 |
| |
| This site requires new users to accept that a small amount of member data is captured and held in an attempt to reduce spammers and to manage users. This site also uses cookies to ensure ease of use. In order to comply with new DPR regulations you are required to agree/disagree with this process. If you do not agree then please email the Admins using info@nikondslr.uk after requesting a new account. Thank you. |
| Moderated by: chrisbet, | ||
| Author | Post | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
blackfox
|
Taking into account that I shoot wildlife mainly , I'm looking at a cheap upgrade to the D300S , choices boil down to a D7200 or going full frame with either a D3 ... D3's .... or D800 which can all be purchased for around £500 .... I like the iq on the D300S but noise can be a issue so what would the pundits advise a D500 is beyond my reach |
|||||||||
Eric
|
blackfox wrote:Taking into account that I shoot wildlife mainly , I'm looking at a cheap upgrade to the D300S , choices boil down to a D7200 or going full frame with either a D3 ... D3's .... or D800 which can all be purchased for around £500 .... I like the iq on the D300S but noise can be a issue so what would the pundits advise a D500 is beyond my reach My D3 was 1stop better than the D300 when it came to noise. I would happily photograph at upto 3200ISO outdoors with the D3 but not the D300 which I recall was ok to 1600. I remain unconvinced that the new models, D850 and D500, are significantly less noise free at these lowish ISOs. I think they are, again, only a stop better in the 3200 region than their resp. counterparts. Sure they may be better at 10000iso than the older brigade...but not in the common use regions. IMHO. Don't know where the prices sit ...but I would be looking at D750 or D610 which we're both in the sweet spot of 25mp on an FX sensor....if noise level was the main issue. I got a D750 to replace my D3 and was more than happy the IQ was better. In someways I regret getting rid of my D750....best feel and balance in the hand I've ever experienced in a Nikon....although D850 is close. No experience with D800 but didn't that still have a low pass filter ? Or was that the D810? I seem to recall there being a lot of debate about the difference in IQ in the 800 series due to the removal of the LP filter is one or the other. |
|||||||||
blackfox
|
Thanks Eric , I think this stems from yesterday when I used auto iso for the first time on it , with poor results noise wise I have now switched it back to manual .. I don't really want to go full frame due to the alleged reach issues so I will investigate the D7200 a bit further . |
|||||||||
jk
|
D3S is one stop better for noise than my D3 (now Robert's). The D800 is better again but not by much. I still say that you should be able to find a D500 for about £800-1000 and it will serve you better. There is the loss of APS-C over FX that will adversely effect (IMHO) your wildlife photography. One thing I have learned with kit is that compromise costs! Dont ever compromise otherwise you will end up paying more. Search for a D500. Or get help finding one. If and when I go out specifically to shoot wildlife I might take my Z7 or D850 but my first choice would be D500 for the extra reach and my 200-500 goes on it. |
|||||||||
Robert
|
This is more than about noise. Bird photography is a very challenging aspect of photography. Highly detailed images of distant, textured subjects, subtle colours and frequently moving. Focus, exposure and poor light are distinct issues. Fieldcraft skills and technical perfection can only go so far, for the very best, their success is still a percentage of their exposures. What you are trying to do is up the percentage rate of your good images. I would be delighted with the excellent images you are producing but I understand that it will never be 'good enough', nor should it be, is it right? Are you satisfied? If so it's good enough. I don't think you should ever be completely satisfied, it's the driver you need to keep standards high. FX isn't the way forward for birding in my opinion, except perhaps a D850, but for ordinary people who can't justify multiple, highly expensive equipment, I doubt it will out perform a D500 sufficiently to merit the outlay. If you are constrained cost wise then I think the D300S is a very good choice and put up with the foibles. Again, in my opinion Dxxxx bodies may seem tempting but in truth are hobbled to keep the price down to be ultra competitive in the market place, not optimised to take the best possible exposures on the day. Simplified, from the Nikon DX stable you have the D300S or the D500. I doubt there are significant gains to be had from other makes because I have seen bird images which would knock you over, from highly competent photographers made with Nikon cameras, photographers who are easily able to afford any camera they need, they currently choose the Nikon D500 or D850, to me that speaks loudly. However, it's also worth remembering, many a good tune has been played on an old fiddle, the current new cameras have not made the old ones worse, when the D300S was current it was highly acclaimed. |
|||||||||
Robert
|
By the way, a 12Mp D3, can't possibly compete with a 12Mp D300S when cropping to the same magnification. PPD, pixels per duck! Think about it... Simple maths. Brick size pixels. |
|||||||||
blackfox
|
