Aveiro at dusk (or how to get fine results from the d300 @ iso3200)

Joined
May 24, 2007
Messages
6,134
Location
Oporto, Portugal
BESIDES THE FABULOUS ARCHITECTURE OF THE BUILDINGS BY THE AVEIRO CANAL, THIS SHOT REALLY AMAZES ME BECAUSE IT WAS TAKEN HANDHELD AT ISO 3200, WITH NO SO EVIDENT NOISE, WHICH I THOUGHT IMPOSSIBLE USING THE NIKON D300:
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)



Rui

D300, D200 coupled with a bunch of some fine Nikon:smile: glass

www.pbase.com/ruilopes
 

LyndeeLoo

Administrator
Administrator
Joined
May 19, 2008
Messages
28,544
Location
St. Louis, Missouri
That is really good, Rui. I've heard it said that you can get shots with an ISO as high as 3200 without significant noise. Have you tried to go higher?
 
Joined
May 24, 2007
Messages
6,134
Location
Oporto, Portugal
That is really good, Rui. I've heard it said that you can get shots with an ISO as high as 3200 without significant noise. Have you tried to go higher?
NO WAY!:eek: I am happy enough with 3200:smile: specially after shooting for two years with a D200 limited to ISO800... But, I must confess - I still dream to be able to shoot at 6400 when I can afford a D3...:redface:

Very nice shot Rui. It looks like the D300 is a very capable camera at higher ISO's. Thanks for sharing. I still miss Europe and its architecture.

God Bless,
David
Thanks, David. I am here waiting for you:wink:


Rui

D300, D200 coupled with a bunch of some fine Nikon:smile: glass

www.pbase.com/ruilopes
 

Rob Zijlstra

A Koffie Drinker
Joined
Nov 5, 2008
Messages
999
Location
Netherlands
Very nice picture Rui.

But I think the fact that you cannot see the noise, does not mean there is no noise. It wouldn't surprise me if you go pixel peeping you can see some. The reason I don't see it in the picture is because the (shaded) areas where I normally would see it, have a texture that 'hides' it.

What do you think?
 
Joined
May 24, 2007
Messages
6,134
Location
Oporto, Portugal
Very nice picture Rui.

But I think the fact that you cannot see the noise, does not mean there is no noise. It wouldn't surprise me if you go pixel peeping you can see some. The reason I don't see it in the picture is because the (shaded) areas where I normally would see it, have a texture that 'hides' it.

What do you think?
Well, I believe that at 3200, some noise must be there... may be you are partially right but at the same time, the less complex texture of some "flat" areas like the sky and the ground do not evidence the huge amount of noise I would expect using such a sensibility (at least on the D300).
Notwithstanding, I often wake up on the middle of the night from some D700sweet dreams....:biggrin:


Rui

D300, D200 coupled with a bunch of some fine Nikon:smile: glass

www.pbase.com/ruilopes
 

Rob Zijlstra

A Koffie Drinker
Joined
Nov 5, 2008
Messages
999
Location
Netherlands
Notwithstanding, I often wake up on the middle of the night from some D700sweet dreams....
Take care Rui!
I speak from (sad??) experience. I had the same dreams and one day... I just bought the D700 and lo and behold: no noise until ISO 6400 or so. ( a bit exaggerating is permitted I hope :rolleyes:?)
 
Joined
May 24, 2007
Messages
6,134
Location
Oporto, Portugal
Take care Rui!
I speak from (sad??) experience. I had the same dreams and one day... I just bought the D700 and lo and behold: no noise until ISO 6400 or so. ( a bit exaggerating is permitted I hope :rolleyes:?)
Unfortunately my dreams quickly become nighmares when I start to think about the fine Nikon DX glass I would need to replace...:eek:

Very nice. I never shot D300 past ISO 2000 and that very rarely. Good to know I can maybe go higher.
Yes, Alex. The only thing we need is to nail exposures properly...


Rui

D300, D200 coupled with a bunch of some fine Nikon:smile: glass

www.pbase.com/ruilopes
 

Rob Zijlstra

A Koffie Drinker
Joined
Nov 5, 2008
Messages
999
Location
Netherlands
Unfortunately my dreams quickly become nighmares when I start to think about the fine Nikon DX glass I would need to replace
Luckily I had the 70-300mm VR. I also bought the 50mm 1.4 AFS.
I have some old 35 and 28mm ( about 30yrs old) and they work flawlessly on the D700, but the quality is not good enough. As I like very much to shoot landscapes, I want to buy an 14-24 mm, but I think I'll have to 'massage:Love:' the home front a bit before I can do that:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:.
 
Joined
May 24, 2007
Messages
6,134
Location
Oporto, Portugal
Luckily I had the 70-300mm VR. I also bought the 50mm 1.4 AFS.
I have some old 35 and 28mm ( about 30yrs old) and they work flawlessly on the D700, but the quality is not good enough. As I like very much to shoot landscapes, I want to buy an 14-24 mm, but I think I'll have to 'massage:Love:' the home front a bit before I can do that:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:.
What about a Sigma 12-24? I've been told that it is a very good landscape perfomer...


Rui

D300, D200, coupled with a bunch of some fine Nikon:smile: glass.


www.pbase.com/ruilopes
 

Rob Zijlstra

A Koffie Drinker
Joined
Nov 5, 2008
Messages
999
Location
Netherlands
Rui,

You are correct: usable on FX.

But the Sigma AF 12-24mm f/4.5-5.6 EX HSM DG has f4.5 and the Nikon 14-24mm AFS f/2.8 G ED is f2.8 as it's widest aperture through the whole zoom range.
I think I'll stay with Nikon in this case, but we'll see (hopefully!) next year.
 

Latest posts

Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Nikon Cafe is a fan site and not associated with Nikon Corporation.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Copyright © 2005-2019 Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom