D200 noise handling... [Archive]

ChrisMClark

11-05-2009, 15:27

...just how bad is it? I'm in the process of looking around for a new main body, and relegating my D40 to back up. At the minute I'm looking at either a new D90, or second hand D200. I've read the main points and comparisons between them, the D200 appears to be better built yada yada, but the recurring theme and something that concerns me is the difference in noise handling at high ISO. So could someone out there who's used both bodies please give an opinion on just how big the gap in IQ at high ISO is? Please? :help:

puddleduck

11-05-2009, 15:30

IMHO if you are looking at noise, if you signature is correct, you only have slow kit lenses.

A f/2 or f/1.4 lens will allow you to shoot lower ISO than a D90 with kit lenses. Your slow lenses will require you to crank ISO in low light - regardless of body.

So - the answer is to buy faster glass. Noise still a problem? - look then at a body change - however you can gain at least 2 stops with a Sigma 30mm f/1.4 or Nikkor 35/1.8 AF-S over your 18-55 AF-S... this is the difference between ISO800 and ISO3200...

ChrisMClark

11-05-2009, 15:32

That's the other thing PD, with the price difference between new D90 and second hand D200 I could probably afford to buy the D200 and a nice shiney new fast lens.

And for the record, my sig is correct, and the D40 is frickin' pants at anything more than ISO400 :bang:

puddleduck

11-05-2009, 15:34

The D40 is just fine up to ISO1600 I find. If you don't like ISO400 on a D40, you won't like ISO1600 on even a D700.. let alone a D90;)

The D40 is also better at high ISO than the D200 I'm afraid!

Richie15

11-05-2009, 15:34

ChrisMClark

11-05-2009, 15:40

Well I need better glass, that much is clear :lol: This might sound like a really daft question...but out of the D90 and D200, which is bigger? (there's method to my madness...I've got big hands, and even with a grip the D40's fiddly :lol:)

TriggerHappy

11-05-2009, 15:43

D200 will be bigger.
Here is sample of the D200 shot at ISO 1600, perfectly usable IMO.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3620/3516929260_3c737e07dc_o.jpg

Edit: I should add that from the set I shot this was one of the shots displaying the most grain, hence why I chose to use it here. Also, I'm a fan of film and as such grain can be appealing to me rather than off-putting.

puddleduck

11-05-2009, 15:44

D200 is bigger. If you are looking at a D200, I think you'd want to consider a Sigma 30mm f/1.4 it'll help keep the ISO down.

However IMHO try to get a faster lens first, as it'll make a huge difference to your low light experience.

I've had perfectly usable (ie sellable) D200 ISO1600 images, no problem.

Flash In The Pan

11-05-2009, 15:49

Ideally you'd be better upgrading your glass collection first Chris, but you're a bit limited with the D40 body unless you like manual focus.

The D200 is pretty awful at much above 800 ISO, have you considered a Fuji S5 Pro?

ChrisMClark

11-05-2009, 15:50

Thanks Mr D, lens first would be the plan, then D200 later in the year (late summer).

Will have a look at the Siggy :thumbs:

Thanks to all who've had input :)

ChrisMClark

11-05-2009, 15:51

Hmmm, the siggy looks nice, and HSM too, so will AF on my D40 too...tijme to get selling stuff I think :lol:

sdb123

11-05-2009, 15:53

Sigma 30mm f/1.4 was a great lens, especially on the D40 body - out of interest I preferred both the D40 and D90 higher ISO output in comparison to my neighbour's D80.

I'd go the lens route first then look into replacing the body....unless you want to invest in Nikons lighting system. :)

Richie15

11-05-2009, 15:54

I have a Sigma 17-70 F2.8-4.5 which will work well on the D40 and D200 / Fuji S5 (if you upgrade later) if you are interested. Like you I originally has a D40 and upgraded the 18-55 kit lens to the Sigma and found this a big improvement.

ChrisMClark

11-05-2009, 16:03

The D200 is pretty awful at much above 800 ISO, have you considered a Fuji S5 Pro?

