Need for speed

[Mike Neary]

FWIW:

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/D50/FULLRES/D50DBI1600.HTM
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/D80/FULLRES/D80LL1603.HTM

No idea what the NR setting was on the D80, but the D80 sure looks less noisy to me!

Mike

I suspect your D50 would get better results at high iso than a D80

Do you have any proof of that ?

In my comparisons, the D80 fared very well at high ISO. In
particular if you downsample the 10 MP image to the 6 MP output of
the D50. I bet the D80 would win that comparison easily.

I just don't understand where people pick up these myths!

now how do you have proof for that?!?

No, since I don't have a D50 to compare. Next time I get out to
Ohio to my father-in-law I'll run the test.

However, I compared my D80 to my old D70s before I sold it, and it
wasn't even close! The D70s is clearly noisier than the D80, even
when viewed at 100% without any downsampling of the D80's images. I
don't believe the D50 is so much better than the D70s (in raw, not
jpeg!).

and please all tests with NR off

Yup, did that. D80 wins.

i saw a few noise comparisons D50 vs D200 where the D50 was in lead
and as the D80 uses the same sensor (just different in camera PP)
the results should be the same, so it's a fair statement to say
that the D50 is probably better.

Was that a fair comparison ? D200 downsampled to 6 MP ?

This makes sense as well from a technical point of view. Less
pixels on the same sensor size exhibit less noise

Per pixel, yes. But downsampled it should even out. Also, the
technology has progressed since the D50 came out, as the D40 shows.
Each generation of Nikon cameras has cleaner output than the
previous one.

Cheers

Mike

 

[nuteshack]

start with a 50 1.4 and go from there

check out my flickr site for 1600iso samples
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/nute/

 

[Logge]

FWIW:

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/D50/FULLRES/D50DBI1600.HTM
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/D80/FULLRES/D80LL1603.HTM

No idea what the NR setting was on the D80, but the D80 sure looks
less noisy to me!

Mike

you said that you have no idea what the NR setting was so that's no proof to me at all. That the in camera PP stuff has improved alot is obvious

--
Mario

My Gallery
http://mariogrolimund.ma.funpic.de

 

[AWT]

Regrettably, it does get expensive keeping wide apertures at long focal lengths..

For example, an imaginary lens of 250mm at f/2 (i.e. physical aperture width is focal length divided by 2) would mean the aperture is physically 125mm wide. Big, heavy, incredibly expensive glass!

As others have said, it's not the D50's fault - your lens is too slow at full zoom and it shows in lower light shooting because you have to max out the ISO to keep your shutter speeds.

 

[Mike Neary]

FWIW:

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/D50/FULLRES/D50DBI1600.HTM
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/D80/FULLRES/D80LL1603.HTM

No idea what the NR setting was on the D80, but the D80 sure looks
less noisy to me!

Mike

you said that you have no idea what the NR setting was so that's no
proof to me at all. That the in camera PP stuff has improved alot
is obvious

Ok, fine. But think about this for a moment: if the noise is lower on the D80 with NR set to normal, and the resolution is higher, that's simply an improvement in image quality in every respect.

Cheers

Mike

 

[Logge]

no not really.
look at it like that:
in camera NR is not a very good version of NR.
just like USM is better than sharpening in the camera.

a D80 can process 3 images per second with noise reduction.

a program like Neat Image creates a Noise profile for every single picture and applys this with a lot of tweakable options. the whole process takes severel seconds. This process removes more noise, but looses a lot less detail than the fast in camera process.

so if you want a really good noise performance it just matters what the sensor is able to do, because all in camera PP can be done way better and much more to personal taste on the computer.

i prefer a noisy shot with lots of detail to a shot with less noise but less detail as well (and EVERY NR process looses detail) because i can make more out of it
--
Mario

My Gallery
http://mariogrolimund.ma.funpic.de

 

[Mike Neary]

no not really.
look at it like that:
in camera NR is not a very good version of NR.

Maybe. But what I'm seeing from the D80 is very, very good for in-camera processing. For 99% of my shots I don't need better, since I won't print them at large format. In normal screen viewing or 4x6 prints you'll never see the difference. We're splitting hairs here.

just like USM is better than sharpening in the camera.

Agreed, but the same argument applies. For small prints, no visible difference.

For the 1% of my shots that I really wish to enlarge, I have the raw file and can work on it in Capture NX.

That's what I find so remarkable about the D80 - the out-of-cam shot is perfectly acceptable for normal purposes! With the D70s, I was PPing every single shot.

a D80 can process 3 images per second with noise reduction.
a program like Neat Image creates a Noise profile for every single
picture and applys this with a lot of tweakable options. the whole
process takes severel seconds. This process removes more noise, but
looses a lot less detail than the fast in camera process.

