Why is D200 that much noiser than D80?

Started Jun 2, 2007 | Discussions
Muntz Contributing Member • Posts: 967
Re: Why is D200 that much noiser than D80?

Actually, ACR 4 and 4.1 are no more ore less destructive for jpgs than Photoshop itself, but they do have some nifty controls (white balance ... finally).

And you very well summed up why the D80 and D200 differ in price (build, weatherproofing, better focusing, better metering, use of old lenses) but the raw (and jpg IMO)iamge quality is pretty much the same in both.

Toermalijn wrote:

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!!!

Toermalijn
Toermalijn Forum Pro • Posts: 15,993
Re: Why is D200 that much noiser than D80?

Alot of people rport that the metering is much better on the d200, so how can they be the same in raw? you can do only so much, even in raw. the better the metering, the better the image, also after PP.

Toermalijn
Toermalijn Forum Pro • Posts: 15,993
Re: Why is D200 that much noiser than D80?

The d2x is even slightly better then the d200.

sandy b
sandy b Veteran Member • Posts: 9,339
Newer sensor, jpg and NR engine tweaked, But..

Image wise, the D80 and even D40 can match the d200

The reason the D200 is superior is all in the superb speed, AF, memory banks, metal build, etc, etc. My film Fe could shoot pics as good as an f6, but in no way else could it stand up tp it. Nikon advanced models at this price point are all about superior features.

The D200 is a semi pro/pro camera due to these advanced shooting features. The D80 is a superb prosumer hobbiest camera. Both cameras will take you where you want to go, but the D200 will do it easier with more style.

 sandy b's gear list:sandy b's gear list
Nikon Coolpix A Nikon 1 J1 Nikon D750 Nikon D7500 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm F4G ED VR +10 more
DenverBryan Senior Member • Posts: 1,014
It's not

It must be user error.

drip01
drip01 Senior Member • Posts: 2,905
I can only agree on one thing you say

egrc wrote:

(sadly, there is no 10 mpix successor to
20D/30D yet).

Very sad indeed. The main reason I switched to Nikon.

-- hide signature --
 drip01's gear list:drip01's gear list
Sony a6400 Sigma 18-300 F3.5-6.3 DC Macro OS | C Sigma 150-600mm F5-6.3 | C Canon EF 200mm f/2.8L II USM Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM +2 more
Muntz Contributing Member • Posts: 967
Re: Why is D200 that much noiser than D80?

Toermalijn wrote:

Alot of people rport that the metering is much better on the d200, so > how can they be the same in raw? you can do only so much, even in > raw. the better the metering, the better the image, also after PP.

No no, you're right. I didn't say you won't get better pictures from the D200 (though many will actually prefer the "punchier" P&S style shots you'll get straight out of the D80). I'm just saying that if you take the same shot at the same manual settings with a D200 and a D80 you'll get the same result. But the D200 will be much less prone to blowing highlights and in the field will in many cases "get a shot" that the D80 won't (i.e. bad light or ... heavy rain

The d2x is even slightly better then the d200.

I've had the D2x and I completely agree Miss it, sniff ;(
Even the D2Hs has better IQ, albeit at lower res. Much better high ISO.

John Yu Senior Member • Posts: 1,201
Re: Great First post ...

egrc wrote:

I'm just interested in why Nikon isn't porting the presumed (but
in no way proven) better jpeg engine of D80 to D200.
If the difference is just in software it should be possible and I
guess not to hard.

An educated guess: because the jpg conversion engine is a dedicated circuit, not an upgradeable firmware. Otherwise, it'll be too slow or you need 3 fans and a heatsink inside the camera to cool a 3GHz quad-core processor.

Another strong reason not to buy Canon is that I already have some
Nikon lenses, but, as I said, I hate noise.

There is no dispute Canon is superior to Nikon in terms of shadow noise at iso from 800 onwards, particularly on their FF bodies. If the types of you photos call for good shadow details at high iso and this is the primary criterion of your gear selection, you should seriously consider switching to Canon and don't look back. It's painfully. You have to give up your existing lenses and give up Nikon's ergonomics. But it's good investment in long term. Canon's lens lineup is as good as, if not better than, Nikon's. And you'll get use to Canon's ergonomics eventually.
--
John

sfisher Veteran Member • Posts: 3,064
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.

OK lets say it is destined for the screen like you say, at what point are you going to posting a 100% full size image on the screen or anywhere near it?

My D2X's image when viewed at 100% on most monitor's today (100 dpi) is just shy of 43x29 inches. The 10 MP cameras would be a little smaller but not by all that much.

