Reading mode: Light Dark

best camera for ISO 1600

Go to last post
Too bad no one makes the perfect camera right now. I am a 5D shooter...I handled a D200 last week and I was amazed at how well built and designed this camera was. Everything down to the sound of the shutter was dang impressive.

And yes as you stated, the 5D has better high ISO performance but I wish it had the features and build of the D200 as well to go along with that.

--
Pak K So
'Enjoy your life, guy'

 
it boosts up to 6400

but usable 6400 unless you underexpose

i will have it at the end of this month i'll post some photos

Yiotis
JeffC said:
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
Click to expand...
 
It's interesting that a few people have posted the D2hs really is much better at high-ISO even when shooting raw. If so, I wonder why we don't hear much about it here?

I need to find the post, but I could have sworn that a very very credible poster here had stated that only the jpeg processing and noise reduction was changed and that the sensor and thus the raw images from the d2hs were the same as from the d2h.

The d2h also goes to Hi-1 (3200) and Hi-2 (6400) but I just don't care for the quality at all, even at 1600 if the lighting isn't great. I don't have problems with 1000 or below and 1250 I consider ok - I'm not a noise purist, but at 1600 with a half dozen people on a dimly lit stage, I don't like noise starting to detract from details I want to capture or making people look like they have really bad complexions.
Yiotis said:
but usable 6400 unless you underexpose

i will have it at the end of this month i'll post some photos

Yiotis
JeffC said:
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
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
Jeff
 
TartarFan said:
I am just so fristrated with the Noise of my D200 at ISO 320 or
higher, I don;t think anyone who has to shoot medium to high ISO,
should be using a Nikon anymore.
Click to expand...
In the nicest possible way - rubbish.

The European technical reports tend to favor the D2x over the 1Ds Mk II at 1600 and 3200 though I agree the 30D beats either.

Whether it will beat the "s" or the D2x D200 with the free software upgrade (you do not get these from Canon) is another matter..

On a more serious note if you are frustrated with your D200 noise at 320 there is either something seriously wrong with your technique or the camera. Differences in noise at 100, 200 and 400 ISO are marginal - and with Nikon's special noise reduction option in use the 5% resolution you loose for less noise still leaves you with more resolution than the 30D.

--
Leonard Shepherd

Usually skill in using equipment has more to do with good photography than the equipment itself.
 
but I suggest you treat them with suspicion. The D2X with NR on is lower in mid grey noise for JPEGs at high ISO than the 1DsII, but drops quite a lot of detail due to the NR and is dramaticaly worse at shadow noise. Take a look at http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos5d/page21.asp

The assumption is that Canon apply little or no NR to 1DsII output as they expect pro photogs to use their own software NR tools.

While it's unlikely that most users would see much difference below 800 ISO, dark/black area noise is significantly greater in the Nikon compared to the Canon.
Leonard Shepherd said:
Leonard Shepherd said:
I am just so fristrated with the Noise of my D200 at ISO 320 or
higher, I don;t think anyone who has to shoot medium to high ISO,
should be using a Nikon anymore.
Click to expand...
In the nicest possible way - rubbish.
The European technical reports tend to favor the D2x over the 1Ds
Mk II at 1600 and 3200 though I agree the 30D beats either.
Whether it will beat the "s" or the D2x D200 with the free software
upgrade (you do not get these from Canon) is another matter..

On a more serious note if you are frustrated with your D200 noise
at 320 there is either something seriously wrong with your
technique or the camera. Differences in noise at 100, 200 and 400
ISO are marginal - and with Nikon's special noise reduction option
in use the 5% resolution you loose for less noise still leaves you
with more resolution than the 30D.

--
Leonard Shepherd
Usually skill in using equipment has more to do with good
photography than the equipment itself.
Click to expand...
 
Get a CANON and forget about Nikon an high ISO (nt)
 
I have both the D2H and the D2Hs. I generally shoot only in nef. Straight out of the camera the D2Hs is between one and two stops cleaner than the D2H.

D2H files seem to clean up well, without great losses in detail, using the likes of Noise Ninja or Neat Image, although I have used neither.

I am going to post some shots, some of which have previously been posted, others have not been.

The first is a shot taken in good light at iso 1600, using the D2Hs. This shot proved to me that I could use the D2Hs at much higher iso's, for the likes of outdoor sports, in order to maintain a high shutter speed.



The next two shots show a comparison of the D2H and the D2Hs. It's a lousy photo, but it should give some indication of the differences straight out of the camera. As I recall, in-camera NR was turned off on the D2Hs, and the iso was 1600.

D2Hs:



D2H:



The next three photo's show a low light indoor shot of the D2Hs at 1600, 3200 and 6400 iso respectively.

1600:



3200(Hi 1):



6400(Hi 2):



I will look for a few shots taken in a theatre situation to post.

Whilst the D50 noise may be good, I cannot believe that it cannot compare with the D2Hs in regard to focussing ability in low light and general speed of handling.

The original poster appreciates these attributes in the D2H. Assuming, he sticks with Nikon, I suggest that the D2Hs is the camera for the proposed usage.
 
