|
ok so, I dunno what you all think about Ken Rockwell.. but according to him, the D90 is in between the D3 and D300 in regard to high ISO performance..  pretty awesome, imo. In general I think it's difficult to skew or bias an assessment of high ISO noise, so even if the D90 is close to the D300 or equal, let alone better, it looks like it's much better than I thought it was.
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d90/iso-3200.htm
| quote: | D90
The D90 is second best. The D90 has much more noise in the background, and pleasantly, it retains what looks like plenty of sharpness and real, live texture in the subject. The D90 seems a tweak oversharpened in the highlights, while that the darker right side of Mr. Monkey is actually noise, and not monkey fur texture. Look at the random pattern of dark spots in the darker fur, not seen in the D3 example. The D90 is doing a superb job of trying to fool our eyes while carefully alternating between real texture and random noise. I wouldn't mind this, so long as the background noise levels are OK.
D300
The D300 is next to last. D300 images at ISO 3,200 don't look noisy, but they do reduce a lot of the resolution and look more like an image from a point-and-shoot as opposed to a real, living clean image like what you get from the D3 and D90.
The D300 has about the same middle-frequency and chroma noise, but has smudged over all the fine monkey fur texture. The D300 image looks OK, until you compare it with the real texture in the D90 image. Much of what looks like fur in the D300 image is actually colored random noise.
The D300 image has also lost color and vibrancy compared to the D90 and D3.
Looking at exposure, the D300 isn't quite as sensitive as the D90; the D300 is slightly darker.
At ISO 3,200 you're making excuses with the D300, while the D3 still looks great. The D90 is in between these two. |
|
(from this weekend)
