Why is D200 that much noiser than D80?

Started Jun 2, 2007 | Discussions
Bill Karadimos Veteran Member • Posts: 4,675
Re: Well written yet again....... Re: Here we go again.

LilKnytt wrote:

Bill Karadimos wrote:

I have never had a prob with noise in my D200, I am sure it is
there like all digital camera's, To be honest I have never had to
shoot over 800 ISO I will use a tripod if needed. I have tried 1600
and then again it was fine to me. As members have already told you
the D80 is aimed at someone that wants to shoot jpg with great
results, And the D200 is more aimed for the person that wants
better results than a JPG, Thats why one shoots in raw and does
some PP. You can get a lot better results shooting in raw with the
D200 than the D80 jpg.
jmo

Again Bill, excellent words. Erik's starting to seem like a Troll
to me.

Lil

I believe he just signed up today...lol. Could be.
--

Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty and well preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming - ' Wow! What a ride!'

Tom Christiansen Senior Member • Posts: 2,239
Re: If noise bothers you, wear earplugs

egrc wrote:

If the picture is intended for the screen, the screen is the place
to judge the picture. If it is intended to be printed, the print is
where to judge it.

I see no reason to be biased towards one or the other.

Do you believe that the same characteristics that make a picture
look good on the screen also make it look in print, or do you
believe that in some areas, what optimizes for one medium may
pessimize for the other? Should all PP stages be the same
no matter what your target is, or should they be different?

If you are of the former opinion, then it may not serve to consider
the maker's motives; however, if you are the latter, then one might
question whether the maker is aiming to make good prints and if so,
whether this doesn't adversely affect your on-screen judgement.

If there is any difference, I believe it makes sounder sense for
makers of professional cameras to assume their cameras will
be used to create professional prints, not merely postage-stamp
sized microprints on the camera's LCD monitor -- or on your own.

For the most part, what makes a good picture is invariant across
media: composition (drama, appeal, construction, etc), contrast,
perhaps even color. However, a screen shot is generating its own
light, while a print relies always upon incident light and the medium
and finish beneath it.

I don't happen to believe that any difference between the D200's
3-stop push and its 4-stop push can be considered significant
enough to make or break whether a print at native resolution will
look good enough to take pride in and to show to others. I also
recognize that this lies beyond what anyone using film would ever
have expected to get prints out of in the quality that we can and do
routinely produce digitally. To call 4 stops bad and 3 stops good
really seems to be putting too fine a point on the matter, trying to
count angels dancing upon the head of a pin.

Here's a hint: if you let Nikon choose what it wants to on sharpening,
saturation, and contrast, you'll find that its engine often produces less
noise than you'd get by mindlessly blasting high values at all those.
White balance also plays its part. A newcomer to these waters will
often muck up an image that a more experienced hand can sometimes
produce a fair print from.

So, what did you do with your life before your First Post here, Erik?
And what took you so long, anyway?

-- hide signature --

tom

Yves P. Forum Pro • Posts: 18,667
So, I am not the only one ...

Don't we all get use to this ...

We have seen them all No ???

jb_va2001 wrote:

egrc wrote:

Hi!

I'm going to purchase a new camera and have been looking into D200,
D80 as well as EOS 400D (sadly, there is no 10 mpix successor to
20D/30D yet).

When looking at noise levels in pictures from the cameras, the
difference between 400D and D200 was really large at ISO1600. D200
exhibits much more noise. D80 is, however, not that much noisier
than 400D. The level of detail doesn't differ much between d80 and
400d either. On the other hand, detailt seems to be lost on D200 at
iso1600 compared to 400D.
The strange thing is that D200 and D80 have nearly the same sensor,
yet the noise levels differ substantially.
Why?
If it is because of different noise reduction algortithms in D200
and D80 I just don't understand why the much more expensive and in
all pretty much all aspects better D200 have a noise reduction
algoritm that is much worse? Why doesn't Nikon upgrade the noise
reduction algoritm in D200 to the better D80 variant?
As this is strange, I'm beginning to wonder if it is something else
that makes it impossible for Nikon to reach the same low noise
levels in D200 as in D80. Maybe the sensors differ more than just
the number of read out lines? Maybe there is some sort of noise
reduction signal processing in D80 before the AD-converter?

Comments!

-- hide signature --

Yves P.
Share the Knowledge

PBASE Supporter

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

 Yves P.'s gear list:Yves P.'s gear list
Fujifilm X-T2 Apple iPhone 8 Plus
OP egrc Junior Member • Posts: 32
Re: Some more thoughts. Re: AS a Swede.......... Re: Great First post ...

