Reading mode: Light Dark

D2HS or D40x, which is the low noise jpeg winner?

Go to last post
Kim Letkeman said:
Adam-T said:
I've used D2H models, in RAW again and it's not even as clean /
resolute as a D70 - at 1600 a D50 Kills it and outresolves it at
lowest ISO (the D50 is a bit less refined but just as sharp at pixel
level and has more pixels) ...
Click to expand...
How about in low light when anything is moving and you are shooting
at 200mm? The D50 is rendered essentially useless while the D2H will
get you perfectly clear images.

I'm afraid that you simply have not challenged your cameras if your
D50 is killing your D2H.
Click to expand...
Kim's absolutely right (and this time no backhanded compliments ;). I have a D70 and D2Hs (and shot a few thousand pics with a D200) and while you could convince me that the D70 may sometimes edge the D200 in image quality at high iso (and by that I mean weighing detail and noise in RAW images, not jpegs) the D2Hs is in a totally different class (i.e. much better).
Kim Letkeman said:
(Price is the only reason to even dream of owning a D2H over a D2X

Megapixel myth strikes again ...

I had the choice of a used D2X versus a demo D2Hs for the same price
... I took the D2Hs. Because I did the research and found that I
wanted the spectacular high ISO with the spectacular AF performance
and the wonderfully compact RAW files.

YMMV of course.
Click to expand...
Yeah that's a tough call. I had a D2X for a while and I thought the pictures looked really crisp. But, as I've posted recently in an uprezzing thread, I recently uprezzed some D2Hs pics to 12MP and compared them to D2X pics and I was blown away at how well they stood up. And like you say, at high iso, no contest.
 
What exactly do you mean by "nothing is being obliterated by noise reduction"?
khoss said:
And in many other sites. I don't know where these samples came from
but it has been established time and again that they are both very
fine cameras and nothing is being obliterated by noise reduction.
Regards,
Kurt
Click to expand...
 
Well if you're trying to show the 5d's superiority, why post a pic so "obviously" out of focus? But actually, I'm not convinced it's out of focus. The pics all seem to be brighter for the 5d (which seem to be properly exposed whereas the pics from the D2X all seem slightly underexposed, which penalize it in the noise dept). However the pic I chose is the only one that seems properly exposed for the D2X and OVERexposed for the 5d which may be part of the reason why it's fuzzy.

However, the main reason I picked it is because the other examples had more noise for the D2X, but these pics may not be much worse than the 5d's once some NR is applied. Whereas the example I chose was clearly in favour of the D2X (i.e. you can not take the 5d's picture and turn it into the pic from the D2X because it is lacking too much detail).

All that being said, I can't believe all people who have compared the two cameras are dolts, and virtually everyone says the 5d is king at high iso. I just don't think I'd come to that conclusion from your examples.
gonzalu said:
Why not the others that clearly show an IN FOCUS image (which is
obvious in the above sample was OOF for the 5D)
Click to expand...
 
Neither the 5D or the D2X are obliterating fine detail with noise reduction. I have no idea why the out of focus shot that you had in your post was ever presented but these cameras are not big secrets; they have been reviewed repeatedly, there are samples all over , most of the people in this very forum have used both and they both provide sharp images given decent optics. By saying:

"The 5d is obviously much less noisy in all the comparisons, but this (second) one would suggest that it's just a question of noise suppression since the D2x seems to retain a hellufalot more detail in the resolution chart on the right. I'm pretty sure any NR prog will turn the D2x shot into an exact replica of the 5d whereas the opposite won't be true. Personally if this is an indication of the 5d I'm really not impressed."

Implies that the lack of noise is due to strong noise reduction. That image is simply out of focus. There are plenty of cameras to bash, the 5D is not one of them. Nor, for that matter is the D2X.

Regards,
Kurt
 
khoss said:
Neither the 5D or the D2X are obliterating fine detail with noise
reduction.
Click to expand...
Well, I don't know how these pics were rendered and I'm not sure what the 5d does at high iso. I seem to remember that Nikon applies some NR even to raws at high ISO. I'd be willing to wager that Canon does the same. And if they do, YES some detail will be obliterated, that is just a fact of NR.

I have no idea why the out of focus shot that you had in
khoss said:
your post was ever presented but these cameras are not big secrets;
they have been reviewed repeatedly, there are samples all over , most
of the people in this very forum have used both and they both provide
sharp images given decent optics. By saying:

"The 5d is obviously much less noisy in all the comparisons, but this
(second) one would suggest that it's just a question of noise
suppression since the D2x seems to retain a hellufalot more detail in
the resolution chart on the right. I'm pretty sure any NR prog will
turn the D2x shot into an exact replica of the 5d whereas the
opposite won't be true. Personally if this is an indication of the 5d
I'm really not impressed."

