High ISO comparison: D50 vs D2x

[Syndac]

I've been recently trying to decide between a used D2x or new D300 and I've read many reviews stating that the D300 handles higher ISOs much better. I've never really used ISO 800+ on my D50 because things start going downhill but I was wondering how the D2x is in comparison to the D50. Since I mainly shoot ISO 200-400 currently, the super high ISO capabilities of the D300 doesn't matter too much to me, but I want to make sure the D2x is at least decent if I were to take that path.

 

[Kenny32]

Ok so I learned the hard way about leaving the ISO at 800 for a few baseball games...

I saw Ian Kennedy (Yankees Pitching prospect) pitch in Double-A...It was sunny, and perfect conditions...THe previous night I had been shooting, so I had the ISO up for that...I forgot to bring it down and all of the shots I had were ruined. If you honestly want to see what a daytime photo looks like with 800 ISO, I'll post it for you, but take my word for it...The D50 and high ISO's do NOT go together...And this is obviously because of the 6.1 MP, compared to the 12.3 you would get with the D300.

I just purchased a D200 and I'm very happy with it at High ISO's...I've been showing some of my night images with the ISO cranked to around 640-800 to a newspaper photo editor and he's saying they are definitely newspaper-quality. So even if you don't want to shell out the $1700 for the D300 or the extra arm and leg for the D2X...A D200 might be a great solution for you.

 

[Sw1tchFX]

Anything is newspaper quality, ISO 3200 on anything is newspaper quality. Newspaper printing makes everything look like junk.

ISO 800 isn't THAT bad on the D50. It doesn't ruin shots. I shoot at ISO 1600 whenever I want on my D70 with absolute disregard to how the noise looks. I shoot weddings and i've never heard complaints about noise at ISO 1600 shots because the client is looking at the subject, not noise. Heck, the last one I shot I shot almost the entire thing above ISO 600. The bride and groom loved the images.

I also doubt that either of you have seen what ISO 1600 film looks like if you're complaining about ISO 800 being noisy. Digital is far and wide cleaner than film at the high ISO's.

A sharp, albeit noisy image is far better then a clean, but shaky image.

EDIT:

Out of curiosity, I went and found ISO 1600 samples from the D70 and D2x on Moose Peterson's site. Exact same subject. Download the RAW files and look for yourself, the D70 is alot cleaner then the D2x.

 

[Syndac]

I also doubt that either of you have seen what ISO 1600 film looks like if you're complaining about ISO 800 being noisy. Digital is far and wide cleaner than film at the high ISO's.

I have no experience of film nor does it have any relevance to my question. The results from ISO 800-1600 is not to my liking on my current D50. Maybe you have lower standards, but that's a completely different topic.

My question is... how much better is ISO handling on the D2x compared to the D50?

 

[JimmyO]

Definetly tagging along
Im looking to make this decesion at the end of summer

 

[tirediron]

All of the reports & reviews as well as personal experience show the D300 to be second only to the D3 in noise and high ISO performance. I recently shot a night transit of the Panama Canal at 3200 (it's really cool to be able to shoot 1/50 sec at night with only "streetlights" for illumination) and the noise was acceptable or better in all of them.

Unless the D2 has something specific you need that the D300 doesn't (and the only feature I can think of that it has if you buy a D300 & grip is a voice recorder; yeah, I know there's a couple of other things, but nothing IMHO useful) go for the D300.

I've put 3000+ images on mine in two months and am still trying to find something bad to say about it.

 

[notelliot]

d2x was never hailed as a low-light body. it is okay. it's strength, though, is the clarity and low noise at lower ISO's.
you'd see a difference in resolution, mainly, and not much difference in noise.

 

[Garbz]

I have no experience of film nor does it have any relevance to my question. The results from ISO 800-1600 is not to my liking on my current D50. Maybe you have lower standards, but that's a completely different topic.

Gotta defend AJ here. You sound like someone who doesn't at all care about his photo. Let me guess you download the photo and the first thing you do is zoom in to make sure it's sharp. I have news for you. If you have ever printed a photo you'd realise that HighISO noise is only something that bothers people who count pixels, and not photographers who take beautiful images.

Maybe you should grab a copy of Time Life's greatest photos of the 20th Century. But then maybe you shouldn't because I doubt a single one of those masterpieces would live up to your mathematical standards.

The film point is quite relevant if you read between the lines. Every digital camera takes a better photo than the shot of Patterson smacking Johansson in the face in 1961. But I challenge you to use your equipment and take a photo nearly as good. Again the photo probably wouldn't meet your standards so I may as well go type to a wall.

 

[Ihaveaquestion]

Film grain and digital grain are Far different in my opinion.

I love 3200 film grain and color 1600 film grain but hate seeing digital grain.

Sure there are amazing photos taken with high film grain. But the grain has a more artistic look for me. Film grain is more un orderly while digital grain is all in a row same size and shape and looks like crap to me.

Why dont you leave film out of this topic. He didnt even ask that question.

 

[Syndac]

Gotta defend AJ here. You sound like someone who doesn't at all care about his photo. Let me guess you download the photo and the first thing you do is zoom in to make sure it's sharp. I have news for you. If you have ever printed a photo you'd realise that HighISO noise is only something that bothers people who count pixels, and not photographers who take beautiful images.

Maybe you should grab a copy of Time Life's greatest photos of the 20th Century. But then maybe you shouldn't because I doubt a single one of those masterpieces would live up to your mathematical standards.

The film point is quite relevant if you read between the lines. Every digital camera takes a better photo than the shot of Patterson smacking Johansson in the face in 1961. But I challenge you to use your equipment and take a photo nearly as good. Again the photo probably wouldn't meet your standards so I may as well go type to a wall.

And this has so much to do with my question....

I really don't care if high ISO doesn't bother you in your dream world, but in reality noise in pictures decreases value and shows lack of professionalism. If I had the choice between a clean image and one with obvious noise, I know which I'd pick.

Please keep this thread on topic. Your insults don't offend me, it's obvious I care more about my photographs than you do about yours.

 

[Garbz]

and shows lack of professionalism.

Yes you're absolutely right. People were never professional photographers before the D300 D3, 5D or 1Ds MkII came out. If a funky coloured pixel makes you so unprofessional why not invest in some decent noise reduction software? On a standard 8x5 print I can't tell the difference between ISO1600 and ISO100 on my camera, and the D200 is an equally noisy camera to the D50.

Btw your question was answered at the top. Guess that means we're not allowed to post an opinion in this thread anymore.

Bye :salute:

 

[Syndac]

Btw your question was answered at the top.

I don't recall you giving anything remotely close to an answer to my question.

Guess that means we're not allowed to post an opinion in this thread anymore.

If it's on topic and in a respectable manner, feel free.

I'm slowly losing respect for you from both this thread and two others I've come across in the last few days. Apparently your god complex is quite common on this forum. When your willing to give mature advice in regards to the question asked, I'll definitely listen.

 

[Garbz]

Wow a god complex. If only .

That opinion are typically only held by those people who don't read. You even quoted me. No where did I say I answered your question, I just said your question was answered. Twice in fact. Once by notelliot, and another time by Switch. Or are RAW files not good enough for your comparison?

I won't be replying here again. For someone with a question you don't really like hearing answers.

 

[Syndac]

No where did I say I answered your question, I just said your question was answered..

The whole point in a forum is to have discussions/feedback as a community. You think that because one or two people gave advice that I no longer care to receive any more opinions? At least one person gave relevant information, unlike what your pointless thread trashing has done. Thanks again.

 

[Mike_E]

Was Batman the one with the cape or was that Robin?