LilKnytt wrote:

egrc wrote:

Signal processing gets better with time as camera manufacturers are
doing research, and D80 was released almost a year after D200.
Thus, it is in no way impossible that the noise reduction
algorithms differ between the two cameras and maybe is better in
D80.
This is ofcourse no proof.

How logical of you.

Well, it was to prove that your logic was falty The fact that D200 (as well as D70) is (was) more of an enthusiast camera does not necessarily implicate that the produced pictures are better. If I remember correct even the raws from D50 was better because of some falty design in D70 where heat lead to increased noise in one of the corners.

But ofcourse. But there is some really heavy signal processing
going around in moderna cameras. Even the digitized signal from the
alleged low noise sensor of the canon cmos in 400D is going through
noise reduction.

Again, many have posted this - - the D80 is made more to shoot jpgs
while the D200 is aimed for RAW. With RAW there are lots of noise
software which can be used.

And, thus, they have impared the jpeg engine to make it harder to shoot jpegs? Nikon may have taken different things into consideration when they choose the settings for the jpeg engines in D80 and D200, such as more conservative default sharpening, but hardly less detail at the same noise levels. There is just NO reason to do anything like that, or is there?

That's your opinion & you're entitled to it. It is however based
upon a faulty premise. The faulty premise is that the D80 is made
more for the jpg shooter & therefore out of the camera produces
probably better jpgs. The D200 is made more for RAW & that requires
PP. Something we can't be sure even the DPR tester did in the test.
Therefore your logic is mute.

I said the D80 seemed to produce better jpegs and you here state that the D80 produces better jpegs and therefore my logic is mute?!?!? Strange reasoning.

I never speculated in the reason for Nikons decision to find a better jpeg engine for D80, and it may have been to satisfy point and shooters. However, that in no way influence the possible fact that D80 produces better jpegs than D200. If anything it strengthens the assumption that the jpeg engine in D80 is superior to the one in D200. The question is WHY, if this is the case, Nikon doesn't port this to D200? Isn't it possible? Is there any other aspects that makes it less interesting for Nikon? Is the processing taking much longer time and thus interferes with the higher shooting speed of D200? Is it simply because Nikon doesn't think that any D200 user is using jpeg (if they do I think they are wrong)? I don't know. This is what I want to discuss.

As I said, if D80 produces better jpegs (over all) than D200, why doesn't Nikon port the D80 engine to D200? They have, as I see it, nothing to loose and only things to win by doing so.

Therefore my suggestion is this. Go to a camera store & bring a CF
card. Shoot some shots with both cameras at the ISOs you choose.
Shoot with the SAME camera settings. Either shoot RAW or JPG,
though I would HIGHLY recommend RAW as that's where you'll see the
camera's true colors.

Well, a camera is much more than the quality of raw.

If the quality of raw had been the only important factor, then no one would use D200 and most people had been using Canons. I see this is not the case and I therefore make the assumption that things beside raw is of importance.

One of the things besides quality of raw that is of importance is the quality of the produced jpeg, but this is not the reason for my original post.

Of course it would be of interest to compare the quality of the raw images between D80 and D200 since this could give some insight into why the D80 jpeg engine is better (if it really is).

If you wish for High ISO - go with a Canon since I keep hearing how
great they are at high ISO. Personally I rarely shoot higher than
ISO 400. I take the easy route, faster lenses 50 f/1.4 or any f/1.4
comes to mind. Or I just use the on board built in flash or
just one or both of my SB-800s.

Flash nor fast lenses can compensate for noise in all cases.

With the light you have available to you right now in Sweden you
should not have to shoot at such high ISOs. I live in Los Angeles &
I can tell you I KNOW you have MORE LIGHT than I have most of the
time this time of the year. This is not mid winter - we're heading
for Midsommar.

You are orrect. But I do take pictures when it isn't that much light either. As you know the light in the winter is much less here than in Los Angeles.

If you are truly considering a semipro camera, then at least spend
the money on fast lenses.

That's why 5D is out of the question.

Med vänliga hälsningar
Lil

Med vänliga hälsningar,
Erik

OP egrc Junior Member • Posts: 32
Re: Well written yet again....... Re: Here we go again.

Bill Karadimos wrote:

LilKnytt wrote:

Again Bill, excellent words. Erik's starting to seem like a Troll
to me.

Lil

I believe he just signed up today...lol. Could be.

Hmm, no! I haven't posted much here so I've forgotten my old username/emailaddress as well as my password and had to register again.

erik

Muntz Contributing Member • Posts: 967
Re: Well written yet again....... Re: Here we go again.

