View Full Version : D300 vs D700 high-ISO performance?
invisible
17-12-2009, 12:50pm
Hi... I'm interested in hearing the opinions of people who have switched from the D300 to the D700, in particular pertaining to high-ISO performance.
I was under the impression that the D700 was clearly superior to the D300; however, today I came across this article (http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Nikon_D700/noise.shtml), and now I'm not so sure. In spite of what the reviewer says, when you look at the samples the difference in noise is barely noticeable.
High-ISO performance is very important to me, and I'm pondering upgrading from the D300 to the D700.
Thoughts?
JM Tran
17-12-2009, 12:59pm
At 1600 ISO the D300 is visibly suffering compared to the full-frame models. Noise artefacts are visible on all three cameras, but the full-framers are still retaining a high degree of detail whereas the D300 has become quite patchy in comparison. Again the amount of noise is similar on both the D700 and 5D, but the former’s result has less chroma noise and is preferred.
Increase to 3200 ISO and you’re at the top limit of the EOS 5D, at which point noise levels have become quite high. The D700 is also exhibiting quite apparent noise, but it’s cleaner than the 5D with fewer chroma artefacts. So the D700 is again preferred here, but the 5D has put in very good innings and proves it’s still a great camera for high sensitivity work. The D300 however is really suffering now with undesirable artefacts muddying the image and greatly reducing the detail. You can really see the difference between full frame and cropped frame bodies here.
At 6400 ISO, the story becomes even more apparent. The D700 sample is undoubtedly noisy, but at least there’s still plenty of detail and few coloured artefacts. In contrast the D300 at 6400 ISO really is a step too far.
If thats not enough to sell to u, I dont know what is! I can say there will be a greater difference when u are using it in a day to day environment rather than looking at sterile tests on the net.
Was strange how they started off the 5D at ISO50, since its not the base/native ISO of the sensor, weird comparison.
invisible
17-12-2009, 1:03pm
I can say there will be a greater difference when u are using it in a day to day environment rather than looking at sterile tests on the net.
Exactly the reason of my posting of this thread :) I'd like to hear it from people who have used both cameras.
Ive got a d300 and d3 if that helps
There is a two stop difference easy
I'll stop shooting the d300 at iso2000 or so, and happy to go to 6400 in the same conditions with the D3
JM Tran
17-12-2009, 1:06pm
Exactly the reason of my posting of this thread :) I'd like to hear it from people who have used both cameras.
well that was my experience of using both cameras, but D700 was used for work whereas D300 was just for fun from a friend:)
I have not yet used a cropped sensor camera that I am happy with regarding high ISO at 1600 and above. But with full frame cameras, I just find it really hard to go back after enjoying lower noise at high ISO.
invisible
17-12-2009, 1:07pm
Ive got a d300 and d3 if that helps
There is a two stop difference easy
I'll stop shooting the d300 at iso2000 or so, and happy to go to 6400 in the same conditions with the D3
Thanks for the feedback! The D3 has the same sensor as the D700, correct?
invisible
17-12-2009, 1:08pm
well that was my experience of using both cameras, but D700 was used for work whereas D300 was just for fun from a friend:)
I have not yet used a cropped sensor camera that I am happy with regarding high ISO at 1600 and above. But with full frame cameras, I just find it really hard to go back after enjoying lower noise at high ISO.
Aaah, you're making it very hard for me now (or very easy, depending on how I look at it :))
invisible
17-12-2009, 1:10pm
yes it does
Thanks again, kiwi.
imo if high iso is important, the d3s trumps them all by a country mile:)
yeah it may cost near on twice as much as a d700, but its (iso performance) is twice as good too
Gregg Bell
19-12-2009, 5:09am
The only way the D300 statistically beats the D700, and D3 in noise is ISO800 Jpeg. It for some reason has less noise there then a 5DmkII...
Other then that the D700 aces the D300... if you check the noise graphs here (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond300s/page15.asp) you will find the D300(i know its the D300s btu the noise is exactly the same) The D300 is roughly = to 7D, its achilles is its rather noisy at ISO400, and has more black noise in the shot.
other then that it matches very well against the 7D.
