New body or new lens.

drummerJ99

Senior Member
Hello fellow Nikon users. I'm in a bit of a delimma, I currently have a D3200 that I've taken about 6000 photos on and has been great for a starter camera. I also have the 18-55 kit lens, 50mm 1.8 and a Tamron 70-300. I think I have found that I like shooting wildlife, landscapes and sports/motorsports the best.

My problem comes from in great light 70-300 does good. If lighting conditions isn't great and it bumps iso up to 1600+ it becomes pretty soft with noise. Alot of moforsports starts off with great light and by end of the night your under horrible track lights. I'm trying to decide is my limiting factor the Tamron 70-300 or the D3200?

So I'm thinking about upgrading. Which do you think wound benefit me more?:

Upgrading body to a 7200, which I really like due to weather proofing or upgrading the lens to something like either the Sigma 150-600? I like the sport version best due the weatherproofing but also has a hefty price tag compared to the contemporary version.

Which would you guys recommend first? Lens or body?

Thanks,
Jeffrey


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Bikerbrent

Senior Member
The D7200 is somewhat better than the D3200 at high ISO. This is due to both being a later design of the sensor and the omission of the anti-aliasing filter. Perhaps a couple of f stops better. On the other hand, the F4.5-F5.6 70-300 is actually going to be slightly better than the F4.5-F6.3 150-600 in low light, all else being equal. So this is not likely to help you out, unless you are doing significant cropping to make up for the reduced reach at only 300mm. If this is the case, the larger lens may make some sense. Also, while the C lens does not have as much weather protection as the S lens, with some care, you could get by with the C lens.
 

nickt

Senior Member
Which tamron lens, the SP or the one that has macro? The SP is version is great , the macro version not as good. Are you shooting raw and cleaning up the noise in post processing? If not, you should be. Better sensor aside, the d7200 would be a nice upgrade just for the better camera controls. I would upgrade camera first, work on post processing, then decide on a lens.
 

pforsell

Senior Member
Hello fellow Nikon users....
My problem comes from in great light 70-300 does good. If lighting conditions isn't great and it bumps iso up to 1600+ it becomes pretty soft with noise. Alot of moforsports starts off with great light and by end of the night your under horrible track lights. I'm trying to decide is my limiting factor the Tamron 70-300 or the D3200?

So I'm thinking about upgrading. Which do you think wound benefit me more?:

While the D7200 is a much more versatile camera with better handling and auto focus, the difference in noise is negligible. Perhaps one third of a stop at best.

See the measurements below done by Bill Claff and DXOMArk respectively.

There's two scenarios involving lenses, depending on whether you need to crop and enlarge, or not.

If you do not need to crop and enlarge, then a faster lens helps a lot. For example a Nikkor AF-S 300mm f/4 D would be 1 stop faster, letting you shoot at ISO 800 in conditions when you now need to go to ISO 1600. The lens doesn't break the bank, but is a prime which won't do if you need a zoom. Wide aperture long zooms will be very expensive, though. The Nikon AF-S VR 180-400 f/4 costs over $12,000. The newer AF-S VR 300mm f/4 PF is smaller and ligher than 300/4D, has faster focusing, but costs more. Could you cope with a Nikkor AF-S 70-200mm f/4? Lower cost but shorter reach.

If you on the other hand need to crop and enlarge, then a longer lens with the same maximum aperture as you have now would increase the image quality. Cropping and enlarging by a factor of 2 means exactly a 2 stop increase in noise visibility. Similarly a 1.4x crop and respective enlargement corresponds to a 1 stop increase in noise visibility. So, if you currently need to crop a lot, then maybe a Nikkor AF-S VR 200-500 f/5.6 would offer the best bang for the buck? Optical enlargement (longer lens) does not increase noise, digital enlargement does.


Photographic Dynamic Range versus ISO Setting


d32v72.jpg
 

Ironwood

Senior Member
If I was in the same position, I would be seriously looking at the Sigma 120-300 f2.8. If 300mm is long enough it would be a good option that would make a big difference to your lowlight ability.
 

drummerJ99

Senior Member
Which tamron lens, the SP or the one that has macro? The SP is version is great , the macro version not as good. Are you shooting raw and cleaning up the noise in post processing? If not, you should be. Better sensor aside, the d7200 would be a nice upgrade just for the better camera controls. I would upgrade camera first, work on post processing, then decide on a lens.

It is the SP version. And I am very happy with it most of the time. So trying to find is my weak link camera or lens.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

drummerJ99

Senior Member
While the D7200 is a much more versatile camera with better handling and auto focus, the difference in noise is negligible. Perhaps one third of a stop at best.

See the measurements below done by Bill Claff and DXOMArk respectively.

There's two scenarios involving lenses, depending on whether you need to crop and enlarge, or not.

If you do not need to crop and enlarge, then a faster lens helps a lot. For example a Nikkor AF-S 300mm f/4 D would be 1 stop faster, letting you shoot at ISO 800 in conditions when you now need to go to ISO 1600. The lens doesn't break the bank, but is a prime which won't do if you need a zoom. Wide aperture long zooms will be very expensive, though. The Nikon AF-S VR 180-400 f/4 costs over $12,000. The newer AF-S VR 300mm f/4 PF is smaller and ligher than 300/4D, has faster focusing, but costs more. Could you cope with a Nikkor AF-S 70-200mm f/4? Lower cost but shorter reach.

If you on the other hand need to crop and enlarge, then a longer lens with the same maximum aperture as you have now would increase the image quality. Cropping and enlarging by a factor of 2 means exactly a 2 stop increase in noise visibility. Similarly a 1.4x crop and respective enlargement corresponds to a 1 stop increase in noise visibility. So, if you currently need to crop a lot, then maybe a Nikkor AF-S VR 200-500 f/5.6 would offer the best bang for the buck? Optical enlargement (longer lens) does not increase noise, digital enlargement does.


Photographic Dynamic Range versus ISO Setting


View attachment 286226

Thanks. I really don't think I could give up that reach. I don't think I could go back below 300.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

pforsell

Senior Member
Thanks. I really don't think I could give up that reach. I don't think I could go back below 300.

As per your original post, if noise is the most pressing problem, then the best bang for the buck would be either a faster lens, or a faster and longer lens.

I'll throw here a few possibilities. Could be that none of them suits you, but at least you can use these as the starting point.

Nikon AF-S 300mm f/4D
Nikkor AF-S 300mm f/4E PF VR
Nikkor AF-S 70-200mm f/2.8 VR + TC-14E III (I have these)
Nikkor AF-S 300mm f/2.8 VR (I have this)
Nikkor AF-S 200-400mm f/4 VR
Nikkor AF-S 400mm f/2.8 VR (I have this)
Nikkor AF-S 200-500mm f/5.6 VR (same max. aperture as your current)

There are probably other options that I've missed, but I hope these provide some kind of starting point. Other manufacturers probably offer some lenses too, but I cannot comment on those since I have zero experience with them. My reason for choosing the Nikon system was Nikkor lenses, not the cameras. Lenses last a lifetime, cameras are disposable.

Good luck, and please report back with samples once you have found your solution. :)
 

drummerJ99

Senior Member
As per your original post, if noise is the most pressing problem, then the best bang for the buck would be either a faster lens, or a faster and longer lens.

I'll throw here a few possibilities. Could be that none of them suits you, but at least you can use these as the starting point.

Nikon AF-S 300mm f/4D
Nikkor AF-S 300mm f/4E PF VR
Nikkor AF-S 70-200mm f/2.8 VR + TC-14E III (I have these)
Nikkor AF-S 300mm f/2.8 VR (I have this)
Nikkor AF-S 200-400mm f/4 VR
Nikkor AF-S 400mm f/2.8 VR (I have this)
Nikkor AF-S 200-500mm f/5.6 VR (same max. aperture as your current)

There are probably other options that I've missed, but I hope these provide some kind of starting point. Other manufacturers probably offer some lenses too, but I cannot comment on those since I have zero experience with them. My reason for choosing the Nikon system was Nikkor lenses, not the cameras. Lenses last a lifetime, cameras are disposable.

Good luck, and please report back with samples once you have found your solution. :)
Thanks a ton. I had never really thought about going prime with a 300 but that is a very interesting idea. Got plenty to research now.

