D70s Problems

[digitalfan]

I have been taking photographs for over 30 years (some freelancing in my history). This is my 3rd SLR (1st digital SLR) and I have a number of point and shoot digitals that I have been using for the last 4-5 years.

Last month, I bought my first digital SLR (a D70s kit with 18-70mm lens). I also bought a SB:mad: -600 flash. Since the delivery I have field tested it a number of time and I have to say that I am pretty disappointed with this camera. I am expremely pleased with my point and shoot digitals (especially my canon sd400). The point and shoot covers most of my needs but, they are not ideal for shooting low light action (i.e. my daughter's dance recitals and my son's indoor basketball games) where flash photography is not allowed. Also, I wanted a longer reach for outdoor cross country meets.

I have to say that D70s has some nice points but, it does not do well in low light. At ISO 1600, the picture is much grainier than I would like. Even when I take a picture in relatively good light of a very dark object like a black grand piano using "Automatic" setting, the dark areas are filled with a lot of noise (even at ISO 200 and with or without an external flash). My other point and shoot, on the other hand, takes beautiful pictures of the piano.

The D70s fits beautifully in my hand and everything feels like quality. It has controls galore and is absolutely perfect in every way except the picture quality. It is responsive and well laid out. Focuses fast and in good light the pictures are tack sharp. Colors are great! Why could they not put a better sensor in the camera? Now that I have had the chance to a little more research, even the D200 is grainy in the higher ISO setttings compared to Canon. If low light performance is what you are after, go get a Canon 20D. It takes much much better pictures in low light.

It is too late for me to return my camera and flash where I originally bought it. My local Penn Camera will buy it but, they want it for free. Can someone recommend a way I might recoup most of the cost of my purchase?

[K1W1]

You say that you have been using cameras for 30 years and yet you say that you are using Auto mode on the D70.
That doesn't add up.
Auto mode is for beginners or for when you want to hand the camera to a waiter in a restaurant and say "aim and push that button".
If you post is serious I think that you need to spend some time on basic photography techniques like shutter and aperture control. Perhaps a visit to the Nikon Digitutor site would be of benefit.
Spending some time on pBase or Smugmug or similar photographic sites will also show you that you are probably not using the camera to the best of it's abilities.

[Jason25]

I have been taking photographs for over 30 years (some freelancing in my history). This is my 3rd SLR (1st digital SLR) and I have a number of point and shoot digitals that I have been using for the last 4-5 years.

Last month, I bought my first digital SLR (a D70s kit with 18-70mm lens). I also bought a SB:mad: -600 flash. Since the delivery I have field tested it a number of time and I have to say that I am pretty disappointed with this camera. I am expremely pleased with my point and shoot digitals (especially my canon sd400). The point and shoot covers most of my needs but, they are not ideal for shooting low light action (i.e. my daughter's dance recitals and my son's indoor basketball games) where flash photography is not allowed. Also, I wanted a longer reach for outdoor cross country meets.

I have to say that D70s has some nice points but, it does not do well in low light. At ISO 1600, the picture is much grainier than I would like. Even when I take a picture in relatively good light of a very dark object like a black grand piano using "Automatic" setting, the dark areas are filled with a lot of noise (even at ISO 200 and with or without an external flash). My other point and shoot, on the other hand, takes beautiful pictures of the piano.

The D70s fits beautifully in my hand and everything feels like quality. It has controls galore and is absolutely perfect in every way except the picture quality. It is responsive and well laid out. Focuses fast and in good light the pictures are tack sharp. Colors are great! Why could they not put a better sensor in the camera? Now that I have had the chance to a little more research, even the D200 is grainy in the higher ISO setttings compared to Canon. If low light performance is what you are after, go get a Canon 20D. It takes much much better pictures in low light.

