D80 Sample Images at Impress/Japan

Started Aug 17, 2006 | Discussions
jagge Veteran Member • Posts: 4,149
Seriously do you think that 100-800 is the problem ?

Are you really surprised by the noise levels there. The iso area where the relevant fight is is 1600-3200.

Jakob

cmvsm Veteran Member • Posts: 4,717
Re: The 30D shots look far better...

dr_elis wrote:

Compare the "stone bird", way sharper, far better contrast with the
30D compared to either D80 or D200.

I think it depends on where you are looking. The cactus definately looks better on the 30D. However, the bunny looks much more crisp on the D80 at 3200. The 30D's NR looks to be killing all of the detail.

ianz28 Veteran Member • Posts: 5,382
Re: your fiesty and rude.

jagge wrote:

I give my opinion and take care to be neutral. I have in this
thread even stated that it offcourse is quite subjective what is
considered the best result. Subjectivety seems to be your strongest
side so you should be able to grasp this.

"As feared they just dont seem to be able to live up to the 30D. It seems that the 30D is almost better at iso 3200 than the D80 is at 1600.

Its a damn shame I think. Its becoming more and more clear that they have a problem staying with sony, I can for the life of me not understand why they dont embark on a collaberation with Fuju.

Best wishes

Jakob "

that's not very subjective. It's what I'd call troll bait and stirring the pot.
--
http://www.ianz28.smugmug.com

 ianz28's gear list:ianz28's gear list
Nikon D200 Nikon D5000 Nikon D7200 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 35mm F1.8G Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D +10 more
Bob Walters Senior Member • Posts: 2,039
I see what you mean.

Now that you mention it, I agree.

To me the Canon looks very slightly smoother because it's not as sharp. Perhaps it's the noise reduction or the lens, but the Nikon definately has the edge on detail. The noise looks about the same to me.

Bob
--

J Mankila
J Mankila Veteran Member • Posts: 4,234
Re: Seriously do you think that 100-800 is the problem ?

jagge wrote:

Are you really surprised by the noise levels there. The iso area
where the relevant fight is is 1600-3200.

Jakob

But the ISO area of relevance in everyday photography is 100-800 ; )

That is if you're not a sports or extreme-low-light photographer.. Or have very slow glass

Janne Mankila

Bob Topp Regular Member • Posts: 481
OT- nice work Vladimir

I especially like the high key white cat.

 Bob Topp's gear list:Bob Topp's gear list
Nikon D300 Nikon D700 Olympus OM-D E-M5 Olympus E-M1 Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D +22 more
J Mankila
J Mankila Veteran Member • Posts: 4,234
Wait a sec, there!

jagge wrote:

I give my opinion and take care to be neutral.

Take extra care next time.

I have in this
thread even stated that it offcourse is quite subjective what is
considered the best result.

Yes, you have, and I thank you for that... But don't you agree that shouting publicly one thing and dismissing it on a whisper is not logical?

I agree that Canon can still be considered the king in high ISO - even though D50 has kicked their butt big time and the D80 with its 10mp sensor is coming very close to a Canon with 8mp sensor.

Janne Mankila

Keith Reeder Veteran Member • Posts: 3,725
Re: Agreed. Nikon is...

ianz28 wrote:

noise reduction has very little to do with a sensors quality.

It has everything to do with it if the sensor can't produce a half-usable image unless the in-camera NR ends up kicking all the detail out of it first.

Like the D200, for example.

ohyva Veteran Member • Posts: 6,342
Re: The 30D shots look far better...

Tuukka wrote:

Yep. the stone bird is much better on 30D . But it's also taken
with F8 compared to Nikon's F5.6 which is fastest that the lens can
produce.
Also Nikons lens is much more of a compromise lens being 18-135.

I agree this more likely a lens comparison than camera comparison.

I've to say the 17-85 IS is know to be not one of the sharpest in Canon lens line - a good walk-around but no comparison with the sharpest lenses.

Somehow I also wondered why at least some of the Nikon images were way overexposed. E.g. the river scene the white house on the left bank totally burned out. Why to use the positive EC. Questions I guess only the reviewers know.

-T

-- hide signature --

thw Veteran Member • Posts: 8,089
Re: thats the kind of statement

That makes it so easy for poster to yell troll at you. Kind of
irretating offcourse it isnt as simple as that.

Don't you think the image quality at high ISO goes something like:

D50 > D70s > D200 > D2Xs

while the price of the cameras go the other way round?

And I am not talking about jpeg but RAW comparisons.

-- hide signature --

See the colors of my world in:
thw.smugmug.com

tom sugnet Veteran Member • Posts: 3,342
Re: thats the kind of statement

I've run both ISO1600 pics thru Noiseware.
At ISO1600 D80 has more luminance noise than 30D,
but color noise is about same.
--
Feel free to visit my homepage: http://tom.st

 tom sugnet's gear list:tom sugnet's gear list
Canon EOS 50D Samsung NX1000 Canon EOS 70D Nikon D5500 Canon EF 135mm F2L USM +4 more
R Johns Senior Member • Posts: 1,849
Agreed...

sandy b wrote:

I disagree. While the 30D shot is "Slightly" cleaner at 1600 and
3200, it does not have as much detail as the D80. It is also shot
at F8. I feel that up to iso 800 the D80 clearly is as good or
better than the 30D. Again, purely my opinion, without seeing the
true test results this is all conjecture. i am glad that both canon
and nikon photagraphers may now have great hi iso cameras

-- hide signature --

The D80 does retain more detail@ iso3200 than the 30D. Surely the 30D is applying more NR (and it looks good), but at the expense of lost detail.