To fit all but the most severely cropped photo's from a 10 MPX image on screen drives the noise darn near invisible. Except for the most poorly taken, badly post processed photos. Any small differences there might possibly be in noise between the D200 and the D80 would never be seen.

Quite frankly on screen 100% crops are for reviews that need to find something to quantify, and nuts that have little connection with reality.

The image is much more important than the noise.
--
-Steve
===================

Dodging and burning are steps to take care of mistakes God made in establishing tonal relationships. Ansel Adams

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

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

Ok, if you're correct you have answered my question why Nikon doesn't port the presumed better D80 jpeg engine to D200, at least as a firmware update. It could be that it is not possible. And, as you said before, they don't want a different D200, so they don't fix it in hardware. Which maybe isn't possible either whithout larger modifications.

erik

OP egrc Junior Member • Posts: 32
Re: Great First post ...

John Yu wrote:

egrc wrote:

I'm just interested in why Nikon isn't porting the presumed (but
in no way proven) better jpeg engine of D80 to D200.
If the difference is just in software it should be possible and I
guess not to hard.

An educated guess: because the jpg conversion engine is a dedicated
circuit, not an upgradeable firmware. Otherwise, it'll be too slow
or you need 3 fans and a heatsink inside the camera to cool a 3GHz
quad-core processor.

This could very well be the case. The question that remains to be answered is why they don't do it in hardware. Isn't it possible whithout larger modifications, is it just Nikon that don't want different D200 yet, does Nikon find the difference to be to small to do any changes in the camera?

There is no dispute Canon is superior to Nikon in terms of shadow
noise at iso from 800 onwards, particularly on their FF bodies. If
the types of you photos call for good shadow details at high iso
and this is the primary criterion of your gear selection, you
should seriously consider switching to Canon and don't look back.
It's painfully. You have to give up your existing lenses and give
up Nikon's ergonomics. But it's good investment in long term.
Canon's lens lineup is as good as, if not better than, Nikon's. And
you'll get use to Canon's ergonomics eventually.
--
John

Thanks for the advice. It is just hard to decide - buy d200, keep nikon lenses, get some more noise (that is probably effecting me more than the pictures Sadly I'm a bit of a noise pixel peeper even though sensor noise levels at high iso mostly doesn't matter), or get Canon stuff with the advantages and disadvantages you describe.

erik

OP egrc Junior Member • Posts: 32
Re: Starting off with a false premise leads to anything

Tom Christiansen wrote:

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.

Well, it could very well be the reason. The question that remains is why they don't do it in hardware. Speculation about this is in other parts of this thread, and I don't want to repeat it.

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.

I'll be happy to continue the rest of the discussion in swedish. Are you up to it?

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.

If raw quality had been the only factor of importance when choosing a camera, then if (raw1 > raw2) choose camera with raw1.

Since a lot of other cameras have better raw than D200, I guess this is indisputable, and yet D200 is choosen, the premise is wrong.

It is called modus tollens and its very purpose is to prove a premise to be wrong.
premise
a --> b
Fact c
c --> !b
Thus !a

The poster that I answered indicated that the quality if raw should be the disciminating factor (at least when choosing between D80 and D200).

erik

OP egrc Junior Member • Posts: 32
Re: If noise bothers you, wear earplugs

sfisher wrote:

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.

OK lets say it is destined for the screen like you say, at what
point are you going to posting a 100% full size image on the screen
or anywhere near it?
My D2X's image when viewed at 100% on most monitor's today (100
dpi) is just shy of 43x29 inches. The 10 MP cameras would be a
little smaller but not by all that much.

To fit all but the most severely cropped photo's from a 10 MPX
image on screen drives the noise darn near invisible. Except for
the most poorly taken, badly post processed photos. Any small
differences there might possibly be in noise between the D200 and
the D80 would never be seen.

Quite frankly on screen 100% crops are for reviews that need to
find something to quantify, and nuts that have little connection
with reality.

The image is much more important than the noise.
--
-Steve

I agree mostly. However certain postprocessing really makes the noise visible even in not extreamly cropped pictures. You can for example see noise in some of the sample picture from D200 here at dpreview, without enlarging the pictures. Toss in some image postprocessing and cropping and it will be more prominent.

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

Muntz wrote:

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.

Wasn't the banding issue due to the 4 channel readout?
But besides that, I agree, but, if any difference, I is to the advantage of D80?