It is too late for me to return my camera and flash where I originally bought it. My local Penn Camera will buy it but, they want it for free. Can someone recommend a way I might recoup most of the cost of my purchase?
You could put it up on ebay, or go to Nikonians.org or FredMiranda.com and put it in their for sale forum.

Honestly, I'm surprised you're that displeased with the ISO noise. Have you tried Noise Ninja or something similar to try to get noise down? I shoot ISO 1600 frequently with my D50 and am very pleased with the results.

EDIT: I also agree with K1W1.

[sherlock]

dSLR's usually perform better when used in another mode other than Auto. If you aren't confident enough to take it off of Auto then maybe you should sell it and go back to a P+S :rolleyes:

[erichlund]

I have been taking photographs for over 30 years (some freelancing in my history). This is my 3rd SLR (1st digital SLR) and I have a number of point and shoot digitals that I have been using for the last 4-5 years.

Last month, I bought my first digital SLR (a D70s kit with 18-70mm lens). I also bought a SB:mad: -600 flash. Since the delivery I have field tested it a number of time and I have to say that I am pretty disappointed with this camera. I am expremely pleased with my point and shoot digitals (especially my canon sd400). The point and shoot covers most of my needs but, they are not ideal for shooting low light action (i.e. my daughter's dance recitals and my son's indoor basketball games) where flash photography is not allowed. Also, I wanted a longer reach for outdoor cross country meets.

I have to say that D70s has some nice points but, it does not do well in low light. At ISO 1600, the picture is much grainier than I would like. Even when I take a picture in relatively good light of a very dark object like a black grand piano using "Automatic" setting, the dark areas are filled with a lot of noise (even at ISO 200 and with or without an external flash). My other point and shoot, on the other hand, takes beautiful pictures of the piano.

The D70s fits beautifully in my hand and everything feels like quality. It has controls galore and is absolutely perfect in every way except the picture quality. It is responsive and well laid out. Focuses fast and in good light the pictures are tack sharp. Colors are great! Why could they not put a better sensor in the camera? Now that I have had the chance to a little more research, even the D200 is grainy in the higher ISO setttings compared to Canon. If low light performance is what you are after, go get a Canon 20D. It takes much much better pictures in low light.

It is too late for me to return my camera and flash where I originally bought it. My local Penn Camera will buy it but, they want it for free. Can someone recommend a way I might recoup most of the cost of my purchase?

Recouping cost is not easy, since the technology is still maturing. You can try ebay, but I don't know how much a used D70 kit is going for these days. Given the difficulty of starting over, may I suggest a couple of options to try and control the noise you are getting.

It would be helpful if we had some photos that you are disappointed in with the exif data. Are you purposefully underexposing to get a stop action shutter speed? Underexposure is the bane of any dSLR. The D70 gives you a little bit just to prevent blowing out the highs, but if you are further underexposing, you are exacerbating the situation. I only mention this because your other two slrs were film, and we all know we could underexpose film and then push it in processing.

Some other things you can do about noise. The lens you are using is not ideal for indoor photography without flash. Most would recommend a faster lens in a focal length that gets the job done. If you cannot afford a whole lot, then the 50mm f1.8 is only about $100. A fast lens will let you drop ISO and retain your speed, reducing noise.

You can increase in camera noise reduction, though this is not the optimal solution.

I presume you are using jpg. If you use raw and Nikon Capture ($99), Capture has some pretty decent noise reduction built in. Capture has other benefits, since you get a better starting point. The D70 is a camera that begs to be used in raw, and frankly, the jpg output is just average. If you really want to work in jpg, then I suggest you bite the bullet and sell your equipment and buy Canon. They are more optimized for a jpg workflow.

There is also Noise Ninja, which runs from $35-$80, depending on the version, and this will work with your jpg photos. Noise Ninja also has free downloadable profiles to match the program to the noise from your particular camera, and yes, they have profiles for the Canon dSLRs as well.