S3 Pro (Fujifilm) uses Nikon glass and is rated very very good at low ISO.
--



With respect and dignity I welcome your interaction
Gary
 
SteveD53 said:
Whilst the D50 noise may be good, I cannot believe that it cannot
compare with the D2Hs in regard to focussing ability in low light
and general speed of handling.
Click to expand...
I meant to say that "I cannot believe that it can compare"

Regards,

SteveD.
 
Jeff,

The poster you are referring to is Thom Hogan, who, for both the D50/D70 and the D2h/D2hs combos he claims the noise differences boil down to differences in the JPG rendering engines. Shooting raw, he said, there are hardly any differences between each camera in the respective couples (i.e., D50 vs D70 or D2h vs D2hs). Up to you how much weighing you want to give his words (and, would your Nikon connections not be able to answer this simple question to you? You seemed to be very much in touch with Nikon in the past).

As for your initial question, I can only propose you a solution. Instead of finding an absolute answer, make your relative judgment. I can send you a number of D200 snaps taken in dificult lighting (raw + JPG high quality), trying to replicate what you would find on a stage (if you can hold on a few weeks, I may even be able to send you a few snaps from a gig, but I don't know when I will be getting a pass next, since I am not a pro), and email them to you.

You can then process them at your heart's content and decide if the D200 cuts the mustard for you, regardless of whether any other camera may or may not be marginally better (and, to quote Thom again, i remember his saying that the differences between the 30D and the D200 were not spectacular, can't remember how he ranked the 5D, just see his profile if you're interested. He also said that the D50 was truly remarkable in its ability to retain noise saturation at high ISO, better than any other camera, with, if I remember well, little croma noise). Personally, I have decided to get a licence for Bibble Pro, due to its built-in Noise Ninja engine, which does a fair job at reducing noise.

Shoot me an email (fabbs + aon + at, sorry, don't want to get even more spam) if you would like me to send you some ISO 1600 files, with no noise reduction, moderate noise reduction, high noise reduction in-camera). I believe it would then be the best way for you to judge.

Or, if you are a pro, why not take the old piece of advice, just rent a D200 at your next gig and try for yourself (and maybe even a D50, I daresay). You are not a holiday snapper, so you can make a best judgment what is better for you that way.

Thom, apologies if I misquoted, I am pretty much going from memory, and of course I stand to be corrected in case.

Regards

--
Fabrizio
 
Up to ISO 800, my D200 is by far better than film.
ISO 1600 is by far weaker. Colors are drained out and pictures are more grainy.

The D200 at high ISOs is perfect, when using NEF w/o image processing in the camera, but later processing in professional tools (such as laser soft).
 
Alfred,

I was a bit peeved by your apparent attitude until I read your latest post in which you seemed more rational. Not that my opinion is of any significance, but I've decided you are worthy of respect after all.

I love my D200, but Canon does have a better sensor for higher ISO settings. I briefly considered a Canon DSLR, particularly as I want to do some astrophotography (their EOS 350D appears to be a favourite amongst serious hobbysist astrophotographers), but decided that Nikon's D200 was a superior in too many other ways (besides, there are dedicated sensors for telescopes which work even better than Canon's under those conditions).

Perhaps Nikon may consider a better specified sensor for future development. For myself, I'd like to see a 25 ISO setting as well.
--
Grimble Gromble
 
Your list should be the following instead:

1. Canon EOS 1Ds Mark II
2. Canon EOS 1D Mark II N
3. Canon EOS 30D
4. Canon EOS 20D
 
georgelien said:
georgelien wrote:
Click to expand...
Your list should be the following instead:
georgelien said:
1. Canon EOS 1Ds Mark II
2. Canon EOS 1D Mark II N
3. Canon EOS 30D
4. Canon EOS 20D
Click to expand...
Besides the fact you're a troll, your list is completely wrong: it should be:
1.Canon 5D
2.Fuji S3pro
3.Nikon D50
4. Canon 20d-30d
--
Kindest regards to everybody, whatever camera you own.
Stany Buyle
Photography is a marvellous hobby which I enjoy, not to compete...
http://www.fotografie.fr/
 
ngeiger said:
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.
Click to expand...
http://www.pbase.com/pneumatic_artichoke/image/61955396
ngeiger said:
--
-NG
----------------------------------------------------
Personal Motto: 'Quality pays for itself'
Click to expand...
Are you for real? Yeah, being able to change from 200 to 1600 ISO with a push of the button is much harder than being stuck with one film ISO for an entire roll. And shooting in RAW and postprocessing each individual frame for whatever look you want. Or even in JPEG with adjustable settings.

Not knocking film at all, but this is one area that seems so apparently in favor of digital that I don't understand you.

And camera sensors are a highly technical and expensive piece of equipment to produce, and have a somewhat low yield, especially compared to something like, let's say...a potato chip. Therefore there are only a few makers anyways, and different brands have the same sensors as well, so there really isn't much to have to choose from. And results in RAW are largely similar or at least enough for it to matter zero once you get to PP.
 
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