Nikon D300, D200, D40 and Canon 5D ISO Comparison

Leica 18-56mm f/3.5-5.6 Vario Elmar-T ASPH

12/01/2007 04:16:59 PM · #1

Okay ... I'm *not* one to go around quoting Ken Rockwell, but.... take a look!

Nikon D300, D200, D40 and Canon 5D ISO Comparison

And to quote his analysis:

"The Canon 5D is clearly superior to anything else here because it doesn't get blurry at the highest ISOs. It has The Full-Frame Advantage. Look at the fur: the D300 wipes off all the fur and turns it into smooth skin at ISO 6,400! The D300 blurs everything to smithereens at ISO 6,400 to hide the noise, but it's like looking at the image though a veil. It's even more pronounced when I look at the full images on my 30" screen compared to these small clips. The D300 is a blur-o-rama at high ISOs. It's cheating! See Fallacies of Noise Measurements.

The D200 has a little more noise than the D300, but the D200 is also sharper. The only difference between them is how much noise reduction is used in the cameras' firmware. Change the camera defaults or add more as a Photoshop plugin, and you can make them match.

Heck, pushing the D40 to ISO 6,400 in Photoshop and adding NR, I can make the D40 have about the same amount of noise and detail at high ISOs as the other Nikons! The D40 is noisier than the D300 at ISO 6,400, but it's sharper!

When we see though this trick in the D300, the D300 is the same as the other Nikons. The D300 has a little less noise, but a little less detail and texture at the highest ISOs.

Sadly the D300 doesn't really shoot at ISO 100 if you use Auto ISO and Nikon's Adaptive Dynamic Range (ADR) feature as I do. Since the D300 defaults to ISO 200 mostly as a marketing gimmick, my D300 shots at ISO 200 in daylight have a small amount of visible noise at 100%, which I've never gotten in my D200 (or 5D) shots at ISO 100.

Wankers worry about noise; artists worry about color and tone. The D300 has far superior color and tone to anything else I've used."

MAK

Leica CL

12/01/2007 04:48:04 PM · #2

Seems the D300 is a Fuji S5 Pro with a faster engine. That camera produced the best colour straight from camera it really did. I miss mine.

Nikolai1024

Nikon D300

Nikon AF Zoom-Nikkor 24-85mm f2.8-4.0D

12/01/2007 05:20:25 PM · #3

I've been holding off on ordering D300 until I get some ISO tests. Now that I've seen them I don't know what to do. I want 5D...

doctornick

Apple iPhone 13 Pro

12/01/2007 05:33:58 PM · #4

Originally posted by Nikolai1024:

I've been holding off on ordering D300 until I get some ISO tests. Now that I've seen them I don't know what to do. I want 5D...

I received my 5D 2 days ago and I have to admit I'm blown away by the high ISO performance, I was already quite satisfied with how the 1D II performed but the 5D is in another league...and it's a 2 year old model...Imagine what the 5D II will be able to do when it comes out!

Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM

12/01/2007 05:54:07 PM · #5

Interesting. It probably would have helped if he'd gotten the D300 bear in focus in the first shot.

NstiG8tr

Canon EOS-5D Mark IV

12/01/2007 06:42:55 PM · #6

Originally posted by Nikolai1024:

......... I want 5D...

Nikon Smikon. Everybody wants the Cadillac. I'm more impressed that Ken had something intelligent to say.

Originally posted by doctornick:

...Imagine what the 5D II will be able to do when it comes out!

5+ FPS - 16MP minimum - 14 bit D/A - Digic III - 3" LCD - more and faster focus points. These are minimum upgrades b4 I would even buying another one.

Message edited by author 2007-12-01 18:51:17.

ben4345

Nikon D700

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

12/01/2007 07:01:57 PM · #7

Umm... Not saying he's wrong but.....
D300 NATIVE ISO RANGE IS 200 - 3200!!!!!! If you use LOW OR HIGH SETTIINGS, DON'T EXPECT OPTIMAL RESULTS.

As for noise at low ISO's I am going to debunk Ken's comment. As mentioned in a previous post of mine, I said there is a slight posterization (could be seen as noise too) due to aggressive sharpening at default settings.

I am not trying to defend of "justify" my purchase. I just would like people to hear from someone that has used it in the real world.