I have indeed, I spoke at some length with our media support wing as both their togs use S5's, but are they not full frame? So I'd have trouble using my 2 DX lenses on it?

specialman

11-05-2009, 16:05

The D200 gets bad press these days about noise levels, only because the D3 and D300 are so good - after all, they're the new technology. I use my D200 for anything up to ISO 1000 and it's fine. My work goes in magazines over DPSs and no one grumbles - as good if not better than the 40D. Good, fast glass will help you get more from it mind, but even with the 18-70mm kit lens IQ is very good.

Flash In The Pan

11-05-2009, 16:05

I have indeed, I spoke at some length with our media support wing as both their togs use S5's, but are they not full frame? So I'd have trouble using my 2 DX lenses on it?

Nope, DX

ChrisMClark

11-05-2009, 16:06

Sweeeeeet...and quite a price difference too. 4-500 quid I believe for a S5. And they're pretty much Nikon underneath anyway aren't they?

specialman

11-05-2009, 16:06

I have indeed, I spoke at some length with our media support wing as both their togs use S5's, but are they not full frame? So I'd have trouble using my 2 DX lenses on it?

No, they're not. They just have a different sensor that renders images a bit differently. Still has a 1.5x crop factor though

specialman

11-05-2009, 16:07

Flash, beat me to it :)

The S5 is a D200 just about. At £500 they're a steal

ChrisMClark

11-05-2009, 16:07

Unlucky :lol:

Flash In The Pan

11-05-2009, 16:23

:woot:

ChrisMClark

11-05-2009, 16:26

Can you get a battery grip for the S5?

sdb123

11-05-2009, 16:32

Can you get a battery grip for the S5?

Yes, the one you can use with the D200. ;)

Shame you missed out on the £399 offer that has just finished at Amazon.

ChrisMClark

11-05-2009, 16:39

That does suck, but I'm sure I'll find another deal closer to the time :lol: or at least I hope I will :lol:

puddleduck

11-05-2009, 17:28

Here is a concert shot from my D200 @ ISO1250:

http://www.odysseus-software.co.uk/LensTests/DSC1658_web.jpg

100% crop:

http://www.odysseus-software.co.uk/LensTests/DSC1658_crop.jpg

Given the crappy red biased light, I find that OK.

DekHog

11-05-2009, 18:04

The D200 is pretty awful at much above 800 ISO

I beg to differ... I think the pics in this thread prove otherwise...

I might be wrong, but isn't the S5 Pro also considered worse at high ISO than the D200?

ChrisMClark

11-05-2009, 18:11

puddleduck

11-05-2009, 18:14

Was that set for noise reduction PD? And did you reduce noise in PP, or is this plain as shot?

No NR, I never ever use NR.

Half the battle with the D200 and noise is decent exposure - I spot metered that shot.

ChrisMClark

11-05-2009, 18:16

With you. Well now I'm stumped. I'm not sure about this at all now, lmao D200 or S5? :help:

:lol:

puddleduck

11-05-2009, 18:20

The S5 Pro is better than the D200 at high ISO. Actually its abou the same as the D40 I'd say.. so if you don't like the D40 at ISO400 not sure what to suggest.

I've had no problems with ISO1600 from D50, D40, D60 and D200 in all honesty. Yes, there is a bit of noise, but they print out fine. Thats all that matters - can't see the point in zooming to 100% and going "hah! noise!" - if it looks OK in print (and printing is the best NR you can do) thats good enough for me.

fontmoss

11-05-2009, 19:21

I'd agree with PD, got both s5 and d40 and theres not a huge amount in it. The s5 offers more control over more aspects of the camera but if it's purely a noise issue then i dont think you'll see huge gains. Faster glass is def the way to go, even playing with a friends 30mm f1.4 and my 35mm f2 wide open the dif was pretty decent.

fast glass first id say

ChrisMClark

11-05-2009, 19:26

I don't think I worded it too well. D40 is fine at ISO400, but at ISO800 I have to do a fair bit of NR in Adobe RAW. But if I'm buying some faster glass anyway it shouldn't be an issue either way. I'm leaning towards D200 still I think now, probably because that's what I was after before I asked about hnoise handling (then someone had to bring up th S5!)