Take this crop as an example; I ran the D80's iso3200 image thru Neat Image and came up cleaner than the 30D's image, yet while still (arguably) retaining more detail. Of course, you could then run the 30D's image and get it even cleaner, but with even more detail loss.

Now I'm not saying that the D80 is as good as the 30D at high iso's (judge for yourself), but this is a milestone for Nikon, and it simply blows away the A100 and D200 @ high iso's.

This camera will be in my bag by Spring...

Russ

By Grace, Alone...

cmvsm Veteran Member • Posts: 4,717
Re: Maybe good but not as good.

jagge wrote:

They might be pretty good but they are no way near the D30.
Especially the 3200. For the canon the 3200 is almost as good as
the 1600. This is ceartainly not true for the D80.

And with sharpness as you say its also in 30D favour. Look at the
spines on the cactus.

The noise on the D80 is preferable to the 30D at ISO3200. The 30D has too much color in its mottling. The cactus may look better on the 30D, but the doll looks MUCH better on the D80. There's not even a comparison in terms of sharpness as the D80 blows it away. Looks as if the 30D's NR is out of control and gives that smeared look.

David Chin Forum Pro • Posts: 11,670
Actually, if viewed in Nikon View 6.2.7 ...

High ISO NR is turned on (Normal) for both the ISO1600 and ISO3200 shots.

Nevertheless, I have to concur that the result is very impressive!

George Czajkowski wrote:

I just took a close look at the bunny shot at 1600 ISO. Although
use of textured background was not a smart choice and may lead some
viewers to wrong conclusions, I must say that this is absolutely
mind blowing quality!

Download the picture in full size and look at the bunny's eyes (or
any dark area other than textured background). It is absolutely
fantastic, especially that EXIF data tells me that noise reduction
was turned OFF.

Even 3200 ISO is fenomental (still with noise reduction OFF).

Great stuff!!! Can't wait for my D80 (pre-ordered at Henry's) to
arrive!

-- hide signature --

Regards, David Chin
(D.7.0. & C.P.4.5.0.0.)

Nikon D80 Sneak Pictures and Buzz:
http://www.pbase.com/dlcmh/nikon_d80_sneak_pictures

Links to all my other sites:
http://www.flickr.com/people/davidchinphoto

ArtFedorov Regular Member • Posts: 249
30D vs D80 ISO 100/800/1600/3200 (1/3)

Here's ISO comparison between 30D and D80

According to my calculations, D80's images are underexposed (compared to Canons') by 0,17 EV. (Canon's ISO value for calcs is taken according to Phil's tests)

Looks like high ISO noise is very competitive.

My take: I would not go as far as saying it's better than 30D's, but it looks like so (at least, I see more details at 1600/3200). Enjoy.

Mogambo Contributing Member • Posts: 873
Re: So nice of them to..

I showed the two pictures, one on each monitor to several people at work not telling them what the subject was or why they were being asked to compare. Absolutely everyone (3 people LOL) went with the Nikon 3200 over the Canon 3200.

So no its not just me

Allen George Senior Member • Posts: 1,458
JPG vs. RAW?

What is RAW like?

That's the key for me . I never shoot JPG, but if RAW is like this...well...this smokes my D70.

I really like the D80's output. I think it's very competitive with the 30D. Detail's there, mottling's not out-of-control... Looks like something I could work with.

Cheers!
--
Photographs: http://www.flickr.com/photos/allengeorge/
Terminal Musings: http://www.allengeorge.com

ianz28 Veteran Member • Posts: 5,382
for all intents and purposes.

The D80 sure seems to be doing fine.

sure, 2 vs. 4 channels but it's the new processor and perhaps new algorithms that handle the noise. Not so much the sensor.

Havent you learned from Canon with all the DIGIC stuff?

-- hide signature --
 ianz28's gear list:ianz28's gear list
Nikon D200 Nikon D5000 Nikon D7200 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 35mm F1.8G Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D +10 more
snriley Contributing Member • Posts: 828
.

Mogambo wrote:

I showed the two pictures, one on each monitor to several people at
work not telling them what the subject was or why they were being
asked to compare. Absolutely everyone (3 people LOL) went with
the Nikon 3200 over the Canon 3200.

So no its not just me

Agree... Nikon looks better hands down to me.

I am excited that I preordered this!

-steve

R Johns Senior Member • Posts: 1,849
Most of us have seen enough to know...

that spending $1000.00 on this camera would be a safe bet...

snriley wrote:

Mogambo wrote:

I showed the two pictures, one on each monitor to several people at
work not telling them what the subject was or why they were being
asked to compare. Absolutely everyone (3 people LOL) went with
the Nikon 3200 over the Canon 3200.

So no its not just me

Agree... Nikon looks better hands down to me.

I am excited that I preordered this!

-steve

-- hide signature --

Way to go Nikon!!!

Russ

By Grace, Alone...

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads