
you want to do this, even with a perfect exposure.

Peter Bendheim said:

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.

Click to expand...

That sounds very weird. Both actions are quite similar (at least with
respect to noise). The only logical explanation of this would be
that Nikon has a really lousy implementation of their exposure
compensation. Have you been able to reproduce his with other
images?

Vtie said:

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.

Click to expand...

I think the major problem of digital cameras might not be the
saturation
itself, but the fact that the image saturates in such an ugly way.
Basically, it's a brick wall the sensor bounces at, whereas
traditional
film reaches that limit in a smooth way. As a consequence, saturated
areas on a digital picture tend to look very artificial and
distracting

--
Vtie
http://www.pbase.com/vtie

Click to expand...

Vtie said:

I don't own D2h, and I am increasingly happy that I resisted from
buying it.

One of the things I do a lot with my D100 images is selectively
brighten
shadow parts. Suppose that I have a scene with a sun lit, snow covered
mountain in the distance and a forest in the shadow in the foreground.
If I take an exposure that covers the mountain correctly, the forest
will come out way too dark. The obvious solution is to take the
forest and other dark parts and selectively brighten it. With the
D100,
you can do this to a reasonable extent without having too much noise.
It's a good way of cheating a little with the limited dynamic range of
a digital camera, at the expense of some noise.

Now what you are telling is that you can't do this with the D2h,
because
noise pops up very fast as soon as you brighten underexposed pixels.
This sounds very bad to me because there are many circumstances where
you want to do this, even with a perfect exposure.

Click to expand...

uk102 said:

Hi,
I suspect that Nikon did not build in NR in the way Canon have done
so. I put money on it too! Canon have really mastered the noise
thing and have been able to steadly improve on it.

Click to expand...

uk102 said:

D2H users will just have to get Noise NJ. If the exp. system is
anything like the D70 then I can't imagine Over/Under exp. to be an
issue.

Click to expand...

uk102 said:

A good flash system can be one very hand contrast tool. D70+SB800
are very impressive beast, Makes the D100+SB80 and rather lacking.
I would guess the D2H would work well in this area too.

Click to expand...

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...

Michael in Atlanta said:

"At ISO 200 the D2H exhibits similar noise levels to the Olympus
E-1, higher than both the Canon EOS-1D and EOS-10D. At ISO 400 the
D2H's noise level is noticeably lower than the E-1 and beginning to
come into line with the EOS-1D and EOS-10D. From ISO 800 to ISO
1600 there is absolutely nothing between the D2H and EOS-1D, very
similar noise levels." (page 19 of Phil's D2h review)

"Visible difference between the Canon EOS-1D Mark II and Nikon D2H
are only apparent from ISO 800 upwards, and even then it's very
subtle and unlikely to be enough of a difference to be noticeable
in a normal shot. This is supported by the noise graph shown below,
obviously what the D2H lacks is the Mark II's silky smooth ISO
100." (page 18 of Phil's MkII review)

I will tell you what I am tired of. I am tired of people who don't
even own a D2h complaining about it. And I am also tired of lazy
D2h owners who refuse to take the time to learn to use their
equipment and then pi$$ and moan because they can't get acceptable
results. Its like buying a Ferrari and then blaming the car when
you get a speeding ticket or a carpenter who does bad work blaming
his hammer.

I am not saying that the D2h doesn't have noise (note that I said
"noise" not "noise problem") but what I am saying is that people on
this site who have learned to use the camera like Yves, Regit, Ron,
Shad and others don't seem to be yelling about it.

Michael

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...

Click to expand...

Vtie said:

One of the things I do a lot with my D100 images is selectively
brighten
shadow parts. Suppose that I have a scene with a sun lit, snow covered
mountain in the distance and a forest in the shadow in the foreground.
If I take an exposure that covers the mountain correctly, the forest
will come out way too dark. The obvious solution is to take the
forest and other dark parts and selectively brighten it. With the
D100,
you can do this to a reasonable extent without having too much noise.
It's a good way of cheating a little with the limited dynamic range of
a digital camera, at the expense of some noise.

Now what you are telling is that you can't do this with the D2h,
because
noise pops up very fast as soon as you brighten underexposed pixels.
This sounds very bad to me because there are many circumstances where
you want to do this, even with a perfect exposure.