cheers for that Robert , I think yesterday was a poor day in good light due to my own in camera changes ,which I have now rectified. yes we are always striving for that ultimate perfection and being realistic keep forgetting I still have my mirrorless gear which I could well have used instead . we were shooting red squirrels in deep woodland .. i'll calm down and rethink it again , good call rob. edit: I have in fact just gone back into yesterdays images and p/p a couple more , I think the main lesson is don't process stuff after a long day and 200 mile round trip , any mistakes yesterday were user generated ,lesson learned |
|||||||||
Eric
|
Robert wrote:This is more than about noise. Whilst I agree with a lot you say Robert...it is about noise. Because that's the end byproduct of the process when we wrestle with.....low UK light, fast moving subject (demanding fast shutter speeds), long lenses to encapsulate the subject, smaller apertures to manage reduced dof. etc etc I've seen superb bird images taken on a D3...In Mexico. I've taken photos in France where I had 2 stops more exposure than I estimated the light level would give me in the UK. So when the light is good ...you can use anything. Unfortunately we are not so lucky most of the time in the UK. There is no doubt that FX sensors handle noise better than DX sensors...but it may not be so in all lighting/cropping situations.  |
|||||||||
Eric
|
Robert wrote:By the way, a 12Mp D3, can't possibly compete with a 12Mp D300S when cropping to the same magnification. That's not true Robert, despite your maths. I struggled over far too many experiments with the D3 and the D300 (notS) trying to decide if there was any difference in image quality cropping a D3 to D300 frame. Inconclusive at best. The only image benefits come from not emphasising noise by cropping. So in poor light the D3's better handing of noise ( 1-2stops ) meant cropping never emphasised the noise as much as the DX performance at the same ISO. In good light there was no difference. |
|||||||||
blackfox
|
Stop it guys your confiscating my bank balance |
|||||||||
GeoffR
|
Can we put this in perspective? A D3 is less noisy than a D300, they are both the same generation of sensors so a bigger pixel is less noisy than a smaller one. The D4 is less noisy than a D3, a later sensor with smaller pixels but better (lower) noise at a given ISO. I haven't used any of the DX bodies since the D2X so I can't give an experience based assessment however, it is likely that the newer 24MP sensors are less noisy than the 12MP sensor in the D300, again for any given ISO. Yes the D500 is the lineal descendant of the D300 and 20MP is probably more than adequate but, that isn't the question. The question is "what is a cheap upgrade from a D300?". I don't know because I use only FX bodies and I have the lenses I want for what I do. For birds I rely on getting close enough to fill the frame, last week I was too close to a Heron with a 300 f4 AF-D, a 24-70 proved more suitable. So as a "cheap upgrade" either a D7NNN or a D800, I would have thought the latter used in DX crop mode giving a 15MP image might have less noise. However the reason for wanting to upgrade is also of some importance. If the reason is to get more pixels at the same or less noise the D7NNN series offers a greater increase in pixel count and should be no more noisy than the D300. The D800 offers a modest increase in pixel count, in DX mode, again with no more noise than the D300 but also has the option of operating in FX mode giving a huge increase in pixel count for suitably close subjects. I'm not going to say what I would do because I am biased. |
|||||||||
Eric
|
GeoffR wrote:Can we put this in perspective? A D3 is less noisy than a D300, they are both the same generation of sensors so a bigger pixel is less noisy than a smaller one. The D4 is less noisy than a D3, a later sensor with smaller pixels but better (lower) noise at a given ISO. I haven't used any of the DX bodies since the D2X so I can't give an experience based assessment however, it is likely that the newer 24MP sensors are less noisy than the 12MP sensor in the D300, again for any given ISO. Geoff...quick question. I assume you are using a D4. If that's so, at what ISO do you discern noticeable noise and at what ISO do you feel it becomes necessary to intervene with noise reduction software? I realise it's subjective but never having gone beyond the D3 I am interested to see what improvement there was in the more usual ISO range of (say) under 4000. The D850 (and D500) have noticeable noise out of the camera at 2500ish which very quickly needs attention at 4000. Whilst this is an improvement over the D3, it's surprisingly little, given the development period elapsed. I wonder if the cramming of more pixels, even though as you say they have been improved, is still inferior to the D4/D5 sensors? |
|||||||||
GeoffR
|
Eric, in practice I find the D4 about 1 to 1.5 stops better than the D3 but I haven't done any direct comparison between them or tried to determine when noise becomes discernible. As you say it is subjective but also variable because high ISO in good light, by mistake, is less noisy than the same ISO to achieve an acceptable shutter speed. Additionally, I may accept the noise without intervention if I get the image I want. I took the lights at Waddesdon Manor in December at a high ISO ignoring the noise because it worked but I wouldn't expect to print the images like that though. |
|||||||||
blackfox
|
