DSLRUsers.com

OK, I know this is premature, considering it is not yet available, but I'm hoping that from the plethora of knowledge among members I may be able to get an inkling anyway:

(AFAIK - which sounds wonderful but I can't afford it just now) the D3 has been acclaimed as being amazing in it's capacity to handle noise at high ISO

but - what about the D300? Has the "Nikon Noise" issue been rectified with this body?

The reason I ask is ... because ... I am seriously (very seriously) considering jumping ship myself and going over to (gasp!) the land of Canon, because I am truly sick and tired of the noise issue with Nikon at high ISO.

It is either taking that jump or getting a D300 and if I do that and the noise issue is still present, I will be MEGA PO'd!! Hence my question.

So, has anyone heard anything about the D300 in this regard? I've searched the web but all the hype & hoolah seems to be about the D3 and not much about the D300.

Thanks guys.

noise with the d300 is supposedly much better with the d300 than any prior bodies. although the d3 has a 2-3 stop advantage, i think antsl or someone said.

just wait till it comes out, see if you like it, and decide then. no point getting all in a huff about it now.

just wait till it comes out, see if you like it, and decide then. no point getting all in a huff about it now.

Couldnt have said it better myself.

I am sure that 2 more months (awaiting release then some real reviews) is not going to kill you

Seeing the investment you have in Nikon gear, I would say hold off. The bits I have read about the D300 is that it is not quite as good as the D3 but still very good up to 1600iso. Go to ECS's hands on for the D3 and D300 at the end of the month. That will give you some hands-on experience with both of them and you can try it before you buy it.

http://www.cameras.net.au/

Cheers,

André

Also,

look at these D300 high ISO images, even the 3200iso look great , so I don't think that you will be disappointed.

http://galleries.daveeinsel.com/d300test/

Note that the exif data is not on these photos but they have been verified that that they should be legitimate. The photog wasn't a listed beta-tester but he got the camera from a collegue that was.

HTH,

André

Hi Nikkofan,

I have not had long to play with the D300 but... given that it is using the same Expeed processor that the D3 is using I think you will be more than happy with the image quality out of it. As mentioned... the D3 is going to have a two stop advantage over the D300 so with this in mind, have a think about this....

Last night I took the D3 to a night club and ended up shooting about four metres across a laneway towards the entrance where a couple were kissing. I was shooting with the 50mm f1.4 on, shooting at f2.8, 1/60th in colour mode. Both the colour and the detail were magic... there was some noise but it resemebled more of the grain appearance that you would get out of a fast film.... slightly noticable but very pleasant by comparison to the noise we have been used to in Nikon. Two things amazed me about the image though.... one was that I could easily see the streaks of rain within the image (this camera and processor is sharp) but also I was working at 12,800 ISO. I have decided that 12,800 is the ultimate limit for the D3 when shooting colour but this being said, I think the camera is more than useful at 25,600 ISO in the black and white mode.... the results look very similar to T-Max 3200 film but with more tonal range and the sharpness is still fantastic.

The Expeed processor is solution to Canon's Digic II and Digic III processors and it does it better.

I have three comments for you now.....

If the D300 can perform to within three stops of the D3 with this new
processor then you are going to be more than happy with the results.

There is no gaurantee that if you sell your Nikon gear and go to Canon you are going to be happy.... the lenses are different, the operating system is different and as is evident of late.... Canon cameras are not perfect. My thoughts have always been that it takes about 2 years to get 100% familiar with new equipment.... that is to say, when the pace picks up on a shoot, you are not going to push a wrong control by mistake.

Finally.... you'll have to change your handle to Canofan or something!

From the shots floating around on the net, the D300 seems to be somewhere between 1 and 2 stops better in terms of noise than the D200, i.e. 1600 on the D300 looks somewhere between 400 and 800 on the D200. If you're after the ultimate in noiselessness get a D3.

olrac wrote:

just wait till it comes out, see if you like it, and decide then. no point getting all in a huff about it now.

As it's not available just now, I have to wait those months anyway. I'm certainly not going to sell my Nikon gear without trying it! Fed up I am. Stupid I'm not.

Thanks guys for your helpful comments. With the D300 / D3 coming out, I figure it's a good time to try to investigate the options as much as possible before making a decision and, actually, I am not in a huff about it all but am a little sick of the Nikon noise issue coming up when reviewing wedding images taken with Nikon compared to images taken with Canon. I'm no guru but even I can see the standout difference.

And as for buying the D3 ... I wish, I wish, I wish ... (roll on Lotto!)

Noise can be a great attrubute to B&W images. High end noise to myself adds character to an image. How anal do you really want to be!

look at some of the great images from yesteryear, these were stacked with noise.

I believe that these days we all try to shoot the perfect image because of technology. So what! Acheiving a result that is pleasing to youself is more important.

cheers
Jethro

Antsl wrote:... the D3 is going to have a two stop advantage over the D3 so with this in mind, have a think about this....