Let me summarize my first points, because this is critical: Accurate exposure will reduce noise significantly at any ISO on any dSLR. Many D70 shooters regularly shoot EV +2/3 or +1 because of the D70's conservative meter, in order to get the best exposure. To get an accurate exposure shooting indoor action, you will need faster glass. Even the Canon users will recommend this.

[George Riehm]

I have been taking photographs for over 30 years (some freelancing in my history). This is my 3rd SLR (1st digital SLR) and I have a number of point and shoot digitals that I have been using for the last 4-5 years.

Last month, I bought my first digital SLR (a D70s kit with 18-70mm lens). I also bought a SB:mad: -600 flash. Since the delivery I have field tested it a number of time and I have to say that I am pretty disappointed with this camera. I am expremely pleased with my point and shoot digitals (especially my canon sd400). The point and shoot covers most of my needs but, they are not ideal for shooting low light action (i.e. my daughter's dance recitals and my son's indoor basketball games) where flash photography is not allowed. Also, I wanted a longer reach for outdoor cross country meets.

I have to say that D70s has some nice points but, it does not do well in low light. At ISO 1600, the picture is much grainier than I would like. Even when I take a picture in relatively good light of a very dark object like a black grand piano using "Automatic" setting, the dark areas are filled with a lot of noise (even at ISO 200 and with or without an external flash). My other point and shoot, on the other hand, takes beautiful pictures of the piano.

The D70s fits beautifully in my hand and everything feels like quality. It has controls galore and is absolutely perfect in every way except the picture quality. It is responsive and well laid out. Focuses fast and in good light the pictures are tack sharp. Colors are great! Why could they not put a better sensor in the camera? Now that I have had the chance to a little more research, even the D200 is grainy in the higher ISO setttings compared to Canon. If low light performance is what you are after, go get a Canon 20D. It takes much much better pictures in low light.

It is too late for me to return my camera and flash where I originally bought it. My local Penn Camera will buy it but, they want it for free. Can someone recommend a way I might recoup most of the cost of my purchase?

Have you used the 20D in the same lighting environment? I suggest you rent a 20D, and try shooting in the same conditions, before drawing a final conclusion. I used to get better shots with my CP990 before I spent the time to learn the D70. Whichever camera you end up with, learn to shoot in RAW, and never use Auto. Even when I have someone else shoot my D70 it is in aperture priority mode.;)

[digitalfan]

You say that you have been using cameras for 30 years and yet you say that you are using Auto mode on the D70.
That doesn't add up.
Auto mode is for beginners or for when you want to hand the camera to a waiter in a restaurant and say "aim and push that button".
If you post is serious I think that you need to spend some time on basic photography techniques like shutter and aperture control. Perhaps a visit to the Nikon Digitutor site would be of benefit.
Spending some time on pBase or Smugmug or similar photographic sites will also show you that you are probably not using the camera to the best of it's abilities.

K1I1,

I did not say that is the only mode that I use. I used that example because as a common denominator, the Auto mode should be the same for everyone without getting into details about various control settings.

The Nikon D70s has a poorer sensor than the cheaper D50. If you look at comparative analysis between the two cameras, you will note that the D50 has a much better performance in low light. I am just sorry that I bought the D70s without doing much research because one of the two reasons why I bought a digital SLR is precisely because I wanted to take great pictures in low light. What can I say, I was in a hurry.

In every other respect, this camera is fantastic! Feels great in hand. Has all the right controls (useful and well thought out). Great pictures as long as external flash (SB-600 or SB-800) is used or there is lots and lots of light. Piss poor pictures when there is low light and I mean not even that low, like an overcast day. On overcast days or indoors using natural light, the pictures come out looking like crap (grainy and mushy and terrible colors that don't look at all realistic). I do a lot of image massagin with Adobe Photoshop CS after taking the pictures just to get the pictures to look reasonable. However, all the tweaking in the world won't fix the crappy sensor that Nikon uses in the D70s. In fact, in low light, the D200 isn't much better than the D70s. Go take a picture with a Canon 20D see how much better they are in low light. When you compare the pictures taken in relatively low light using the Canon Digital Rebel XT or 20D against the D70s pitures, you will see what I mean.