This was also my first point here - if the jpegs from D80 are better than the jpegs from d200, than, since the raws are mostly similar, the overall picture quality of D80 is better than that of d200.

erik

OP egrc Junior Member • Posts: 32
Re: Newer sensor, jpg and NR engine tweaked, But..

sandy b wrote:

Image wise, the D80 and even D40 can match the d200
other 10 pm camera, in raw or jpg.

The reason the D200 is superior is all in the superb speed, AF,
memory banks, metal build, etc, etc. My film Fe could shoot pics as
good as an f6, but in no way else could it stand up tp it. Nikon
advanced models at this price point are all about superior features.

The D200 is a semi pro/pro camera due to these advanced shooting
features. The D80 is a superb prosumer hobbiest camera. Both
cameras will take you where you want to go, but the D200 will do it
easier with more style.

I agree in every way. Ofcourse the D200 is the better camera of the two.

erik

sfisher Veteran Member • Posts: 3,064
Re: If noise bothers you, wear earplugs

egrc wrote:

sfisher wrote:

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.

OK lets say it is destined for the screen like you say, at what
point are you going to posting a 100% full size image on the screen
or anywhere near it?
My D2X's image when viewed at 100% on most monitor's today (100
dpi) is just shy of 43x29 inches. The 10 MP cameras would be a
little smaller but not by all that much.

To fit all but the most severely cropped photo's from a 10 MPX
image on screen drives the noise darn near invisible. Except for
the most poorly taken, badly post processed photos. Any small
differences there might possibly be in noise between the D200 and
the D80 would never be seen.

Quite frankly on screen 100% crops are for reviews that need to
find something to quantify, and nuts that have little connection
with reality.

The image is much more important than the noise.
--
-Steve

I agree mostly. However certain post processing really makes the
noise visible even in not extreamly cropped pictures.

And that is true for every digital camera there is.

You can for
example see noise in some of the sample picture from D200 here at
dpreview, without enlarging the pictures.

Also true for for every other camera. What post processing was done an by whom? Under what conditions was the photo taken? And how much were they cropped? If it wasn't cropped how was it reduced in size? The manner used by different hosting sites to reduce images to fit their display size can be brutal for instance. Also programs like Digimarc introduce noise into images.

There are so many questions to your generalization. Not the least of, is if all else is exactly the same do you really think you could tell if it was shot by a D200 or D80 on uncropped image reduced to the size to fit on the web?

Toss in some image
post processing and cropping and it will be more prominent.

Done badly yes. And again true for every camera in existence today.

-- hide signature --

-Steve
===================

Dodging and burning are steps to take care of mistakes God made in establishing tonal relationships. Ansel Adams

Toermalijn
Toermalijn Forum Pro • Posts: 15,993
Re: It's not

better metering result in better images. period! Nothing to do with user error. not all d80 users are stupid. Those people report variations in metering and less good as d200!

Toermalijn
Toermalijn Forum Pro • Posts: 15,993
Re: I can only agree on one thing you say

the development in dslr's is fast and furious! next week you could have a 12 or 16mp for less.

John Yu Senior Member • Posts: 1,201
Re: Great First post ...

egrc wrote:

John Yu wrote:

An educated guess: because the jpg conversion engine is a dedicated
circuit, not an upgradeable firmware. Otherwise, it'll be too slow
or you need 3 fans and a heatsink inside the camera to cool a 3GHz
quad-core processor.

This could very well be the case. The question that remains to be
answered is why they don't do it in hardware. Isn't it possible
whithout larger modifications, is it just Nikon that don't want
different D200 yet, does Nikon find the difference to be to small
to do any changes in the camera?

As D80 came out after D200, I suppose you're asking why Nikon didn't offer hardware upgrade to D200. That's an interesting proposition. I'd like to know too. When D70 was upgraded to D70, neither did it get D50's better jpg engine...

Thanks for the advice. It is just hard to decide - buy d200, keep
nikon lenses, get some more noise (that is probably effecting me
more than the pictures Sadly I'm a bit of a noise pixel peeper
even though sensor noise levels at high iso mostly doesn't matter),
or get Canon stuff with the advantages and disadvantages you
describe.

In practice, really depends on what type of photos you do and the size of prints you're printing. As a rule of thumb, if you can't see the noise when viewing at 50%, you won't see it in the print.
--
John

Jetranger_Pilot Senior Member • Posts: 1,842
Re: It's not

User error is not stupidity.

You are being irrational and turning a simple statement into an insult that was not there.

-- 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 300mm f/2.8G ED-IF VR Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G ED +15 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads