D700 v D300 ISO Comparison Shots

cannockwolf

cannockwolf

<span class="poty">POTY (Joint) 2016</span>
Suspended / Banned
Messages
2,858
Name
Dave
Edit My Images
No
Since I have just bought a D700 and still have a D300 I thought I would do my own comparison tests on the famed ISO capabilities of the D700 against a not so feeble ISO capable D300, I was hoping to get miraculous results, but expecting much less, how wrong was I!!!!

I know this experiment has probably been done 1000's of times but I wanted to prove it myself.

Both setups were on a tripod (not moved) using the same settings and lens (although I tried to adjust focal length to get a similar image) taken under florescent and standard bulb lighting in my kitchen on auto white balance @ f8 in aperture priority mode.

The images were opened in CS3 cropped, positioned and exported to JPG's only, no other PS work done, not even sharpening

ISO 800
ISO-800.jpg


ISO 1600
ISO-1600.jpg


ISO 3200
ISO-3200.jpg


ISO 6400
ISO-6400.jpg



EDIT: Update

ISO-800%20x3200.jpg
 
I have seen a few comparisons on-line but its great to see it done by a real person and get the same results - Many thanks for taking the time to put this together cannockwolf

I made the same move as you recently - Nice to see where my money went :woot:
 
the 2 cameres seem to have metered differently too, the D300 looks to be under about 1/2 a stop.
 
just checked the AEB exposure compensation and they are both set to 0 so yes they are
 
interesting results, im so tempted by a D700, but i really should stop spending
 
Well yeah, it's not exactly surprising since the D700 is almost double the price of the D300 and it's full frame.
 
8utters said:
Well yeah, it's not exactly surprising since the D700 is almost double the price of the D300 and it's full frame.
Click to expand...

since when in life has double the cost ever given double the value? it is the question most d300 up-graders want to know
 
I've said a number of times here that I feel that D300 high ISO abilities are hugely overstated (you know who you are!), and certainly if I cared about high ISO I'd get a D700 or a Canon 5D.

Not at all surprised, the D700 trouces the D300 is every way tbh.
 
Forbiddenbiker said:
Are the shutter speeds the same?
Click to expand...

at 1600 & 3200 the d300 was over exposing compared to the d700 otherwise the same speeds were used.

both times the d300 was 1 stop? over exposing (1/10 compared to 1/8 at 1600 and 1/20 compared to 1/15 at 3200)
 
That's a great comparison and thanks for taking the time to show it. :clap:

puddleduck said:
I've said a number of times here that I feel that D300 high ISO abilities are hugely overstated (you know who you are!), and certainly if I cared about high ISO I'd get a D700 or a Canon 5D.

Not at all surprised, the D700 trouces the D300 is every way tbh.
Click to expand...


That maybe the case but many of us bought the D300 to replace the D200 or an earlier model, at the time I couldn't afford the D3 but my upgrade was a huge leap forward over the D200.

Just out of interest this shot was taken with the D3 and 70-200mm yesterday at ISO1400, 1/400th and f/4.5. The crop shows the almost total lack of noise. Shot in RAW and no sharpening or anything else.

Zeus_dressage-1.jpg


100% crop
Zeus_dressage-2.jpg
 
Wow great post! I'm surprised the D300 didn't fair slightly better upto 1600, but hey ho. Also, as said, I noticed straightaway the D300 images are slightly under exposed.

I've been umming and ahhing about a D700! I'd like to see if any rumours of a D300/D700 replacement come true, though!
 
Shak said:
Wow great post! I've been umming and ahhing about a D700! I'd like to see if any rumours of a D300/D700 replacement come true, though!
Click to expand...

Well if there is a D800 in the works, i doubt it will have the same low noise as the D700.

If Low Noise / High ISO is your thing, then the D700 is the one for you.
 
I'm awed by the high ISO performance, as I'm sure we all are. The next question must be - is 12MP and FX the 'perfect' high ISO combination - the ideal tradeoff between noise and resolution on a Bayer sensor? Where next for digital cameras?

We've seen higher MP counts deliver awesome low ISO work; the A900/1DsMk3 etc show us that - but the tradeoff is a return of noise. It seems that any advance in high ISO noise is down to either larger sensor photosites [i.e larger than FX or fewer megapixels] or more intrusive noise reduction algorithms [which tend to smear, or degrade overall quality.]

I know cameras will develop - if nothing else, the market demands it - but on a Bayer/CMOS sensor, with FX full frame as the largest size, is 12MP the optimal resolution for low-light work?
 
with FX full frame as the largest size, is 12MP the optimal resolution for low-light work?

You could gain another stop by dropping down to around 6 megapixels.
 
puddleduck said:
I've said a number of times here that I feel that D300 high ISO abilities are hugely overstated (you know who you are!), and certainly if I cared about high ISO I'd get a D700 or a Canon 5D.

Not at all surprised, the D700 trouces the D300 is every way tbh.
Click to expand...

Thats easy to say if you can afford to take the D700 route, but if you can't, the D300 is a very significant improvement over the D200. The indoor sports stuff I do is very much easier with the D300's noise handling capacity than it was previously and also means much less time pp'ing afterwards. Point is, YES, I would love to take the D700 route but it isn't just the body, it would mean several new lenses as well to replace current crop sensor lenses I have in my armoury. I would expect the 700 to trounce the 300, otherwise those people that have splashed out the extra cash wold be rightly miffed.
 
