JeffC223705
Senior Member
Which camera would you prefer for shooting poorly lit stage scenes at ISO 1600 - no flash allowed:
1) D100,
2) D200, or
3) D2x
--
Jeff
1) D100,
2) D200, or
3) D2x
--
Jeff
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
best camera for ISO 1600
- Thread starter JeffC223705
- Start date
Claire Dupuis
Senior Member
Then one and only for CERTAIN and RELIABLE quality high ISO shots is the D50. You may want to listen to sirens and believe the D200 is good... and waste your time and money, if you very often shoot very high ISO you'll end up returning it, garanteed !
It is said that the D2Hs does not bad in that area, but the real king (nearly perfectly clean pictures in dark areas at 1600) is the D50. Don't be fooled by its size or price, it's probably the best Nikon for the bang at the moment.
Claire
It is said that the D2Hs does not bad in that area, but the real king (nearly perfectly clean pictures in dark areas at 1600) is the D50. Don't be fooled by its size or price, it's probably the best Nikon for the bang at the moment.
Claire
D.R. Barnhart
Leading Member
Never shot with the D2X but I have the D100 and the D200...
Contrary to the "flavor-of-day" belief on this forum, I get decent ISO1600 shots with either but the D200 is better.
Dennis
--
Those who are easily shocked should be shocked more often. -- Mae West
Contrary to the "flavor-of-day" belief on this forum, I get decent ISO1600 shots with either but the D200 is better.
Dennis
--
Those who are easily shocked should be shocked more often. -- Mae West
JeffC223705
Senior Member
I thought I read on the forum that the d2hs noise improvement was only when shooting JPEG through noise reduction and that the noise from the sensor (when shooting raw) was the same at ISO 1600 as the D2h???
--
Jeff
ckrusen66
Forum Enthusiast
I shoot the d100 and d50 and while the d50 is better, I doubt you would see a difference in prints.
chip
chip
JeffC223705
Senior Member
One more item for consideration - my print size is 8.25 x 10.75, max.
Does the D200's increased resolution when printed at 8 x 10 make up for possibly lower high ISO performance than the D50?
--
Jeff
Does the D200's increased resolution when printed at 8 x 10 make up for possibly lower high ISO performance than the D50?
--
Jeff
JeffC223705
Senior Member
And for an 8.25 x 10.75 image pushing ISO 1600 with bad site lighting and no flash allowed, is the D2x definitely out compared to the D200?
--
Jeff
--
Jeff
Andrew64673
Senior Member
I have got some surprisingly good results from the d100 at 1600, but the d2x holds a lot more detail if that is what you want, I never tried the d200.
Andrew64673
Senior Member
If you expose correctly you will barely even see noise in a print that size at normal viewing distance except for a bit in the darker areas .
Alfred Arzt
Well-known member
Christoph S.
Leading Member
no text
Alfred Arzt
Well-known member
Sorry there was no text before.
I had the D100 for 3 years and have the D200 now since half a year. ISO 1600 on D200 is much better compared to the old D100.
I don't have the D2x, but as far as I could see from Phil´s test and comparing my D200 shots with freinds who shoot D2x, D200 wins.
Regards
Alfred Arzt
http://www.pbase.com/artalf
Zoltan2
Senior Member
If you've got Nikon glass, why don't you try the Fujifilm S3 Pro? Guaranteed lowest noise. If you can live with the slow write/playback times that is.
Alfred Arzt
Well-known member
Just put D200 on JPG M. You get pictures 5,5 MP (for press you don´t need more) and they are better in high ISO than of any other Nikons. But high ISO is only one of the advantages the D200 has.
it's probably the best
I agree, It´s absolutely the best you get for 500$
Regards
Alfred Arzt
http://www.pbase.com/artalf
Claire Dupuis
Senior Member
Sorry, I did use my D200 at Medium size and still the performance from and above ISO 400 was very poor. THis and other forums are litterally filled with posts about the mediocred D200 performance. Sorry it's a great camera in other areas, but not for high ISO !!
Claire
Claire
JeffC223705
Senior Member
I can't live with the speed any more - I'm spoiled with my D2h. In fact one of the reasons I'm thinking of upgrading is that I'm mad at myself for missing the curtain call shot that I wanted tonight - I got excited when a few actors came out and shot a few shots off, forgetting how small/slow my D100's buffer is compared with the D2h that I shoot 95% of the time. I was helpless as the shutter was dead while my D100's buffer was full and slowly writing the raw files to the card. I wish I would have thought of power cycling it to dump the previous shots still in the buffer to get the one I wanted, but I didn't have time to think... missed the shot. But my D2h just has too much noise when the light is poor at ISO 1600 so I use the D100 when the light is really poor (meaning that I'm pushing 16000... I'm happy with my D2h up to 1250 if the light is "good" at that ISO.)
--
Jeff
JeffC223705
Senior Member
Obviously meant 1600 not 160000 above, though it sometimes feels like it 
I'm really really happy with my D2h in daylight. But I'd like a better camera to use with my 70-200 and 17-55 in low light... at the same time, if the D100 delivers better quality, I hate to upgrade to a camera that I won't use because the high-iso quality is worse.
--
Jeff
I'm really really happy with my D2h in daylight. But I'd like a better camera to use with my 70-200 and 17-55 in low light... at the same time, if the D100 delivers better quality, I hate to upgrade to a camera that I won't use because the high-iso quality is worse.
--
Jeff
Claire, you are right. The problem these days is that the sensor is the film. Changing films, or even trying out new ones if you are not happy with the ones you have, is not easy as it used to be. Since interchangable sensors have not been invented yet (to my knowledge), if you want to change your "film", you have to change the body and often the camera brand and therefore all your lenses as well. Thus, the barriers to changing film are psychological as well financial.
But having said that, the barriers are not set in stone. If you don't like the performance of your "film" at ISO 800 and above, it is upto you to try others. This is what I did when I tried a Canon 5D. The result is that I sold all my Nikon gear (at a loss) and bought the 5D. I am very happy now.
Please don't call me a "troll" or get your feathers ruffled because of this. I didn't sign any contracts with Nikon, there is no law against saying "I switched to Canon", and the subject of this thread is "Best camera for ISO 1600". I favour available light photography, and I like using very high ISO film.
As photographers, what harm is there in being educated about the film (ie., sensors/bodies) made by other brands and using the tool that suits us best?
I have had my 5D for five days. Here is a snapshot I took yesterday at ISO 3200, with windowlight while the sun had almost set. NO POST-PROCESSING. This was not possible with my D200.
I post this because the OP asked a question and I feel that he, like me, would do well to be told about the facts before spending (and losing) a lot of money.
Exif here: http://www.pbase.com/pneumatic_artichoke/image/61955396
--
-NG
----------------------------------------------------
Personal Motto: 'Quality pays for itself'
Alfred Arzt
Well-known member
If ISO 400 looks poor on D200 you did something wrong. Mine look great!!!
http://www.pbase.com/artalf/d200_iso
http://www.pbase.com/artalf/iso3200
THis and other forum
Things don't become true, just only because of beeing repeated all the time. Some days ago someone posted a 1600 iso comparison between D50
D200 and D70. he let the D50 win becaues he was setting the satuaration on D200 on high and the others on medium or low, but eaven with that different settings it was not clear for the D50 to win.
Alfred Arzt
http://www.pbase.com/artalf
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum