Upgrade Planning

[Analog]

I'm looking into upgrading my current camera within the next 2-3 months but not really sure to what just yet. So I'm turning to the CiC community for advice.

So a few questions to start....

As I currently am using an entry level DSLR image noise is horrible. Is there any thing in camera specs I should look at relating to image noise?

DX versus FX format. What is the difference?

[Manfred M]

The one question I would ask myself is "how is my current equipment limiting my photography?".

Unless you have a clear anwer to that question, stick with what you have, until such a time that you can answer that question.

Upgrading solely to upgrade is not a good reason...

[Andrew76]

+1 to that.

[Stagecoach]

And +1 more.

[Analog]

The one question I would ask myself is "how is my current equipment limiting my photography?".

Unless you have a clear anwer to that question, stick with what you have, until such a time that you can answer that question.

Upgrading solely to upgrade is not a good reason...

Sadly I expected that I would get a response as such and based on the response I can only assume you didn't read my post or you would have already noted my mention of image noise. While I did not and still don't find it necessary to go into every detail about why I'm upgrading. Thus I posted a quick bit of what I currently have, what I'm open to spending (probably not really needed in the post now that I think of it), what I'm currently leaning toward, and a few questions to maybe help guide me into making the right decision for what I want to achieve with my photography.

If I wanted to upgrade solely to upgrade I would have ran out and bought something for thousands of dollars and yelled "Look at me!" to make myself feel important, but I didn't! Of course because in reality that would be foolish....

[Stagecoach]

Kyle,

It would have helped matters if you concentrated the post on the 'question' rather than confuse it with the superfluous information about what you had and models you have been looking for along with money.

As for the noise as far as I'm aware there's is no specific figure within the camera specifications that will give you an exact answer enabling you to compare different models.

The reason is explained in the first para of this article which was the first I came across doing a search and seems to suggest that it's due to so many variables;

http://reviews.cnet.com/how-we-test/digital-cameras/

There are a number of sites that do actual tests that can be found on the web and the other option if possible is to look at images taken with specific models if they have the settings available.

Grahame

[Black Pearl]

Looking at a well regarded review site I would say the camera you have has very low to exceptional levels of noise - if you're not getting the results you want I don't feel an upgrade is the right way to go more a re-evaluation of the way you're using the camera you have.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/stud...95768912898869

[GrahamS]

Kyle, my better half uses the D3100 and has produced many exhibition prints with it -image noise has never been a problem. If you have noisy images, I can only guess that you are using "Auto" ISO and that the camera is cranking the ISO up high to compensate for low light levels. Check your ISO setting by pressing the (i) button on the back of the camera to activate the cursor in the info screen. Then use the mulri-selector to highlight the ISO sensitivity option and press the (OK) buton. In the option screen that follows, select the appropriate ISO for the lighting conditions you are shooting in and press (OK). Note that "AUTO ISO" is only enabled as default when using one of the automatic scene modes. When using P,A,S or M the ISO mode will revert to your setting. Use the lowest ISO possible to allow the exposure parameters (f-stop and shutter speed) that you wish to use for the photograph. Noise should not be an issue at ISO settings between 100 and 400.

You should also check that "Noise Reduction" is set to "On" on the shooting menu. This will minimise noise in your images but may have an effect on fine detail.

[Shibang]

Hi Kyle,

Personally I would probably look at a better lens before you replace the body.

I know people who use the D3100 with fantastic results but they are normally using a prime lens or the Tamron/Sigma 17-50 2.8 or Nikon 17-55mm 2.8.

Maybe something like the 35mm 1.8g would help when the light is not too good and as already mentioned, check what settings your camera is using. Maybe post an example with the exif data included

If you still have issues with noise you could look at upgrading the body to maybe the D5300 or D7100.

Regards,

Gary

[Andrew76]

Kyle, figuring I didn't give you a fair answer, I did a quick search to see if I could better answer your question. I couldn't find any review that gave the D3100 a poor rating for noise. In fact one Site suggested it was one of the body's strong points, "solid iso performance up to 3200".

So, where to go? The D5300 has many features and bells and whistles upgraded, but so does the D7100, in fact so does the D800, all of which are within your budget. I think that is why you didn't get the answer maybe you were looking for.

Hope that helps.

[Shibang]

Have a look here also for some images taken with the D3100 from iso 1600 to 3200 to give you an idea of what this camera can do.

http://www.pixel-peeper.com/cameras/...s=12&digicam=0

[Manfred M]

Kyle - in order to provide guidance, we need something tangible that you are looking for to provide guidance. Had you been shooting with an older camera, say a D40 or D70, we would have suggested heading to a more modern camera with more modern sensor technology. Noise at higher ISOs was an issue with cameras from that generation.

If you are having image noise issues, you must be shooting at very high ISO values, so turn that down to something more reasonable. That generation of Nikon cameras was well regarded for having good noise performance; upgrading is not the solution here. The same processing engine was used across the entire line of cameras. What going to a higher end camera got you was better construction and more on-camera controls (versus having to make changes via menu items). Image noise is likely an issue with your technique. The only Nikon camera that was specifically designed for really high ISO performance (sports and action photography) is the D4; and that camera is the most expensive full-frame body Nikon currently makes.

For a particular generation of sensors, the diameter of the actual sensor element (photodiode) is the largest factor that determines sensor noise. If you have a D3100 with its 14.2MP sensor, it should have better noise characteristics than the 15.2MP D5100 or D7000. If you want to jump to the current generation (24.2MP D3200, D5300, D7100) these will all have the same noise levels at the same ISO.

My advice to any shooter is to use the lowest ISO value you can get away with. That way you get the lowest noise levels, the highest dynamic range and the best colour depth. This is true for any camera, from entry level through to a top of the line pro camera.

The differenece between FX and DX is sensor size. You can use FX lenses (which are generally more expensive than DX ones because they are designed to cover a larger sensor area) on the DX, but effectively using a DX on and FX body is not going to work particularly well. The larger sensor will let you create larger prints (if you do paper prints) as you get into larger formats. If you are a wide-angle shooter (especially as you get into the ultra-wide range) you will find that the FX body is going to give you better results (this is related to lens design / manufacturing issues). You get about 1 stop shallower DoF so if you are someone with a fast lens (f/2.8 or faster) who likes to blur the image background, that will help too. The viewfinder is larger, so if you wear glasses, you may find it easier to compose. The downside is that you lose the "magnification" factor at the long end, so a 200mm lens is not give you the equivilance of shooting with a 300mm lens (a lot of bird photographers will use DX for that reason).

[proseak]

..."As I currently am using an entry level DSLR image noise is horrible. Is there any thing in camera specs I should look at relating to image noise?"

Can you tell us more about this problem - what ISO, what exposure, Jpeg or raw. If you can post some examples too, that would help.

[DanK]

I don't know the Nikon world--I've never owned one--but I take it from others' comments that your model is considered to be fairly good in terms of noise characteristics. So, what is going wrong.?

There are two likely candidates, both of which have been mentioned: ISO setting and exposure. Many cameras show a severe degradation in terms of noise as you increase ISO. Reviews are full of statements like "fine up to ISO XXX," but I don't think these statements are very helpful, as how high you can do is determined as much by you--your tolerance for noise and how aggressive you want to be in using noise reduction--as by the camera.

The other issue is exposure. The lower the exposure, the lower the ratio of signal to noise. That is why an underexposed image that has been brightened in postprocessing will usually look much noisier than the identical image properly exposed. That is the reason for the common advice to ETTR--expose to the right of the histogram.