[digitalfan]

You could put it up on ebay, or go to Nikonians.org or FredMiranda.com and put it in their for sale forum.

Honestly, I'm surprised you're that displeased with the ISO noise. Have you tried Noise Ninja or something similar to try to get noise down? I shoot ISO 1600 frequently with my D50 and am very pleased with the results.

EDIT: I also agree with K1W1.

Thanks for your advice. I will check out the eBay, Nikonians, or FredMiranda.

By the way, it you read the comparative analysis between the D70s and the D50, D50 does a much better job in low light. The D50 sensor uses newer technology than the D70s'. The D70s sensor is a carry over from the D70.

I have used Adobe photoshop CS extensively to massage the images but, the pictures are not salvageable. Is Noise Ninja much better than Adobe?

I complained about the graininess but, that is not the only problem when pictures are taken in low light. The colors are out of whack and the pictures all look out of focus (taken at 1/100th of a second in indoor natural light).

[digitalfan]

dSLR's usually perform better when used in another mode other than Auto. If you aren't confident enough to take it off of Auto then maybe you should sell it and go back to a P+S :rolleyes:

I do use it in various modes. The Auto mode was simply an example. However, I would go back to a point and shoot if there was one that met my requirements. Two reasons why I purchased a digital SLR was because:

1. I needed to take pictures in low light (dance stage, indoor basket ball) where flash photography is not allowed.
2. I needed to take pictures of cross country meets where I wanted to take pictures hand held over long distances. Nikon's 18-200 mm VR lens was perfect for this. Without getting into thousands of dollas for a lens, Canon's best only had a 18-135mm IS lens.

[digitalfan]

Recouping cost is not easy, since the technology is still maturing. You can try ebay, but I don't know how much a used D70 kit is going for these days. Given the difficulty of starting over, may I suggest a couple of options to try and control the noise you are getting.

It would be helpful if we had some photos that you are disappointed in with the exif data. Are you purposefully underexposing to get a stop action shutter speed? Underexposure is the bane of any dSLR. The D70 gives you a little bit just to prevent blowing out the highs, but if you are further underexposing, you are exacerbating the situation. I only mention this because your other two slrs were film, and we all know we could underexpose film and then push it in processing.

Some other things you can do about noise. The lens you are using is not ideal for indoor photography without flash. Most would recommend a faster lens in a focal length that gets the job done. If you cannot afford a whole lot, then the 50mm f1.8 is only about $100. A fast lens will let you drop ISO and retain your speed, reducing noise.

You can increase in camera noise reduction, though this is not the optimal solution.

I presume you are using jpg. If you use raw and Nikon Capture ($99), Capture has some pretty decent noise reduction built in. Capture has other benefits, since you get a better starting point. The D70 is a camera that begs to be used in raw, and frankly, the jpg output is just average. If you really want to work in jpg, then I suggest you bite the bullet and sell your equipment and buy Canon. They are more optimized for a jpg workflow.

There is also Noise Ninja, which runs from $35-$80, depending on the version, and this will work with your jpg photos. Noise Ninja also has free downloadable profiles to match the program to the noise from your particular camera, and yes, they have profiles for the Canon dSLRs as well.

Let me summarize my first points, because this is critical: Accurate exposure will reduce noise significantly at any ISO on any dSLR. Many D70 shooters regularly shoot EV +2/3 or +1 because of the D70's conservative meter, in order to get the best exposure. To get an accurate exposure shooting indoor action, you will need faster glass. Even the Canon users will recommend this.

Thank you very much for your valuable advice. You obviously have a great deal of experience with these issues.

