For those switching from Canon to D300: question on low-iso noise

[dewayne howse]

Over the weekend I had a friend over with his D300, and I shot some
test images with it and my EOS 350D (RAW and decoded with dcraw). I
find the reviews on this site somewhat sloppy so I wanted to do a few
tests myself.

My test didn't exactly cover the low ISO range you asked about; I
only used ISO 400 and ISO 1600. From a noise point of view, it turns
out that the two cameras were virtually identical. To my (Canon
user's) eye the 350D appears to have minimally less noise at ISO
1600, while the D300 has a bit more highlight headroom.

I have owned a 350 and I know for a fact that it has at least a stop more noise than a 30d of which I also owned. The only way to get the true real raw process is to use the cameras companion software to convert with. DCRAW is a little worst than ACR and far slower to update.

 

[97C5L]

I really dont get this obsession with low noise at low ISO. I've printed 13 x 17 with my 6MP D70 and I defy anyone to show me noise in those prints. Just how big do you guys want to blow up these 12MP images that noise at low ISO is going to be visible without a microscope??? What printer are you using that will reproduce that noise on paper?

I looked at that horse and the picture was twice the size of my monitor and I still couldn't see any noise.

If there is a difference between comparable Nikon and Canon cameras then that difference has to be so miniscule as to not even be worth discussing except for measurbators who are more interested in tech jargon and spec discussions than actually taking pictures.
--

When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle. Edmund Burke

 

[Bernd Schmidt]

Thank you for the polite title of your post.

Over the weekend I had a friend over with his D300, and I shot some
test images with it and my EOS 350D (RAW and decoded with dcraw). I
find the reviews on this site somewhat sloppy so I wanted to do a few
tests myself.

My test didn't exactly cover the low ISO range you asked about; I
only used ISO 400 and ISO 1600. From a noise point of view, it turns
out that the two cameras were virtually identical. To my (Canon
user's) eye the 350D appears to have minimally less noise at ISO
1600, while the D300 has a bit more highlight headroom.

I have owned a 350 and I know for a fact that it has at least a stop
more noise than a 30d of which I also owned. The only way to get the
true real raw process is to use the cameras companion software to
convert with. DCRAW is a little worst than ACR and far slower to
update.

I don't agree with this. DCRAW is as close to equalizing the playing field as it gets since it does minimal processing and no noise reduction. I tried Lightroom first, but the images are too processed to be useful IMO.

Here's how I did the test. The target was a quilt hanging on my wall. All pictures were taken very quickly in succession, so lighting should be constant. With every camera, I took a series of images at ISO 1600, f/8, with shutter speeds varying between 1/40s and 1/400s. The idea is to find out how the images look when exposed near the noise floor, and when exposed near the limit imposed by highlight clipping. dcraw automatically pushes the exposure as necessary, hence the sample images have about the same apparent brightness.

Below are two comparison images for the extremes in the series. Things to keep in mind: equivalent lenses were not available; a 50mm f/1.4 was used on the Canon and a 18-200 on the Nikon, so sharpness comparisons are completely invalid. I also made no effort to keep focal lenghts identical, as I was purely interested in sensor noise performance. Take these factors into account when quibbling about image quality.

The Canon was running out of highlight data at 1/40s; I took an additional shot at 1/25s on the Nikon which started to show a similar effect.





Picasaweb is unfortunately resizing those when embedding; here's a link to the two-image gallery:
http://picasaweb.google.com/bernds.cb1/D300350d#5264548091264763970

 

[DAVELEE]

I agree, I have 2 pictures 13x16 on my wall side by side, one taken with a D40 with 18-200 lense the other with a D700 with 70-200 every one would think they are from the same camera and same lense. Only thing expensive cameras and lenses do is let you work in lower light conditions. Composition is the most important thing to think about. Not noise at low iso’s.

DAVELEE

 

[mp101]

But ISO 1600 is not exactly a "Low-iso".

 

[Bernd Schmidt]

But ISO 1600 is not exactly a "Low-iso".

No. As I said in my first post, it's not exactly what you asked about. I did the test for myself, and since I don't worry about low ISO at all I didn't shoot any images. IMO all cameras on the market are more than good enough with sufficient light. (You will see noise at low ISO if you expose badly, but that's not a problem with the cameras.)