iv'e actually had a friend pop round this morning who has just bought the same lens as me a sigma 150-600 C and he has it bolted to a D3300 .I was quite surprised at how fast it was to focus and its burst rate , I have yet to see any photos from it but they looked o.k on back of camera .. and it really does put the d7200 back in the ball park .. time will tell |
|||||||||
jk
|
I dont know anyone who has a D5 but I think we need to consider that the D5 (21MP), as is the D500, while the D850 (45MP) and D800 (36MP) have many more photosites (pixels). The extra pixels in the D850 and D800 are probably detrimental to their low ability to yield low noise images as the extra photosites are competing for the same amount of light so the S/N ratio is much worse. Also we need to remember that with each new family of EXPEED chips there are different, usually better, denoising applied to the sensor output. I cant remember where I saw it but I read a technical paper on the S/N output from various cameras and its conclusions were essentially if we want better low noise images then we need less pixels but if you want better resolution we need to get a modern high pixel count camera but need extra light (bright conditions). This is one of the reasons I have multiple cameras - right tool for the job. Part of my move back to Dxxx series from the Dx is my desire to reduce battery weight and to consolidate to a single battery type EN-EL15 batteries. I now only have a D3S and D700 that use the larger heavier old batteries. My aim is to release these cameras in 2019. I have Z7, D850, D500, and D800 and D600, which provide me with a huge choice of resolution and AF speed. In reality the D600 also needs to go as well as I seldom use it now I am in UK. |
|||||||||
jk
|
blackfox wrote:iv'e actually had a friend pop round this morning who has just bought the same lens as me a sigma 150-600 C and he has it bolted to a D3300 .I was quite surprised at how fast it was to focus and its burst rate , I have yet to see any photos from it but they looked o.k on back of camera .. and it really does put the d7200 back in the ball park .. time will tell D3300 is a higher pixel beast compared to the D300S. I dont understand what is your upgrade goal. Is it better AF or lower noise at high ISO or more pixels? |
|||||||||
Eric
|
jk wrote:I dont know anyone who has a D5 but I think we need to consider that the D5 (21MP), as is the D500, while the D850 (45MP) and D800 (36MP) have many more photosites (pixels). The extra pixels in the D850 and D800 are probably detrimental to their low ability to yield low noise images as the extra photosites are competing for the same amount of light so the S/N ratio is much worse. So if I understand your reasoning correctly, you are saying that the no. of pixels AS WELL AS the actual pixel dimension (recognising they are linked) both have a contribution to noise generation.
Wherever you read it, it strikes a chord with me. When you are juggling external lighting and location constraints you need a camera that will generate the least noise in the conditions you will be working....but deliver the detail your subject and use for the image demands. It will be interesting to see if Z6 images are better for general use (ie lower noise in dull conditions) than the Z7. It may be that the definition of 45mp is rarely needed, or the lighting where it's going to be used is typically in sufficient to keep iso down. So different bodies for different lighting conditions may be more appropriate? |
|||||||||
blackfox
|
not even sure myself anymore Jonathon , better noise handling would be nice but not important , faster a/f again helpful but not really needed , I think at this moment in time I will stick where I am as the d300s produces good enough for me at the moment .. and every single option is a compromise of some sort be it a/f- burst rate-shots per second- noise- and price .. a wider aperture lens might be the real cure but again its money |
|||||||||
GeoffR
|
In the days of film we would chose the film type to match the subject and conditions. Many now believe that the only choice is ISO. This isn't the case, resolution (pixel count) is also a factor in determining what is appropriate and I think Nikon have recognised this, all be it unintentionally, in the Z series by offering identical camera layouts with different sensors. The Z series user can have either maximum pixels or lower noise without having to adjust to a different control layout. Such a shame that, for me, the Z6 and Z7 are too small not withstanding that I am far from convinced by EVFs. |
|||||||||
Iain
|
I've been where you are but I also had a D4. I tried a few D7xxx but wasn't happy. In the end I waited till I could afford a D500. For what we do in the Nikon range the D500 is it. The D7200 isn't too bad. I don't know how much the D7500 is going s/h at the moment. Might be worth a look. |
|||||||||
blackfox
|
just spent a hour going through old files with my lad on his i.mac ..he's had d800,d810, and like me most of the lower end models from both Nikon and canon . conclusions being that if your happy with what your producing with what you have then stick with it .. he reminded me that when we have changed in the past sometimes it doesn't end happily i.e a good lens on a different body might not give the same results , , it might need a micro adjust , or produce more noise etc etc etc so unless a few bob drops in my pocket unexpected I'll soldier on  |
