Canon VS Nikon - ISO questions

hashcake

hashcake

Gone to pot!
Messages
5,943
Name
Darran, Daz or ****
Edit My Images
Yes
I've read numerous posts where it has been said that Nikons are better when it comes to higher ISO settings.
I've yet to have a need to go as high as ISO 1600 so I it's probably not an issue for me.
I assume that one of the requirements would be a fast lens for starters.
However, in what scenerio does the ISO issue between both makes rear it's head, is it it subjects such as gig photography?
What other areas of photography does this also affect?
Also am I correct it thinking it's due to the noise level at a higher ISO setting?
I'm guessing this is more noticeable at levels above ISO 1600 so what levels does this become apparent?

I don't want to start a debate on personal opinions as to which users think is the best make for when it comes to ISO.
It would be nice if some of your more experiened peeps could just explain it :)
Also if anyone who has used both makes and has an opinion that would perhaps make the best sense?

I'm struggling to think when higher ISO levels would be required, but I can only assume that one important aspect is when the only option it to take the photos hand held rather than use a tripod?
Oh, if someone also knows of a website where I can compare photos or wants to post some, please feel free as it would probably make things clearer for me :)
 
Any situation where low light rears it's head - any situation where a balanced image is required - with higher ISO capability it becomes far easier to balance ambient light and flash output for a more balanced image - whereas before I had to sacrifice background detail when shooting flash in horribly under-lit rooms (using off-camera multi-flash isn't always - or ever - possible in a news-gathering scenario), now I can crank the ISO up to over 500 and balance very nicely indeed.

Also sports (or TBH anything where the subject isn't static) is another area where it's needed - just because you can use a slow shutter speed and a tripod if there's not enough ambient light, that isn't always applicable if the subject-blur makes the images unusable - footballers, runners, gymnasts etc all move at a pretty swift clip and you need fast shutter speeds to capture them - especially in the sullen gloom of a British Winter.
Remember these 'ultra-high-iso' bodies are primarily aimed at Press/PR Photographers - that's Nikon's niche market and they're doing all thay can to corner it entirely.
Nikon's CLS flash system was good last year with the SU800 and SB800 - it's fantastic with the SB900...
Thier goal is to render the appearance of white-lenses in the Press-Pack to the history-books...

Right now, Nikon have the edge by a long way, not just in terms of camera bodies, but the overall system package is looking very attractive to Pros - especially in light of Nikon's 1-for-1 swap deal, where Pro Canon users can do a complete swap for all thier Canon kit for a nominal fee - usually less than 10% of list prices...
 
Speaking from experience :)

The Nikon D200 is TERRIBLE at anything over ISO200. And noise was even visible at 200.
Ugly and far too much at 400, and anything over unusable.

The 40D blows it right out of the water.

But I understand that the D300 (and D90) is millions better.......
 
andy_fozzy said:
Speaking from experience :)

The Nikon D200 is TERRIBLE at anything over ISO200. And noise was even visible at 200.
Ugly and far too much at 400, and anything over unusable.

The 40D blows it right out of the water.

But I understand that the D300 (and D90) is millions better.......
Click to expand...

Methinks you have been smoking crack. Bad at 200 - it's great at 200, good at 400, more than useable at 800 but loses it above 1000. Compared to the 40D, the 40D is no angel; at 1000 above it's equal to the D200.

You right of course, the newer models like the D90 and D300 are streets ahead, but then again they are new(ish) tech in the fast-paced world.

Here's a shot from a D200 at iso400:


Here's a crop:


Wouldn't sat it's bad at all
 
specialman said:
Methinks you have been smoking crack. Bad at 200 - it's great at 200, good at 400, more than useable at 800 but loses it above 1000. Compared to the 40D, the 40D is no angel; at 1000 above it's equal to the D200.

You right of course, the newer models like the D90 and D300 are streets ahead, but then again they are new(ish) tech in the fast-paced world.
Click to expand...

Well I had a 'dodgy copy' then.
And I'm not the first to comment on how poor the D200 is at high (ish) ISO.
I can use quite happily ISO1600 on my 40D. There's noise of course, but not anywhere near as much as my ex D200 had.

No arguments coming from my direction, so that's me done on this one.
Sometimes we have to agree to disagree!
 
I was shooting in a school gym on Friday - really gloomy - up the D3 to 5000 ISO and shots looked great - better than I used to get at 400 on film!! :)
 
andy_fozzy said:
Speaking from experience :)

The Nikon D200 is TERRIBLE at anything over ISO200. And noise was even visible at 200.
Ugly and far too much at 400, and anything over unusable.

The 40D blows it right out of the water.