I'll make this concrete. One of my two cameras is a Canon 50D. This is an old model, several generations out of date. It was a big step up in pixel density at the time, and one cost of this was fairly substantial problems with high-ISO noise. However, well exposed images taken at ISO 100 and 200 are essentially noise-free, and the noise at ISO 400--again assuming proper exposure--is pretty modest in most cases. I always shoot raw, so the camera is applying no noise reduction. I almost never use any noise reduction at all on 50D images shot at ISO 100 or 200. You can look at the images on my website to see the results.

However, sometimes you may have a good reason to shoot at a faster ISO, and at some point--I don't know what that point is with your camera, but it is probably a considerably higher ISO than on my 50D--you have some choices to make, even if you are careful with exposure. One option is to use some noise reduction in postprocessing. You will lose some detail, but if you do it carefully, this will be minor, and the reduction of noise more than compensates. If do your base processing in Lightroom, LR's noise reduction is very good.

Option 2 is to buy a camera with less vulnerability to noise at high ISOs. As a general rule, full frame cameras do somewhat better in this regard than crop sensor cameras, but I would approach this camera by camera. Whether this is a sensible choice depends on the camera you have and what you do--what kind of photography, how large you print, etc. For some people, it is the right choice. For others, the large difference in price could be better spent elsewhere. I wouldn't consider it in this case unless it is clear that you have really exhausted the possibilities of your current camera in this respect.

Post some images, complete with exif data and ideally with links to full-size images, and folks here will be able to tell you more.

Dan

[Analog]

After sleeping on it I feel the proper way to start my reply is first offering my apologies to Manfred for my harsh response. I took your reply as if your were speaking down to me and immediately responded defensively rather than thinking things through. While I did have the expectation of getting a response such as yours I went the wrong way when responding to it.


Grahame
I have removed the useless ramblings in my original post as I can now see it wasn't needed. Thank you for the link you have provided. I have found the article interesting and was well worth the read. Definitely something I shall keep in mind to maybe do some sort of testing of my own.

Robin
Interesting tool, thank you. It was an eye opener to what the D3100 may be able to offer.

Graham
I do typically shoot in manual mode using an ISO of 100 or 200 with noise reduction set to "On". Thus as I read on through replies and other information all signs are pointing toward my shooting technique rather than equipment performance.

Gary
While at first look I had put all my efforts into looking at the camera rather than the lens I can see where you are going. You bring a very good point to me that I may be looking in the wrong direction with regards to equipment. Also thanks for the link in your second post. While I only took a small look through some of it, I see some very nice work I see with the D3100. I plan to look through it more to see what is possible with what I currently own.

Andrew
To be fair my initial post was poorly planned and for the most part useless. Bells and Whistles are nice to have but I think maybe my timing is wrong. While I have looked over the D5300 and others within my budget range and got myself all excited over there bells and whistles I think I have jumped the gun on thinking an upgrade is needed. So I shall continue on my path of exploring my shooting technique, needs, and options further before making any irrational decision on a purchase.

Manfred
Again my appoligies for my earlier response. It was out of line and not productive toward my end goal of my post. You are correct that I failed to provide any real substance to guide by in my original post.

I do experience huge issues with noise at all ranges of ISO use with my D3100. It is far more of an issue with low lighting situations and as pointed out may be more technique related rather than equipment related. Which is useful information and something I am looking to explore further.

Thank you for your response to my question regarding DX vs FX as I was at a loss on the differences. I do wear glasses and think the larger viewfinder would be beneficial but upgrading to FX on that sole issue alone would only be foolish. I do have issues composing at certain angles due to wearing my glasses which is what draws me to the D5300 with its vari-angle LCD. However again it would be a foolish choice on just that issue alone.

Peter, Dan, and anyone else interested
I'll work on getting something setup that I can do some test shots with and try and post my results some time today.
------------------------------



While I look further at technique and work on some sample images I do have another general question for my inquisitive mind to process. I shoot a variety of different subject matter (landscape, portrait, and my children's sporting/school events) so may part of my problems be related to using a single setup for all of them? Would it be more beneficial and a better investment to look at 1 subject matter at a time or look for a happy medium between them?

