D700 versus NR programs

[danbroad]

So, like many I'm considering putting the big purchase on hold until the exchange rate settles down. My D80 will likely see me another year or so, and so I have a rather specific question...

The D3/D700 hold the undisputed crown of higher ISO photography at the moment, but Puddleduck made a very reasonable comment recently that even the venerable FX sensor starts to show ASA grain and a little chroma noise at ISO1600.

My D80, like the D200, is a 'previous generation' device, and although it's holding up just fine, the DX sensor and older CPU algorithms can't touch it on ISO performance alone. I'm reluctant to shoot ISO 1600 if I can, but sometimes the shot just has to be sharp.

But, if you combine a D80/D200 with the latest generation of noise reduction postprocessing programs, how close can you get? Another way of asking this question is this - is a D700 really £1000 better than the price of a D80 and the best NR program combined?

Of course, ISO noise is one of many reasons to get a D700, and the answer is both 'yes, it's worth every penny' and 'no, you'll only see a stop or so'. So, other myriad factors aside... and perhaps without drawing comaprisons to the better camera.... how good can I get with an ISO 1600 shot and, say, Dfine or Noise Ninja?

 

[lukewoodford]

That is a great question.

 

[SimonTALM]

Hmm, I'm on holiday this week and as I have a D200, D700 and Noise Ninja that sounds like an interesting experiment to do. Unless of course someone has already done it


Personally I'd like to think that the D700 will be better (but I would say that as I own one ) however, I don't expect a huge difference in normal use.

 

[DiddyDave]

That is a great question.

Indeed it is, and one I used to justify NOT buying a 2x D3s and changing several lenses when I bought a D300 and DxO software to go with my D2Xs

I've taken portraits of the same person at ISO 200 & 3,200 on the D300, ran them through DxO and printed at A4 as a test - and the kid's mum said she'd have been happy with either print

Of course the ISO 200 was better to a tog's eye, but there wasn't anything like as much difference as you'd have expected

So while we all 'need' D3s, getting the exposure right and good NR software does a good enough job for me (this side of tripping over a totally spare £10,000 anyway)

DD

 

[DiddyDave]

Hmm, I'm on holiday this week and as I have a D200, D700 and Noise Ninja that sounds like an interesting experiment to do. Unless of course someone has already done it


Personally I'd like to think that the D700 will be better (but I would say that as I own one :lol)

It will be better - the point is one of degrees of acceptability and acceptability to who? You as a discerning tog or to a 'awww he's smiling' happy client

Usually the 'quality' issue fades into insignificance to the emotion; and let's not forget CJ on here who seems to specialise in noisy images that sell BIG

DD

 

[danbroad]

The D700 should come out on top - no doubt, otherwise it wouldn't justify its price, but this question really asks about the degree of difference. I've not seen an experimental comparison done in this way - and I think it'd be a useful point of reference for many is someone like yourselves could do it.

[Adopts old professorial voice..] For this experiment, someone has to own all three items [D700, D80/200 and Noise Ninja] - Simon, you're ideally placed to referee the shoot-out!

I expect the D700 image to look cleaner and more detailed, but it'd be so useful to see just how much cleaner, and how much more detailed.

 

[SimonTALM]

It will be better - the point is one of degrees of acceptability and acceptability to who? You as a discerning tog or to a 'awww he's smiling' happy client

Usually the 'quality' issue fades into insignificance to the emotion; and let's not forget CJ on here who seems to specialise in noisy images that sell BIG

DD

Indeed, just as I said in an edit I was typing as you posted However, should be an interesting result.

 

[DiddyDave]

Indeed, just as I said in an edit I was typing as you posted However, should be an interesting result.

Should be interesting indeed

What we should be bearing in mind though was that we've been shooting at up to 3,200 for years before the D3/D700 superchips came out. Yes we said the images were noisy, but after some NR we all agreed they were acceptable

Now they are often seen as being unacceptable simply by comparison, and I'm increasingly seeing comments on digital images as being 'too smooth' and unfilm like - meaning they are too perfect

We're never happy are we :shake:

DD

 

[SimonTALM]

Well I've done the experiment and the results are here - http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=119082

As expected the D700 does produce better results - no shock there but I will admit that once Noise Reduction has been applied there isn't much of a difference to the images in real life (i.e without zooming to 100%).

In all honesty, I doubt that a normal social client would be unhappy with a D200 + Noise Ninja image (or even a straight D200 image).