Is it better than the 5D or the 40D at high ISO? I wouldn't know and I believe that is subjective. Am I 100% satisfied with high ISOs? Yes, I would say that I find it mind blowing compared to the D50.

pawdrix

Nikon D700

Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.4D IF

12/01/2007 08:46:42 PM · #8

I'd say comparing the 5D to the D3 is a much farer comparison.

Nikolai1024-Just buy the damn thing. What's the big deal over some noise? I've seen some amazing images from the D300 and by all reports it's better than the D200 and far better than the D70 which you've been able to live with for quite a while. Go for it...

BTW, I might let my old D200 go for a few hundred. Let me know.

Message edited by author 2007-12-01 20:49:54.

Nikolai1024

Nikon D300

Nikon AF Zoom-Nikkor 24-85mm f2.8-4.0D

12/01/2007 09:19:20 PM · #9

Originally posted by pawdrix:

..
Nikolai1024-Just buy the damn thing.
...

all right... you convinced me.... D300 it is... (or maybe D3?, hmm)

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

12/01/2007 10:40:42 PM · #10

My uncle has a 5D, and lives about 5-7 hours away. I want to take it from him ;)

breadfan35

Nikon D3

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 50mm f/1.4G

12/01/2007 11:12:08 PM · #11

Go here for all the real world D300 Test shots you want to see. The D300 does better than the D200 with high ISO.

msieglerfr

Nikon D200

Nikon AF Zoom-Nikkor 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5D

12/02/2007 03:13:20 AM · #12

Once again, I think there are a lot of stories about noise / high ISO, and I personally do not take into consideration such comments. I will certainly not based my future purchase on this factor. Are some people bothered by noise?

Here are two samples taken with a D70? So, yes, there is some noise, the photographs do not look perfect (because they will never be anyway) which, IMO, is not disturbing at all.

Message edited by author 2007-12-02 03:13:34.

salmiakki

Apple iPhone 16 Pro

Sony Sonnar T* 35mm f/2.8 ZA

12/02/2007 10:39:08 AM · #13

Originally posted by pawdrix:

nikolai1024-Just buy the damn thing.

I second that.... Just do it! I picked mine up on Friday morning and I LOVE it. It's a huge improvement over the D70. Haven't had chance to really test it properly as I've been travelling (sitting at Heathrow airport right now....), but what I have seen so far, I really do love.

violinist123

Canon EOS-6D

Nikon AF-S Zoom-Nikkor 28-70mm f/2.8D IF-ED

12/02/2007 11:08:51 AM · #14

Originally posted by msieglerfr:

Color noise bothers me quite a bit. It doesn't add a pleasing grain to the photo, it just looks like electronic distortion. It should be zapped where it can not be prevented in the first place, and would certainly be a factor in a buy/don't buy decision. Only thing worse than color noise is losing image detail in the attempt to remove the noise.

Morgan

Nikon D800

12/02/2007 12:48:53 PM · #15

These comparison details are minor, small, perhaps infinitesimal points. Do they really matter that much? Are we not splitting atoms here? The real-life, practical difference is like "mice nuts" - very, very small!

"A poor workman blames his tools"

So, is the creative process negatively impacted by the difference between one of these cameras versus the other?

Sure ISO is an important element in the overall holistic purchasing decision, but the decision should not be driven solely by any one factor unless it is so extreme that it overruns all of the other common sense aspects of what makes a good camera, good. It is my view that both the Canon 5D and the Nikon D300 are superior emerging technology examples of the art of the possible. Either one can deliver award winning results in the right hands. (Obviously, no my hands, but that is another story.)

But, it sure seems silly to me to debate one camera over the other based upon such minutiae as the noise at 6400 ISO. Does anyone actually plan to shot at 6400 ISO anyway? Not me...

Is this dicussion really about "specmanship"?

violinist123

Canon EOS-6D

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 ED

12/02/2007 01:13:57 PM · #16

Originally posted by Morgan:

Is this dicussion really about "specmanship"?

If not for the specs, what possible reason would you have for buying a D3? If the sole criteria for buying a camera is being able to write image to disk, you can accomplish that for about 50 dollars.

fotomann_forever

12/02/2007 01:35:25 PM · #17

Originally posted by Morgan:

The real-life, practical difference is like "mice nuts" - very, very small!

Comparatively, mice nuts are pretty big :-D

Originally posted by Morgan:

Does anyone actually plan to shot at 6400 ISO anyway? Not me...

There are times when the option of clean ISO 6400 would be nice to have. For instance candle lit weddings or night sports.

