Nasty Niggley Noisey Nikon Nudges Nerd to New NAS
Discussion
I'm really torn.
Some days I think that my D70 is fine and it's no good blaming my ineptitude on the tools. Then again:
Shows (and it's not the worse one) very disappointing noise at low signal ratios.
...then, every time I pass by the camera shop (currently working in Salisbury if you hadn't guessed by the subject matter!) I feel this urge to melt my credit card.
Short list is
D2X (look for good secondhand example)
D2Xs (new purchase is really over sensible budget)
D200 and MBD-200
or, horror of horrors, do I consider a F...., F...., I can't really bring myself to say it... Fuji S5???
CMOS sensor
v
better standard Nikon fare
v
Fuji's attempt
My esteemed mentor on the subject already says that instead of a D2X I should strap a house brick to a D200 to get the effect I want.....
Opinions please!
Some days I think that my D70 is fine and it's no good blaming my ineptitude on the tools. Then again:
Shows (and it's not the worse one) very disappointing noise at low signal ratios.
...then, every time I pass by the camera shop (currently working in Salisbury if you hadn't guessed by the subject matter!) I feel this urge to melt my credit card.
Short list is
D2X (look for good secondhand example)
D2Xs (new purchase is really over sensible budget)
D200 and MBD-200
or, horror of horrors, do I consider a F...., F...., I can't really bring myself to say it... Fuji S5???
CMOS sensor
v
better standard Nikon fare
v
Fuji's attempt
My esteemed mentor on the subject already says that instead of a D2X I should strap a house brick to a D200 to get the effect I want.....
Opinions please!
I've taken to over-exposing (up to 1 stop) with my D70, and then pulling it back in Lightshop or RSP. As long as you don't blow the highlights, it seems best to try to bias the histogram towards the right - it's all down to the linear response of the sensor, and there being more information available at the high end. If you over-expose, then the dark/mid areas are recorded with more precision, so that when you adjust downwards, you get less noise.
well, it seems to work that way...
Mind you, if I could afford/justify it, I'd probably have a D200 now.
well, it seems to work that way...
Mind you, if I could afford/justify it, I'd probably have a D200 now.
but I'm not that cruel, however if someone else wishes to say it feel free Did you do any PP on it at all ? PP generally enhances any noise you have . . . hence the big learning think I'm going through of getting things really exposed correctly and minimising PP . . . makes a hell of a difference . . .
I'm not sure I understand the latest fetish for totally noise free images . . . noise has been a feature of photographs since long before digital came along . . . and not a bad feature either . . .
Anyway, the D2x is a great camera but I'd buy the D200 - newer tech and cheaper, the D2xs is not really an improvement on the D2x in terms of image quality by all accounts . . . however I wouldn't change my D2x for a D200 . . . I don't find myself wanting anything more the the D2x in terms of image quality and the handling is like a heavy old friend and in that respect it is miles ahead of a D200 (which I have played with) . . . sure it's noisy at 3200 ISO but infrequently (never ?) use it at 3200 ISO, however no more so than 3200 ISO film . . . when I do change it'll be for a D2x equivalent, but that will be some years away . . . because a little quality in your life is worth it . . .
No doubt the cannoids will be along to talk hypothetical bollox about how they can run at 640000 ISO and if you look at the image pixel by pixel it's just awesome and they wet themselves just thinking about it . . . but really . . . is it that big a deal ? . . . if you were shooting film, which does (I think) actually give nicer images, they'd be alot more noisy . . . and a lot more expensive . . . but look better . . .
$0.02
Fd
I'm not sure I understand the latest fetish for totally noise free images . . . noise has been a feature of photographs since long before digital came along . . . and not a bad feature either . . .
Anyway, the D2x is a great camera but I'd buy the D200 - newer tech and cheaper, the D2xs is not really an improvement on the D2x in terms of image quality by all accounts . . . however I wouldn't change my D2x for a D200 . . . I don't find myself wanting anything more the the D2x in terms of image quality and the handling is like a heavy old friend and in that respect it is miles ahead of a D200 (which I have played with) . . . sure it's noisy at 3200 ISO but infrequently (never ?) use it at 3200 ISO, however no more so than 3200 ISO film . . . when I do change it'll be for a D2x equivalent, but that will be some years away . . . because a little quality in your life is worth it . . .