But I understand that the D300 (and D90) is millions better.......
Click to expand...

Methinks you doth pixel peep too much!



However, Whilst I cannot comment on the comparisons between the makes, I can say that higher ISO's are very important in circumstances when you cannot use a tripod or flash. Arkady has mentioned such times already - for me its karate competitions. Flash is strictly a no-no at most, but sports hall lighting is generally dreadful. I always end up on a minimum of iso1600 just to get a shutterspeed of 1/160 1/250 @ f2.8.... :gag: For the big fellas fighting, often have to get to iso2000 as even qucker shutter speeds are needed.
 
Andyfozzy, don't give in so easily ;) :D

I will say that when the noise on a D200 kicks in (we're talking chroma noise here, the bad stuff) it is particularly bad in areas of shadow. Luminance noise is fine; it's very much down to what you expect from a camera to create a version of film grain but I've had it up against several different camera and there's very little difference until you kove into the modern batch (D3, D300, D90, EOS 50D, 5Dmk2).
 
Ah, it now makes more sense, thanks all, especially Arkady.
I didn't think about a sports scenario, probably because unless is has 4 wheels and driven by a rich guy who lives in a tax haven, I'm not interested :)
Arkady it also makes sense in respect of some of the photos you have posted that were taken in poorly lite areas.
 
specialman said:
Wouldn't say it's bad at all
Click to expand...

Me neither....depending on the circs of course, shadow areas can produce much more noise a higher ISO, especially if one under exposes even a smidge.

D200 ISO 1600 (Minimal Colour NR in Lightroom)
4040158438_9b6a42752e_o.jpg


Extreme close up here
 
specialman said:
Andyfozzy, don't give in so easily ;) :D

I will say that when the noise on a D200 kicks in (we're talking chroma noise here, the bad stuff) it is particularly bad in areas of shadow. Luminance noise is fine; it's very much down to what you expect from a camera to create a version of film grain but I've had it up against several different camera and there's very little difference until you kove into the modern batch (D3, D300, D90, EOS 50D, 5Dmk2).
Click to expand...

DOH :bang:

I didn't want to argue about this.
But I don't have to, I guess, as you seem to have proved me wrong :D

So why the hell was my D200 so bad?
Honestly, I'm not exaggerating, it was truly horrendous.....

I'll try to find an example.........
 
Here we go.
Ignore the shot itself: I know it's crap :D

Shot with my old D200 @ ISO 800:

4106381890_d882bd0835_o.jpg


Cropped:

4106387594_e05955dd83_o.jpg
 
This shot is badly underexposed - that's why there's more apparent noise - if you'd increased the camera-exposure it would've been better - although you're metering at 800iso, those shadows are too dark, so you've tweaked the levels or whatever, effectively making the exposure in those shadows more like 3200.
Try darkening it back to how it was when you shot it - only the light areas on the upper bodies and the faces look to be correctly exposed - sacrifice the shadows.
Also the area of sharp focus appears to be the guy with his back to the camera's left ear - that area looks ok - enlarge that and you'll see - everywhere else is out of focus and 'noise' appears more pronounced in OOF areas...
 
Arkady said:
This shot is badly underexposed - that's why there's more apparent noise - if you'd increased the camera-exposure it would've been better - although you're metering at 800iso, those shadows are too dark, so you've tweaked the levels or whatever, effectively making the exposure in those shadows more like 3200.
Try darkening it back to how it was when you shot it - only the light areas on the upper bodies and the faces look to be correctly exposed - sacrifice the shadows.
Also the area of sharp focus appears to be the guy with his back to the camera's left ear - that area looks ok - enlarge that and you'll see - everywhere else is out of focus and 'noise' appears more pronounced in OOF areas...
Click to expand...

Spot on.
 
Have to admit, I loved my D200 but tried to avoid going over ISO 800. Nikon seem to be nailing it exponentially at the moment though, I guess you've all seen the D3s's ISO 12800 shots pointed out by someone on another thread... breathtaking leap forward!
 
I'm not putting Nikon down, just because I changed over.
That's a boring, dull and pathetic argument, the old Canon V's Nikon one.

Wether the D200 example I posted is under or over or whatever exposed, I am one thousand percent absolutely convinced the 40D is far better than the D200 at high ISO.
I have seen the proof, so have you now.

Now perhaps I had a 'bad copy', who know's.....
 
A real-world example for you - USMC Birthday last week - A US Navy Lieutenant is awarded the Fleet Marine Officer's Badge (sort of like our Royal Marines awarding the Green beret and commando dagger to a Royal Navy Officer).
Shot at 'only' 500iso, it allowed me to balance what little ambient light there was - and there was very little, believe me - with a lower flash output than I would otherwise have had to use, making for a more aesthetically-pleasing image.
I've managed to keep some background detail in the shot and still maintained enought sharpness in the subjects to make the shot usable...