Message edited by author 2007-12-02 13:44:10.

Apple iPhone 5

12/02/2007 01:43:13 PM · #18

Originally posted by fotomann_forever:

For instance candle lit weddings or nice sports.

Is football a nice sport?

fotomann_forever

12/02/2007 01:45:56 PM · #19

Originally posted by jhonan:

Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
For instance candle lit weddings or nice sports.

Is football a nice sport?

I need to start paying more attention to what I'm typing, don't I?

To answer your question... no, it's an evil sport. Roll Tide.

12/02/2007 05:22:24 PM · #20

Regardless of my opinion of people making purchasing decisions on a single issue, like noise....since I had the camera and was trying things out, I attempted to duplicate the test with the D300. What I found was that the D300 has 4 noise reduction settings, off, low, normal, and high. The default is normal. I ran the test with all ISO settings from 200-3200, at all noise reduction settings, taking pictures of a stuffed bear wearing a dark green sweatshirt, in front of a dark background (my turned off TV), with fairly low level incandescent lighting. I put the camera on a tripod, set it for f/5.6, and used live view to get sharp focus.

What I found...

Live view is an amazing tool for getting sharp focus on static objects. It will definitely have a bigger effect on my photography than the improved noise performance of the camera.

After running the tests, it was apparent that Ken Rockwell used the "normal" setting for noise reduction, and probably never tried anything else. For a detailed subject like a stuffed animal, "low" does a much better job of knocking down the worst of the noise while preserving the detail. "Normal" would probably be better for less detailed subjects. "High" looked pretty bad all the time. I didn't see much advantage to turning noise reduction completely off, because there was very little detail lost using the "low" setting.

In my (of course) biased opinion, I thought the D300 with noise reduction set on low performed better than Ken Rockwell's 5D pictures. There was definitely less of the blobby chrominance noise that was evident in his 5D shots. However, the 5D was probably not set on its optimal settings, either, so I'm not capable of making a comparison.

Regardless of comparisons, my overall conclusion was that I get about 2 more usable stops with the D300 than I had with my D70. ISO 200-400 is fine with no post processing, ISO 800 looks good with minimal post processing, and ISO 1600 will work in a pinch with some painstaking post work. ISO 3200 is still pretty bad.

edit to add: Silly me, I didn't save any of the images, so nothing to show and tell.

Message edited by author 2007-12-02 17:22:56.

violinist123

Canon EOS-6D

Nikon AF Zoom-Nikkor 24-85mm f2.8-4.0D

12/02/2007 05:44:20 PM · #21

Isn't green the least noisy of all channels? I didn't look at Rockwell's stuff, so maybe he shot some green too.

Nikolai1024

Nikon D300

12/02/2007 05:45:30 PM · #22

Originally posted by Morgan:

....
Sure ISO is an important element in the overall holistic purchasing decision, but the decision should not be driven solely by any one factor unless it is so extreme that it overruns all of the other common sense aspects of what makes a good camera, good. ...

It seems like high ISO quality is what I always wished for in my D70. I know D300 has LOTS of other great features but I just want that clean ISO 3200!!! It is probably because I always wind up somewhere where it is dark and having to choose between grainy or blury. In any case my new Nikon is not too far away!

Apple iPhone 5

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 ED

12/02/2007 05:53:36 PM · #23

Originally posted by annpatt:

I ran the test with all ISO settings from 200-3200, at all noise reduction settings, taking pictures of a stuffed bear wearing a dark green sweatshirt, in front of a dark background (my turned off TV), with fairly low level incandescent lighting.

Out of curiosity, were you shooting RAW or JPG? - I assume the noise reduction setting only applies to JPG?

12/02/2007 07:58:30 PM · #24

Originally posted by jhonan:

Originally posted by annpatt:
I ran the test with all ISO settings from 200-3200, at all noise reduction settings, taking pictures of a stuffed bear wearing a dark green sweatshirt, in front of a dark background (my turned off TV), with fairly low level incandescent lighting.

Out of curiosity, were you shooting RAW or JPG? - I assume the noise reduction setting only applies to JPG?

I tried both raw and jpeg. What I found was noise reduction is applied in camera on jpegs. On raw, you get noise reduction if you use CaptureNX for the raw conversion. Results were very similar to what I saw on jpegs.

In general, CaptureNX reads all your camera settings (saturation, contrast, sharpening, etc) out of the raw file. ACR and Lightroom only get the white balance.