Thanks to all who gave an opinion, much appreciado

fontmoss

11-05-2009, 19:28

id say s5 over d200 if its about noise but theres loads written about both on th' interweb

ChrisMClark

11-05-2009, 19:29

Hello square one...I'm back :wave:

:lol: Well, I've got time before I'm looking at actually spending. And the attraction of a new S5 over a second hand D200 is appealing.

Dangermouse1964

11-05-2009, 19:44

Well I am not joining the debate as I only shoot in good light so dont want to comment but (cough)D200 is the way to go as the S5 is painfully slow

ChrisMClark

11-05-2009, 19:46

Well I am not joining the debate as I only shoot in good light so dont want to comment but (cough)D200 is the way to go as the S5 is painfully slow

Screw it, I might just switch to Canon :naughty:

Richie15

11-05-2009, 20:19

Well I am not joining the debate as I only shoot in good light so dont want to comment but (cough)D200 is the way to go as the S5 is painfully slow

It is also worth notng that the buffer on the S5 is slower than the Nikon. The reason for this is that the Fuji Raw files are huge, this is partly due to the large dynamic range of the camera (which is far greater than a D200). I have found this is only an issue when shooting in burst mode where the S5 will be roughly half the speed of the D200, the way round this is to reduce the DR.

I think it depends on what type of photography you are looking to shoot. I do landscapes and portraits, nothing particularly fast moving and never use burst mode.

grahamc

11-05-2009, 20:30

How will the D300 and D2X compare to the D200?

puddleduck

11-05-2009, 20:32

How will the D300 and D2X compare to the D200?

The D300 is a bit better (but the difference is over-hyped), D2X is a fair bit worse.

grahamc

11-05-2009, 20:39

The D300 is a bit better (but the difference is over-hyped), D2X is a fair bit worse.

D2X is a fair bit worse then the D300? or D200?

puddleduck

12-05-2009, 05:53

D2X is a fair bit worse then the D300? or D200?

Worse than both.

But the D2X is better at base ISO than either (sharpness, micro-contrast).

The D2X tops out for IQ past ISO320. Its downhill quickly from there.

grahamc

12-05-2009, 07:21

Worse than both.

But the D2X is better at base ISO than either (sharpness, micro-contrast).

The D2X tops out for IQ past ISO320. Its downhill quickly from there.

Thats quite shocking, honestly!

Cheng

12-05-2009, 17:41

puddleduck

12-05-2009, 17:57

As people have mentioned before, as long as your exposure is correct, there isn't much of a problem with noise. On the other hand, you usually ramp up the iso cos you can't afford the slower shutter speed...bit of a catch 22!

Well in the case of the OP, with his lenses, he could gain two stops (ISO3200 down to ISO800 for example) just with a lens change- with faster glass than than standard kit lenses, you gain shutter speed, which helps control the ISO.

IMHO - folks are too quick to look at a body change as a panacea and IMHO the root cause of the OP's noise problem is his slow glass...

swanseamale47

12-05-2009, 18:11

D2X is a fair bit worse then the D300? or D200?

yes I'd say lots worse. Wayne

ChrisMClark

12-05-2009, 18:17

IMHO - folks are too quick to look at a body change as a panacea and IMHO the root cause of the OP's noise problem is his slow glass...

Which is why I'm looking at bodies in the 400-500 pound bracket, it leavs me some left over to buy a new lens as well.

swanseamale47

12-05-2009, 18:25

Heres a rough comparrison between a d200 and d300. Waynehttp://farm4.static.flickr.com/3557/3526290952_41771562d2_b.jpg

ChrisMClark

12-05-2009, 18:26

That's considerable, but not nearly as bad as I'd expect from the reviews I've read. Thanks for posting that Wayne.