Fed up.....

if you are going to stay with Nikon i think you have to go D300 or D3 dont think D2x will give you much better noise handling than you already have. (i might be talking out of my rear end though) lol
 
Yup, the D300 is your answer :)

But, at what ISO were you starting to get fed-up? For me, it was ISO400 and above, but under ISO400 the D200 was just fantastic.
 
A D2X is worse.

A D40 or D50 is about 2/3rd stop better.

D300 about 2/3rd to 1 stop better at high ISO, but noiser at low ISO than the D200.

D700? Thats about 2 stops better than the D200, and 1 stop better than the D300.

And it'll be much cheaper in just a few weeks.
 
I have just got a d300 and am very impressed with high iso

this was taken at iso 3200 in my garage

2974494237_12de0afc3b.jpg
 
Joe,

The D300 is a big leap forward on the 200, especially in RAW.

The D3 is in a different league, as is the 700. In all seriousness, avoid the D2x mate, ithas had better days above 400 ISO.
 
Diego Garcia said:
Joe,

The D300 is a big leap forward on the 200, especially in RAW.

The D3 is in a different league, as is the 700. In all seriousness, avoid the D2x mate, ithas had better days above 400 ISO.
Click to expand...

:agree:

I ran the D300 with the D200 (now replaced by an S5 Pro) as a backup and there is a marked difference between them, especially at higher iso levels. It'll be interesting to see how the S5 stacks up against the D300...
 
Joe T, I'm having a somewhat similar crisis of confidence at the moment in my D200.

I've always used Canon DSLRs through work but when it came to buying my own at the start of the year, I went with the reviews (and the bigger body that suits my big hands) and opted for the D200. I wasn't too phased by the fact the D300 came out about the same time, writing it off as getting a good deal on a superioir DSLR to the 30/40D. Plus, I was happy with the image quality that 10MP was giving me and the ease of use which the D200 has to be aplauded for. I also thought the ISO performance was okay too.

I love my D200, especially the feel and weight of the body, and the 18-70mm is a great lens considering it's a cheapo 'kit' lens. However, I bought a 70-200mm Sigma to go with it and for the life of me can't get a shot that's truly sharp. Back focus issues, as I found on the internet, are common with Sigma EX lenses so I took it into Jessops today to see what they thought and apart from some totally bemused looks when I mentioned the words 'backfocus' and 'Sigma' (they obviously don't do their homework). Shooting in the dim light of a tiny shop at ISO800 I stuck the lens on a D300 body and WOW! the quality at high ISO on the D300 is sooooooo much better than the D200.

I'm now thinking I rushed into things, although I didn't know the D300 prices would drop so quickly, and I'm also doubting the AF on the D200 - is it the lens or is it the D200?

With my chimney looking like the leaning tower of Pisa, windows around the house all losing their seals and the mortgage advisor now saying we can't borrow any money to renovate because it'll send us into negative equity, my camera woes seem a bit pettyin the scheme of things but still, I really wish the D200 could be just that little bit better.

Phew!! Went off on a tangent there!!... :)
 
Must admit I find the high ISO complaints a bit overblown, and the D300 capabilities over-exargerrated.

My D200 was fine at ISO1600, and it focused superbly.


278452071_e07d6adb56_o.jpg

​

Just wondering how many people here print, as printing is the best NR you can do, and it doesn't strip detail. Its a great leveller.
 
Puddleduck, that shot looks great and I do have to admit I'm feeling a bit low today and the D200 is bearing the brunt of it.
I do take a lot of shots indoors though and find that's where the high ISO noise on the D200 creeps in the most. It's no way as bad outdoors where there's a wide range of tones. Shadows and really dark tones don't seem to be that good under high ISO.

Mind you, it's 10 times the camera that my works 30D is and I'd say I think it's a better camera to use and work with than the 40D - the menu system on the Canon seems like it was designed to confuse rather than help.
 
Shadows and really dark tones don't seem to be that good under high ISO.

Thats pretty normal on any camera. Even the D700.

While both the D300 and D700 are better at high ISO than the D200 (the D700 especially) they do clip the black at the RAW level. You can do that your end too, with level adjustment in the shadow area.

Some of the high ISO improvement is actually smoke and mirrors on the newer Nikons.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top