D700 still better then D300, and D300s.
invisible
20-12-2009, 3:00am
Thank you guys for the feedback, I took the plunge yesterday and got me a D700. Did some quick tests and I'm in awe. The camera is marginally heavier than the D300 and even if it's a tad bigger it feels equally as comfortable in my hands. It's winter where I live, plus I'm under the weather, so I won't be able to play with it in the field for a while... but I'm happy as a tot with a new toy :)
Happy holidays to everyone!
IngridM
30-12-2009, 2:29pm
I'm a little surprised to read one of the above comments about the D3 trumping the D700 for noise because both cameras have the same sensor and basic internals.
I have both the D700 and D300 (after having moved over from Olympus E3, E1, E420, E520) and can say quite categorically that the D700 runs rings around the D300 in low light work. I think nothing of shooting at ISO 4000 on the D700 if I need to and the camera produces beautifully clean results - provided you nail the exposure. I very rarely need to use noise reduction software now.
The D300 will give you a sharper result and is excellent for daytime sports work because you gain extra reach, but I only use it up to about 1000 ISO (not because it won't go higher, but because the D700 does so much better in low light).
I've shot indoor basketball with the D700 at ISO 9000 and although the results were starting to suffer from the extreme setting, the pictures were still quite acceptable and better than my Oly would have produced at ISO 1600.
Hope that helps.
Basically, the D700 (and obviously the D3) have beautifully balanced signal:noise ratio and pixels:sensor size ratio, so you are working with the cream of the crop for low light work. Mine still often surprises me as to just how good the photos look when the light is low.
Sar NOP
30-12-2009, 3:24pm
I'm a little surprised to read one of the above comments about the D3 trumping the D700 for noise because both cameras have the same sensor and basic internals.
Both D3 and D700 have 12Mpx and are full frame cameras, but it doesn't mean they have exactly the same sensor. There is more electronic in the D3 too...
IngridM
31-12-2009, 3:51pm
Everything I've read, heard and been told about the D3 is that it has the same sensor as the D700. If you could point me in the direction of an official site which states otherwise, I'd be interested to read it. The other internals between the two cameras may have differences but I've yet to read anything official which states that Nikon use a different sensor in the D3 to the D700.
funny, look who sponsor that linked website. this kind of test is useless, as no actual photographs were made. make some actual prints and i'm sure you'll see that your money is better off in your bank account. it's very easy for people to recommend upgrades, especially when they aren't the ones who has to buy it. there may be other reasons you want to upgrade, but if you do so based purely on high iso shots, then you may very well be disappointed. as a wedding photography, i have taken alot of high ISO shots, and even when compared at normal print sizes 10x15cm, the difference between the D200 and the D3 (often used in the same situations with different lenses) were neglegable. If larger prints were to made, the difference would start to show, but in my experience, the bride very rarely gets those types of shots enlarged.
high iso is just a pissing contest now between manufacturers. very little has been done to improve image quality at normal to moderate ISO's for normal to moderate prints, over the last three or four years. so the one area that they have improved is iso noise, so the marketing guru's now tell us that we should all be looking for cameras that can utilise it. but photography is all about light, not the lack of it, and it is a very small minority that can actually benefit from it. improvements in the dynamic range of Digital Cameras would be a far more welcome advance than iso.
Big Pix
31-12-2009, 5:02pm
gone from D300 to D700 with at least a 2-3 stop advantage, depening on the light, using the d700.......
Gregg Bell
31-12-2009, 7:33pm
I agree with tom the D3s seems very pointless. All I need is 50 - 1600 for 99% of the time. they should focus on working on those ISO's then look at getting a bigger range.
inmotion
01-01-2010, 11:23am
With respect Greg its not all about what you need but many others. The D3s not only goes VERY high in ISO( probably almost useless) but it does deliver a much more usable result at lower values such as 6500-12400IsO values that I use quite a bit
Cheers jim
I'm a little surprised to read one of the above comments about the D3 trumping the D700 for noise because both cameras have the same sensor and basic internals.
I have both the D700 and D300 (after having moved over from Olympus E3, E1, E420, E520) and can say quite categorically that the D700 runs rings around the D300 in low light work. I think nothing of shooting at ISO 4000 on the D700 if I need to and the camera produces beautifully clean results - provided you nail the exposure. I very rarely need to use noise reduction software now.
The D300 will give you a sharper result and is excellent for daytime sports work because you gain extra reach, but I only use it up to about 1000 ISO (not because it won't go higher, but because the D700 does so much better in low light).
