View Full Version : D300 Night Pictures from ISO 1250
hankbeblazin
01-10-2008, 08:43 PM
i took these walking around the city today i'm constantly impressed with this camera it makes everything so easy. Low Noise reduction added in camera, the photos are straight out of the camera.
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2162/2184014541_744cb928f2_b.jpg
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2015/2184040089_e56f189754_b.jpg
Nah they are no good. There are dark patches. :D:D
(If people are going to continually post images from the D300 and praise it while I don't have one and feel jealous they can expect this sort of response. :D:D)
this camera it makes everything so easy.
and thats what it is in a nutshell. its not heaps better than alot of other models. but its just easy...comfortable. kinda like ol' boots or your mama's homemade chicken soup.
(sorry kiwi...well...not really. lol)
Geoff Chandler
01-10-2008, 09:55 PM
Certainly looks good!
There is no doubt it is a super Camera, but I wouldn't rush out and buy one unless something happened to my D80 - despite it being a better camera.
Mostly, however, because I prefered the size of the D80 and the weight at the time over the D200. But If I were buying one I would buy a D300 over a D200.
Really superb - but no, I am not jealous - just very pleased for those who have one.
(sorry kiwi...well...not really. lol)
Wait and see what happens when the wide angle portraits get posted. :D
Wait and see what happens when the wide angle portraits get posted. :D
lmao. i've already tried quite a few frames. they all suck. lol :p it's harder than it looks and may take take some time to get used to.
meanwhile, i showed my wife that thread and she loved some of them and she says "why can't you take pictures like that ?" :confused::mad::eek:
God bless em for their motivation skills huh ?! :D
meanwhile, i showed my wife that thread and she loved some of them and she says "why can't you take pictures like that ?" :confused::mad::eek:
A far better result than any nasty remark I could possibly make. :D:D:D:D
(I love your wife - in a platonic sort of way)
ssil2000
01-11-2008, 12:55 AM
which thread are we talking about? curious now :)
which thread are we talking about? curious now :)
http://www.flickr.com/groups/sigma10-20/discuss/72157600855865969/
Its so hard to believe those are high ISO shots. I want one so bad. :(
Its so hard to believe those are high ISO shots. I want one so bad. :(
Just join me in my "I hate D300 snobs" campaign. :D:D:D:D
herc182
01-11-2008, 03:47 AM
there are some awesome shots in that set.
i particularly like the following photographers. amazing:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/knottyy/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/eam/
e_dawg
01-11-2008, 06:21 AM
Oh wow, that's a great flickr page. I take everything with my superwide zooms on vacation. Don't usually get as nice results as those guys on flickr, but what the heck ;)
Hey Hank, when did you get your D300? It seems that every other week someone's got a new D300 here!
And there I was with my Olympus E-510 on vacation in Asia wishing for one more stop of ISO sensitivity out of the camera... please god, one more stop is all I ask ;)
I bet the D300 gets you 1.5-2 more stops of sensitivity than I have at the same noise level. I can use 800 ISO without worrying about noise... but 1600 I have to expose properly and I can still get banding depending on the colour of the ambient lighting source.
Although... I do have a superwide zoom that is f/2.8-3.5, which is faster than most superwide APS-C zoom lenses, and the in-body IS works with any lens, while I don't know of any superwide APS-C zooms that have VR or IS in the lens.
Hoping for a compact successor to the E-510 with the new (lower noise) sensor from the E-3 and/or a D90 with the sensor from the D300. Either one will do ;)
VTEC_EATER
01-11-2008, 07:29 AM
The D300 is very nice, but Its not some magic camera that produces amazingly noise free images.
When I compared it to my D50, it is slightly better. Its not necessarily less noise, but finer, tighter grained noise than what my D50 makes. Because of this, the noise looks much smoother and is less apparent than you would find in the D50.
Now, you must also remember that this camera is packing double the megapixles of my D50, so that is still a great leap forward for Nikon.
One thing I do not use is the in camera noise reduction. I have mine set to off. I am not happy with the algorithms that Nikon uses for their in camera processing of noise. Its blotchy and adds a strange gradient to the image when applied. I prefer to take my photos with the high ISO noise reduction turned off and take care of it in post processing. Neat Image is much better at retaining detail and keeping a smoother appearance to the image.