Implies that the lack of noise is due to strong noise reduction. That
image is simply out of focus.
Click to expand...
I'm not totally sure. I posted something about exposure differences in these pics, and I just went back and took another look and I think that the Nikon pics are all quite a bit darker (penalizing the D2X in all but the middle pic).

There are plenty of cameras to bash,
khoss said:
the 5D is not one of them. Nor, for that matter is the D2X.
Click to expand...
Aww c'mon, where's the harm in wholesome bashing? Just kidding, I'm not really bashing it (heck I'd love to get my hands on a 5d, unfortunately I only have access to Nikon goodies) but I'm wondering if the great high iso capabilities aren't due in part to noise reduction. I know, plenty of users claim it has very low noise AND great detail at high iso. I just didn't see it from these pics, and I've seen other reviews that are just as inconclusive (including the one in dpreview, in my opinion).
 
I needed that reminder. This happens a lot: 2 Nikons are compared and somone pipes in with a Canon message and we all leave the track and arfue out in the desert. Perfectly legit, the best camera for the job may not be the two compared but we did get WAY off the topic. And now to return you to our regularly scheduled argument :-). I shoot both Canon and Nikon so I have no bones to settle and I'll therefore butt out. Thanks for getting things back on track.
Regards,
Kurt
 
Kim Letkeman said:
How about in low light when anything is moving and you are shooting
at 200mm? The D50 is rendered essentially useless while the D2H will
get you perfectly clear images.
Click to expand...
Doesn't happen very often at weddings or other events like that - no one said the D50 was a night Sports camera - a D1H will give Clear images also and ones which are NATIVELY cleaner than a D2H even resized
Kim Letkeman said:
I had the choice of a used D2X versus a demo D2Hs for the same price
... I took the D2Hs. Because I did the research and found that I
wanted the spectacular high ISO with the spectacular AF performance
and the wonderfully compact RAW files.
Click to expand...
The AF is the same as the D2X, the D2X in HSC mode is 7Mp (resize down to 4, it lowers the noise, 7Mp RAWs aren't big either) and I'd not call the high ISO performance of the HS spectacular - poor for a 4Mp APS-C camera is closer in RAW...

--
Please ignore the Typos, I'm the world's worst Typist

 
Muntz said:
uprezzing thread, I recently uprezzed some D2Hs pics to 12MP and
compared them to D2X pics and I was blown away at how well they stood
up. And like you say, at high iso, no contest.
Click to expand...
to re-use Kim's words- hmmm ... I actually had that dream ...

I did the uprezzing thing with D2H and D50 files (weak AA on both cams) and they don't even come close to D2X true rez (which also has a weak AA but with 12.5Mp of the same sharpness), just like Fuji S5 and S3 12Mp rotopolated images don't.. I used to try and convince myself of such things too when I had a 1D Mk1 but in reality it never got close to the 1DS...

It is a while since I've used a D2H and I know and love Weak AA filters but you can only stretch 4Mp so far, comparing to a 12.5Mp camera with an equally weak AA filter is no contest.

the D1H gets close to the D1X because the D1X has a heavy AA filter, has only twice the number of pixels and even then, only in one direction..

--
Please ignore the Typos, I'm the world's worst Typist

 
examples...

I own a D2Xs and have shot a 5D myself.. there is no comparison. 5D wins hands down. Seems you are just in denial.

Even with all the variables taken out... exposure, lighting, etc. etc., the D2X(s) and all other Nikon cameras of today will fair worse than the 5D at high ISO. This is a fact that's been proven.... why do you deny that? Can you show any samples of the contrary?

I am not talking sharpness or detail, I am talking NOISE! Whether NR is applied or not, in cam or in post... regardless... We are talking, Out of Camera experience.

On the best settings for both cams at ISO 3200, the 5D troucnces the D2x(s)

Whenever lighting is an issue is when you will use ISO 3200 so why would you have proper lighting to use ISO 3200? THis is an old argument that really proves nothing. If I have good light, I use lower ISO and be happy.

In the worst conditions, that DIM ligthing, where the falloff of point lights will be harsh, the 5D retains more shadow detail and lower noise than any other camera today.

Remember, I am a long time and current Nikon System owner... I prefer Nikon but can admit that Canon is MUCH better in the High ISO noise dept.

I think where Nikon wins is ergonomics and glass, high end glass... that is my taste. Canon also makes GREAT high end glass... I just like the Nikon combio :-)

Here is another source of data...

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/CanonEOS5D/page21.asp

--
Manny
http://www.pbase.com/gonzalu/
http://www.mannyphoto.com/
FCAS Member - http://manny.org/FCAS
 
gonzalu said:
examples...