I've shot indoor basketball with the D700 at ISO 9000 and although the results were starting to suffer from the extreme setting, the pictures were still quite acceptable and better than my Oly would have produced at ISO 1600.
Hope that helps.
Basically, the D700 (and obviously the D3) have beautifully balanced signal:noise ratio and pixels:sensor size ratio, so you are working with the cream of the crop for low light work. Mine still often surprises me as to just how good the photos look when the light is low.
Hi. My quote was actually about the d3s, not the d3.
to me high iso is one of the most important things. Anyone who has tried to shoot motorsport at night (for example) will know that there is no substitute. and inmotion is spot on. when manufacturers push the sensors to be able to shoot at 50000+ iso, more 'normal' iso settings such as 3200-6400 benefit.
"I will now use ISO12800 regularly" - Bill Frakes - Sports Illustrated
I dont think a d700 will quite do that
ricktas
01-01-2010, 5:53pm
It seems that some have forgotten that the original use of the letter S by both Canon and Nikon was to represent S(tudio). Therefore a D3s has a different purpose (from the manufacturers point of view) to a D3. And Studio work at a Pro level needs lots of pixels and less need for high ISO.
Comparing an S designated body against its non S equivalent, for both Canon and Nikon is rather an exercise in futility. The fact that people are using the D3s for sports/landscapes etc is a testament to its quality, but it is primarily a studio camera, and therefore high ISO is not an important factor for the manufacturer.
To me the d3s is not supposed to be a studio camera at all, that's what the d3x is. The d3s has been heavily pushed by nikon to the pj and sport market. High iso fir higher shutter and increased buffer with the odd bit of video for news grabs
I don't think so, Not in Nikon's digital Age anyway. The addition of an S to a Nikon Model number means a slightly updated refresh of an existing model. examples in D70s, D300s and D3s, while they are all capable in the studio, none them are heavy hitting studio cameras.
D3 and D3s are both targeted to the sports/photojournalist market. 9 -11 frames per second and high ISO capability. D3X falls into that studio category.
It seems that some have forgotten that the original use of the letter S by both Canon and Nikon was to represent S(tudio). Therefore a D3s has a different purpose (from the manufacturers point of view) to a D3. And Studio work at a Pro level needs lots of pixels and less need for high ISO.
Comparing an S designated body against its non S equivalent, for both Canon and Nikon is rather an exercise in futility. The fact that people are using the D3s for sports/landscapes etc is a testament to its quality, but it is primarily a studio camera, and therefore high ISO is not an important factor for the manufacturer.
petercee
02-01-2010, 10:53am
FWIW, I've heard nothing but awe at the mention of ISO performance with D3 and D3s.
The next rung down in terms of high ISO performers - D3x, D700 & D700s (?) - probably leaves the D300, D300s and the Canon range far behind as well.
FWIW, I've heard nothing but awe at the mention of ISO performance with D3 and D3s.
The next rung down in terms of high ISO performers - D3x, D700 & D700s (?) - probably leaves the D300, D300s and the Canon range far behind as well.
Not really
D3s extra stop of iso performance of D3
D3 = D700
D3 2 extra stops of iso performance of D300 and D300s
Canon, well, I not care, lol
Gregg Bell
03-01-2010, 1:00am
With respect Greg its not all about what you need but many others. The D3s not only goes VERY high in ISO( probably almost useless) but it does deliver a much more usable result at lower values such as 6500-12400IsO values that I use quite a bit
Cheers jim
Indeed, and while what i was complaining about, the solution is an "x" body, Just remember its not just what I'd like, but also every other studio photographer. The Canon 5D Mark I and II have the least amount of noise from 50 - 800 then the D3, and all its updates.
To me the d3s is not supposed to be a studio camera at all, that's what the d3x is. The d3s has been heavily pushed by nikon to the pj and sport market. High iso fir higher shutter and increased buffer with the odd bit of video for news grabs
Yeah this pretty much sums it up, but even ISO 105 million or whatever is pretty crazy, and why have it when theres chroma, and crap everywhere...