No doubt the cannoids will be along to talk hypothetical bollox about how they can run at 640000 ISO and if you look at the image pixel by pixel it's just awesome and they wet themselves just thinking about it . . . but really . . . is it that big a deal ? . . . if you were shooting film, which does (I think) actually give nicer images, they'd be alot more noisy . . . and a lot more expensive . . . but look better . . .
$0.02
Fd
I tend to ask myself if it's me or my kit that's the limiting factor in my photography. 95% of the time most people upgrade cameras when there skill doesn't warrant it. However there's some real talent on this forum, and if you feel you met the match of your equipment go for it.
Likewise if you're off on a once in a lifetime holiday, don't let cheap kit spoil your photos.
I know I've got a long way to go before my skills warrant upgrading the D80, but I will always regret that when I visited the Mountain Gorillas in Rwanda I had a 300D and non-apo sigma 70-300. The results were really poor. Full of noise and chromatic abberation (pet hate) and it breaks my heart! I'd love to print them big but they are unusable large. If only I'd bought some decent kit before hand 8o(
(processed to within an inch of its life)
Likewise if you're off on a once in a lifetime holiday, don't let cheap kit spoil your photos.
I know I've got a long way to go before my skills warrant upgrading the D80, but I will always regret that when I visited the Mountain Gorillas in Rwanda I had a 300D and non-apo sigma 70-300. The results were really poor. Full of noise and chromatic abberation (pet hate) and it breaks my heart! I'd love to print them big but they are unusable large. If only I'd bought some decent kit before hand 8o(
(processed to within an inch of its life)
VxDuncan said:
If only I'd bought some decent kit before hand 8o(
And that sole reason is why I chose to spend some money on my D2x . . . I go places I may never go back to, life is too short, the last thing I want to do is regret . . .
I did exactly this on a trip to Canada a few years ago and shot everything in JPG . . . and sorely regret it to this day . . .
Fd
beano500 said:
Short list is
D2X (look for good secondhand example)
D2Xs (new purchase is really over sensible budget)
D200 and MBD-200
I'm in exactly the same position, I'm happy with my D70 when things work well. I've done the right thing and invested in glass before a new camera body, and boy do the 70-200/2.8 and 17-55/2.8 breath a new life into the camera!
But my main frustrations with the D70 are usability issues:
- small viewfinder I find difficult to manually focus
- the poor LCD screen doesn't zoom in enough to tell if an image is sharp whilst out on location
- some of the items in the menu's I'd prefer on the camera body
My son has a D200 so I'm aware of the improvements there, but I'm not sure how much better the D2x image quality is over the D200 - I don't really need the faster focusing, and I'm not too worried about high ISO noise as I like to use a tripod for landscape work and can increase the exposure time for the lower ISOs. Just not sure at the moment whether the extra cost of the D2x can be justified for my use?
Jonathan
ps I share your pain!
Chaps I went through this exact thing about 18 months ago. I was never happy that my D70 + 18-70 would give me the result I needed every time.
I upgraded to a D200 and 28-70 f/2.8 and I've never looked back, noise, metering, contrast, colour, sharpness, saturation, all significantly better than with the D70. I'll never know if (other than noise and metering) it was all down to the lens, but I don't care anyway, the D200 is a great bit of kit and I love it. Now I know if the image is no good it's entirely my fault rather than blaming inaccurate focusing and crappy noise.
In every measurable way my new kit eclipses the D70, unfortunately including weight...
I upgraded to a D200 and 28-70 f/2.8 and I've never looked back, noise, metering, contrast, colour, sharpness, saturation, all significantly better than with the D70. I'll never know if (other than noise and metering) it was all down to the lens, but I don't care anyway, the D200 is a great bit of kit and I love it. Now I know if the image is no good it's entirely my fault rather than blaming inaccurate focusing and crappy noise.