Here is an example of a picture that I took in natural light. Aperture is at F4.5 and the exposure is at 1/58 second using ISO 1600. Note the noise in the piano. Also note the dramatic difference between the light wall area and the dark wall area. Generally, the picture looks out of focus (although it is not out of focus). Note that the focus is on the right page of the open music. The page to the left and the page to the right of this page are drastically more out of focus, as it should be using this aperture and this length lens.

I would like to let you know that I do not deliberately under expose to get better detail. In fact, I do the opposite. I shoot EV +1/3 to brighten up the image to what my eyes see as the light level in reality. I have considered it but, I don't want to layout minimum $900 to try it. If I can try out a f2.8 lens before buying it, I am tempted. But, it has to be a telephoto zoom. I wanted to get the 18-200mm VR lens for the cross country meets. Also, the VR should help indoors because it should allow me to get fair shots using slower speeds, which should improve the image quality. f1.4 lens is out of the question. I need a zoom. 18-200mm VR is the perfect lens for me because of the range and VR. the various pro lens is too expensive except for possibly the AF 80-200mm f/2.8D ED for about $900. Since I already have the 18-70mm, I have the full range covered. However, for the outdoor cross country coverage, I think I will need the VR. Or, I guess I could go with a tripod if Ihave to.

I do shoot generally with EV +1/3, just to bring the picture up to look closer to what my eyes actually see as the reality. Nikon slightly underexposes to compensate for its deficient sensor. As you say, it blows out way too easily. Granted, most digital cameras blow out fairly easily but, Nikon D70s is particularly prone to this.

I am already using Adobe Photoshop CS but, I will try the Noise Ninja. but, I hesitate to use the noise reduction because there is usually a tradeoff. More noise reduction means more details lost. The pictures in low light are already so degraded that any more loss of detail would render the pictures unusable.

I also tried increasing the noise reduction in the camera but, I stopped this right away. The results were not good. The pictures without using the built-in noise reduction was grainy but much better in detail and aesthetics.

[digitalfan]

Have you used the 20D in the same lighting environment? I suggest you rent a 20D, and try shooting in the same conditions, before drawing a final conclusion. I used to get better shots with my CP990 before I spent the time to learn the D70. Whichever camera you end up with, learn to shoot in RAW, and never use Auto. Even when I have someone else shoot my D70 it is in aperture priority mode.;)

No. I am basing my opinion about the 20D on test reports that I have read.

I did tried out a Digital Rebel XT and it is definitely much better in low light situations. But, I don't like the digital XT. it feels like a point and shoot with a changeable lens. Takes great pictures though.

I have no doubt that the D70s is better in low light than say a Canon A620. However, if I could take good flashless action pictures in the low light situations with an A620, I probably never would have bought a digital SLR. Better it may be but, D70s falls short of my expectations in low light. There are much better cameras for the low light.

[erichlund]

Your photo did not link properly. To link a photo, you need a separate host site like www.smugmug.com (http://www.smugmug.com), and you the put a link here to your photo. This site doesn't host photos.

You really shouldn't think of the 18-200VR as an indoor lens unless you are shooting static targets. VR does not help one little bit with action, because while it lets you hand hold in low light, you will get great backgrounds and blurry subjects. The subjects will be blurry because they move during the slow shutter.

Actually, the D70 isn't any more particularly prone to blowing out highlights than the other similar cameras in this price range. There are minor variations in dynamic range, but nothing dramatic. The Fuji S-3 has much wider dynamic range, but it's expensive, and the camera is painfully slow. Some photographers are willing to put up with it because the IQ is superior. Wedding photogs use it a lot, especially for formals, which don't require a fast camera.

There are custom curves you can load that will allow you to use a more accurate exposure and will protect you from blowout by sloping off the response at the extremes, much like film does. Try this website (http://fotogenetic.dearingfilm.com/index.html).