Guys and gals,

I think we're being a tad sensitive about our D200's and a little harsh on Erik. I've had a D200 and a D80 and I think his question is perfectly valid, and I've often wondered the same thing: IF the D80 has better jpeg algorithms why not just port them to new D200's?

Unfortunately, I gotta say, I didn't find much difference between the D200 and D80 jpgs. I MAYBE found the D80 to have a touch less noise, but I found the D200 to have MORE detail not less.

And as to why they wouldn't improve the D200's algorithms and make it a more "friendly" get "point 'n shoot" type photos straight from the camera kind of machine is mainly because it's company policy (not just Nikon's) to not alter a product once it's launched (unless it can be done thru firmware). This makes sense because you just can't have same products with different specs floating around (imagine trying to sell a used one and tying to convince someone that it's the GOOD and updated D200). That's why they usually drop in the "s" after a year or so

In fact, in the case of the D2Hs, one of the big improvements has been exactly the jpg algorithm.

Welcome to DP Erik.

Again Bill, excellent words. Erik's starting to seem like a Troll
to me.

Lil

I believe he just signed up today...lol. Could be.
--

OP egrc Junior Member • Posts: 32
Re: Here we go again.

Bill Karadimos wrote:

I have never had a prob with noise in my D200, I am sure it is
there like all digital camera's, To be honest I have never had to
shoot over 800 ISO I will use a tripod if needed. I have tried 1600
and then again it was fine to me. As members have already told you
the D80 is aimed at someone that wants to shoot jpg with great
results, And the D200 is more aimed for the person that wants
better results than a JPG, Thats why one shoots in raw and does
some PP. You can get a lot better results shooting in raw with the
D200 than the D80 jpg.
jmo

But if the sensors doesn't differ, you could get about the same raw from D80 as from D200. (The metering is maybe somewhat less good in the D80 but I don't know by how much.)

The difference is mostly, as far as I have seen from the specs, in handling, compatibility with older lenses, build quality, high speed continous shooting, better metering CCD, and certin other features etc.

Thus, when it comes to image quality, the D80 is superior if it has a better jpeg engine. The jpegs are better and the raws are the same.

erik

Tom Christiansen Senior Member • Posts: 2,239
Starting off with a false premise leads to anything

egrc wrote:

If anything it
strengthens the assumption that the jpeg engine in D80 is superior
to the one in D200. The question is WHY, if this is the case, Nikon
doesn't port this to D200? Isn't it possible?

A camara body is not a general-purpose computer, nor is everything
updatable via a mere firmware swap. They don't call it HARDware for
nothing, you know. If you dig up a diagram of a Nikon DSLR's guts,
I believe you'll find that there's a chip dedicated to the creation of
JPEG images, and that this is not the same chip on the D80 as on the
D200. You'd have to gut your D200 to change that.

Is there any other
aspects that makes it less interesting for Nikon?

Why do you care so much?

Is the processing
taking much longer time and thus interferes with the higher
shooting speed of D200? Is it simply because Nikon doesn't think
that any D200 user is using jpeg (if they do I think they are
wrong)? I don't know. This is what I want to discuss.

Seems pretty useless discussion.

As I said, if D80 produces better jpegs (over all) than D200,
why doesn't Nikon port the D80 engine to D200?

See above.

They have, as I see it,
nothing to loose and only things to win by doing so.

Losing and loosing are different things. They'd also have to loosen
matters, but that's related to having something that's loose, not lost.

Please.

Therefore my suggestion is this. Go to a camera store & bring a CF
card. Shoot some shots with both cameras at the ISOs you choose.
Shoot with the SAME camera settings. Either shoot RAW or JPG,
though I would HIGHLY recommend RAW as that's where you'll see the
camera's true colors.

Well, a camera is much more than the quality of raw.
If the quality of raw had been the only important factor, then no
one would use D200 and most people had been using Canons.

I'm sure you have some reason for starting with a false premise:

p q p-> q
T T T
T F F
F T T
F F T

(since you like what false premises lead the argument into)
or for drawing Canon into your little trollade, but I see no bearing
to what you are picking at. And I don't understand the picking.

What camera do you own? Why?

Why are you obsessing over this?

Huh!?

-- hide signature --

tom

Tom Christiansen Senior Member • Posts: 2,239
Re: Here we go again.

egrc wrote:

But if the sensors doesn't differ, you could get about the same raw
from D80 as from D200.

Again with the false premises, eh?

The D80 has 2-channel read-out; the D200 has 4-channel read-out.

And why are you obsessed?

-- hide signature --

tom

OP egrc Junior Member • Posts: 32
Re: Well written yet again....... Re: Here we go again.