11x_2009_HERRICK11_0040_0029E.jpg
 
andy_fozzy said:
I'm not putting Nikon down, just because I changed over.
That's a boring, dull and pathetic argument, the old Canon V's Nikon one.

Wether the D200 example I posted is under or over or whatever exposed, I am one thousand percent absolutely convinced the 40D is far better than the D200 at high ISO.
I have seen the proof, so have you now.

Now perhaps I had a 'bad copy', who know's.....
Click to expand...

Possibly...your D200 sensor was a bit dusty.
 
Flashman said:
What camera was that shot with? D3?
Click to expand...

Yup...I save the D3x for large group photos where I need the extra quality and solo-portraits with the 50mm a la street-togger stylee (loving that bokeh)...
 
Arkady said:
A real-world example for you - USMC Birthday last week - A US Navy Lieutenant is awarded the Fleet Marine Officer's Badge (sort of like our Royal Marines awarding the Green beret and commando dagger to a Royal Navy Officer).
Shot at 'only' 500iso, it allowed me to balance what little ambient light there was - and there was very little, believe me - with a lower flash output than I would otherwise have had to use, making for a more aesthetically-pleasing image.
I've managed to keep some background detail in the shot and still maintained enought sharpness in the subjects to make the shot usable...

11x_2009_HERRICK11_0040_0029E.jpg
Click to expand...

Great high iso image. That Marine is a little on the rotund side for me. Good luck to him against the Taleban !
 
I will admit that the shot you have taken with the 40D looks good – the 40D is a good camera anyway - but it's a non-comparison with the D200 shot you posted; not the same range of tones, the 40D shot is better exposed and it's under different lighting conditions. These all add up to totally different results that can't be compared.

The other thing to note is that the D200 (released spring 2006) is of a totally different generation of camera to the 40D (released autumn 2007); on its release the D200's Canon contemporary was the 30D (also released spring 2006), a vastly inferior camera in every way. The 40D is 18-months younger than the D200, a lifetime in technology, so it should be better than he D200, something I don't think it is. Pixel peeping maybe, but in real-world printing situations you will see absolutely no difference in results; I use a D200 and have used a 40D in similar situations (at indoor shows) and when run out of a large capacity printing house, using shots over a DPS, you can't tell the difference whatsoever.

You need to compare apples with apples in this situation; the 40D's contemporary was actually the D300, a camera that whupped its backside in every way.

That's my tuppenthhalfpenny....

PS:

hashcake said:
....I don't want to start a debate on personal opinions as to which users think is the best make for when it comes to ISO.... :)
Click to expand...

Oops, I think we've well-and-truly blown that one ;)
 
I tried iso 6400 when I got my first MKIII a year ago. RAW file resized and converted to j-peg only......

6400Crop.jpg
 
specialman said:
the 40D's contemporary was actually the D300, a camera that whupped its backside in every way.
Click to expand...

Looking deeper into some of the technical aspects of the two bodies and trying to figure out where the "whupping factor" is derived from. (I appreciate that ther's more to a camera body than the items below but this thread is primarily about sensor performance characteristics)

a) The abilty of the photosites to capture electrons
b) The sensor's signal to noise ratio
c) The read noise from the sensor
d) The dynamic range
e) The sensor's low light sensitivity factor

So where, if anywhere, in the sensor measurements above did the D300 do its "whupping".

Bob ;)
 
Arkady said:
Right now, Nikon have the edge by a long way, not just in terms of camera bodies, but the overall system package is looking very attractive to Pros - especially in light of Nikon's 1-for-1 swap deal, where Pro Canon users can do a complete swap for all thier Canon kit for a nominal fee - usually less than 10% of list prices...
Click to expand...


Forgive me for not reading through the thread entirely, but im most interested in what you said about a 1-for1 swap!

Could you elaborate please? as im in the mood to swap myself.. (I'll Google it too for good measure!)

Thanks..

:)
 
specialman said:
I will admit that the shot you have taken with the 40D looks good – the 40D is a good camera anyway - but it's a non-comparison with the D200 shot you posted; not the same range of tones, the 40D shot is better exposed and it's under different lighting conditions. These all add up to totally different results that can't be compared.

