[Hacker]

Since I've had the D200 the one downside was it's noise handling capabilities at medium and high ISO. This was my perception after looking at the screen and not being terribly impressed, especially when you hear all the C*n*n owners wittering on about their cameras capabilities.

Last weekend I had to cover an indoor dressage test where the lighting was atricious and I was shooting at around ISO 500 or 640 and tbh I was dreading the results, even when editing customers pictures I was in two minds as to whether or not to refund them but I thought I'd get them printed anyway. The prints turned up today from Photobox and I must say I am quite impressed, the pics look good and I'm more than happy to send them out. Maybe I shouldn't be so critical of shots until I see the finished product - lesson learnt!

Here are a couple of examples. As photographers (as opposed to customers) do they look okay to you? I realise it's difficult at such low res.

[stepheno]

Hi Colin - they look fine to me. As a C*n*n owner it's only when we are using 1600 and 3200 that we start crowing

[Steve]

Well the noise levels seem acceptable in those shots although the grey in the background does show some evidence of noise creeping in (either that or its just the colour/finish/material of the shed). As you say it is difficult to tell from shots shown at this size.

However as long as you are happy with the results and more importantly, your customers are, then you’re on to a winner I wonder if it really matters what people say about the differences in the perceivable noise levels of the Nikon Vs Canon cameras though as you have a Nikon and shoot in that location while I have a Canon and don’t…what I am saying is that unless you have the choice of shooting the same subject at the same time with both cameras side by side to judge the results objectively then the argument is mute.

You can claim yours is better while I could claim mine to be the best…but who really cares as long as we are both happy

Off topic slightly but looking at the pictures I notice that on the whole the horses and the riders are sharp but the ladies face is blurred in both shots, also the leading hoof in the first shot looks like it has been badly cloned into the photo…I am sure it hasn’t but to the uneducated equestrian viewer it definitely looks strange.

What were your settings and how were these processed?

[Hacker]

Shot #1:

Exposure Time = 1/180"
F Number = F2.8
Exposure Program = Aperture priority
ISO Speed Ratings = 500

Slight tweak to levels and bit of USM

Shot #2:

Exposure Time = 1/500"
F Number = F2.8
Exposure Program = Aperture priority
ISO Speed Ratings = 640

As above

These horses are both at quite an advanced stage of dressage and as such do not move as you would expect a horse to move, particularly in extended trot as seen here. They appear almost to float whilst performing this movement due to the power they have and it is quite difficult to capture the right moment as they are moving very quickly, in fact their trot is probably a lot quicker than a 'normal' horses canter. If a dressage rider is going to buy any image it will be one where the front leg is extended as in these two shots (hopefully )

Only joshing about the C*n*n thing btw.

[P-E]

They look fine to me Colin.

[Dave]

Encouraging to hear no probs with noise, as it was playing on my mind a bot when deciding whethere to go for the D200 or switch makes