Muntz wrote:

Guys and gals,
I think we're being a tad sensitive about our D200's and a little
harsh on Erik. I've had a D200 and a D80 and I think his question
is perfectly valid, and I've often wondered the same thing: IF the
D80 has better jpeg algorithms why not just port them to new D200's?

[...]

And as to why they wouldn't improve the D200's algorithms and make
it a more "friendly" get "point 'n shoot" type photos straight from
the camera kind of machine is mainly because it's company policy
(not just Nikon's) to not alter a product once it's launched
(unless it can be done thru firmware). This makes sense because you
just can't have same products with different specs floating around
(imagine trying to sell a used one and tying to convince someone
that it's the GOOD and updated D200). That's why they usually drop
in the "s" after a year or so

This is exactly my point. If the jpegs in D80 is better and it is due to software why isn't Nikon just porting it to D200 in a firmware update? Could there be some other difference that makes this impossible, such as pre AD signal processing, the sensors, the higher speed of D200 in continous mode etc.

On the other hand I may be biased, I've read in other forums that D80 has better jpeg quality than d200 and maybe it biased my eyes as well.

In fact, in the case of the D2Hs, one of the big improvements has
been exactly the jpg algorithm.

Welcome to DP Erik.

Thanks!

Erik

Toermalijn
Toermalijn Forum Pro • Posts: 15,988
Re: Why is D200 that much noiser than D80?

My feeling is that the d200 is optimized for raw, since you can tweek better in raw, the results are superieur to those of the d80. Since the d80 is set as a consumer camera, the jpeg engine is better optimized then the jpeg engine in the d220. Since both camera's are marketed at a different marked, i would think this is not such a problem. Most serious photographers shoot in raw anyway.

The sensors in the d80 and the d200 are not the same, the d200 has a 4 way sensor(twice as much as the d80) and is faster, hence 5 pictures a second vs 3 a second for the d80. The d200 is faster in any way, shutter lagg and blackout, better suited for action photography or reporter!

In raw, i would say there is a difference in favour of the d200.

Toermalijn
Toermalijn Forum Pro • Posts: 15,988
Re: Why is D200 that much noiser than D80?

Forgot to add that the d200 will meter correctly with most older lenses, so the d200 can use your older favourite pro class lenses and will further take advantage of the better glass quality!

Toermalijn
Toermalijn Forum Pro • Posts: 15,988
Re: Why is D200 that much noiser than D80?

it's nice that the creative suite 3 with photoshop raw 4.1 can now do nondestructive editing with jpegs, it's nowhere new editing raw files!!!

Bill Karadimos Veteran Member • Posts: 4,675
Eric.

How come you arn't listening to the members here, Are you trying to come across as a TROLL? If you are you are doing a good job The bottom line is you can't compare the D80 and the D200, They are 2 different camera's and built for 2 different users, If you are so caught up in why, You chould go and get a P&S, I feel that is what you need, One that will give you no noise and have jpg only, That way you won't have to worry why. I am sorry, But I am getting really getting tired of you saying the same thing, Even after the members have explained it to you a numbet of times. I think you should take this up with Nikon, Maybe you will listen to them.

-- hide signature --

Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty and well preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming - ' Wow! What a ride!'

OP egrc Junior Member • Posts: 32
Re: Here we go again.

Tom Christiansen wrote:

egrc wrote:

But if the sensors doesn't differ, you could get about the same raw
from D80 as from D200.

Again with the false premises, eh?

The D80 has 2-channel read-out; the D200 has 4-channel read-out.

Yes, I know, I have said this in a lot of my other posts.

As far as I know, nobody has ever said that the D200 sensor produces better raw than the D80 sensor (on the contrary, if anything the 4 channel readout of D200 produces lower quality raw). Not even Nikon. Nikon was however fast to tell everyone about the difference between the D200 sensor and the Sony A100 sensor when A100 was released, and, as far as I remember, the only thing they said was just the 4 channel read out.

Which, by the way, is the reason for another advantage of D80 in image quality - the lack of banding.

Are you of a different opinion?

As far as I know there is now reason to believe the raw, per se, from D200 to be of better quality than the raw from D80. If anything they should be of lower quality.

And why are you obsessed?

I think I have said this a couple of thousand times now, because if the jpegs are better from D80 and this is because of the jpeg engine, there must be some reason for Nikon not to port it to D200. If it is only due to software it would be easy for Nikon to port it in a firmware update. They are not doing this. Why? Is there hardware differences that makes this impossible? Are there other things that makes this impossible? What, if any, are those reasons? Is it, for example, the higher speed of D200 continous mode?

erik

Muntz Contributing Member • Posts: 967
Re: Well written yet again....... Re: Here we go again.

