Are the noise levels in newer Nikon DSLR's dramatically better than that the D40?

[Superbaldguy]

I seem to be shooting a lot of available-light images as of late, depending solely on my fast glass (and mostly with the Sigma 50-150mm). The D40 is the body of choice over the D80 as it's high-ISO capability is better. I often need to use ISO 1600, simply no other way.

The resulting images are reasonably-clean but it's not hard to see some noise, it's way better than what I used to get in the old days of film when using Fuji 1600. I have tried using less shadow recovery and, still, the noise is present to some degree.

Most people wold not really notice it unless you pointed it out - the PS crowd is simply used to seeing it all the time=) But, as a fussy photographer, I know it exists.

I have made fine 8x10 prints from my D40 files @ ISO 1600, which is more than adequate for most situations.

I often get a tinge of want for a newer body, say the D5000 or the D90, is is high-ISO performance noticeably better? I'd say I'll never go beyond ISO 1600.

 

[cwnauman]

Night and day difference really. When I had a D40 and D80 I'd be very hesitant to go above 800 ISO, now I shoot at 1600 ISO quite regularly when shooting indoor sports for example.

 

[TommyO]

My D300 @3200 looks better than my D50 @ISO800

 

[twistedlogic]

Night and day difference really. When I had a D40 and D80 I'd be very hesitant to go above 800 ISO, now I shoot at 1600 ISO quite regularly when shooting indoor sports for example.

My D300 @3200 looks better than my D50 @ISO800

Samples?

I read that there might be a one stop difference in noise, are you guys saying there is at least two stops difference?

 

[TommyO]

I'll grab a couple shots when I get home - I don't have any of the shots from the D50 that would show that available here.

 

[Superbaldguy]

Hmmm, it seems the D40's high-ISO performance is still pretty decent considering its age. There is only so much you can do with the DX format.

 

[socrreferee]

Ia a four pound Robin fat?

 

[twistedlogic]

I'll grab a couple shots when I get home - I don't have any of the shots from the D50 that would show that available here.

I searched all morning and couldn't find any side-by-side comparison, besides ol' Ken.

I read where one user the stated his D90 is about 1 stop > D40, 1.5 stop > D80, and about 2 stops > D200 (I think, might have been D100).

 

[Pewter-camaro]

Here is a really quick comparison... both with the same 35mm 1.8G @2.0 Aperture mode. Noise Reduction is on in the D40 and in Normal mode in the D90. Both doing Fine Large Jpegs off the camera. Remember the D90 has a higher MP count as well. Now that I look at it.. I was in Auto WB I should have picked the same WB for both. Below each shot is a link to a 100% crop of roughly the same area..

D40 1600 1/6

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

http://home.comcast.net/~pewter-camaro/Tests/D40_1600C.jpg
D90 1600 1/10

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

http://home.comcast.net/~pewter-camaro/Tests/D90_1600C.jpg

D40 3200 HI1 1/13

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

http://home.comcast.net/~pewter-camaro/Tests/D40_3200C.jpg
D90 3200 1/20

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

http://home.comcast.net/~pewter-camaro/Tests/D90_3200C.jpg

D90 6400 HI1 1/40

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

http://home.comcast.net/~pewter-camaro/Tests/D90_6400C.jpg


What I find interesting is that looking a the EXIF data the D90 had faster shutter speeds than the D40 at the same ISO and aperture although I'm not sure if that means the D90 is more sensitive then the ISO is letting on or the metering is just different on the 2 because of the different sensors? Regardless the D90 is much better than the D40 in the high ISO noise arena.

 

[Superbaldguy]

Thanks, seems the D90 would serve me very well, although the D5000 shares the same sensor.

 

[twistedlogic]

Regardless the D90 is much better than the D40 in the high ISO noise arena.

Wow, Thanks for the samples.

I agree there is a difference, but I don't see 2 stops or a night and day difference. Not like you would with a D700/D3/D3s.

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

D40 - 1600

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

D90 - 6400

I see a ton more chroma noise in the OOF areas on the D90, still pretty impressive though for a DX camera @ ISO 6400.

 

[Superbaldguy]

I'd never go beyond ISO 1600, so I am still not 100% convinced I need to upgrade at this time for available-light imaging, although the D90 and D5000 have other nice features. If I had a D90, I'd be able to interchange batteries with the D80 and possibly get the vertical grip since it works with both cameras.

Are there any effective NR software programs that don't smear the image too much?

 

[twistedlogic]

I'd never go beyond ISO 1600, so I am still not 100% convinced I need to upgrade at this time for available-light imaging, although the D90 and D5000 have other nice features.

Same here. I really don't want another DX body, but alas FX is too much right now.

I want to upgrade my body, but my brain keeps telling me its better spent on more glass and/or light modifiers.

 

[Superbaldguy]

I don't think there is a substitute for doing a lot of available-light other than going with an FX body/fast lens if you did enough of this type of work and you are getting paid for it.

This sort of imaging only happens no and then, most of the observers are not even aware of the noise and very few ever ask for any enlargements.

 

[Cryptic]

My D300 @3200 looks better than my D50 @ISO800

I would be more conservative, since I've owned both. The D300 @ 1600 looks clean, but some noise is visible. The D50 @ 800 is a tad noisier, but still usable.

I've always thought that the sensors coming from Nikon AFTER the D3 was released look better- D300, D300s, D90, etc. etc.

 

[Joves]

I would be more conservative, since I've owned both. The D300 @ 1600 looks clean, but some noise is visible. The D50 @ 800 is a tad noisier, but still usable.

I've always thought that the sensors coming from Nikon AFTER the D3 was released look better- D300, D300s, D90, etc. etc.

Exactly. I think this is where Nikon has done the right thing in focusing on low light performance over other things like more MPs or, HD video. Id rather see even more improvement in noise reduction without image degradation.

 

[SP77]

If you're only going up to ISO 1600 then the D40 is just fine.

 

[MikeG76]

If you don't need to go any furthur with higher ISO, then you could try to clean up the images with a noise reduction software. I use DXO optics for most of what I do. It does have very good noise reduction capabilities if your lens is supported. It is essentially automatic.

www.dxo.com
They have a free trial for 30 days, you can test it out to see if you will benefit it with your shooting subjects/venues.

 

[Superbaldguy]

I did a Google search on DxO Optics, looks neat - why is it a lens-based system? I could see that if you had a specific UWA zoom or something. I see the D80 is certainly supported, nothing said about the D40.

 

[Harry Lavo]

My D300 @3200 looks better than my D50 @ISO800

Then there is something wrong with your D50 (I own both). The D300 at iso1600 definitely looks better than the D50 at iso1600, but this is more to do with the quality of the noise than absolute levels....the D300's iso3200 (Hi-1) is usuable, but only with cleaned up noise reduction, much more than the D50 requires at 800 (not much if any at all).

Your enthusiasm is fine, Tom, but let us not mislead.