Factor Effecting High ISO Pictures - Camera or Lens

I am currently using a Nikon D50 with a 24-85mm f/2.8-4D AF Nikkor
Lens. One of my complains about this combination is the high ISO
(1600) pictures - they're too grainy.

If I had enough $$$ I would replace both, but since I have only
limited resource - I am trying to figure out which would give me more
bang-for-buck.

I'm looking at the 24-70mm AF-S Nikkor and also the D300 as
prospective candidates. Each run about $1,700-$1,800.

Suggestions?

- manzoor

"Manzoorul Hassan" wrote in message
ups.com...
I am currently using a Nikon D50 with a 24-85mm f/2.8-4D AF Nikkor
Lens. One of my complains about this combination is the high ISO
(1600) pictures - they're too grainy.

If I had enough $$$ I would replace both, but since I have only
limited resource - I am trying to figure out which would give me more
bang-for-buck.

I'm looking at the 24-70mm AF-S Nikkor and also the D300 as
prospective candidates. Each run about $1,700-$1,800.

Unfortunately your pictures will still be too grainy at ISO 1600 regardless
of what lens is on your camera. It is the camera that determines how noisy
the image is.

On Mon, 24 Sep 2007, "Bright Spark" said something silly:

"Manzoorul Hassan" wrote in message
oups.com...
I am currently using a Nikon D50 with a 24-85mm f/2.8-4D AF Nikkor
Lens. One of my complains about this combination is the high ISO
(1600) pictures - they're too grainy.

If I had enough $$$ I would replace both, but since I have only
limited resource - I am trying to figure out which would give me more
bang-for-buck.

I'm looking at the 24-70mm AF-S Nikkor and also the D300 as
prospective candidates. Each run about $1,700-$1,800.

Unfortunately your pictures will still be too grainy at ISO 1600 regardless
of what lens is on your camera. It is the camera that determines how noisy
the image is.



Huh .... interesting ...

A $1,300 DSLR body plus $1,800 lens = $3,100

And it doesn't even match the phenomenal range of the new Superzoom P&S cameras
for under $400. The 800 ISO being quite usable in most of them with a little PP
noise reduction. So you get 1-stop more ISO on a DSLR for $2,700 extra, that's
unusable. Minus, of course, the ~28 to ~500mm (35mm eq.) focal length ranges
with just one lens that's already included on the P&S, permanently affixed to
keep dust off your sensor.

Huh ....

How about that.

insert pause for the full depth of that to sink in








LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yeah, let me mark this down as a great selling point for DSLRs.

hearty laughter continues ....

Ornithopter wrote:
On Mon, 24 Sep 2007, "Bright Spark" said something silly:

"Manzoorul Hassan" wrote in message
ups.com...
I am currently using a Nikon D50 with a 24-85mm f/2.8-4D AF Nikkor
Lens. One of my complains about this combination is the high ISO
(1600) pictures - they're too grainy.

If I had enough $$$ I would replace both, but since I have only
limited resource - I am trying to figure out which would give me more
bang-for-buck.

I'm looking at the 24-70mm AF-S Nikkor and also the D300 as
prospective candidates. Each run about $1,700-$1,800.
Unfortunately your pictures will still be too grainy at ISO 1600 regardless
of what lens is on your camera. It is the camera that determines how noisy
the image is.



Huh .... interesting ...

A $1,300 DSLR body plus $1,800 lens = $3,100

And it doesn't even match the phenomenal range of the new Superzoom P&S cameras
for under $400. The 800 ISO being quite usable in most of them with a little PP
noise reduction. So you get 1-stop more ISO on a DSLR for $2,700 extra, that's
unusable. Minus, of course, the ~28 to ~500mm (35mm eq.) focal length ranges
with just one lens that's already included on the P&S, permanently affixed to
keep dust off your sensor.

Huh ....

How about that.

This is the common and totally incorrect post from the
P&S troll that we see often. Ignore it.

It is basic physics. Given two cameras with equal megapixels,
one with a large sensor, the large sensor has larger pixels
and collects more light, even with the same f/ratio lens.
Basically, the performance scales linearly with pixel
width (light collection increases with the area of the pixel,
but the signal to noise ratio increases with the square root
of the area).
(Note I'm not making any distinction on P&S versus any other
camera.)

So, for low light performance choose the camera that has the
largest pixels. See:
http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedeta...el.size.matter

Roger

On Mon, 24 Sep 2007, "Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" wrote:

Ornithopter wrote:
On Mon, 24 Sep 2007, "Bright Spark" said something silly:

"Manzoorul Hassan" wrote in message
ups.com...
I am currently using a Nikon D50 with a 24-85mm f/2.8-4D AF Nikkor
Lens. One of my complains about this combination is the high ISO
(1600) pictures - they're too grainy.

If I had enough $$$ I would replace both, but since I have only
limited resource - I am trying to figure out which would give me more
bang-for-buck.

I'm looking at the 24-70mm AF-S Nikkor and also the D300 as
prospective candidates. Each run about $1,700-$1,800.
Unfortunately your pictures will still be too grainy at ISO 1600 regardless
of what lens is on your camera. It is the camera that determines how noisy
the image is.



