Toronto Photography Meetup Group

Hi,

Just recently upgraded my Nikon D70 to a D300s for a number of the features.

Larger Image Review, double the MP, ISO choices and it's apparent ability to handle low light situations better, LIVE view function and video.

However, after using it now for a few weeks, I'm getting frustrated and think I made the wrong choice.

I can only push the ISO to 800. And in low light situations, there is so much noise that I find the image unusable.

I still revert back to my doing something wrong but for any of you who own a D300s, maybe you can share your insights on the high ISO quality.

How far have you pushed the ISO in low light situations with and without flash and what do your images turn out like? If you can share them on Flickr, I could compare with mine.

I also don't get razor sharp images, which is a whole other topic!

Thanks in advance.
Leesa

Do you have any samples you can post? Best advice I can give without seeing your images is exsposure is critical in low light shooting. Use your histogram and exspose more to the right. But post some pics so we can see your problem.

Cheers,

Scott

we told you so look at noise as grain rather than noise

I think I could if I converted to BW, however, it looks horrendous in colour.

And who told me so??????

The Canon Continuum told you so.

Are you exposing to the right? This is especially important at higher ISOs where pushing shadows will display more noise.

Here are 3 photos at 800 ISO that when viewed at 100% look far too grainy for me since this is not the maximum ISO for this camera.

[img]<a%20href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/leesamclellan/4975496344/"%20title="_DSC1106%20by%20Flower%20Power%202006,%20on%20Flickr"><img%20src="http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4085/4975496344_478983eeff.jpg"%20width="500"%20height="332"%20alt="_DSC1106"></a>[/img]

[img]<a%20href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/leesamclellan/4974880475/"%20title="_DSC1103%20by%20Flower%20Power%202006,%20on%20Flickr"><img%20src="http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4095/4974880475_eed742e908.jpg"%20width="500"%20height="332"%20alt="_DSC1103"></a>[/img]

[img]<a%20href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/leesamclellan/4975502702/"%20title="_DSC1121%20by%20Flower%20Power%202006,%20on%20Flickr"><img%20src="http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4104/4975502702_64d66815a0.jpg"%20width="500"%20height="332"%20alt="_DSC1121"></a>[/img]

Looking at the top pic I see it was shot at 300mm at 1/90th of a second. Was this shot on a tripod? If not that would explain the lack of sharpness. That said, decent sharpness if that's handheld. With more megapixels camera shake becomes more evident, especially if you're gonna peep at yer pixels.

I had a look at these blown up in photoshop and I think they are fine to tell you the truth. Sure the dark spot around the porch is a little noisey but you have to take into account how dark that area is.

I guess you could get some faster glass and drop down your iso, but overall these pics look pretty normal to me.

If you want to see bad iso let me pull out my D200 @ 800

Yes, this was handheld. And I didn't realize that camera shake was more apparent with more pixels. Would you recommend a VR lens then?

d3s all your troubles will be over

I'm not happy with the sharpness and when I begin to lighten the shot and push the levels/curves, you can really see the noise. YUK.

But I just took some shots now at all the ISO settings with the metadata imposed on the image. 200 and 400 appear pretty clear but once you get to 800 and up, YUK. I cropped the images to show them at 100%.

I see no improvement here between my D70 regarding the noise.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/leesamclellan/sets/72157624795482769/

I'll do further tests comparing the 2 cameras. But once I've determined the max ISO setting on this D300s, then I'll have to move to the sharpness issue because I've been disappointed with the results so far.

My question on sharpness would be: do my existing lenses that worked fine with the D70 NOT work equally as well with the D300s? Or is it the D300s?

And would love to see your shots from the D200 at ISO 800. Just to compare.

Oh, and feel free any Canon users to post your photos from a comparable camera. 12mp @ ISO800 or up. Would like to see them if you don't mind.

You need good glass to compliment your camera otherwise you might aswell be shooting with a tiffen filter on .. Good glass makes a difference ... Not much in the noise department though .. Im happy with my d300s in higher ISO .. its not FF so I don't expect it to act like a d700

Original discussion:
http://tpmg.ca/forum/viewtopic.php?t=16209

add some smart noise reduction and sharpening, from what I know, nothing will satisfy if you keep looking at your "gigapixel" images at 100% on your monitor. Slight noise reduction and printing goes a long way

Maybe that's my problem because I had rented a D700 a few times and when I went to upgrade my camera with the intention of buying the D700, I switched to the D300s. I had a budget and could get more goodies if I chose the 300s. Hmmm.