 LOL

team piggy wrote:

Antsl wrote:... the D3 is going to have a two stop advantage over the D3 so with this in mind, have a think about this....

 LOL

I keep telling the monkeys to slow down as they type but do you think they will listen to me....... makes mental note .... always prof read... always prof read.

jethro wrote:Noise can be a great attrubute to B&W images. High end noise to myself adds character to an image. How anal do you really want to be!

look at some of the great images from yesteryear, these were stacked with noise.

I believe that these days we all try to shoot the perfect image because of technology. So what! Acheiving a result that is pleasing to youself is more important.

cheers
Jethro

Jethro, I ABSOLUTELY agree with you, but ... I shoot for 2 other wedding companies as well as for myself and they are ALL Canon shooters, and the one comment that I get again .. and again .. and again .. is... "Nikon Noise"! And, compared to their images, I can't deny it. They are gracious enough to acknowledge that it's not anything I am doing wrong, and my composition is fine, but I feel bad anyway since it's not something I can fix right now, without going to a camera body better equipped to handle low light, high ISO. Again, hence my question re the D300.

As for the result that is pleasing for myself, irrespective of them, I am getting tired of thinking "wow, great shot .... oh s***, look at the noise."

But you are so right ... the images of yesteryear were stacked with noise and are indeed, still great.

The person I shoot alongside with on weddings is a Nikon shooter. He only limits himselft shooting at ISO 640 cause he complains any higher and noise becomes unacceptable. I then say to him "I'm not afraid to shoot 1600 or even 3200"

We all have a laugh!

Acheiving a result that is pleasing to youself is more important.

Thats all well and good but if its a paid gig you certainly want the best quality photos to present to your client and not an image of loss detail due to noise

devilla101 wrote:Thats all well and good but if its a paid gig you certainly want the best quality photos to present to your client and not an image of loss detail due to noise.

And that's exactly why I'm thinking of jumping ship. But hopefully the D300 will have the remedy.

Could you post a shot as an example? I constantly hear of this Nikon noise at high ISO - but I'm one who doesn't hesitate to use high ISO on the D200, and I don't find the noise intrusive at all. On the D70 sure - I can see random coloured pixels in the shadows even at base ISO. But IMHO the D200 is an improvement in leaps and bounds over the previous generation, and does a very good job at handling noise even without aggressive NR.

I must say that I don't think the D200's 'noise' is a reason to completley jump ship... some noise can really (as already said) add to the quality of an image. Obviously if you simply cannot tolerate it, then sure, jump ship. Lynn - why don't you post some images you're not happy with and see what the dslr population think?

Y'know, it's a funny thing... but any time I hear anyone complaining about noise, or CA, or barrel distortion, or anything, it is almost always a hobbyist photographer.

In my experience, as long as your composition and exposure are good, clients and subjects are usually pretty happy If your customers are happy, that's all that matters - Is the marginal improvement in noise level worth having to relearn a whole new system, lose a heap of money re-buying equipment and so on?

losfp wrote:Y'know, it's a funny thing... but any time I hear anyone complaining about noise, or CA, or barrel distortion, or anything, it is almost always a hobbyist photographer.

Not always, as my employers can tell you. They are completely professional. In fact, one of them used to be a total Nikon shooter and has now "jumped ship" himself and, to my knowledge, is completely happy with the transition.

losfp wrote:In my experience, as long as your composition and exposure are good, clients and subjects are usually pretty happy

And, as I said, they are happy with my composition, but unhappy with the amount of noise produced on my Nikon bodies at high ISO. So my clients are not happy.

losfp wrote:If your customers are happy, that's all that matters - Is the marginal improvement in noise level worth having to relearn a whole new system, lose a heap of money re-buying equipment and so on?

And if the customers are not happy ... is it worth it in the end? ... Yes.

I seem to have touched a nerve here and I can't really understand why. I am not the first person to have considered going over to Canon and I would be surprised if my motivation for doing so is unique. Devilla101 has also worked with a Nikon wedding shooter who is troubled by the Nikon noise issue, so why the anti-reaction, guys? I am not a "hobbyist photographer" but a shooter trying to achieve a level of professionalism in my work, producing results that my clients and their clients will be happy with. If that sounds like a wank, then I apologise but I don't know how to phrase it in less direct terms. Both wedding companies I work for have addressed the Nikon noise issue with me and in both companies are shooters who have left Nikon because of that very issue. So I don't actually think that it's me alone that's imagining this.

I do not actually WANT to change to Canon - all the points that losfp makes are true .. it's an inconvenience but one I can live with. If the D300 makes a difference ... fantastic and I hope it will. That's the only reason that I asked my original question which basically was ... "can anyone tell me if the D300 has improved on the noise situation?" Sorry, but why is that such an offensive question?

My thanks to those who answered this one question.

I don't think the question you asked is an offensive question at all, speaking for myself. It is always a balance, especially when your co-workers are using Canon.

My read on most of the answers is that you should just wait a bit longer given the D3 and D300 are soon to be available at the end of November.

As you say, you are not the first to ask the question and you certainly won't be the last. The noise issue is certainly going to be much bettter in the new cameras. If that is enough to keep you with the Nikon gear, that will be a decision you will have to make once you can actually try the new cameras yourself.

Good luck and just look at it this way, which ever decision you make, either go Canon or stick with the D300, the noise situation will be much improved either way

Cheers,

André

I find it a very worthy question. I dare not go over ISO 640 with my D2x and it sure can be a nuisance. From what I can read the D 300 should be good at ISO 1600 and it would make a world of difference on your job. I would hang on until it is available.
Cheers,
Gerard

Lynn, why not compromise and consider the Fuji S5, lower noise and takes nikon lenses???

Sorry if I sounded like I was generalising a bit, Nikkofan. I would definitely wait for a D300 or two to surface in the next couple of months. By all accounts, the D300 should be 1-2 stops better than the D200 - so an ISO1600 shot should be about as noisy as the D200 between 400-800.

What I would be interested in seeing, is the QUALITY of the noise. If it renders somewhat like film grain, without too much extraneous colour noise, then it is much more usable IMO.

If the noise-issue is then still a deal-breaker FOR YOU (bearing in mind that I'm not bothered because of the style that I shoot...), then by all means investigate the alternatives. However I think it is rather premature to be getting pre-emptively disappointed with the D300 without seeing it

I wonder if the cost difference of replacing these items from your list of equipment with canon equivalents:
Nikon d200
Nikon 50mm
Nikon 17-55mm
Nikon 85mm
Nikon 24mm
Nikon 60mm
Nikon 105mm
SB800

Would be nearly the same as the price difference between d300 and d3
Just a thought

Lynn,

Your question certainly has a few elements to it, but mostly i gather it's a business decision.

As someone who recently jumped ship, I haven't looked back. With Canon you gain some stops in the body, and gain some stops in the faster glass. What nikon can shot at 24mm at f1.4???

When I sold my gear i mostly 'lost cash' on the bodies. All my lenses held their value, some made me some money on ebay. The term 'lost cash' is a bit off considering that was working glass, and had turned over six figures for the last few financial years, and would have continued to do so for me if i didn't sell my half of the business a few months ago.

Personally I don't have any brand biases' to either Nikon or Fuji or Canon. And if you're earning cash from your camera, you can't afford to be a Nikon or Canon brand monkey. As of today, canon glass and a Canon pro body is clearly the best combo for wedding work, when you like to shoot available light and half your wedding day is at higher ISOs. Even when the D3 comes out, you still have Nikon 2.8 glass on your body. Or old screw driven f1.4 primes. It's nothing personal, it's just the way it is.

But this is a business decision that only you can answer. So it's not a matter of waiting to see, it's a matter of $$ and sense. Will you make more $$ with 'XYZ' kit. For me moving to Canon, the answer was yes. But that may not be the same for you. Will the initial cost to change, out weigh the income you earn from changing?

Whether you change to Canon, get a Fuji or upgrade you Nikon, you will still need to answer a 'yes' to the preceding question.

Good points Andrew,

thanks for the insight.

Come on over to Canon! You'll love it here!

... but seriously, it will be very interesting to see how Nikon has responded to a seemingly major issue for them. I won't argue that Nikon cameras take stunning images in the right hands, but they certainly do seem to struggle in low light situations. I guess the coming months will tell.

i guess the question on my lips (or fingertips, i guess) is why you havent swapped already? if its honestly a business decision...

well...

why didn't you shift a long time ago? its hardly breaking news that the availible nikons are not the best at dealing with noise...

ps. i'd say there is a difference between what your boss and what the client thinks about your stuff

Lynn,
if wedding photography is your line of work then you have to do what you have to do. As we now know, serious wedding photography has not existed and not been possible before the advent of the low-noise Canon DSLR.

What Nikon lenses do you have, BTW?

Cheers
Steffen.

Steffen wrote:As we now know, serious wedding photography has not existed and not been possible before the advent of the low-noise Canon DSLR.

Straw-man argument!

I'm sure you can get "adequate" results shooting just about any equipment but that doesn't mean you can't get better results.

I am also somewhat surprised with the number of people happy with the high-ISO noise in the D200. There is no question that it's a lot better than the D70, but equally it's not a patch on the equivalent Canon offerings. None of this bothers me as I rarely shoot in poor light, but if I was starting over and shooting weddings, night drags or other low-light stuff I would be hard-pressed to justify the D200. Whether these better results are worth the cost and hassle of the change is entirely another question which has been adequately adressed.

MCWB
Whilst it is true that the Canons exhibit less noise and creamier images at high ISO there is a downside if you intend making very large prints. They lack the acuity and fine detail of NIKON images, even though the NIKON images will be have more grain/noise. Tha's the tradeoff and I guess some folk are prepared to trade and some are not. Hopefully the D3 and D300 will solve this problem, but that remains to be seen.