You just have to understand that shooting action indoors is difficult, and the only way to overcome that deficiency is with superior equipment, primarily fast lenses. As far as noise, you probably would do better with the D50 or one of the Canon cameras. But the D70 is capable of doing well indoors if the camera is properly set up and with the correct lenses.

However, it's pretty clear that you are dissatisfied with the D70. All I can say is get what you can and do a better job researching your choices next time.

[Warin]

I take exception to the term "crappy sensor" to describe the D70s.

I have seen a lot of really great photos from this camera, and it didnt become one of the top selling DSLRs of all time by having a crappy sensor.

Not to put too fine a point on it... but perhaps you are expecting a little too much from the Auto mode (as others have pointed out). It is only a tool, and if you dont take the time to use it properly, then you will have issues.

[K1W1]

I'm sorry but I'm finding this thread somewhat surreal. It's interesting but I'm getting lost in the twists and turns.

I just want to simmarise things to see if somebody can point out where or whether I've gone wrong.

1. We have a person with 30 years experience who is shooting in auto mode (aka beginners or waiter mode), a mode known to produce relatively poor images who is complaining about image quality.

2. There are lots of so called "facts" being bandied about about the D70 series having a poorer quality sensor than the D50 series. This seems to defy the vast majority of information I have ever seen about the D70.

3. Constant references are being made to the superiority of Canon cameras but a Canon camera has never been used in exactly the same manner in the same lighting conditions with the same subject to verify the claims.

4. Statements are being made about Nikons propensity to under expose when from what I have read the opposite seems to be the normal perception.

5. A linked sample image was not linked at all and no effort has been made to repost the link.

So I'm confused but am I understanding the thread correctly as it is at the moment?

For the benefit of readers I am a D50 owner so I have no direct interest in this thread and I am not in any way simply defending "my camera".

[rawpaw18]

K1W1 That's about what I got out of it:confused:

[erichlund]

I'm sorry but I'm finding this thread somewhat surreal. It's interesting but I'm getting lost in the twists and turns.

I just want to simmarise things to see if somebody can point out where or whether I've gone wrong.

1. We have a person with 30 years experience who is shooting in auto mode (aka beginners or waiter mode), a mode known to produce relatively poor images who is complaining about image quality.
Someone else jumped on his use of that mode, though he was referring to only a small portion of his shooting being in auto mode. Typical overreaction.

2. There are lots of so called "facts" being bandied about about the D70 series having a poorer quality sensor than the D50 series. This seems to defy the vast majority of information I have ever seen about the D70.
I won't argue with older sensor. I won't argue with the D50 sensor having cleaned up some rough edges at high ISO. Other than that, they are pretty close to the same. Secondary electronics get better jpg on the D50, by D70 is still better in RAW.

3. Constant references are being made to the superiority of Canon cameras but a Canon camera has never been used in exactly the same manner in the same lighting conditions with the same subject to verify the claims.
I've owned both the D70 and the D200 (current). Even I admit the Canon products produce less noise at high ISO. That's a simple fact. However, I've not said that I prefer or consider the Canon product better. The OP has not been satisfied with the camera. C'est la vie. No skin off my...

4. Statements are being made about Nikons propensity to under expose when from what I have read the opposite seems to be the normal perception.
Yes, the D70 underexposes by up to 1 stop. This is actually not unusual for a Nikon dSLR camera. The D50 may be an exception, because it is the one Nikon dSLR optimized for jpg. The D200 is nearly spot on with it's exposure, but when it is off, it is usually to the conservative side.

5. A linked sample image was not linked at all and no effort has been made to repost the link.
Can't argue with this.

So I'm confused but am I understanding the thread correctly as it is at the moment?

For the benefit of readers I am a D50 owner so I have no direct interest in this thread and I am not in any way simply defending "my camera".
I'm not sure why the OP posted this. I suspect he want's to switch to Canon, but doesn't want to lose money on his original purchase. I think that subject has been covered above.

[digitalfan]

I take exception to the term "crappy sensor" to describe the D70s.