This is just my opinion.
hankbeblazin
01-11-2008, 12:29 PM
Hey Hank, when did you get your D300? It seems that every other week someone's got a new D300 here!
i got mine for christmas, i asked for it from my dad as a joke i really asked for a D80 or D200 and he surprised me.
what is all this talk about "wait for a wide angle portrait" i don't get it. is it hard or something? i guess i'm not catching on to something here
i got mine for christmas, i asked for it from my dad as a joke i really asked for a D80 or D200 and he surprised me.
If your father would adopt me I am prepared to stop my "I hate D300 snobs" campaign. :D:D:D
The wide angle thing is something I told Rooz about. I'm sure he will produce results for us soon.
hankbeblazin
01-11-2008, 01:04 PM
If your father would adopt me I am prepared to stop my "I hate D300 snobs" campaign. :D:D:D
The wide angle thing is something I told Rooz about. I'm sure he will produce results for us soon.
i'll be sure to ask my dad to adopt you, i'm sure he will you look like a strapping fellow :)
do you mean just using a wide or super wide for portraits? i guess im not following.
Just join me in my "I hate D300 snobs" campaign. :D:D:D:D
think i will!:p :cool:
do you mean just using a wide or super wide for portraits? i guess im not following.
Yes.
I saw the link on Flickr that Rooz posted early in the thread and seeing as he has a Sigma 10-20 I suggested to him that using it for portraits may be an interesting exercise. I'm waiting to see the results now, especially since his wife has told him she thinks it's a good idea. :)
e_dawg
01-11-2008, 07:45 PM
what is all this talk about "wait for a wide angle portrait" i don't get it. is it hard or something? i guess i'm not catching on to something here
Besides a bit of an inside joke going on here, yes it is harder to do portraits with an ultrawide lens. Most photographers use a semi-telephoto focal length (70-105 mm usually for APS-C bodies) for portraits with a wider aperture setting because it gives a natural, normal, classic look to the image. The shallow DOF isolates the subject, and nothing is emphasized on the subject... by that I mean you get very little perspective distortion like you might get with an ultrawide if you're not careful (e.g., it may look like the subject is posing in front of a funhouse mirror).
With an ultrawide, perspective distortion is exacerbated, and you can get distorted body shapes, or at least converging parallels in what direction you're pointing the lens (when not shooting perfectly perpendicular to your scene).
Having said that, you can harness an ultrawide's propensity to emphasize perspective to increase depth and drama in the shot. So if you know how to use an ultrawide to take pics of people, they can look pretty cool indeed.
e_dawg
01-11-2008, 07:57 PM
The D300 is very nice, but Its not some magic camera that produces amazingly noise free images.
No, but it does give you more latitude to shoot at higher ISOs without worrying as much about noise as you might with older, noisier cameras. You have an extra stop at your disposal. Sometimes that's all you need.
One thing I do not use is the in camera noise reduction [...] I prefer to take my photos with the high ISO noise reduction turned off and take care of it in post processing. Neat Image is much better at retaining detail and keeping a smoother appearance to the image.
What do you think of Noise Ninja? Have you compared it to Neat Image? For that matter, has anyone compared both of them? And if so, what is your opinion / preference?
hankbeblazin
01-11-2008, 08:15 PM
(e.g., it may look like the subject is posing in front of a funhouse mirror).
With an ultrawide, perspective distortion is exacerbated, and you can get distorted body shapes, or at least converging parallels in what direction you're pointing the lens (when not shooting perfectly perpendicular to your scene).
i guess its good for the people who have capture NX since it has a distortion fixer thingamabobber
What do you think of Noise Ninja? Have you compared it to Neat Image? For that matter, has anyone compared both of them? And if so, what is your opinion / preference?
Ive used both and done side-by-side comparisons. In my opinion, NeatImage is MUCH better. Its easier to use, and the output photo seems to be better than that from Noise Ninja. Anyone that does noise reduction should atleast try the free version of NeatImage! The paid version is worth every cent.
VTEC_EATER
01-11-2008, 08:48 PM
No, but it does give you more latitude to shoot at higher ISOs without worrying as much about noise as you might with older, noisier cameras. You have an extra stop at your disposal. Sometimes that's all you need.
Well, my D50 cleaned up pretty well, but I suspect the D300 will clean up slightly better due to its tighter grain.
