For lower noise in low light, switch to Canon or invest in new Nikon??

1pocket

I'm following the new Nikon D300 info closely, because I do shoot low light situations where I cannot use a flash. As a Nikon user I have been growing increasingly jealous of the Canon results I have been seeing that are also shot in the same low light.

I am currently using a nearly antique D70, so I am due for an upgrade anyway. I am hoping the new D300 is, like the D3, also real good at higher ISO's, or do I cave in and make the switch to Canon? I have a film Nikon 90s and maybe three lenses that work well with that, one or two of which I sometimes do use on the D70, but the only true digital lense I have is the kit lens that came with the D70. I do have the Nikon 800 flash too, but I'm thinking I am really not that heavily invested in Nikon digital to make it too painful to switch to Canon at this point. The D70 owes me nothing -- I have had a great time with it for over three years.

But I don't think I could justify the cost of the D3, so that leaves me pinning my hopes on the D300, but I am still tempted by the friendly price-points of the apparently good high ISO Cannons.

Should I hold out for the D300 and stay with Nikon, or should I switch to Canon? Or a little of both??

Thank you in advance...

ziggy53

While Nikon has provided high-ISO image samples for the D3, I haven't seen any "official" image samples for the D300 beyond ISO 200.

Unofficially, there is this:

http://www.pbase.com/dlcmh/nikon_d300_iso_6400_samples

I leave you to draw your own conclusions but remind you that no production samples of these cameras seem to exist. My advice is to wait until full reviews against production samples start coming in, or buy a camera for which full reviews exist if you need it right away.

Bendr

Also, rather than investing in a newer camera you may consider investing in better lenses with larger aperatures, that handle lower light better...

Matthew Saville

Bendr wrote:

Also, rather than investing in a newer camera you may consider investing in better lenses with larger aperatures, that handle lower light better...

I second this motion. My D70 does GREAT in low light with my 50mm f/1.4!!! In fact I've been shooting theater / stage professionally for a few years now and have never gotten any complaints about high ISO noise. And I'm definitely going to get an 85mm f/1.4 as soon as I can afford one...

Being in my shoes and knowing that I can "get away with" using a D70 at 800 and 1600, I'm not really thinking about switching to Canon, but still I *am* looking forward to getting a D300 and probably gaining an extra stop or two of high ISO performance. I expect to be able to go all the way to 6400 no problem, with artistic "embrace the grain" processing... ;-)

Actually if you ask me, I think Canon has hit the ceiling for now, as far as 1.6x high ISO is concerned- the 40D is apparently no better than the 20D or 30D, if not 1/3 stop worse thanks to the finally correct ISO ratings. Of course this "same" performance is already amazing and it beats any Nikon by a stop or more. But I'm expecting the D300 to do about as good or hopefully slightly better than Canon's 1.6x offerings, though I'm not dumb enough to wish a 1.5x 12 MP sensor could compare to a 1.3x or FF 10-12 MP sensor...


I know it's not a 100% crop, but here's a shot taken with my D70 and 50 1.4:



Sold tons and tons of prints from this play! (Peter Pan, if you couldn't guess) ...I think I put 2000 images onto my pair of D70's and ended up with over 300 pics online, most of them at ISO 800 or 1600.

Although I DO use auto-ISO sometimes, so I can leave my ISO at 200 and get maybe a dozen or two so shots down below ISO 800, when the stage light gets really really bright...

=Matt=

claudermilk

Without knowing what lenses are in use, IMHO the "get faster glass" comments are just knee-jerk reaction. I would hang on to the current camera & seewhat the D300 images look like. If they are anything like Nikon's D3 samples, that is probably the way to go.

The 40D is an incremental improvement over the 20D/30D--it's the same noise level performance with two more MP crammed into hte same size imager. Though, on the whole Canon has been treading water with high-ISO performance since the 20D--there's been no real competition to force them to work hard to improve. Now that there is, I expect the next generation of sensors to be much better--they have to be if Canon wants to maintain it's current position.

Bendr

It's true, we don't quite know what lenses are being used, I know one of them is the kit lens, and the other ones don't get much use, so I'm assuming the other ones are not much better. I could be wrong, it's definitely possible...

But, if you want to get a new body, I would agree with what has been said, unless you need it now, wait until some proper reviews come out for the D300...

On another note, I do love my 40D

Good Luck!

mercphoto

Bendr wrote:

Also, rather than investing in a newer camera you may consider investing in better lenses with larger aperatures, that handle lower light better...

And this does you no good whatsoever if you require more depth of field than f/1.4 will allow. Sometimes you gotta shoot in low-light at f/5.6 just to get enough stuff in focus to make the image work. And that will require high ISO.

Don't get me wrong, there is a lot of benefit to fast glass (even if you end up shooting at f/5.6, f/8, f/11) and fast glass is great. You can auto-focus in lower light levels, the view finder is brighter, etc. But often it won't keep you from using higher ISO's.

dangin

*if* the high iso d300 shots are legit, you won't see me trading in either of my d200s for one. however, i did go out on a limb and pre-order a d3 once i saw the high iso sample shots released by nikon.

i've got about 10 nikon mount lenses and it simply wouldn't make a whole lot of sense to me to switch over to the red stripe for me. on the otherhand, if you're not as equipment invested, it may be a good time for you to switch over. a word of advice i was given when i started out was "buy the best you can afford"

1pocket

I actually do have the 50mm f/1.4 lens, for my film camera; I should be using it more often on the D70 I guess But because it doesn't get me as close to the action, and doesn't offer the flexibility of the zoom, it hadn't really occurred to me to adopt it more for low light -- duh!

As I think about it, the kit lens ranges from f/3.5 to 4.5 depending on the zoom, and if I am at the tele end, if my math is right, that 4.5 adds up to three and a half stops slower than the straight f/1.4. With ISO equivalent, would that mean at an equal shutter speed I could shoot at ISO200 at f/1.4 vs like ISO1600 at f/4.5?? (Be kind to me guys, I am a student, not a pro).

I do also have a 35-70 f/2.8, and I do interchange that with the kit lens. I would use it more, but I have some trouble getting it to focus in the lower light, go figure!

Thanks for your input, no offense to Canon users, I guess I'll wait and see the D300 situation, and in the mean time try to use my existing lenses a little better -- especially the 1.4!

1pocket

claudermilk wrote:

Without knowing what lenses are in use, IMHO the "get faster glass" comments are just knee-jerk reaction. I would hang on to the current camera & seewhat the D300 images look like. If they are anything like Nikon's D3 samples, that is probably the way to go.

The 40D is an incremental improvement over the 20D/30D--it's the same noise level performance with two more MP crammed into hte same size imager. Though, on the whole Canon has been treading water with high-ISO performance since the 20D--there's been no real competition to force them to work hard to improve. Now that there is, I expect the next generation of sensors to be much better--they have to be if Canon wants to maintain it's current position.

Wow, I just browsed your gallery and saw a whole slew of dance photos taken in the 1600-3200 ISO range! That kind of quality seems totally out reach of my D70, no matter what the lens!

claudermilk

That's why I went to the Canon camp. A lot of those shots are really pushing the envelope of what Canon gear can do (20D @ 3200, -1 or -2 EV in exreme cases, f2.8 zooms, or f1.4/f1.2 primes when I get my hands on them). The new bodies coming out look to make those challenges a bit easier. Nikon's really changed the balance of power with the D3 and D300.