I have seen a lot of really great photos from this camera, and it didnt become one of the top selling DSLRs of all time by having a crappy sensor.

Not to put too fine a point on it... but perhaps you are expecting a little too much from the Auto mode (as others have pointed out). It is only a tool, and if you dont take the time to use it properly, then you will have issues.

I am sorry if I have offended anyone's sensibilities by venting. I withdraw the statement. It is not fair to characterize the D70s as having a crappy sensor. I also have had some wonderful results with the D70s in normal light.
As I said before, I think it is the perfect camera for me except for wishing that it would do better in low light.

I thank everyone for their valuable input. I will research further before abandoning the D70s. I even ran some tests last night using the raw mode in extremely low light (f10 at 70mm and 2 seconds exposure using ISO 1600) and I got better pictures than I had expected. Somewhat noisy but sharp crisp pictures with far greater detail that I would have imagined.

Can someone post some action pictures taken in indoor natural light with a D70s using faster glass than my Nikkor 18-70mm F3.5-4.5D (preferably a f2.8 class zoom of some sort)? I would like to know really how much of a difference a f2.8 lens would make. If that produces the desired result for me, I would probably stay with the D70s and get a faster lens.

And, yes, I probably had too high an expectation for this camera. Today, even the point and shoot cameras have gotten so good, dSLRs are not needed for ordinary events under normal circumstance for most people, me being included.

[rawpaw18]

Cory has some indoor hockey shots with his 70-200vr 2.8 Nikon here
http://www.dcresource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=17497

[Ray Schnoor]

I even ran some tests last night using the raw mode in extremely low light (f10 at 70mm and 2 seconds exposure using ISO 1600) and I got better pictures than I had expected. Somewhat noisy but sharp crisp pictures with far greater detail that I would have imagined.
Out of curiosity, why were you shooting at f10 in extremely low light. It seems to me that if you are shooting in extremely low light, you want as much of it to reach the sensor as possible. Unless there was some reason to need an extremely large depth of field, I would suggest opening up the aperture. Your photos will be less noisy.

Ray.

[digitalfan]

Out of curiosity, why were you shooting at f10 in extremely low light. It seems to me that if you are shooting in extremely low light, you want as much of it to reach the sensor as possible. Unless there was some reason to need an extremely large depth of field, I would suggest opening up the aperture. Your photos will be less noisy.

Ray.

It was just a test to see what kind of result I would get shooting under an extreme condition.

[murrays]

Out of curiosity, why were you shooting at f10 in extremely low light. It seems to me that if you are shooting in extremely low light, you want as much of it to reach the sensor as possible. Unless there was some reason to need an extremely large depth of field, I would suggest opening up the aperture. Your photos will be less noisy.

Ray.

I was wondering the same thing :confused:

FWIW, did the OP consider a 50mm f/1.8 lens? It's an inexpensive (~$100) way to get fast glass for indoor shots.

-murray

[digitalfan]

I was wondering the same thing :confused:

FWIW, did the OP consider a 50mm f/1.8 lens? It's an inexpensive (~$100) way to get fast glass for indoor shots.

-murray
I only had my camera for about a month and had two occasions to really try it out. I am still trying to get more familiar with my camera by simply trying things to see what it is capable of doing.

Using the grainy and noisy picture (it still had sharpness and detail, which was the amazing thing) that I created with ISO 1600, I tested the Noise Ninja (as someone on this forum suggesed) and it is nothing short of amazing! The only other noise reduction that I tried was what came with my Adobe PS CS2 and it wasn't terrible but I lost a lot of detail when I applied noise reduction. However, with the Noise Ninja it kept pretty much all of the detail while eliminating just the noise. It is a super product! The Noise Ninja solves one of my problems.

Thanks for the suggestion of getting a f/1.8 50mm. Someone else suggested it as well. Unfortunately, I need a zoom for my purposes. I cannot always pick the distance I will be shooting from. If I end up keeping my camera, I will probably buy a f/1.8 or f/1.4 50mm anyway, just so that I have one in my bag.