 

[Ray Soares]

--
Ray Soares

See my pictures at http://www.pbase.com/raysoares

 

[KennyKB]

I haven't used any Canon DSLRs so I can't compare, but I've never had
any noise problems in shadows at low ISO with the D300. There has
been some postings with users getting noisy skies, but I have never
seen this.

I've seen some and it turns out they were badly exposed and processed to within an inch of their lives. Well exposed shots have no noise problem at low iso.

 

[jp52637]

If you are obsessed with noise then buy a D700, else stay with canon.
Their latest models all have AF fine tuning and that should solve your problem

--
cameras don't shoot people
People shoot people.

 

[nikoncanonleicapentax]

Presently I shoot with a 40D and D300. I shoot lots of solid blue skies where noise and posterization can be a problem. The D300 is no worse than Canon in this regard. Shooting RAW, using both Capture NX 2 and Lightroom 2.1.

The sky is definitely cleaner when processed with CNX vs Lightroom. In Lightroom, I do have to dial the luminance slider a little higher with the D300 but nothing significant and certainly without causing any loss of detail. This could easily be attributed to the different profiles for the 2 cameras. It's a non-issue.

I'm thinking to switch from Canon to D300 but I'm worried about the
noise at low iso, especially in dark areas.

That's because I'm finding posts of people complaining about this.

Usually you are used at noise in High Iso, but low iso should be
cleaner.

So, I would like to some suggestion from people that had the
opportunity to use both Canon cameras and D300.

Thanks

 

[life]

--

I think you're making a big mistake here...It seems to me that you are asking others to make the decision for you...even with some pictures backing up, it is still going to be others pictures...not yours. Why don't you take a real look at the tools both systems (Canon & Nikon) offer you to work with. I was in your place a few months ago with my 30D and 24-70L f 2,8, 70-200 IS f 2,8, Tokina 12-24 f 4, and Sigma 300 f 2,8. I sold my Canon 24-70 & 70-200 to buy my D300 & 70-200 VR f 2,8 because I was tired of switching gears on the field and also because I bought a D300 last spring with a 105 VR f 2,8 and loved the AF system .(I had to sell it because of personnal problems,but I'm ok now) I like to have my second camera (Canon 30D & Tokina 12-24 ) on my shoulder while I carry my D300 & 70-200 VR f 2,8 in my hands. I plan to sell my Sigma 300 f 2,8 and get a new one for my D300 because I love so much this 51 points AF system because it's more accurate than the Canon one, and by the way, I don't see any difference in the noise issue between my 30D and the D300. If I can get $1750 for my Sigma 300 f 2,8, then I'll sell all the Canon stuff to buy Nikon...but if I don't get my price, I can keep both gears and still have fun ! Good luck !

 

[chuxter]

Overall it is a goo photo ( i think.)

It's a bit soft. The focus point seems to be between the horses? The front horse has some motion blur. It's underexposed a tad (look at the histogram).

I don't see much noise in the brown horse's head. When I checked it before applying gentle NR, it had about 30% of very HF luma noise...easy to squelch:



Yes, I PP it with PSE6...

Cropped just the head

Adjusted Levels (White=216 & Grey=120)

Applied NR via NW Pro (Weaker Noise setting, w/Detail Protection & Sharpening=10)
Applied USM (100, 1.5, 1)

--
Charlie Davis
Nikon 5700, Sony R1, Nikon D300
HomePage: http://www.1derful.info
Bridge Blog: http://www.here-ugo.com/BridgeBlog/
'Experience: Discovering that a claw hammer will bend nails.
Epiphany: Discovering that a claw hammer is two tools...'

 

[mp101]

Well,

I'm not thinking someone will decide for me.

The matter is more: take a decision on the basis of what?

• Test the camera? I don't have this possibility. In some countries you can buy and give it back. Not here.

• Look for pictures on the web? That's what I'm doing. And I have seen this possible issue.

• So, why not asking feeling to people in the forum that use daily the Camera.

If one asks me what is good or bad of my 350d, I have no doubt in giving answer.

Thank you for examples.

 

[mp101]

Very good comparison.

Thank you.

DO you have a similar comparison between D300 D3 etc. also at ISO 200?