So you'd recommend going new lens over new body?
 

pforsell

Senior Member
Thanks a ton. I had never really thought about going prime with a 300 but that is a very interesting idea. Got plenty to research now.

So you'd recommend going new lens over new body?

If noise is the problem you want to tackle first, then definitely lens with a wider aperture is the obvious solution.

The D7xxx series bodies offer much better handling, faster focusing, larger and brighter viewfinder, two command dials, larger buffer and numerous other improvements, but the noise is the same (give or take a few %-points). Buy the lens first, the D7200 or D7500 or D7600 will be cheaper next year, but the lens won't.

One tip I've learned the hard way: don't buy "interim" solutions, because those will be the most expensive in the long run. Buying, selling, trading up and so on costs time and money in every step of the way, and you'll lose all the photos you could have taken meanwhile. Evaluate carefully, loan, rent and try possible options, save up, and go directly to the one you really want and need.

Buy once cry once. :cool:
 

spb_stan

Senior Member
I would approach the problem a bit differently, by seeing what the problem is you are referring to. Can you post a large file uncropped image you are objecting to noise level for. All the comments suggest improvements but are small incremental improvements. You already have 90%. The cost for 95% will likely be$2000 if equipment, or $0 if it is the technique, or 2 hours of training in post processing, depending on the actual nature of the noise. IF you are trying to freeze action with high shutter speed, you might do better by lower SS and learning the craft of panning. As you up in equipment solutions the costs and weight become almost logarithmic is increases.The sports photogs at the race track getting those publishable shots have $30k or more invested in glass. The average advanced amateur has $8-15k in lenses alone. The steps up get expensive and give marginal gains. Light or the lack of it defines what is possible with the budget or possible at all. As the light fails many pros leave and go visit the bar, their money shots all were gotten when the light was better.
Can you also describe your post processing workflow. If possible post a straight out of camera image and one of same file that you post processed.
 

drummerJ99

Senior Member
I would approach the problem a bit differently, by seeing what the problem is you are referring to. Can you post a large file uncropped image you are objecting to noise level for. All the comments suggest improvements but are small incremental improvements. You already have 90%. The cost for 95% will likely be$2000 if equipment, or $0 if it is the technique, or 2 hours of training in post processing, depending on the actual nature of the noise. IF you are trying to freeze action with high shutter speed, you might do better by lower SS and learning the craft of panning. As you up in equipment solutions the costs and weight become almost logarithmic is increases.The sports photogs at the race track getting those publishable shots have $30k or more invested in glass. The average advanced amateur has $8-15k in lenses alone. The steps up get expensive and give marginal gains. Light or the lack of it defines what is possible with the budget or possible at all. As the light fails many pros leave and go visit the bar, their money shots all were gotten when the light was better.
Can you also describe your post processing workflow. If possible post a straight out of camera image and one of same file that you post processed.

Attached below are two images.

The first has been edited for noise and sharpened in LR. The image doesn't look bad but it's not super sharp.
DSC_5710 by Jeffrey Everroad, on Flickr

This one hasn't been edited at all aside from white balance and tone. Again, not bad but not sure if I can get better. And if I can is it lens, me or the body.
Sportsdrome 4-28 by Jeffrey Everroad, on Flickr

Maybe I'm expecting miracles and that there is actually more noise in others peoples images then I realize. Granted most of my images are never bigger then a 8x10 but I always want the option to go bigger if I take a image I really like.
 

spb_stan

Senior Member
These images are not too bad, the blur of motion on the back and foreground give the sense of motion without the cars being in motion blur. The I downloaded both and the top one had subject blur and the track/grass has a little noise. I think part of the problem is using two different processes that conflict with each other and reduce data to resolve details. You do not need noise reduction on bright area, but adding it, decreases detail data and dark areas that need luminance noise reduction has little detail information to start with so can accept more NR without losing perceived detail. Sharpening after that only increases noise again in the dark areas and causes halos in the high contrast areas. So a better approach would be to selectively introduce noise reduction in areas that needed it and not add it in bright areas that have more detail and less noise.
You can do that with selections and masks in Photoshop but that might be complicated at first....very easy once you get used to how Photoshop works. Or you could try a Nr program that sample the light and dark areas for noise separately and for color noise. A very good program for that is dFine 2 from Nic Software. Nic was purchased by Google who offered it for free and recently DxO took control of the IP of the Nic software and is integrating it into their Lab editing suite. But it is still available for free from DxO. Get it. I tried it by automatic NR and it fully left the brighter car alone and then lowered noise and detail of the track and infield. I then tried in Photoshop and it did a fine job but took a number of steps. I added a layer of unsharp mask and sharpened just the car but it was on the very of halos before I started on the top photo. I sharpened only the brighter car and left the infield and track alone. There might be too much since you already did add edge sharpening but I used it to show that you could sharpen only the brighter detailed parts and leave the low contrast low detail dark area alone.