I am considering the Nikon AF 80-200mm f/2.8D ED that Ken Rockwell is so high on. Or, perhaps the Sigma's offering in the 80-200 f/2.8. However, I don't know how I can try out the lens without buying it and was hoping that someone woud post pictures of a stage performance using flashless photography using between 70mm to 200mm focal length range with a f/2.8 lens like the above on a D70s. This would be of great help in deciding whether to keep my D70s or to exchange for Canon 20d that most seem to agree performs better in low light.

[digitalfan]

I hope that there is a file attached. This time I reduced the size of the file before inserting.

I used the following settings for my picture:

raw (12-bit) converted to JPG after downloading from camera
Original image size: 3008 X 2000)
1/6 sec f/10.0
Exp comp: 0 Ev
ISO 1600
natural light
Hue Adjust: 0 deg
Saturation: Enhanced
In Camera Sharpening: Medium High
Tone comp: Auto
Color Mode: Mode IIIa (sRGB)
Lens: Nikkor AF-s 17-70mm F/3.5-4.5G kit lens at 29mm

Note the objectionable graininess in the wall behind the flowers. Also note the noise in the piano surface. The room in which this picture was taken is actually fairly bright with huge windows. Although I am using f/10.0, I would have expected better quality picture. Is this what I should expect or do you think there is something wrong with the camera itself?

[Prospero]

Personally, I don't think the noise levels are too bad. In the shadows and dark parts of a picture noise will occur, even at lower ISOs than 1600. I have a D50 myself, which has roughly the same sensor as your camera, and I get noise like that as well when I use ISO 1600 in such conditions. Therefore I only use it if there's no other way out.
By the way, you could try to use some noise reduction software to clean up the noise. The result will still not be perfect, but it will probably improve quite a lot.

[Ray Schnoor]

Note the objectionable graininess in the wall behind the flowers. Also note the noise in the piano surface. The room in which this picture was taken is actually fairly bright with huge windows. Although I am using f/10.0, I would have expected better quality picture. Is this what I should expect or do you think there is something wrong with the camera itself?
I guess that you are just going to have to clarify your question before anyone can answer it to your satisfaction.

1 - Do you want to know if your camera can take a photo in a room which is "fairly bright with huge windows"? Yes it can.

2 - Do you want to know if your camera can take a photo in a room which is "fairly bright with huge windows" but only let ~10% of the available light actually get to the sensor? Obviously not to your satisfaction.

3 - Can you take a photo (once again with only 10% of the available light) in an unevenly lit room and expect to have even illumination across the entire photo? No.

4 - Do you want to know if your camera can take a photo in a low light situation? Yes, but as all of the reviews state, as you decrease the light/increase the ISO, you will also increase the noise. This is true for all cameras. Take some photos in low light situations and see if the results are good enough for you.

One thing you shouldn't do is to take photos without making use of all of the available light(stopping the lens to F/10) and then say the camera is not capable of taking an acceptable photo(without noise) in a well lit room.

You should also note that as you increase in camera sharpening, you will also probably increase noise.

All in all, noting the restrictions you have placed on the camera, the photo you have posted is not all that bad. If you are not happy with the camera (as it seems is pretty obvious), exchange/sell/discard it and try a different one. It is better to get something different than to keep what you have and be unhappy with it.

Ray.

[murrays]

I hope that there is a file attached. This time I reduced the size of the file before inserting.

I used the following settings for my picture:...

What is the result if you drop the ISO to 640 or so and open the aperature up? Does it meet your approval?

I fail to see why you continue to judge the camera based on high ISO and a small aperature :confused: Would you shoot with ISO 1600 film in that example??

Yes, ISO 1600 is there in the rare cases that you need it, but I rarely shoot at that high ISO.

-murray