Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Nikon dSLR

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old May 12, 2006, 9:56 AM   #1
Senior Member
 
ruchai's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 287
Default

I am getting confused reading the websabout high noises of the D200 and low noises of the D50. Why not test it?

I used to be a scientist (engineer) but am now retired and want to do things my way. What I wanted to know was pictures taken with D50 at ISO 1600 are better than those from D200?

I took these two pictures with lights from our kitchen. The magnetc wooden fish is on the refrigirater door. Both cameras on the same tripod, same setting and with MicroNikkor 60mm for both cameras. Both pictures taken in large jpeg file and did not do any processing except resized to 957 x 641 to fit the screen and reduced to smaller resolution with NikonCapture4.

This picture was from D50; L, JPEG FINE
Attached Images
 
ruchai is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old May 12, 2006, 9:58 AM   #2
Senior Member
 
ruchai's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 287
Default

This picture was from D200; L, JPEG FINE.
Attached Images
 
ruchai is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 12, 2006, 2:06 PM   #3
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 10
Default

Hi Ruchai,

high ISOs in good light aren't really a test of anything, especially when there's little or no shadow, and a light coloured background.

You really need to do this test in a situation where the camerasneed a high ISO just to give a reasonable shutter speed - in other words, "proper" low light.

A subject with more fine detail (which would be more vulnerable to detail loss caused by noise) would be good too.

I think the results then would be very interesting...


keithreeder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 12, 2006, 2:11 PM   #4
rey
Senior Member
 
rey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 949
Default

Most noise comparisons that I've seen, either online or print-magazines are from shots in much darker places, like inside a cathedral with very little light, or outside at night of a statue with the shot pointing up to a black sky. Noise tends to be more visible against black background.

The thinking (valid or not) behind high noise on the D200 and E-500 is that they cram more mega-pixels at a small sensor than cameras in their class. (ie D200 vs 30D vs 5D)

rey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 12, 2006, 10:05 PM   #5
Senior Member
 
ruchai's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 287
Default

I made this test for my own enlightment. Both pictures were taken at 1/15; F 3.3. I hardly use tripod in real life so I very lightly shall ever use the two cameras in darker environment than this.

Iwas not comparing Canon and Nikon. I have no interest in the twocompnies. What I wanted to know was if I spot a beautiful butterfly in our garden in a low light condition and do not want to use flash should I switch my macro lens from my D50 to my D200.

I posted this pictures here hoping they might be of some value for some onewho are looking to buy their first DSLR. Many are confused afterreading experts opinions in the web.

I had passed the researching stageof Canon vs Nikon. Last year I researched between Canon 20D and Nikon D50 and end up bought the D50 mainly because of spot focussing and spot metering of the D50. Recently it was between 5D and D200 but it was when I already own twovery expensiveNikkor lenses.
ruchai is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 15, 2006, 5:05 AM   #6
Senior Member
 
zygh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 531
Default

I agree. Maybe you should teste the two in "real" low light conditions, just like Keith wrote in his post. That would really be of help.
Cheers!
zygh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 15, 2006, 8:31 AM   #7
Senior Member
 
Ronnie948's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 721
Default

I think the D200 photo looks better on My screen. I think the people that are complaining about the D200 just do not own one or they would not complain. I have a D100 and D200 and in the real world of picture taking for $$$$$ I have no problem with the finel results of either camera. The photographs are all sellable from both the D100 and D200. My friend Jack has A D70 that He uses for His Dentist work and also took it to Sebring and it takes great photo's. BUT!!!! At My Church function that was at night and only lit by torches and candles outsideand having to be handheld and a flash could not be used.. I got the pictures and He Did NOT. I used a 24/120 "VR" lens and Jack used His 70/200 "D" lens. (The "VR" could have made the diffrence)Inside of the Church where there was ambiant light and flash could be used. We both had excellent pictures.

The D200 does "NOT"have any noise problem that I have found but it is the easiest camera you will ever use because it has a great feature that the D100 does not have. "AUTO ISO" sets the ISO automaticlyfor the lighting needs of the situation. I don't know if the D70.D50 has that feature or not. When I do a Wedding or a function that requires a lot of running in and out and the lighting changes rapidly from 1 minuite to the next I don't have to remember to change the ISO at all. The camera does it for Me. I just set My Aperture to F-8 and use Aperture prefered and the D200 does all of the adjustments for Me. It works perfect every time.

Nope, Just setting a camera on a tripod and shooting in pitch black conditions trying to induce noise is not telling anybody anything about shooting real paid for pictures in a real situation. I can force noise on any camera that way.

Read Steve's review on the D200 and you will probably want one, He does not get paid by the Camera Companys so you can trust what He will tell you.

Ronnie:|
Ronnie948 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 15, 2006, 10:07 AM   #8
Senior Member
 
ruchai's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 287
Default

Nope, Just setting a camera on a tripod and shooting in pitch black conditions trying to induce noise is not telling anybody anything about shooting real paid for pictures in a real situation. I can force noise on any camera that way.


I agree with you Ronnie. I posted these two photos intending to help people deciding to buy a D50 or D200 who still worried about noises they read about in the web.

I also could easily see that D200 has less noises than D50 from the picture. But they are so insignificant to be a problem. D200 easy to change WB, picture quality, ISO, 5 frames/sec.,and many other functions easily made it my favorite. Focusing is also better.

D50 is a very good camera if you do not compare it with D200. Noises as seen in my two pictures are no problem with these two Nikon. It's a waste of time testing them at speed lower than 1/15 sec.

If money is a problem get a D50, If you like to set your camera for consistent optimum picture quality while taking your pictures and can afford it, get the D200. It worth the extra $$$.

I also think people who did not like the D200 is because he never use one.
ruchai is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 15, 2006, 11:14 AM   #9
DBB
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 2,483
Default

ruchai wrote:
Quote:
Nope, Just setting a camera on a tripod and shooting in pitch black conditions trying to induce noise is not telling anybody anything about shooting real paid for pictures in a real situation. I can force noise on any camera that way.


I agree with you Ronnie. I posted these two photos intending to help people deciding to buy a D50 or D200 who still worried about noises they read about in the web.

I also could easily see that D200 has less noises than D50 from the picture. But they are so insignificant to be a problem. D200 easy to change WB, picture quality, ISO, 5 frames/sec.,and many other functions easily made it my favorite. Focusing is also better.

D50 is a very good camera if you do not compare it with D200. Noises as seen in my two pictures are no problem with these two Nikon. It's a waste of time testing them at speed lower than 1/15 sec.

If money is a problem get a D50, If you like to set your camera for consistent optimum picture quality while taking your pictures and can afford it, get the D200. It worth the extra $$$.

I also think people who did not like the D200 is because he never use one.
I also agree. this was a very useful glimpse of the potentials of these two machines in good light. As it happens I found it interesting.

If you had billed that as a "real test" I would say it lacks the many other potential comparisons. If you had charged me money, I would want it back:G

But personally - You have my thanks

Dave
DBB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 16, 2006, 12:17 AM   #10
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 141
Default

ruchai:

I have been enjoyng your photographs for a while now. You have an economy and efficiency, as well as artistry,in both your pictures and words that I appreciate. Excellent!

I was wondering what would happen if you were to do post-processing on the pics of the wooden fish. Would the results further delineate the differences between the D200 and the D50? Also, what does your typical post-processing involve?

Thanks to you, and everyone else, for thewonderful pics posted.
Stratman is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:08 PM.