The other thing to note is that the D200 (released spring 2006) is of a totally different generation of camera to the 40D (released autumn 2007); on its release the D200's Canon contemporary was the 30D (also released spring 2006), a vastly inferior camera in every way. The 40D is 18-months younger than the D200, a lifetime in technology, so it should be better than he D200, something I don't think it is. Pixel peeping maybe, but in real-world printing situations you will see absolutely no difference in results; I use a D200 and have used a 40D in similar situations (at indoor shows) and when run out of a large capacity printing house, using shots over a DPS, you can't tell the difference whatsoever.

You need to compare apples with apples in this situation; the 40D's contemporary was actually the D300, a camera that whupped its backside in every way.

That's my tuppenthhalfpenny....

PS:



Oops, I think we've well-and-truly blown that one ;)
Click to expand...

:D

You have a made a very valid point.
To which I cannot argue!

However, I will say that due to my personal needs/requirements, the 40D suits me better.
And perhaps it's the way I take photo's that the 40D suits me better.

Either way, an interesting thread that I have enjoyed participating in :thumbs:
 
fraggle101 said:
Forgive me for not reading through the thread entirely, but im most interested in what you said about a 1-for1 swap!

Could you elaborate please? as im in the mood to swap myself.. (I'll Google it too for good measure!)

Thanks..

:)
Click to expand...

For Registered Professional Photographers only -and it might even be Registered News photographers only...
I'm trying to think: I've only been speaking to Press-Phots about this - so I've no idea how far it extends into the Professional photography world... I know the guys on the Agencies and Papers have had this offered to them, because I've spoken to them about it...

It might still be worth a go...but I think if you just said you're a Pro wedding photographer (for example), you might get told to 'do one'...unless they'd heard of you...

You might need some paperwork proving that you work for a local paper os something, even if you're freelance...
 
Canon Bob said:
Looking deeper into some of the technical aspects of the two bodies and trying to figure out where the "whupping factor" is derived from. (I appreciate that ther's more to a camera body than the items below but this thread is primarily about sensor performance characteristics)

a) The abilty of the photosites to capture electrons
b) The sensor's signal to noise ratio
c) The read noise from the sensor
d) The dynamic range
e) The sensor's low light sensitivity factor

So where, if anywhere, in the sensor measurements above did the D300 do its "whupping".

Bob ;)
Click to expand...

Bob, I'm not an engineer or a mathematician, so don't have a clue about the value you attach to facts and figures relating to the above, but I do know that in real-world use, the D300 is a mighty fine camera that is far better to use in most respects. Of course, that's a personal opinion and your facts and figures will probably give a different results, but can 'on-paper' specs been truly relied on?; it's how a camera performs under the conditions it was designed for that matters surely and I KNOW the D300 performs better than a 40D.

Now, I've yet to try a 50D in anger but would like to do so, if only to find out how good it is compared to its contempories so I can look to kit out my work with several bodies. I know the 5Dmk2 is a fantastic camera for high ISO work, as is expected of a benchmark FFr model, but I am currently of the opinion that Canon's crop sensor, pro-sumer models aren't up to the quality and performance of Nikon's. That's not me being a Nikon fanboy, just a real-world user who shoots 5-days-a-week, who had the choice between a 40D and a D200 and lumped for the latter because of its better build quality, handling and most of all, IQ.
 
andy_fozzy said:
:D

You have a made a very valid point.
To which I cannot argue!

However, I will say that due to my personal needs/requirements, the 40D suits me better.
And perhaps it's the way I take photo's that the 40D suits me better.

Either way, an interesting thread that I have enjoyed participating in :thumbs:
Click to expand...

Word jousting has been pleasant. :) Think we've maybe stretched this one as far as it can go. :)
 
As has been said, when exposed correctly the D200 gives me perfectly good results at iso1000, even 1600 with reasonable NR can yield good images :shrug:

Underexpose and the noise can be gross and impossible to save!
 
V8burble said:
As has been said, when exposed correctly the D200 gives me perfectly good results at iso1000, even 1600 with reasonable NR can yield good images :shrug:

Underexpose and the noise can be gross and impossible to save!
Click to expand...

Yup. Not even the likes of the ISO beasts (D3, D700, 5DmkII etc) can save an under exposed image from harsh noise. ;)
 
Arkady said:
For Registered Professional Photographers only -and it might even be Registered News photographers only...
I'm trying to think: I've only been speaking to Press-Phots about this - so I've no idea how far it extends into the Professional photography world... I know the guys on the Agencies and Papers have had this offered to them, because I've spoken to them about it...

It might still be worth a go...but I think if you just said you're a Pro wedding photographer (for example), you might get told to 'do one'...unless they'd heard of you...

You might need some paperwork proving that you work for a local paper os something, even if you're freelance...
Click to expand...

I know a fair few wedding shooters who've used this deal, but you need to be well-established and known.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top