where there’s smoke there’s forum fire
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.
No worries PB.
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?
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...
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.
For differences between the two cameras - http://mansurovs.com/nikon-d300-vs-d300s
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.)
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?
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. . .
I meant D5000 above. This is how rumors get started. ;-)
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.
+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.
You must log in to post.