|||||||||
jk
|
This is one of the articles I read and led me to the belief that there are no perfect solutions to our needs but we need to adapt or compromise depending on conditions. http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/does.pixel.size.matter/ There was another much more technical article which left me confused but in essence said that different cameras were suited to specific conditions you just need a camera that suits the conditions you normally shoot under. I think this may have been the article. https://aberration43mm.wordpress.com/2015/01/01/pixel-size-noise-and-stuff/ https://aberration43mm.wordpress.com/2014/12/20/the-exposure-trapeziums-trapezoids/ |
|||||||||
Robert
|
Thank you JK, that is a really helpful link. I have already read that article, I will read it again when I wake up better, maybe this afternoon. It has also led me to other really interesting and pertinent articles to help me better understand night sky photography and what I can do to improve my techniques and equipment. |
|||||||||
Robert
|
Eric wrote:Robert wrote: I am not ignoring this post Eric, I appreciate the challenge, I simply want to gain a better understanding before I respond. I do still feel Jeff's question is about more than noise, it's about improving his images, if that's possible! Noise isn't the only issue, at least, not in my opinion. I tried to simplify it. Obviously it needs backing up with something demonstrable. I have both the D300S and the D3, so I will try to compare the two. |
|||||||||
Eric
|
Robert wrote:Eric wrote: I thought you were thwacking pavers. 😆 I understand there are two different issues here....sharpness and noise. But they are intrinsically linked because the method of de-noising reduces sharpness. Yes, we can mask the subject and remove noise selectively, but that's extra work. I am convinced that if our ooc images had no noise upto 4000/5000 we would all have less processing to do and be much happier bunnies....as we can then add sharpening to the images without fear the noise will be made evident. But maybe that's just me. I will be interested to see the results of you experiment as I never had the S version, just the straight D300. Jonathan said the D3S was better at handling noise than the D3 so maybe at the same time they improved the D300. There is no doubt that cropping any cameras image will amplify whatever noise is there as well. The basic question is whether the capture noise level in an FX is sufficiently better ...such that on enlargement it is STILL better or as good as the image out of the DX camera. My assessment of the two was under good lighting ...ie 200iso. So no noise to worry about. To be honest, I wasn't even thinking of noise when I did the test, just the need to carry round the DX body as ell as the D3. Perhaps had I done the test at 2000iso it might have given me a different slant. Because I do feel that noise and the specifically the handling of noise has an important influence on perceived sharpness. |
|||||||||
jk
|
Eric wrote:  I probably need to talk this out face to face rather than here in text as these days I dont like writing long technical papers. If you look at the controls that affect sharpness, noise, etc.. Exposure (not sure if this should be included as we should be trying to expose correctly). Contrast (apparent sharpness but in reality no change in sharpness). Clarity (apparent increase in sharpness due to some highlight boost and mid-range levelling and shadow deepening). Luma noise (reduction in light effected noise). Chroma noise (reduction in colour effected noise). Sharpness/Unsharp (too little and it is unsharp, too much and you get horrible artifacts). Have I missed others?  All these effect apparent sharpness. We are looking at a mulifactorial problem which means there is huge complexity. |
|||||||||
Robert
|
jk wrote:Have I missed others? Resolution? Resolution is fundamental for texture and detail like hair and feathers. Resolution can also affect the dynamic range, blown highlights and un recoverable, under exposed shadows, hence bracketing where this is an issue. Highlight and shadow detail are important in many documentary images. Maybe less important in arty images where graduation might be more important than outright sharpness. |
|||||||||
Robert
|
Eric wrote:I thought you were thwacking pavers. 😆 I am, in between downpours.  |
|||||||||
jk
|
Robert wrote:jk wrote: Yes Resolution is also important. Obviously this is a function of pixel numbers and bit depth. |
|||||||||
Eric
|
OK but part from... Exposure Contrast Clarity Luma noise Chroma noise Sharpness/Unsharp and Resolution.... What else have the `Romans' done for photography?  |
|||||||||
GeoffR
|
Eric wrote: OK but part from...What a shame we don't have a "Like" button! |
|||||||||
jk
|
GeoffR wrote:Eric wrote:Been thinking that for a while but I dont like Facebook application design.OK but part from...What a shame we don't have a "Like" button!  |
|||||||||
blackfox
|
easy one that Eric , they put up bloody columns everywhere so we could learn about "converging verticals "  |
|||||||||
Current theme is Blue
| A small amount of member data is captured and held in an attempt to reduce spammers and to manage users. This site also uses cookies to ensure ease of use. In order to comply with new DPR regulations you are required to agree/disagree with this process. If you do not agree then please email the Admins using info@nikondsl.uk Thank you. |