Peter Bendheim said:

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.

Click to expand...

That sounds very weird. Both actions are quite similar (at least with
respect to noise). The only logical explanation of this would be
that Nikon has a really lousy implementation of their exposure
compensation. Have you been able to reproduce his with other
images?

Vtie said:

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.

Click to expand...

I think the major problem of digital cameras might not be the
saturation
itself, but the fact that the image saturates in such an ugly way.
Basically, it's a brick wall the sensor bounces at, whereas
traditional
film reaches that limit in a smooth way. As a consequence, saturated
areas on a digital picture tend to look very artificial and
distracting

--
Vtie
http://www.pbase.com/vtie

Click to expand...

Thomas Streng said:

And..I agree that right exposure is important AND I do think that
if camera is more forgiving regarding exposure it is a BIG plus.
Even Ron (THE Ron) says it is possible to 100% nail exposure with
the 2nd shot BUT not allways with the first. But sometimes there is
NO second shot.

At the other side: with the AF and fast response of the d2h I am at
least sure to even get the 1st shot and have it in focus.

Vtie said:

I don't own D2h, and I am increasingly happy that I resisted from
buying it.

One of the things I do a lot with my D100 images is selectively
brighten
shadow parts. Suppose that I have a scene with a sun lit, snow covered
mountain in the distance and a forest in the shadow in the foreground.
If I take an exposure that covers the mountain correctly, the forest
will come out way too dark. The obvious solution is to take the
forest and other dark parts and selectively brighten it. With the
D100,
you can do this to a reasonable extent without having too much noise.
It's a good way of cheating a little with the limited dynamic range of
a digital camera, at the expense of some noise.

Now what you are telling is that you can't do this with the D2h,
because
noise pops up very fast as soon as you brighten underexposed pixels.
This sounds very bad to me because there are many circumstances where
you want to do this, even with a perfect exposure.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Peter Bendheim said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

Click to expand...

Peter Bendheim said:

I said that you should use curves to brighten your image rather
than exposure compensation to get better lower noise results.

Click to expand...

Nikonombi said:

Michael, I shoot daily on a newspaper and for my style of
photography the differences are very obvious to me and to my
colleagues. We don't have the luxury of time to shoot RAW and jpegs
are just not good enough considering Nikon had two years behind
Canon to improve itself.

Yes unlike Yves, etc, etc, who do produce wonderful results, I
don't shoot like they do. A lot of my shots are often rushed and
lighting is something I barely have control over. Job to job to job
is my day. If you're prepared to base all your judgement on website
tests (that do have their weaknesses) and pretty images made by
forum members, then that is up to you.

I'm not having a winge....cause if I was I would've sold the gear
and gone back to Canon. I am mostly happy with the Nikon, and just
wanting to shed some light on this camera that many people are
calling faultless, or close to it. The image deficiencys do exist
and Nikon needs to lift their game- that's my point.

I see so many people on forums buying a D2H shooting an image of a
flower and saying, "oh it's so wonderful. The focus speed made a
huge difference over my old D100 for this shot". All too common I'm
afraid- like what I say, or leave it. I'm just trying to help, but
if people want to say I'm wrong I'll keep fighting to ensure my
point is taken and not brushed under the carpet, cause these are
issues not only Nikon needs to know about, but potential buyers.

My last point...a great camera- overall a better camera than the
EOS 1D as long as you shoot RAW and nail exposure and manual (not
auto/pre-set) white balance. Not a perfect camera, but what is.

Click to expand...

Michael in Atlanta said:

Sorry but Phil's tests just does not back up what you are saying.

"At ISO 200 the D2H exhibits similar noise levels to the Olympus
E-1, higher than both the Canon EOS-1D and EOS-10D. At ISO 400 the
D2H's noise level is noticeably lower than the E-1 and beginning to
come into line with the EOS-1D and EOS-10D. From ISO 800 to ISO
1600 there is absolutely nothing between the D2H and EOS-1D, very
similar noise levels." (page 19 of Phil's D2h review)

Click to expand...

Loren E. said:

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.

Click to expand...

Peter Bendheim said:

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

Click to expand...