+1 on that. I am currently trying NR software and I had to search hard to find pictures with unacceptable noise on them to try it on. I had to go back to some old Oly E10 pictures from 10 years ago that were not well exposed.

I wrote about this in some other thread, but will repeat myself over here. If You see noise at iso 200 in any new camera (let's say starting from d200) than there's something wrong with Your technique.

Compare the D700 file and D300s file on screen. The D300s will be look ALOT more noisy viewing at 100% even at iso 200 on screen, but if you are printing I dont see a difference

I meant D5000 above. This is how rumors get started. ;-)

jonnyapple said:
To see the difference between the D90 and the D300, you must need to have a better eye than mine. I never noticed a difference. Now going from the D200 to D300/D90/D500 was a noticeable difference. Isn't that what you did, shivas?

Yup, D40x->D200->D90. . .I think the differences are more noticeable the less advanced you are. . .ie, D300 might need a little under exposing given it's 1005-M2 scene recognition versus the 450-M2 in the D90, which is nearly always spot on for me. . .but you have to be "more advanced" to account and balance for this. . .

shivaswrath said:
Jonny and I have D90's. . .(ahem off topic). . .

To see the difference between the D90 and the D300, you must need to have a better eye than mine. I never noticed a difference. Now going from the D200 to D300/D90/D500 was a noticeable difference. Isn't that what you did, shivas?

The D300s also shoots at higher FPS if you don't buy a grip for it. (I think it shoots 8 instead of 7, not sure though.)

PB PM said:
Must be fan boys, the D3 and D3s are very, very good, but the D300? The D90, Pentax K-X and Canon 7D and T2i have better noise performance.

Anyways, we are so far off topic here that it isn't even funny.

Jonny and I have D90's. . .(ahem off topic). . .

For differences between the two cameras - http://mansurovs.com/nikon-d300-vs-d300s

Must be fan boys, the D3 and D3s are very, very good, but the D300? The D90, Pentax K-X and Canon 7D and T2i have better noise performance.

Anyways, we are so far off topic here that it isn't even funny.

Funny that I was listening to a podcast earlier on which they were talking about noise. They compared others to the D3 and D300 and reckoned them to be the best of the bunch.

Must have been C*n*n owners...

PB PM said:
Very constructive response warprints. As Jonny said, all digital devices have noise, it's just the name of the game, so to speak. Be careful not to make more out of something than there really is. All full frame cameras have noise issues too, if you want to get picky.

As if your original response to me was constructive? Jonny is absolutely right. All digital devices have noice - nature of the beast. All I interjected, originally, was that compared to film, digital is a great improvement for low light photography. You made a snide remark, and now it's my fault that this thread is off topic, and and there is oil in the gulf. It's not me that wants to get picky, is it?

No worries PB.

spraynpray said:
If it is, I wouldn't call it an 'issue' exactly. I see an issue as being worse than it's APS-C peers by a significant amount.

Just details, but important maybe.

[editied] never mind, miss read your post.

So how does the best Nikon at the same ISO compare to the best film? I thought I just read on an NR thread that it is generally much better? If it is, I wouldn't call it an 'issue' exactly. I see an issue as being worse than it's APS-C peers by a significant amount.

Just details, but important maybe.

warprints said:
Yeah. Whatever.

Very constructive response warprints. As Jonny said, all digital devices have noise, it's just the name of the game, so to speak. Be careful not to make more out of something than there really is. All full frame cameras have noise issues too, if you want to get picky.

NSXType-R said:
I haven't used a D300, but I'm sure it's better noise wise than a D40 right?

Oh, yes.

Any imaging device has noise issues. What matters is the acceptable level of noise based on the signal you want to record, and that's different for different users and uses.

I haven't used a D300, but I'm sure it's better noise wise than a D40 right?

If you guys have seen the workflow thread, I took a photo with the D40 at ISO 1600.

Here's a link.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/29754093@N02/4655742963/meta/

PB PM said:
All crop sensor cameras have noise issues.

Yeah. Whatever.

As far as I know there is a slight improvement in the D300s, but not as improved as the D90. Then again the D90/D5000 use NR even when it is turned off in camera, so it is hard to compare.

And that makes it different to the D300s how?

Out of interest, how does it compare to say a D5000 in that way?

You haven't been reading our posts very carefully have you? All crop sensor cameras have noise issues. My point wasn't that noise in the D300 is terrible, but that the D300 punishes you a lot more so than some cameras if you don't nail the exposure in camera.

Err, actually, the topic was D300/D300s differences. It has morphed into a D300 AND D300s/DX noise bashing thread....

OK, You're right. The topic is the crappy noise in D300 vs any other digital camera, not versus film. I'll help you out. Send me your D300 and you won't have to deal with the noise issue any more. :P

Yes thats obvious I with you on this PB PM compared to film you can push the D300 to 2500 ISO. The point is for a digital camera I found the noise at even ISO 200 to be unacceptable and worse in the D300 than almost any other Nikon body. In fact the only Nikon Digital body I haven't tried is the D3X and D90.