Ooooh, I doubt noise reduction algorithms could be updated in firmware. Maybe in the soon to be released 10/22Mp D3 with modular sensor

This is exactly my point. If the jpegs in D80 is better and it is
due to software why isn't Nikon just porting it to D200 in a
firmware update? Could there be some other difference that makes
this impossible, such as pre AD signal processing, the sensors, the
higher speed of D200 in continous mode etc.

Seriously that is very possible. I liked my D200 better so that may have colored MY impression in favor of it. But I do know that I took some shots at ISO 1600 with the D80 and I wasn't blown away at the quality. I really saw no difference with the D200. Now the D2Hs I find amazingly clean AND detailed at 1600.

On the other hand I may be biased, I've read in other forums that
D80 has better jpeg quality than d200 and maybe it biased my eyes
as well.

LilKnytt Veteran Member • Posts: 7,213
A few final words.......Re: Some more thoughts.

egrc wrote:

LilKnytt wrote:

How logical of you.

Well, it was to prove that your logic was falty

First up, I knew I should have made it more clear - I was being sarcastic.

And, thus, they have impared the jpeg engine to make it harder to
shoot jpegs?

Whatever, if that's what you think Nikon's done - - by all means. Think so.

I think you have a few options Erik.

1. Get a job which allows you to get the money for a D5. I've played with it & you couldn't give me one for free...... Well, maybe for free to sell off on eBay.

2. Buy the D80 & join their forum. I know many people who love the D80 so I'm sure you'll either be happy or hate the fact that you spent the money on a camera you're not happy with because you wanted a D5.

3. I do believe it's Fuji who make a P&S with a superb ISO of 3200. That would really save you some money.

4. Wait for the potential upgrade to the D200 which may have an even superior sensor to that of the D5. Boy would that tick you off....

I have a life & have no more time for this Troll.

Med vänliga hälsningar
Lil

Muntz Contributing Member • Posts: 967
Re: Here we go again.

egrc wrote:

Tom Christiansen wrote:

egrc wrote:

But if the sensors doesn't differ, you could get about the same raw
from D80 as from D200.

Again with the false premises, eh?

The D80 has 2-channel read-out; the D200 has 4-channel read-out.

Yes, I know, I have said this in a lot of my other posts.

As far as I know, nobody has ever said that the D200 sensor
produces better raw than the D80 sensor (on the contrary, if
anything the 4 channel readout of D200 produces lower quality raw).
Not even Nikon. Nikon was however fast to tell everyone about the
difference between the D200 sensor and the Sony A100 sensor when
A100 was released, and, as far as I remember, the only thing they
said was just the 4 channel read out.
Which, by the way, is the reason for another advantage of D80 in
image quality - the lack of banding.

Are you of a different opinion?
As far as I know there is now reason to believe the raw, per se,
from D200 to be of better quality than the raw from D80. If
anything they should be of lower quality.

The 4 channels are just for faster burst. I don't think they affect the quality of the raws. Maybe some amp noise, but nothing you'd notice unless you're doing astal photography.

I think all evidence points to raws being of equal quality.

OP egrc Junior Member • Posts: 32
Re: A few final words.......Re: Some more thoughts.

LilKnytt wrote:

egrc wrote:

LilKnytt wrote:

How logical of you.

Well, it was to prove that your logic was falty

First up, I knew I should have made it more clear - I was being
sarcastic.

Well, I though you should understand that your own argumentation was faulty when I answered your first post, but you didn't.

And, thus, they have impared the jpeg engine to make it harder to
shoot jpegs?

Whatever, if that's what you think Nikon's done - - by all means.
Think so.

Irony, you know irony.

I think you have a few options Erik.

1. Get a job which allows you to get the money for a D5. I've
played with it & you couldn't give me one for free...... Well,
maybe for free to sell off on eBay.

I don't know of any D5.

I have a life & have no more time for this Troll.

Sadly, you couldn't answer any of my questions.

Med vänliga hälsningar
Lil

Med vänliga hälsningar,
Erik

Jetranger_Pilot Senior Member • Posts: 1,842
Don't scream when you press the shutter. (n/t)
-- hide signature --

'Let my heart be broken by the things that break the heart of God.'
===============
Nikon D200 - MB-D200 - SB800 - TC-20EII
Nikons(f/2.8 all) 17-55, 105VR Micro, 70-200 VR, 300

 Jetranger_Pilot's gear list:Jetranger_Pilot's gear list
Nikon D810 Nikon D850 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G ED Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G ED Nikon AF-S Nikkor 50mm f/1.4G +15 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads