D3200 mid / high-ISO photos too grainy / noisy??

Hi All, have a question for the folks that have used more mid- and professional-quality DSLRs.

Are the D3200 pics taken at ISO > 200 more grainy / noisy than mid-level and higher-end cameras?

I notice that in low-light situations of all sorts -- indoors, overcast, shadowy, etc. -- taking 'action pics' (5-year old and his buddies) I cannot get a 'tack-sharp' picture at all.

Lens is the 18mm - 55mm kit lens (F/3.5 - F/5.6) VR1.

In good lighting ISO100 and ISO200 pics come out terrific, but ISO400 and up seem too noisy.

I shoot in Manual with Raw-only images, Auto-ISO off and have read several articles that suggested the D3200 doesn't perform well at ISO400+...

Things I'm going to try for low-light situations:

1. Set Image Size down to Small (6MB) from Large (24.1MB)
2. Set Image Quality to JPEG Fine from RAW...

I'm also planning on renting a more mid-level camera to see if it's operator error -- a D750, etc.

Thanks, all!

twopups2 said:

Hi All, have a question for the folks that have used more mid- and professional-quality DSLRs.

Are the D3200 pics taken at ISO > 200 more grainy / noisy than mid-level and higher-end cameras?

I notice that in low-light situations of all sorts -- indoors, overcast, shadowy, etc. -- taking 'action pics' (5-year old and his buddies) I cannot get a 'tack-sharp' picture at all.

Lens is the 18mm - 55mm kit lens (F/3.5 - F/5.6) VR1.

In good lighting ISO100 and ISO200 pics come out terrific, but ISO400 and up seem too noisy.

I shoot in Manual with Raw-only images, Auto-ISO off and have read several articles that suggested the D3200 doesn't perform well at ISO400+...

Things I'm going to try for low-light situations:

1. Set Image Size down to Small (6MB) from Large (24.1MB)
2. Set Image Quality to JPEG Fine from RAW...

I'm also planning on renting a more mid-level camera to see if it's operator error -- a D750, etc.

Thanks, all!

Click to expand...

ISO 200 really shouldn't be an issue...

Do you sharpen in post at all and if so how do you sharpen, meaning what software do you use and so forth?

...

Horoscope Fish said:

ISO 200 really shouldn't be an issue...

Do you sharpen in post at all and if so how do you sharpen, meaning what software do you use and so forth?

...

Click to expand...

Yes -- ISO 100 and ISO 200 pics come out great. It's the ISO400 and up that seem very noisy to me.

FWIW I use Capture NX-2 for editing, highlights, etc. I'm certainly no pro at it, of course, but are you suggesting that post-processing could sharpen the images fairly well? I'll try it!

Thanks.

But generally speaking, is there a dramatic difference in higher-ISO / low-light performance in mid- and pro-level cameras?

Cheers.

twopups2 said:

Yes -- ISO 100 and ISO 200 pics come out great. It's the ISO400 and up that seem very noisy to me. FWIW I use Capture NX-2 for editing, highlights, etc. I'm certainly no pro at it, of course, but are you suggesting that post-processing could sharpen the images fairly well? I'll try it! Thanks. But generally speaking, is there a dramatic difference in higher-ISO / low-light performance in mid- and pro-level cameras? Cheers.

Click to expand...

Well post processing can make a huge difference, yes. The tools you use and how you use them will make or break your final product. I find Adobe Camera RAW, part of Photoshop, exceptional at removing ISO noise. For final sharpening I use Photoshop. I have not used Capture NX2 so I can't really speak to how well it works but I know from experience different tools will yield very different results.

When it comes to discussing particulars about ISO performance I think it would be best to speak in terms of specific camera bodies instead of terms like "professional" and "mid-grade". I say that because ISO performance is a broad topic and the particulars will matter. I'm not trying to split hairs but shooting ISO1600 in full daylight, for instance, versus shooting ISO1600 at night on the same camera can render very different ideas about how well that particular body handles higher ISO's in general.

....

Like horoscope fish said, " post processing can make a huge difference"

Not had a problem with my D3200, I was trying out a little project the other night, this was at iso 3200 (forgot to set iso at 200)
but it turned out ok

I'm quickly learning that a good percentage of photography is the equipment you have on the camera (glass, sensor, exposure time, balance), while the other set is all lighting (how well lit, what kind of light, what color of light, what type of focus with the lighting). Even though I have a 5300, I too find it problematic getting glass clean shots. What I realized over time is:

- The longer the exposure, the cleaner the shot comes out. I find my low light, tripod mounted, long exposure shots to be the cleanest I can ever get.
- If it's handheld shots, learn to be steady with the camera. Especially if you're trying to milk the quality of the shot with a slower exposure. Obviously not the perfect situation for sports or action.
- Glass and aperture really means a good bit. I found the kit lens to be absolute crap and only useful on a tripod, shot wide. The 55-300 ED VR II is extremely clean in comparison.
- Every shot will be fuzzy; you just need to zoom in closer! If you're paranoid that you can't zoom in 400x and get a clean view, it's ok. It happens to everyone!
- Post processing and what you use matters too. I found Photoshop's Camera Raw cleans out noise very efficiently, and more importantly, apply it at the RAW level - hence you can revert your changes. Not so easy when you have JPG and have to save as a Photoshop Project. Each application has it's perks and missteps. You just need to find the one that fits you ... mainly financially. (Thank goodness for company provided Photoshop! )

Hope that helps. And if any pro would like to correct me, I'd be appreciative too!