Huh .... interesting ...

A $1,300 DSLR body plus $1,800 lens = $3,100

And it doesn't even match the phenomenal range of the new Superzoom P&S cameras
for under $400. The 800 ISO being quite usable in most of them with a little PP
noise reduction. So you get 1-stop more ISO on a DSLR for $2,700 extra, that's
unusable. Minus, of course, the ~28 to ~500mm (35mm eq.) focal length ranges
with just one lens that's already included on the P&S, permanently affixed to
keep dust off your sensor.

Huh ....

How about that.

This is the common and totally incorrect post from the
P&S troll that we see often. Ignore it.

It is basic physics. Given two cameras with equal megapixels,
one with a large sensor, the large sensor has larger pixels
and collects more light, even with the same f/ratio lens.
Basically, the performance scales linearly with pixel
width (light collection increases with the area of the pixel,
but the signal to noise ratio increases with the square root
of the area).
(Note I'm not making any distinction on P&S versus any other
camera.)

So, for low light performance choose the camera that has the
largest pixels. See:

[SPAM ADDRESS DELETED]

But of course, let's ALL run off to the resident spammer's web site to read all
his invented theories and his newly invented "well-known myths", in the hopes
that someone will buy his crap tourist-quality photography.

LOL

You idiot, the person you are replying to never claimed a smaller sensor made of
the same materials and the same design and manufacturing process would have less
noise per equivalent number of pixels. Though the newer small sensors do indeed
surpass earlier larger sensors in noise levels. You can't make blanket claims
like you continually enjoy doing without taking into account advancements in
materials, design, and manufacturing methods. But then you just love sticking
your stupid head in the sand (or is that your ass? it's so hard to tell with so
much sand up there) and trying to cover up your tracks with misinformation.

The person you replied to claimed that the total capabilities of the P&S camera
far exceed the capabilities of any DSLR for less money. ONE extra f-stop in ISO
performance (minus the phenomenal zoom range in any of the UZ P&S cameras) for
an extra $2,700 does not a sale make. Anyone paying that much money for just
1-stop increase in performance with all the drawbacks of an interchangeable-lens
system has several screws loose.

Get with the program dude. Or at least learn to read what you are replying to --
before using it for another or your many excuses to post your lousy spam-site
URLs.

Lancroft B. wrote:

You idiot, the person you are replying to never claimed a smaller sensor made of
the same materials and the same design and manufacturing process would have less
noise per equivalent number of pixels. Though the newer small sensors do indeed
surpass earlier larger sensors in noise levels. You can't make blanket claims
like you continually enjoy doing without taking into account advancements in
materials, design, and manufacturing methods. But then you just love sticking
your stupid head in the sand (or is that your ass? it's so hard to tell with so
much sand up there) and trying to cover up your tracks with misinformation.

The person you replied to claimed that the total capabilities of the P&S camera
far exceed the capabilities of any DSLR for less money. ONE extra f-stop in ISO
performance (minus the phenomenal zoom range in any of the UZ P&S cameras) for
an extra $2,700 does not a sale make. Anyone paying that much money for just
1-stop increase in performance with all the drawbacks of an interchangeable-lens
system has several screws loose.

Get with the program dude. Or at least learn to read what you are replying to --
before using it for another or your many excuses to post your lousy spam-site
URLs.

The troll constantly changes its name and continues relentless
attacks, spewing out wrong information. Ignore it.

On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 04:52:39 GMT, Lancroft B wrote:

But of course, let's ALL run off to the resident spammer's web site to read all
his invented theories and his newly invented "well-known myths", in the hopes
that someone will buy his crap tourist-quality photography.

LOL

You idiot, the person you are replying to never claimed a smaller sensor made of
the same materials and the same design and manufacturing process would have less
noise per equivalent number of pixels. Though the newer small sensors do indeed
surpass earlier larger sensors in noise levels. You can't make blanket claims
like you continually enjoy doing without taking into account advancements in
materials, design, and manufacturing methods. But then you just love sticking
your stupid head in the sand (or is that your ass? it's so hard to tell with so
much sand up there) and trying to cover up your tracks with misinformation.

The person you replied to claimed that the total capabilities of the P&S camera
far exceed the capabilities of any DSLR for less money. ONE extra f-stop in ISO
performance (minus the phenomenal zoom range in any of the UZ P&S cameras) for
an extra $2,700 does not a sale make. Anyone paying that much money for just
1-stop increase in performance with all the drawbacks of an interchangeable-lens
system has several screws loose.

Get with the program dude. Or at least learn to read what you are replying to --
before using it for another or your many excuses to post your lousy spam-site
URLs.

You can keep changing your name, but your ...unique writing voice stands
out loud and clear.

And despite what they might say on the box, ISO800 on a superzoom camera
is a joke. On my FZ5, which is a 5 MP camera (ie bigger pixels than the
newer 7 or 8 MP models), I'd go above ISO 200 only in a dire emergency
or if I knew that the picture was going to get drastically downsampled.
At 400, the full resolution pictures were very noisy.

