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

"Manzoorul Hassan" <manzoorul.hassan@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1190658350.000051.170280@w3g2000hsg.googlegro 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.

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

On Mon, 24 Sep 2007, "Bright Spark" said something silly:

>"Manzoorul Hassan" <manzoorul.hassan@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:1190658350.000051.170280@w3g2000hsg.googlegr 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 ....>

Get yourself a nice Noise Reduction plug-in for your image editor. The noise
problem is not the camera and not the lens. It is the sensor, the size of
the sensor and the number of MP it has. The more MP you cram on to any given
sized sensor the worse the noise will be at high ISO. Noise reduction
plug-ins do a very good of removing noise. So much so it is a shame camera
companies don't put in enough memory and a powerful enough processor to run
something like Neat Image or Noise Ninja in the camera instead of what is
usually poor noise reduction.

Somebody!

Somebody wrote:
> Get yourself a nice Noise Reduction plug-in for your image editor. The
> noise problem is not the camera and not the lens. It is the sensor, the
> size of the sensor and the number of MP it has. The more MP you cram on
> to any given sized sensor the worse the noise will be at high ISO. Noise
> reduction plug-ins do a very good of removing noise. So much so it is a
> shame camera companies don't put in enough memory and a powerful enough
> processor to run something like Neat Image or Noise Ninja in the camera
> instead of what is usually poor noise reduction.
>
> Somebody!

But two posts back we were told how much better off he would be with a
p&s complete with tiny sensor. Takes all sorts to make a world.
Dave Cohen

"Dave Cohen" <user@example.net> wrote in message
news:qGXJi.4138$Pc3.2384@trndny09...
> Somebody wrote:
>> Get yourself a nice Noise Reduction plug-in for your image editor. The
>> noise problem is not the camera and not the lens. It is the sensor, the
>> size of the sensor and the number of MP it has. The more MP you cram on
>> to any given sized sensor the worse the noise will be at high ISO. Noise
>> reduction plug-ins do a very good of removing noise. So much so it is a
>> shame camera companies don't put in enough memory and a powerful enough
>> processor to run something like Neat Image or Noise Ninja in the camera
>> instead of what is usually poor noise reduction.
>>
>> Somebody!
>
> But two posts back we were told how much better off he would be with a p&s
> complete with tiny sensor. Takes all sorts to make a world.
> Dave Cohen


I didn't say that and wouldn't say that. If you want a noise issue going
with a tiny sensor P&S is a great way to do it.

Somebody!

Ornithopter wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Sep 2007, "Bright Spark" said something silly:
>
>> "Manzoorul Hassan" <manzoorul.hassan@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1190658350.000051.170280@w3g2000hsg.googlegro 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

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" <manzoorul.hassan@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:1190658350.000051.170280@w3g2000hsg.googlegro 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.

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.