ISO 3200 with the Nikon D300

[johnaalex]

I have to say that the D300 is a great camera - I just need to learn to use it properly

These shots were both taken using ISO 3200. The first was on board the flight I recently took from London to Bangkok, I did not use any flash or do any PP other than convert from NEF to JPG (and, yes, it was my seat )

I did fire the inbuilt flash on this one to get a bit more light on the guy with the load of toys (and, no, I did not buy any toys!)

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2245/...92f19b01_b.jpg

All comments welcome, thanks.

[loz]

Well the first one looks very good, but the 2nd quite noisy

Presumably the 2nd shot was in much darker conditions?

Then again, we are talking ISO3200...

[mmayson]

I agree, 1st shot looks OK (and you were only showing off that you were travelling business class), second one looks really noisy.

I do fancy a D300, what do you think of it? Can you compare it against any other Nikon? I currently use a D80.

Mike

[py6km]

The first one does look better, but maybe that's becuase it's a lot smaller than the 2nd - if increased in size the noise may be more visible. I imagine that different situations/image characteristics would also cause differences in perceived noise.

I've discovered that I'm only happy with noise performance of my D300 up to about ISO 2200-2500. Anthing over that would not be acceptable for me. It's definitely a significant step up from the D200 though.

[paulg1979]

I'd personally go for a Canon if you want better Noise control. I have a 40D and love it. 5D is meant to be better for noise too.

[Brammers]

Everybody should remember that the appearance of high ISO is almost entirely defined by how good the initial exposure was.

What using high ISO does is decrease your margain for error. Drag an ISO 100 shot up by a stop and you won't notice the difference. Drag an ISO 3200 shot up a stop and you'll wonder which piece of **** took the picture.

I've had (for all intents and purposes) noise-free ISO 1600 shots, simply because the exposure was perfect. I've had (lots and lots more) incredibly noisy ISO 1600 shots, simply because my exposure was very poor.

johnalex has obviously edited his shot, so I'm going to say that this isn't poor camera performance, but poor user performance.

[Liquid101]

I'm quite surprised by the amount of noise in the second of these two. Have you pulled the exposure a little to get this?

Originally Posted by paulg1979

I'd personally go for a Canon if you want better Noise control. I have a 40D and love it. 5D is meant to be better for noise too.

For real ISO noise control try the Nikon D3 - Considerably better than anything else i've ever seen.

[Radiohead]

Originally Posted by Liquid101

I'm quite surprised by the amount of noise in the second of these two. Have you pulled the exposure a little to get this?

I'd keep the D300 at 1600 for colour. 3200 is fine for mono.


For real ISO noise control try the Nikon D3 - Considerably better than anything else i've ever seen.[/QUOTE]

Indeed it is.

[johnaalex]

Just a note about the second shot, it was shot at night and whereas I accept there is noticable noise it was quiet dark and the guy with the toys was about 10 yards away, the boxing stadium was about 4 times that distance.