I own a D2Xs and have shot a 5D myself.. there is no comparison. 5D
wins hands down. Seems you are just in denial.
Click to expand...
Hey, I ain't in denial or in acceptance. I'm just telling you what I see from the examples you posted:

two shots where the 5d has pics that have better exposure and one shot where the D2X blows the 5d away. Are these pics not representative of what's really the case? Maybe. Probably, since everyone raves about the 5d. Then someone please post a convincing example. If I had a 5d I'm sure I'd come to my own conclusion.

My only definite conclusion is that the D2Hs is head and shoulders above the D70, D200, D80 and D2X in high iso. Some disagree, but having personally tried those cameras that's what I observed.
gonzalu said:
Even with all the variables taken out... exposure, lighting, etc.
etc., the D2X(s) and all other Nikon cameras of today will fair worse
than the 5D at high ISO. This is a fact that's been proven.... why do
you deny that? Can you show any samples of the contrary?
Click to expand...
NO. Never claimed I could. I'm just saying the examples posted don't support your argument at all.
gonzalu said:
I am not talking sharpness or detail, I am talking NOISE! Whether NR
is applied or not, in cam or in post... regardless... We are talking,
Out of Camera experience.
Click to expand...
Woah. Well, that's a totally different ball of wax. If lack of noise leads to lack of detail then that's not indicative of a clean sensor. That's indicative of NR, which can be applied in PP on any photo.
gonzalu said:
On the best settings for both cams at ISO 3200, the 5D troucnces the
D2x(s)
Click to expand...
Could be.
gonzalu said:
Whenever lighting is an issue is when you will use ISO 3200 so why
would you have proper lighting to use ISO 3200? THis is an old
argument that really proves nothing. If I have good light, I use
lower ISO and be happy.
Click to expand...
I know no one that would disagree.
gonzalu said:
In the worst conditions, that DIM ligthing, where the falloff of
point lights will be harsh, the 5D retains more shadow detail and
lower noise than any other camera today.
Click to expand...
Then THAT would definitely make it the better low iso camera. I just haven't seen it first hand.
gonzalu said:
Remember, I am a long time and current Nikon System owner... I prefer
Nikon but can admit that Canon is MUCH better in the High ISO noise
dept.

I think where Nikon wins is ergonomics and glass, high end glass...
that is my taste. Canon also makes GREAT high end glass... I just
like the Nikon combio :-)

Here is another source of data...

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/CanonEOS5D/page21.asp
Click to expand...
Honestly, I've looked at that and I find those examples ambiguous too because the 5d looks better than the D2x at iso200 ... so you're starting off with different pictures (I don't think anyone will say that the 5d SHOULD look better than the D2X at low iso ... quite the contrary actually). And the noise charts, as i said before are darn near bogus because they don't take into account detail.

I prefer tests like this one
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/dslr-comparison/us.htm

but it doesn't have the 5d (which Ken Rockwell, let the flames begin, admits has better image quality than any other dslrs he's tried).
 
Depends on the subject of course, but the majority of subjects will look awesome from that sensor, even as big as 16x20.

I have read of people making excellent posters from it ... processing must be perfect though to reach sizes like that ...

--
http://letkeman.net/Photos
 
It's plenty. Depending on what you do with your pics, 4 mp is at least enough, and probably more than a lot of people need most of the time. You can't convince people of this though, so believe what you want to.
 
Exactly how many megapixels do you require? What do you typically do with your shots?

Most photographers aren't making large prints..
or shooting stock..

Thus 4mp-8mp is more than enough for most shooters.

The D2hs files are more clean/smooth than many 6mp bodies during its day.
Its not just about the MP, but the quality of those MP.

Teila K. Day
 
As I mentioned before, I owned the D2H and in good light, ISO up to around 400, a great camera and I often printed 750 x 500 mm posters from it. People were amazed at the quality and when they found out it was a 4 meg file, their jaws dropped. BUT, I still maintain that at higher ISO's, the D2H struggled a lot. The D2Hs came out wiyh all sorts of extra stuff and as people have been saying, it is hard to find a second hand one because they were that good.

If my new second hand D1H doesn't perform as well as I would have thought, then it will go on ebay and I will look at a second hand D2Hs. The consumer bodies have died a death in my interest department mostly because of the shutter lag and low frames per second rate. I have the D50 for none action shots in low light, so that doesn't need to be replicated.

D3......well it is a mystery still and I may wait a while before eventually buying one, let the bugs get sorted out etc.

Thanks to every one who has posted and expressed an opinion. I really didn't think this thread would tick over 100 responses.
--
Warm regards, Dave.

Need some help posting images on this forum? Click here for some help http://www.davidstanton.com.au/how_to_post_photos_on_forums.html

 
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