There are some other differences between the D300 setup and the D700... how did you have the high ISO NR set on both? Also, which picture style did you have if you were shooting jpg?

There must be some reason in there for the exposure difference.... Active-D settings?

Anyway, yes the D700 shows less noise than the D300 - given the same MP from a physically larger sensor, you would expect that.

The "much vaunted" D300 high ISO capability is a relative term - compared to the D200 or even my old 30D, it is a marked improvement...
 
both were setup identically as i had just gone through the menu to set it up the same as my d300, i shot raw BTW
 
Anyone want to buy my sister? Yours for just £1500 (that's about £5/lb...) or a straight swap for a D700.

Since I've not made the full move to digital (I still use 35mm on occasion), I don't have any Dx lenses apart from the 18-70 kit lens that came with the D70 so I just need to justify the D700 to myself. Those comparison shots haven't helped my saving - it's a matter of when, not if now!
 
cannockwolf said:
both were setup identically as i had just gone through the menu to set it up the same as my d300, i shot raw BTW
Click to expand...


Nearly identically CW, you used auto shutter with f8 priority set; so given the differences in each's internal metering response you've gotten yourself a underexposed set from the d300. ..Its kinda normal for meters to go with sensors in my opinion, so the d300 choosing that exposure as the right one, is quite normal...IMO. (debatable point that one, and lots or reasons why etc)

For a more accurate test, you must set both cameras to the same exposure in manual only, and also, fix you WB to something (like a grey card or whatever) ... to be really spot on.

:thumbs:
 
you are right and after i did i did think but as it was a noise test i decided not to reshoot, oh and because im a little lazy ;)
 
Remembering too that the noise problem will be exagerated in the darker underexposed shot too...

I demand a recount :D
 
LOL, sod off!
 
I bought a D300 to use up to 1,600 ISO for Weddings, and at one had to push it to 3,200

Sure it got noisy, but compared to my D2Xs (not so long ago one of the World's best cameras!) it gave me images I can use rather than just bin as the D2Xs would do

For me though, such indoor/dark images are only ever small ones as prints or for an album, so the fact there is noise isn't much of an issue. Also, I remember shooting the same in the old days of film, where 1,600 got you grains the size of golf-balls - and we all just called that 'adding atmosphere'

Would I like to upgrade to a D3 ???

Yep of course, but do I need to - and with the replacement of 4 of my lenses too for the FF size costing in total around £10,000 - do I bloody Hell as like

The D200 is a great camera; the D300 is too with more feature and hugely better high ISO abilities; the only people who really need D700s & D3s for their ISO are ones who regularly need high ISO capabilities - and if we're honest (looking through the vast majority of TP posted images) that's very few people indeed

Do we all WANT it though ??? Of course we do, that's what the advertisers get paid for... to make us want something we don't actually need

DD
 
DiddyDave said:
the only people who really need D700s & D3s for their ISO are ones who regularly need high ISO capabilities - and if we're honest (looking through the vast majority of TP posted images) that's very few people indeed
Click to expand...

Not disagreeing DD, but isnt it a bit chicken and egg? Until recently I'd never used anything above ISO500, because the results were :gag: now, armed with my D300 I'm no longer scared to bump the ISO to get the shot.

Prior to this, I'd have walked away without the shot when the light failed...
 
Forbiddenbiker said:
:lol:

I could mean ... learn how to use a camera before you go upgrading ... but that would be way to rude...

:D :nuts: :D

I'm only jealous realy... :gag: ;)
Click to expand...

cheeky s*d LOL
 
desantnik said:
Not disagreeing DD, but isnt it a bit chicken and egg? Until recently I'd never used anything above ISO500, because the results were :gag: now, armed with my D300 I'm no longer scared to bump the ISO to get the shot.

Prior to this, I'd have walked away without the shot when the light failed...
Click to expand...

Apart from NAS i find that i am constantly pushing the iso as i dont carry tripods with me all the time and this is going to be a god send to me tbh
 
desantnik said:
Not disagreeing DD, but isnt it a bit chicken and egg? Until recently I'd never used anything above ISO500, because the results were :gag: now, armed with my D300 I'm no longer scared to bump the ISO to get the shot.

Prior to this, I'd have walked away without the shot when the light failed...
Click to expand...


There is of course an element to this - landscapers won't give a hoot (thanks to tripods), but action shooters will find they can shoot more and in more testing circumstances

But unless you regularly face that problem of your best ISO setting giving you only 1/60 (too slow) whereas such as a D3 could give you perhaps 1/500 (fine). and especially where you're earning from it too - it's just not necessary to 'upgrade'

I have all I need to shoot happily at 1,600 now and can't see any need to change or add more gear for the foreseeable future

Perhaps I may be tempted by the D5 with it's 'no noise at all ever' option, but until then a D2Xs supported by a D300 is enough; and the £10,000 upgrade saving can go far in my wife's love of handbags & shoes = marital bliss = happy DD :D

DD
 
:thumbs: np its my kind of humour too ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top