Err, I'm not sure about that statement, the d3 at iso 800 and below is effectively noiseless, although I have not personally compared to the canons I'd find it hard to agree that they have superior noise handling anywhere in the range if 200 to 800
I do agree that iso100 is a canon speciality
Err, I'm not sure about that statement, the d3 at iso 800 and below is effectively noiseless, although I have not personally compared to the canons I'd find it hard to agree that they have superior noise handling anywhere in the range if 200 to 800
I do agree that iso100 is a canon speciality
Noise benefits you get from D3 at low iso is if you ever need to lift the shadows in post. The lifted shadow areas still remain relatively noise free
Gregg Bell
09-02-2010, 5:08am
Err, I'm not sure about that statement, the d3 at iso 800 and below is effectively noiseless, although I have not personally compared to the canons I'd find it hard to agree that they have superior noise handling anywhere in the range if 200 to 800
I do agree that iso100 is a canon speciality
D3 models are very good at handling noise, the Canon 5D mark I and II statistically do it better though. the difference is very little, but it does perform better. The D3's advantage though is that it offers 1 1/2 more stops of dynamic range, and more color depth.
Can anyone speak about D300s, around the same topic of high ISO performance? Would you compare with D700? Thanks..
ricktas
13-03-2010, 8:31am
Can anyone speak about D300s, around the same topic of high ISO performance? Would you compare with D700? Thanks..
You are comparing as full frame sensor of the D700 with 12.1 MP and a D300s which is a cropped sensor with 12.3 MP. Just plain science (physics of light) tells you that the D700 is going to be better at higher ISO's. The bigger sensor of the D700 means each pixel can be bigger and therefore allow more light in and be less prone to pixel density issues at higher ISO's
You are comparing as full frame sensor of the D700 with 12.1 MP and a D300s which is a cropped sensor with 12.3 MP. Just plain science (physics of light) tells you that the D700 is going to be better at higher ISO's. The bigger sensor of the D700 means each pixel can be bigger and therefore allow more light in and be less prone to pixel density issues at higher ISO's
+1
D700 is better than D300 in low light.
chamellieon
30-05-2010, 10:24pm
I have both a D300s and a D700.
The D700 still wins hands down in terms of ISO performance.
Ive shot the same thing, in the same place, for the same amount of time, same settings etc- (not the same lens though) and the D300s has - even with noise reduction, got a fair bit of noise, where the D700 is flawless.
I attribute this to the DX vs FX sensor
Sar NOP
31-05-2010, 5:37pm
I attribute this to the DX vs FX sensor
I would say : big pixel vs small pixel.
In DX range, the modern 12mpx cameras still cannot beat the 4.1mpx D2Hs at high ISO, for example.
inmotion
31-05-2010, 8:40pm
Nikon all models High ISO?? it seems this is what this thread has come to.I have owned and used the D300--D300s--D700--D3--D3s
in extreeme low light conditions for action sports photography.So forget the graphs or my mate has comments
attached images shot with the D3s an Nikon 200-400 VR Indoors at werribee in Vic
One with a quick sharpen and noise redution and the other "off camera"
Testimont to the Nikon to allow iso settings for use of this lens.My D3 topped out at 5000iso to give a good result the D3s is ok to 12500
these at 8000iso--you be the judge
cheers jim
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4002/4655253865_9a47c63694_b.jpg
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4064/4655252165_41ec643921_b.jpg
sar, you are the king mate, my trusty d2hs i hated over 800, d2hs maybe to 1600
anyhow, D3 i'll shoot footy at 10800, no real dramas if the light's even.
Sar NOP
01-06-2010, 4:31pm
sar, you are the king mate, my trusty d2hs i hated over 800, d2hs maybe to 1600
anyhow, D3 i'll shoot footy at 10800, no real dramas if the light's even.
Kiwi, at its extreme high ISO, the D2hs requires very accurate exposure to get rid of noise without applying any NR.
The picture below was shot at low light and 6400 ISO :
Full size image here (http://images3.photomania.com/297954/1/rad08871.jpg)
D2Hs, 200-400 VR, 1/160", f/5.6, @6400 ISO, handheld.
http://images3.photomania.com/297958/1/radE8939.jpg
And if I want a 12mpx file for printing on A1 or A0 size, I'll just need to upsize my D2Hs' file from 4.1mpx to 12mpx.
Here's the result of the same image, but at 12mpx ! :
http://images3.photomania.com/297972/1/radC6B67.jpg
For comparison, I will be interested to see a full size image @6400 ISO (shot at low light) from a D300 or D90...
Cheers,
Sar
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.