D200 + Noise Ninja vs D700 (a comparison)

SimonTALM

SimonTALM

Linford Christie
Messages
3,268
Name
Simon
Edit My Images
Yes
As mentioned in this thread there was some talk about how much better for High ISO conditions a D700 / D3 image is straight from the camera is versus a D200 image that has post processed with specialist noise reduction software.

Well I volunteered to do the test and these are the results:

Before I start these are no way scientific but I tried to keep the settings as close as I could to be the same actions:

1) Shot in RAW at ISO 1600, Nikon 50mm f1.8, 1/60 f8
2) Processed in Capture NX2 with the settings
a) Auto White Balance
b) Picture Control - Standard
c) Saved to *.TIF
3) Opened in Photoshop CS4
4) Reduced to 8bit depth
5) 100% crops taken and saved as jpg with level 12 quality
6) undo crop
7) images reduced to 800px long edge with Bicubic Sharper resampling
8) No image has had any form of sharpening deliberately applied to it.

All 6 images can be found here, as well as 2 others that show the D700 shot with Noise Ninja applied.

The full size JPGs are available here for anyone who wants to see things at 100%

100% Crops

D200+Still+Life+100+percent+crop.jpg

D200 100% Crop - No Noise Ninja

D200+Still+Life+Noise+Ninja+100+percent+crop.jpg

D200 + Noise Ninja (auto profiled)

D700+Still+Life+100+percent+crop.jpg

D700 100% Crop


Full Size Images

D700+Still+Life.jpg

D700 full size

D200+Still+Life+Noise+Ninja+800.jpg

D200 + Noise Ninja full size


D200+Still+Life.jpg

D200 full size
 
My thoughts on this:

As expected the D700 images are better especially when you check out the details in the shadow areas and in areas of close tonal matches (e.g. Q-Ball logo, Elastic Strap on the pad and the yellow of the card holder) which is especially noticeable in the darker areas of the image (e.g. Q-Ball).

However, if I am honest it surprises me how acceptable the results from the D200 are when Noise Ninja has been applied albeit at the expense of the detail.

Did I need to buy the D700, I suppose this shows the answer is no, however do I regret buying the D700 - what do you think :D
 
Interestingly, I was having an FX lust evening yesterday and did my own test shots of the Mrs in the kitchen at ISO1600. I applied Noise Ninja (with the D200 profiles loaded) and asked the Mrs to evaluate my shots... she actually said she thought that at 100% crop the NN image just had the edge, but the untouched image had enough detail intact to take the prize at anything under 66%. What did impress me is just how good the results were considering the bad press the D200 gets at high ISO. It's interesting to see your comparison, and I'd love to see the same tests done on various scenes (portrait, landscape, natural and flash light).
Thanks for posting.

Edit:
Damn keyboard driving me mad... missing letters added above
 
Well done Simon - a worthy test of more 'real world' use than simply some graph or other which often tell us everything & nothing at the same time

For my own part I use a D300 for its higher ISO benefits over my D2Xs, and still run those through NR too and the results are always perfectly acceptable for any client, however discerning

Of course we all know the D700/D3 chips are better still but if you can't afford the expense, or even simply justify it even where those pennies are lying around bored, then simply buying a good bit of NR software is an excellent & cost effective alternative

(y)

DD
 
Interesting efforts, but IMHO you need to do this with images with texture. Large areas of colour are easy to clean-up.

Hair or fur is much better for this, as you can see what the noise - and the removal! - is doing to detail.
 
DiddyDave said:
Well done Simon - a worthy test of more 'real world' use than simply some graph or other which often tell us everything & nothing at the same time

For my own part I use a D300 for its higher ISO benefits over my D2Xs, and still run those through NR too and the results are always perfectly acceptable for any client, however discerning

Of course we all know the D700/D3 chips are better still but if you can't afford the expense, or even simply justify it even where those pennies are lying around bored, then simply buying a good bit of NR software is an excellent & cost effective alternative

(y)

DD
Click to expand...

Thanks, As I only had a D200 before the D700 so it was not only a step up in sensor technology it was also a step up in sensor size (with all the differences that brings too). I suspect that the D300 will be a lot closer to the D700 so even less of a reason to upgrade just for the High ISO capabilities.

Incidentally I do have a D700 shot that I ran through NN

D700+Still+Life+Noise+Ninja+100+percent+crop.jpg

Noise Ninja

D700+Still+Life+100+percent+crop.jpg

No Noise Ninja

Personally, based on the whole image, I think it smudges too much and you loose too much detail - however, I think that anything higher than 1600 there would be benefits to Noise Ninja on a D700
 
puddleduck said:
Interesting efforts, but IMHO you need to do this with images with texture. Large areas of colour are easy to clean-up.

Hair or fur is much better for this, as you can see what the noise - and the removal! - is doing to detail.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the tip - if I reshoot I'll find something hairy :D
 
thanks, Simon - a great experiment, and a worthy result! Just goes to show that for the great majority of us, perhaps a D700 is overkill, but it can deliver a killer blow. My next aim is to see how many ISO 1600 shots I take in the next few months, using an EXIF checker. If it's significant, the decision becomes easier.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top