+1 Good glass will make the biggest difference with your photos over camera bodies.

With most lenses if you stop down you will get sharper images than shooting wide open. I think I saw you are using a 70-300 f4-5.6 at the 70-299 range try stoping down to f5.6 and at 300 6.3 or f8 that should help with your sharpness.

And always try to have a shutter speed equal or geater to your focal length if your hand holding.

all these are untouched with some minor white balance adjustment.

iso 800 shot 1

http://www.never2fast.com/tpmg/iso800-1.jpg

iso 800 shot 2

http://www.never2fast.com/tpmg/iso800-2.jpg

iso 1000 shot

http://www.never2fast.com/tpmg/iso1000.jpg

So, handheld, I'll make another assumption and that is that a lot of the information for the image is on the right side of the histogram and you've brightened them in post. When you underexpose at higher ISO there will be more noise than the camera is capable at that ISO. This becomes especially noticeable when you push in post. For example, and these are just rough numbers for the purpose of discussion, it is possible to get less noise at ISO 1600 properly exposed (histogram leaning to the right (w/o blown highlights of course)) than slightly underexposed at ISO 800. This depends on the camera of course, but this is something I have found with mine. This would hopefully help with the noise, which I don't think is too bad personally.

As for the VR, you could do that or get a tripod. A cheaper option.

That 6mp sensor in the d70 (and also in other cameras including the maxxum 7d if memory serves, is arguably one of the best sensors ever created if looking strictly at noise. Just seemed to be the right mix of pixel pitch etc. Anything denser is really a case of diminishing returns at high iso in my opinion.

Yes, I guess you're right. I am very picky and inspect my photos with a fine tooth comb but mine still don't compare with other members photos. But then I don't have the original RAW files!!!!

I'll do some printing tests since right now I'm just inspecting them on my monitor. And enlarging them to sometimes 400%. Eeesh!!!

That 6mp sensor in the d70 (and also in other cameras including the maxxum 7d if memory serves, is arguably one of the best sensors ever created if looking strictly at noise. Just seemed to be the right mix of pixel pitch etc. Anything denser is really a case of diminishing returns at high iso in my opinion.

"I'll make another assumption and that is that a lot of the information for the image is on the right side of the histogram and you've brightened them in post. " Should have read "information for the image is on the LEFT side of the histogram..."

Thanks for showing. I don't see any noise but I'm just viewing them at the size you're posting at. They look pretty clear to me.

When you view them on your monitor at 100%, do you see any noise? Could you maybe post some portion of the image at 100%?

so you're a pixel peeper I'd recommend trying to catch the moment instead of striving for sharpness I remember seeing those awesome prints of flowers of yours

Those "other members" have special cameras. j/k

The noise level in your photos look about right. Good advice from never22 on better shooting techniques. Some good shooting techniques and a little bit of selective post clean up goes a long way.

If you clicked on the images they would of blown up to full size.

But to save time I have done them at 100% crop for you and re-uploaded them.

iso 800 shot 1

http://www.never2fast.com/tpmg/iso800-1.jpg

iso 800 shot 2

http://www.never2fast.com/tpmg/iso800-2.jpg

iso 1000 shot

http://www.never2fast.com/tpmg/iso1000.jpg

Although the D200 is pretty well known for being noisey above iso 400 as you can see you can still get decent pics and the D300s is light years ahead of the D200. Like others have said stop pixel peeping because you will never be statisfied.

Scott

Now this is what I call sharp. This is why I want the Canon 5D mkII. You can see every pore and little hair.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/2dogs_prod ... otostream/

My XSI with Macro lens under studio lighting does the same at ISO100

Not at 21megapixels.
Sorry, I think we are slightly off topic.

Ok, yours is longer

Back on track... right lighting sometimes helps bringing in more information to the sensor, noise is more apparent for when the sensor has to guess (underexposed as said above or dark areas) information, flash might sometimes help as well

It's not really 'guessing' but rather amplification of the signal and the noise in the signal also gets boosted.

Sorry, I am not anywhere close to technical science