One more tip: I like to use Auto ISO, set my aperture to the depth I want to use, then change the exposure time until I get to ISO 100. This is a perfect indicator of how much light you have, how open the lens you're going, and what you're going to need in order to get a good shot at its most "restrictive" (or not so sensitive to light).

I'll fiddle with some post-processing apps...

(When I refer to 'mid-level' and 'pro-level' I'm just going on the Nikon segmentation from the Nikon USA site "Entry-level", "Enthusiast-" and "Professional-"...

I'd love to see how others' high-ISO / low-light 'action shots' come out -- shutter speed at least 1/100th preferably 1/200th!...

Post a photo along with the EXIF data on a shot you think is to noisy

twopups2 said:

I'll fiddle with some post-processing apps...

(When I refer to 'mid-level' and 'pro-level' I'm just going on the Nikon segmentation from the Nikon USA site "Entry-level", "Enthusiast-" and "Professional-"...

I'd love to see how others' high-ISO / low-light 'action shots' come out -- shutter speed at least 1/100th preferably 1/200th!...

Click to expand...

Posting some of the shots you are not happy with might help us help you, as well.

....

Here's a recent shot -- 5pm with decent sunlight under a giant shaded canopy of a climbing tree...

ISO 400, F/4.5, ET 1/200...

Post-processing done with Picassa in this case -- simple highlighting, light- and shadow-fill...

Seems noisy to me...

twopups2 said:

Hi All, have a question for the folks that have used more mid- and professional-quality DSLRs.

Are the D3200 pics taken at ISO > 200 more grainy / noisy than mid-level and higher-end cameras?

I notice that in low-light situations of all sorts -- indoors, overcast, shadowy, etc. -- taking 'action pics' (5-year old and his buddies) I cannot get a 'tack-sharp' picture at all.

Lens is the 18mm - 55mm kit lens (F/3.5 - F/5.6) VR1.

In good lighting ISO100 and ISO200 pics come out terrific, but ISO400 and up seem too noisy.

I shoot in Manual with Raw-only images, Auto-ISO off and have read several articles that suggested the D3200 doesn't perform well at ISO400+...

Things I'm going to try for low-light situations:

1. Set Image Size down to Small (6MB) from Large (24.1MB)
2. Set Image Quality to JPEG Fine from RAW...

I'm also planning on renting a more mid-level camera to see if it's operator error -- a D750, etc.

Thanks, all!

Click to expand...

Yes, please post photos with EXIF. Most cameras will perform differently in regards to "noise". I would not bother renting a D750 for a "test". I can tell you right now that the D750 will out perform the D3200 in the high ISO/low noise department. Any full frame camera will. I don't think reducing the image size is really going to help, since i believe you are also reducing the amount of MP used by the sensor. JPEG fine will just mean the camera will process the RAW file for you. Both those solutions most likely will not see the noise go away. As others have said, you may need to practice your PP work. "noise" or "grain" in a photo is not always a bad thing.

Your original:
.....

.....
.....
My (Literally) 10-Second Re-touch Using Adobe Camera RAW... Does this look better to you?
.....


.....

Horoscope Fish said:

Your original:
.....
View attachment 119391
.....
.....
My (Literally) 10-Second Re-touch Using Adobe Camera RAW... Does this look better to you?
.....
View attachment 119392

.....

Click to expand...

Um, yes, that looks a heckuva lot better!...

OK, so researching PP apps, now!...

Thanks a bunch.

twopups2 said:

Um, yes, that looks a heckuva lot better!... OK, so researching PP apps, now!... Thanks a bunch.

Click to expand...

I thought it did too, but... I will also say your image does look a bit noisier than I would have expected. It's easily corrected, but in all honesty I'm a little surprised to see that much noise at ISO400. Noise will show more prominently in the darks than it will in the highlights, however, and that's what I'm going to attribute what I'm seeing in this shot. Now, that correction really didn't take longer than a few seconds to correct, and had I been working with the original RAW file, I could have done sooooo much more with it. The power of post processing really comes to the fore when you have a big, fat RAW file to start with.

As far as software what software to use... I'm an Adobe Camera RAW/Photoshop guy but many people prefer to use Lightroom. I would suggest you learn one or the other because if you're serious about doing this, you're going to *wind up* using one or the other eventually. You may as well, in my opinion, start learning what you're going to wind up using at some point right from the get go and not waste your time on something else.

Lightroom or Photoshop. Your choice.

....

Thanks -- I'll look into both... Check your PM!

I had a D3200 for a couple of years and did find it noisy at high ISO's, longer exposures helped, but generally I wanted a faster shutter speed, thus the higher ISO. I was never really happy wit its performance above ISO 400. t said most o the shooting did was at ISO100, but I did find it restrictive sometime.
I shot in A and used Lightroom.

I have had the D3300 for 7 months and have found that the noise starts creeping up at -4EV, which means that if I expose the bright areas perfectly, then darker areas beyond -4EV show noise. ISO 400 is -3EV and shows noise in non-bright areas. That is one of the reasons that when ever possible I shoot at ISO 100. Even there if you look up the shadows you can see the noise, that is life. Bigger pixels of FX sensor will give less noise.

One thing about noise reduction is that the image becomes less sharp. So you need a software; like Photoshop; where you can segregate the bright areas - subject, from darker areas - background and assign them to different layers. You then apply aggressive NR to background layer and less to the subject layer. In Nikon software that is not possible.

You can check noise at various ISO in this post

http://nikonites.com/d3300/26137-subject-too-dark-post369715.html#post369715