In every measurable way my new kit eclipses the D70, unfortunately including weight...
Thanks for all your comments.
Glad to know I'm not necessarily alone. Yes I also have a shopping list of items that would make for a better handling body - quite a long one!
The image was relatively lightly processed. Raw converted in Raw Shooter after a bit of curve treatment - this time without any attention to noise or colour noise reduction. A bit of saturation and vibrance also. But some of the images I have are quite shocking in the shadow areas. These are made worse where I have deliberately underexposed to keep detail in the sky or with the sun in shot. I know I am asking a lot of a sensor to capture a high dynamic range, but I am going to have to get very creative with some of the shots I took last week!
Not one vote for the F... then!??
Glad to know I'm not necessarily alone. Yes I also have a shopping list of items that would make for a better handling body - quite a long one!
The image was relatively lightly processed. Raw converted in Raw Shooter after a bit of curve treatment - this time without any attention to noise or colour noise reduction. A bit of saturation and vibrance also. But some of the images I have are quite shocking in the shadow areas. These are made worse where I have deliberately underexposed to keep detail in the sky or with the sun in shot. I know I am asking a lot of a sensor to capture a high dynamic range, but I am going to have to get very creative with some of the shots I took last week!
Not one vote for the F... then!??
beano500 said:
But some of the images I have are quite shocking in the shadow areas. These are made worse where I have deliberately underexposed to keep detail in the sky or with the sun in shot....
Not one vote for the F... then!??
Not one vote for the F... then!??
Nikon does seem to have trouble at one end or the other. Over expose and clip your highlights, underexpose and have more noise than you would like. Some colleagues of mine use Nikon exclusively, D2X and D200. I know they are pleased with the D200 and it handles noise better than the D2X. You'll get a more rugged camera with the D2X, slightly more res (nothing much in the real world), and the faster shooting cropped area. So for value go for the D200 (and do as your mentor says and add a brick if you want a heavier camera).
That said, one colleague (I could be wrong but, if you mentor is who I think he is will know who I mean), is thinking about getting a Fuji for backup. From my (limited) experience with Fuji they seem more plasticy and I suspect won't handle as nicely as the Nikon. So don't dismiss it, but try before you buy.
If you really like clean, noise free images then yep, buy a Canon, which pee all over Nikon form a great height in this regard (well somebody did ask
) If you are disappointed with sludgy, noisy pictures in low light, then yes, it is a big deal.beano500 said:
Bacardi said:
Doesn't matter...well maybe it's true...well he was honest wasn't he...
And to think, I threw a tantrum over a decade ago and left Canon because of having compatibility pre and post autofocus... 
Tantrum? WTF on you on about? You asked about votes for the Fuji, all I said was have a look at it, on the basis that someone who uses Nikons professionally day in day out was looking at one. Sorry I bothered. Jeeez!
No Worries. Don't know what the Fuji is like for noise and they claim, IIRC, better dynamic range but some of Fuji's claims have been a little smoke and mirrors in the past. Still worth looking into though for a cheaper option and stop gap. As with all cameras, I'm sure the next round of Nikon upgrades will be another leap up the ladder.
Cheers
Cheers
Bacardi said:
....but some of Fuji's claims have been a little smoke and mirrors in the past.
I went to a big trade shop a few years ago when the seriel fibbers....sorry Fuji first bought out their sensors in the diamond pattern. They had some techy looking chat over from the homeland to push the pixel numbers. Basically our 'chat' went :- Me - so it's 6m pixels then?
Fuji - yes, velly much so.
Me - but I'm looking at the specs and there's only 3m sensors?
Fuji - ah, but we have diamond pattern so.. (here goes for 5 mins on how there are effectively 6m land sites)
Me - so, what happens if I take the shot at 45deg? Just a 3m pixel sensor then?
Fuji man looks a bit lost at this point, says 'it's not like that, I'll find someone else to explain', then disappeared around the back of their stand, never to return (gone to find a sword to fall on I guessed).
Ok, they're probably great now and use other wonderfully different sensors, but that's always in the back of my mind.
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff