D200 noise handling better than expected

Hacker

Hacker

TPer Emeritus
Suspended / Banned
Messages
7,625
Name
Colin
Edit My Images
Yes
Since I've had the D200 the one downside was it's noise handling capabilities at medium and high ISO. This was my perception after looking at the screen and not being terribly impressed, especially when you hear all the C*n*n owners wittering on about their cameras capabilities. :annoyed:

Last weekend I had to cover an indoor dressage test where the lighting was atricious and I was shooting at around ISO 500 or 640 and tbh I was dreading the results, even when editing customers pictures I was in two minds as to whether or not to refund them but I thought I'd get them printed anyway. The prints turned up today from Photobox and I must say I am quite impressed, the pics look good and I'm more than happy to send them out. Maybe I shouldn't be so critical of shots until I see the finished product - lesson learnt!

Here are a couple of examples. As photographers (as opposed to customers) do they look okay to you? I realise it's difficult at such low res.

MFECClass3-21Carson.jpg


MFECClass9-27Barnes.jpg
 
Colin,
The pics are right on target. I am truly impressed. You got them at just the right stride and I don't think they are noisy at all. As an aside the extension on the grey is fab (i'll take him).
 
Hyper hyper critical it looks like you've maybe cut a wee bit of the greys tail. Position of the lady on the chestnut could possibly be more flattering but that's not really under your control :)

Good shots :thumbs:

Gloss or Matt?
 
dod said:
Position of the lady on the chestnut could possibly be more flattering but that's not really under your control :)

Good shots :thumbs:

Gloss or Matt?
Click to expand...

Heh Heh! Every time she went into an extended trot she leaned right back, I thought she was going to tip over backwards at one point. :eek:

All my prints are done in matte, I used to use gloss but it showed every mark, hence the cheap white cotten gloves of ebay.
 
heh, look good to me sir ;)
It's perhaps worth bearing in mind that although noise reduction will rape detail in.. detailed areas, smooth areas can take it pretty well. So perhaps consider some selective NR on shots that are noisier than you'd like.
As an example - the second one has some noise on the jacket (this doesn't bother me, and I doubt it will the customer. Just an example) - applying some NR to just that area would smooth it out, and as there's not a massive amount of detail there, you're not gonna lose an awful lot. Same applies to OOF areas, if they're a bit grainy.
 
What Hoodi said. Noise really manifests itself in the darker areas of the shot, so you're fortunate that these are in lighter surroundings. You can see noise evident in the green girder at the top left of the first pic, which is one of the darker areas, and in the tunic in the 2nd pic, although that may be a crinkly velvet type jacket?

There's certainly nothing wrong with those shots, in fact I think a tad of USM would make them pop.

I tend to deal with noise in images by selectively filtering the parts which show it up, which tend to be the darker areas and areas without a lot of detail.
 
CANON FTW!
CANON ALL THE WAY, BABY!
CANON >>>>>> OLD CANON >>>>> YOU!
CANCOANCOANCAONCAOCNAOCNACONACOANCAONCAOCAOCNAOCNAOCNAOCNAOCN!

Isn't that what you meant to say, whitewash?
 
QFT!


i mean that i wouldnt class 600 as high iso, anything above 800 ish (although as a photographer who regularly uses iso1600) id class as high but 600 is within the "normal iso" range of cameras surely and not classed genuinely as high


i dont see much image noise in the images, bar from the areas already identified, but non of it is going to be a problem for customers, after all you cant generate your own light at distances which you will be dealing with, and as you said it was low light so its always going to be a compromise, any customer who would challenge you about grainy images would surely understand this after an explination so there would be no need to worry on that side, digital cameras are actually becoming better at noise iso400+ than film. put another way, your camera is top spec, you know what your doing- i severely doubt they'd manage to unearth any better images than yours from the event, they all look spot on, nice and sharp and detail is plentiful!
 
whitewash said:
digital cameras are actually becoming better at noise iso400+
Click to expand...

They have been for some time - have you tried looking at an ISO 400 neg // transparency though a magnifer? Or better yet, scanning one?
 
no, because i dont have any :p but i have compared prints from a digital at 1600 and prints from BW fuji 1600 and the digital beats it, wasnt sure quite how far down the sensitivity range his technological betterment went:clap:


film still rocks though:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top