[Dusty]

For me you can get noise with the most expensive camera you can buy, it is how you expose for the image you take. As Manfred said it is only when the camera is at it's limits to what you are using it for that's when you upgrade like with a computer if it's at it's limit and is taking forever to do a action you have sanctioned then you buy a new computer or a different part for it, memory or different processor.
Dave.

[Analog]

I know from reading several articles that you will never 100% avoid noise. So my initial thought was equipment that may be a little more forgiving regarding it. As for equipment limitations I have refrained from listing any as it may be my technique that is the issue rather than the equipment itself. So currently I'm exploring that route first.

[Andrew76]

While I look further at technique and work on some sample images I do have another general question for my inquisitive mind to process. I shoot a variety of different subject matter (landscape, portrait, and my children's sporting/school events) so may part of my problems be related to using a single setup for all of them? Would it be more beneficial and a better investment to look at 1 subject matter at a time or look for a happy medium between them?

No, I don't think that's a good idea! I'm in the same boat, I even shoot some real estate to help pay for this expensive hobby. What I've done (because I don't want to limit what I shoot) is accommodate for what I'm interested in. I was in your shoes, had a little extra money to spend, but knew I didn't need a new body. So, I bought another lens, 2 Speedlites, a handful of modifiers, and some other accessories. Now I'm set up to do some portraits (not a professional studio, but it works), I have some filters to play with for my landscapes, and I even got into some underwater gear to satisfy my SCUBA needs!

I'm sure some will say you'll learn more, faster if you concentrate on one aspect of the hobby, but I wasn't willing to sacrifice trying it all!

[Analog]

So taking advice from replies I have pushed upgrading to the back of my mind for the time being to look more at my "technique" being the bigger issue. Here is a couple quick shots from experimenting with different settings.

Using a teddy bear of my daughters and a hat from my collection I came up with this quick little setup for testing. All images taken using a tripod and self timer with no flash, using my AF-S DX VR 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G kit lens at 18mm. 85W 5500K CFL lamps with white umbrella reflectors are setup to each side. Image noise does seem far less in these shots then what I have typically experienced. So a move in the right direction I guess.

Image #1 F3.5 1/40 ISO400 (auto)
Full size: http://www.krbjphotography.com/CiC/DSC_3026.JPG


Image #2 F4 1/30 ISO100 (manual)
Full size: http://www.krbjphotography.com/CiC/DSC_3034.JPG


Image #3 F4 1/50 ISO200 (manual)
Full size: http://www.krbjphotography.com/CiC/DSC_3039.JPG


Image #4 F4 1/100 ISO400 (manual)
Full size: http://www.krbjphotography.com/CiC/DSC_3043.JPG

[DanK]

I know from reading several articles that you will never 100% avoid noise. So my initial thought was equipment that may be a little more forgiving regarding it.

Most modern cameras have negligible noise at ISO 100 if images are properly exposed. I have exhibited prints taken with an old Canon XTi, which is an entry level camera many generations out of date now. Where you see a difference is at higher ISOs. So if you are having problems at 100, the issue is not the camera. It's probably exposure.

Your top shot, which is the best exposed, does not look noisy to me. If you take the darker ones and lighten them in postprocessing to be similar to the first, you may see more noise in them. If you look at the histograms, what you (or at least I) would want to see is a big peak near but not hitting the right-hand edge of the histogram, representing the large number of pixels in the white sheet. More exposure than that will eventually clip the details in the white by overexposing. Moving the histogram to the left by exposing less will increase the ratio of noise to signal and will likely look noisier when you boost the exposure in post.

Auto vs. manual ISO does not matter--that is just a question of whether you or the camera makes the decision. What matters is the ISO selected.

Re in-camera noise reduction: I don't know Nikons, but generally, this affects only in-camera jpegs. If you shoot raw, it won't make any difference.