Also, the death of good images is the same for good paintings, pixel peeping. If an image looks good from normal viewing distance and size, it IS good, and zooming in 100% just reveals junk that bothers you but has no negative impact on the value and perception of the image. Every photographer and every painter has an intended viewing distance and size where the whole message and meaning can be taken in with one view without scanning side to side to take it all it. Detail is optimized for that viewing distance and scale and the message is last if view further away or too close. Look how sharp a billboard conveys its massage from 40 feet away but get close and you see the detail that detracts and masks the meaning. If you are worried about noise when viewing at 100% magnifcation do not buy a higher res camera. It will be worse. View the image as a whole. If you can't see the whole image you are zoomed in too far for the meaning of the photo to come through. It is a prime failing by newbies, to zoom in to see if something is sharp and then worry that does not looks as detailed at great magnification. More well-framed, well-exposed and well-conceived photos have been deleted because of how it looks blown way up than any other fault of photographers. If you want art to mean something, focus on the scale of view, not zooming into a tiny portion. Otherwise just get a macro lens or microscope and forget about human scale and human perception.
View attachment 286243
 

Attachments

  • test1.jpg
    test1.jpg
    107.1 KB · Views: 70
Last edited:

hark

Administrator
Staff member
Super Mod
Contributor
My answer is going to come from an entirely different point of view so take it with a grain of salt if you wish.

My suggestion is to go with a D7200. For one reason, if you are buying new, it's on sale for an excellent price of $796.95 (body only). The D7500 which is the newest in the D7x00 series is more expensive but only has one card slot.

The D7200 has AF fine tuning which means you can tweak your AF lenses to make them focus their sharpest. I don't think your current body has that ability. And like Brent mentioned, the D7200 lacks the anti-alias filter which should allow you slightly sharper results. As he also pointed out, your current lens is faster on the long end than the Sigma you were looking at. The lower the f/stop number of your current lens (f/4.5 or f/5.6) beats f/6.3 of the Sigma for speed.

As for the noise...depending upon your choice of editing software, if you are using Photoshop, you can download The Nik Collection for free. It has Nik Dfine which is among the best noise reduction programs available. In Photoshop, if you know how to do layers, you can use the High Pass Filter to sharpen the areas that need to be sharpened more.

But if you want a lens that will be faster than what you've got, it might be somewhat expensive. Like pforsell said, the Nikon 300mm f/4 is good although I'd suggest the AF-S over the AF-D. The AF-S version works with Nikon's 1.4x teleconverter. The AF-D version doesn't. If you'd decide to add a teleconverter to the 300mm AF-D lens, Kenko might be the only option. Unfortunately the Kenko degrades sharpness more than the Nikon teleconverter.

Just some ideas to mull over. ;)
 

drummerJ99

Senior Member
These images are not too bad, the blur of motion on the back and foreground give the sense of motion without the cars being in motion blur. The I downloaded both and the top one had subject blur and the track/grass has a little noise. I think part of the problem is using two different processes that conflict with each other and reduce data to resolve details. You do not need noise reduction on bright area, but adding it, decreases detail data and dark areas that need luminance noise reduction has little detail information to start with so can accept more NR without losing perceived detail. Sharpening after that only increases noise again in the dark areas and causes halos in the high contrast areas. So a better approach would be to selectively introduce noise reduction in areas that needed it and not add it in bright areas that have more detail and less noise.
You can do that with selections and masks in Photoshop but that might be complicated at first....very easy once you get used to how Photoshop works. Or you could try a Nr program that sample the light and dark areas for noise separately and for color noise. A very good program for that is dFine 2 from Nic Software. Nic was purchased by Google who offered it for free and recently DxO took control of the IP of the Nic software and is integrating it into their Lab editing suite. But it is still available for free from DxO. Get it. I tried it by automatic NR and it fully left the brighter car alone and then lowered noise and detail of the track and infield. I then tried in Photoshop and it did a fine job but took a number of steps. I added a layer of unsharp mask and sharpened just the car but it was on the very of halos before I started on the top photo. I sharpened only the brighter car and left the infield and track alone. There might be too much since you already did add edge sharpening but I used it to show that you could sharpen only the brighter detailed parts and leave the low contrast low detail dark area alone.