That was precisely one of the reasons why I recently shelled out the
money for a Nikon D80; now I can go up to 1600 without much trouble, and
3200 if I absolutely need to.

-dms

Manzoorul Hassan wrote:

I am currently using a Nikon D50 with a 24-85mm f/2.8-4D AF Nikkor
Lens. One of my complains about this combination is the high ISO
(1600) pictures - they're too grainy.

If I had enough $$$ I would replace both, but since I have only
limited resource - I am trying to figure out which would give me more
bang-for-buck.

I'm looking at the 24-70mm AF-S Nikkor and also the D300 as
prospective candidates. Each run about $1,700-$1,800.


The D300 body will buy you better low light performance than the lens
upgrade. That said, consider the options below as a general upgrade path.

The D50 has pretty good high ISO performance. The D300 does go to a
higher ISO and with more megapixels. The 24-70mm f/2.8 AF-S is only
faster on the long end so not very different. Where you'd get more bang
is with an 85mm f/1.4 prime lens for $1,000 and a 50mm f/1.8 for $100.
Of course that means more changing of lenses but it will be an overall
significantly better lens. Do be aware that the faster f/stop means more
shallow depth of field. Also consider that the 24-70 f/2.8 AF-S is a
much better lens than your 24-85 f/2.8-4 even though it isn't much
faster, it is actually sharp wide open at all focal lengths. Another
factor is Nikon seems to be moving to AF-S compatibility only on their
consumer bodies so that won't AF on a D40 for example.

I would say go for the 24-70 for improved image quality but it's not
going to improve low light ability much... for that you will need a
faster prime lens and the 85/1.4 fills the gap at the end where your
lens is slower. The D300 body actually will probably improve low light
performance more but really the lens is the more important part of the
package for image quality.

--
Paul Furman Photography
http://edgehill.net
Bay Natives Nursery
http://www.baynatives.com

On Sep 24, 2:07 pm, Paul Furman wrote:
ManzoorulHassanwrote:
I am currently using a Nikon D50 with a 24-85mm f/2.8-4D AF Nikkor
Lens. One of my complains about this combination is thehighISO
(1600) pictures - they're too grainy.

If I had enough $$$ I would replace both, but since I have only
limited resource - I am trying to figure out which would give me more
bang-for-buck.

I'm looking at the 24-70mm AF-S Nikkor and also the D300 as
prospective candidates. Each run about $1,700-$1,800.

The D300 body will buy you better low light performance than the lens
upgrade. That said, consider the options below as a general upgrade path.

The D50 has pretty goodhighISOperformance. The D300 does go to a
higherISOand with more megapixels. The 24-70mm f/2.8 AF-S is only
faster on the long end so not very different. Where you'd get more bang
is with an 85mm f/1.4 prime lens for $1,000 and a 50mm f/1.8 for $100.
Of course that means more changing of lenses but it will be an overall
significantly better lens. Do be aware that the faster f/stop means more
shallow depth of field. Also consider that the 24-70 f/2.8 AF-S is a
much better lens than your 24-85 f/2.8-4 even though it isn't much
faster, it is actually sharp wide open at all focal lengths. Another
factor is Nikon seems to be moving to AF-S compatibility only on their
consumer bodies so that won't AF on a D40 for example.

I would say go for the 24-70 for improved image quality but it's not
going to improve low light ability much... for that you will need a
faster prime lens and the 85/1.4 fills the gap at the end where your
lens is slower. The D300 body actually will probably improve low light
performance more but really the lens is the more important part of the
package for image quality.

--
Paul Furman Photographyhttp://edgehill.net
Bay Natives Nurseryhttp://www.baynatives.com

Thanx for the explanation. Actually, I do have a 50mm f/1.4 lens which
I use occassionally. But the 24-85mm zoom really comes handy (though I
know I'm paying in picture quality).

I think I'll get the 24-70mm lens first (soon) and then, maybe, the
D300 (next year??) and then the 85mm. I have used the 60mm (http://
flickr.com/photos/smriti/tags/60mmf28/) in the past and have been
meaning to get the 60mm, 85mm or 105mm at some point anyway.

I also want to move away from the D lenses, because one of these days
I really hope to get a Full Frame Sensor camera body like the D3
(right now it's in my dreams, but maybe one day I'll actually be able
to afford it)

I really appreciate all of your helpful suggestions.

- http://flickr.com/photos/smriti/ -- http://www.yesterdayslife.com/photofront/manzoor
-

"Manzoorul Hassan" wrote ...
On Sep 24, 2:07 pm, Paul Furman wrote:
ManzoorulHassanwrote:
I am currently using a Nikon D50 with a 24-85mm f/2.8-4D AF Nikkor
Lens. One of my complains about this combination is thehighISO
(1600) pictures - they're too grainy.
SNIP
I also want to move away from the D lenses, because one of these days
I really hope to get a Full Frame Sensor camera body like the D3
(right now it's in my dreams, but maybe one day I'll actually be able
to afford it)

Don't get rid of the D lenses - they will work perfectly fine on a D3 (or on
any Nikon DSLR/SLR) - except for AF on D40/D40x.

Cheers,
ink