A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Factor Effecting High ISO Pictures - Camera or Lens



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old September 24th 07, 07:25 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Manzoorul Hassan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12
Default 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

  #2  
Old September 24th 07, 07:44 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Bright Spark
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4
Default Factor Effecting High ISO Pictures - Camera or Lens

"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.



  #3  
Old September 24th 07, 10:16 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Ornithopter
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1
Default Factor Effecting High ISO Pictures - Camera or Lens

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 ....

  #4  
Old September 25th 07, 04:52 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,818
Default Factor Effecting High ISO Pictures - Camera or Lens

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
  #5  
Old September 25th 07, 05:52 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Lancroft B.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1
Default Factor Effecting High ISO Pictures - Camera or Lens

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.

  #6  
Old September 25th 07, 06:29 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,818
Default Factor Effecting High ISO Pictures - Camera or Lens

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.
  #7  
Old September 25th 07, 01:31 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Daniel Silevitch
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 380
Default Factor Effecting High ISO Pictures - Camera or Lens

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
  #8  
Old September 24th 07, 08:07 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Paul Furman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,367
Default Factor Effecting High ISO Pictures - Camera or Lens

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
  #9  
Old September 25th 07, 04:31 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Manzoorul Hassan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12
Default Factor Effecting High ISO Pictures - Camera or Lens

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
-

  #10  
Old September 26th 07, 07:54 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
ink
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 63
Default Factor Effecting High ISO Pictures - Camera or Lens


"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


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Lens perspective distortion and DSLR crop factor [email protected] Digital Photography 10 May 21st 07 10:23 AM
Re-sizing high res pictures [email protected] Digital Photography 8 July 30th 06 12:38 AM
Can I see those high ISO pictures again? Steve Digital SLR Cameras 4 May 13th 06 06:20 PM
Crop factor and lens resolution Erick Digital SLR Cameras 12 December 4th 05 01:30 AM
lens test digitl factor Dane Brickman Digital Photography 6 July 17th 04 05:28 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:21 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.