Also, the death of good images is the same for good paintings, pixel peeping. If an image looks good from normal viewing distance and size, it IS good, and zooming in 100% just reveals junk that bothers you but has no negative impact on the value and perception of the image. Every photographer and every painter has an intended viewing distance and size where the whole message and meaning can be taken in with one view without scanning side to side to take it all it. Detail is optimized for that viewing distance and scale and the message is last if view further away or too close. Look how sharp a billboard conveys its massage from 40 feet away but get close and you see the detail that detracts and masks the meaning. If you are worried about noise when viewing at 100% magnifcation do not buy a higher res camera. It will be worse. View the image as a whole. If you can't see the whole image you are zoomed in too far for the meaning of the photo to come through. It is a prime failing by newbies, to zoom in to see if something is sharp and then worry that does not looks as detailed at great magnification. More well-framed, well-exposed and well-conceived photos have been deleted because of how it looks blown way up than any other fault of photographers. If you want art to mean something, focus on the scale of view, not zooming into a tiny portion. Otherwise just get a macro lens or microscope and forget about human scale and human perception.
View attachment 286243

Yeah that's me, I always look at it full scale and see how sharp it is. Even though I know 99% of the people that see this will see it on a phone screen, either from flickr or facebook. I think I have to learn where the fine line is between "how big can I print this without issues if I wanted to" "and this will look great on a phone screen". I just always assumed that all professional looking photos were super sharp at 100% viewing.

And I will check out software suggest, thanks.

My answer is going to come from an entirely different point of view so take it with a grain of salt if you wish.

My suggestion is to go with a D7200. For one reason, if you are buying new, it's on sale for an excellent price of $796.95 (body only). The D7500 which is the newest in the D7x00 series is more expensive but only has one card slot.

The D7200 has AF fine tuning which means you can tweak your AF lenses to make them focus their sharpest. I don't think your current body has that ability. And like Brent mentioned, the D7200 lacks the anti-alias filter which should allow you slightly sharper results. As he also pointed out, your current lens is faster on the long end than the Sigma you were looking at. The lower the f/stop number of your current lens (f/4.5 or f/5.6) beats f/6.3 of the Sigma for speed.

As for the noise...depending upon your choice of editing software, if you are using Photoshop, you can download The Nik Collection for free. It has Nik Dfine which is among the best noise reduction programs available. In Photoshop, if you know how to do layers, you can use the High Pass Filter to sharpen the areas that need to be sharpened more.

But if you want a lens that will be faster than what you've got, it might be somewhat expensive. Like pforsell said, the Nikon 300mm f/4 is good although I'd suggest the AF-S over the AF-D. The AF-S version works with Nikon's 1.4x teleconverter. The AF-D version doesn't. If you'd decide to add a teleconverter to the 300mm AF-D lens, Kenko might be the only option. Unfortunately the Kenko degrades sharpness more than the Nikon teleconverter.

Just some ideas to mull over. ;)
I think is what I've decided to do. There's a ton of little things about the 7200 that I like better then my 3200. Daul card slot, auto bracketing, wifi, weatherproofing, auto focus motor in body, the screen up top. All little things that I wish my 3200 had.
 

Bikerbrent

Senior Member
I think is what I've decided to do. There's a ton of little things about the 7200 that I like better then my 3200. Daul card slot, auto bracketing, wifi, weatherproofing, auto focus motor in body, the screen up top. All little things that I wish my 3200 had.

Good choice, I am sure you will love the D7200.
 
Top