However, there are so many things about the D300 that are so far better than the D50, that a possible 1 stop increase in noise control is but a very small piece of the pie. Like I said before, the camera is not something magical with regards to noise. Its pretty good, especially for its resolution, but I am more impressed with its metering, white balance control, flash control, image detail & sharpness, its LCD screen, Live view, continuous shooting, menu system, etc... I could go on for a long time.
What do you think of Noise Ninja? Have you compared it to Neat Image?
I have never tried Noise Ninja, only Neat Image and Bibble Pro's noise reduction, which may ne Noise Ninja on a simplistic level.
Just like any adjustment in the camera's control, you always have more control in post processing. Everything from white balance, to sharpness, to noise reduction, all are adjustable within the camera. However, even then you are limited to the settings made by those little guys in the white coats. Now, those guys are very smart, and are very good at their job, however, the end product is dependant on your interpretation of the scene, not theirs.
With that in mind, I try to keep my settings on the camera to a rather conservative level. If that means that I dont use in-camera noise reduction, then so be it. If that means that my images straight out of the camera are not super saturated with huge contrast and extreme sharpness, then thats fine by me. All of that can be adjusted with greater control after it has left the camera.
i agree. if your going to buy a d300 for its "better iso" then may aswell sell up, save some money and go for a canon 40d. the d300 isn't about iso. sure its nice to have but thats not what the camera is about.
When I'm adopted I will want to use my D300 because of the 51 point focus tracking. I don't give a stuff about ISO3200 but that 51 point AF has me drooling.
e_dawg
01-12-2008, 05:48 AM
i guess its good for the people who have capture NX since it has a distortion fixer thingamabobber
Oh, that? I think that's just for lens distortion -- as in barrel distortion vs pincushion distortion... not perspective or volume distortion that is caused by an ultrawide.
e_dawg
01-12-2008, 05:51 AM
Ive used both and done side-by-side comparisons. In my opinion, NeatImage is MUCH better. Its easier to use, and the output photo seems to be better than that from Noise Ninja. Anyone that does noise reduction should atleast try the free version of NeatImage! The paid version is worth every cent.
Really? Ugh. I paid for the full version of Noise Ninja. I will have to try Neat Image, then. I am doing a lot of NR these days with the E-510...
hankbeblazin
01-12-2008, 08:54 AM
Oh, that? I think that's just for lens distortion -- as in barrel distortion vs pincushion distortion... not perspective or volume distortion that is caused by an ultrawide.
ohh ok, well i'm so used to hearing barrell and pincushion i didnt know ultra wides had a whole different kind of distortion. thats good to know.
coldrain
01-12-2008, 12:11 PM
Really? Ugh. I paid for the full version of Noise Ninja. I will have to try Neat Image, then. I am doing a lot of NR these days with the E-510...
I have found that NoiseNinja, when you tinker with its settings, (I use way less smoothing in its settings, and less luminance noise reduction, the results can be great) can deliver great results. NoiseNinja and NeatImage are very close in results, if you are prepared to try and find the right balance in settings in each package.
e_dawg
01-12-2008, 02:48 PM
You know what, coldy? I have to agree with you there for the most part. And I also prefer to crank down the strength and esp. smoothing settings in NN... and do colour-specific strength adjustments, too.
Been playing with Neat Image all morning and a bit this afternoon and compared it against Noise Ninja. I have found that auto vs auto, Neat Image is better. And when you tweak the settings to wring the best results out of each (without using the selective undo feature of Noise Ninja), Noise Ninja catches up, but Neat Image still retains a slight lead.
But where Noise Ninja does it for me, though, is one feature its standalone application has and Neat Image's doesn't: selective NR (or selective undo). As good as Neat Image's global NR results are after fine-tuning the profiles and tweaking the high/med/low freq and red/blue/luminance channel settings, sometimes it's just better not to have as much NR (or no NR at all) in certain parts of your image. And that is where Noise Ninja's standalone application shines. You can just paint away areas you want to reduce NR like a history brush. Easy-peasy.
I'm not much for using Photoshop unless I have a hardcore, specific editing job to do, so I can't comment on the performance of the two plug-ins. But, I will suggest that Neat Image can probably outperform Noise Ninja as a plug-in because you can use PS to layer and mask, thereby selecting where you want to apply NR and how much.
But standalone applications head-to-head, I have to give the nod to Noise Ninja.
vBulletin® v3.8.4, Copyright ©2000-2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.