I've never needed Neat Image or another 3rd party noise removal tool.
The D80 simply isn't noisy enough for me to worry about that

so if you want a really good noise performance it just matters what
the sensor is able to do, because all in camera PP can be done way
better and much more to personal taste on the computer.

Agreed. But NX's built-in noise removal is perfectly fine, if needed. And the in-camera processing isn't too far behind, amazingly!

i prefer a noisy shot with lots of detail to a shot with less noise
but less detail as well (and EVERY NR process looses detail)
because i can make more out of it

That depends. I've never felt compelled to enlarge anything I took at 1600 ISO. The D70s simply wasn't clean enough for that. Even with the D80 I probably wouldn't enlarge anything above 400 ISO.

It's all relative.

But I still contend that the D80, when downsampled to 6 MP, has less noise than the D50, even with NR off. I haven't seen any proof of the contrary yet, but plenty of indication on this forum and elsewhere that the D80 is cleaner.

Cheers

Mike

 

[Logge]

of course we are splitting hairs here, the differnces are tiny.

i printed ISO800 shots 60x90cm from my D70 and never applied any noise reduction to those shots. but they are exposed fine and from a distance of 0.5m or more you can't see any noise at all
--
Mario

My Gallery
http://mariogrolimund.ma.funpic.de

 

[Mike Neary]

of course we are splitting hairs here, the differnces are tiny.

Absolutely - sometimes everyone just gets carried away in an argument with little practical value

i printed ISO800 shots 60x90cm from my D70 and never applied any
noise reduction to those shots. but they are exposed fine and from
a distance of 0.5m or more you can't see any noise at all

Sounds good. That means that with the more modern cameras you'll see even less noise. Maybe I should consider an enlargement from the D80 at ISO 800 after all

Cheers

Mike

 

[Logge]

of course we are splitting hairs here, the differnces are tiny.

Absolutely - sometimes everyone just gets carried away in an
argument with little practical value

sure, but it can still be fun

i printed ISO800 shots 60x90cm from my D70 and never applied any
noise reduction to those shots. but they are exposed fine and from
a distance of 0.5m or more you can't see any noise at all

Sounds good. That means that with the more modern cameras you'll
see even less noise. Maybe I should consider an enlargement from
the D80 at ISO 800 after all

of course you should do that! i did big prints from iso1600 as well (no 60x90cm yet though) and it looks great. when printing the noise makes way less difference than when watching on the screen. but don't apply much (even better no) NR because the loss of detail is much more visible on a big print than the noise

Cheers

Mike

--
Mario

My Gallery
http://mariogrolimund.ma.funpic.de

 

[BA Closson]

I got a used 80-200 f/2.8 and am very pleased.

 

[stdon]

That's better. Now you're talking. Don
--
Don

 

[Brad Waldera]

How much $, if you don't mind?
--

A Father Best Teaches His Children By Who He Is and By What He Does.- From a picture frame I bought.



http://allmeans.smugmug.com/

 

[martino]

I got a used 80-200 f/2.8 and am very pleased.

What were the camera settings?

and you kept the d50 yes

nice shot!

 

[Logge]

now that looks much better!

one thing though. i checked the Exif and saw that you have the camera on AF-A mode. fot htis type of shooting i would really recommand AF-C and dynimc Area Focus. AF-A tends to be a bit slower for that type of shooting.

to get a bit faster shutter speed you could switch to manual SS 1/250, F2.8 and spot meter and let the flash compensate for the slight underexposure
--
Mario

My Gallery
http://mariogrolimund.ma.funpic.de

 

[BA Closson]

now that looks much better!
one thing though. i checked the Exif and saw that you have the
camera on AF-A mode. fot htis type of shooting i would really
recommand AF-C and dynimc Area Focus. AF-A tends to be a bit slower
for that type of shooting.
to get a bit faster shutter speed you could switch to manual SS
1/250, F2.8 and spot meter and let the flash compensate for the
slight underexposure
--

Mario

Im not sure what AF-A and AF-C are.
or Manual SS.
Im a newbie to digital. Please explain.

 

[BA Closson]

How much $, if you don't mind?

489.00

 

[Brad Waldera]

That was for a used one I take? Nice price. I'm gonna get one next month or early March for sure. Later.
--

A Father Best Teaches His Children By Who He Is and By What He Does.- From a picture frame I bought.



http://allmeans.smugmug.com/

 

[FoolyCooly]

What version did you get. 1 ring or 2 ring... looks like a sharp lens wideopen but I wonder if the CA will go away by f3.2-f4.

 

[morris]

You need a les with a fast apature. They the 85 f 1.4.

Morris
--



http://qcpages.qc.cuny.edu/~morris/POD