Megapixels – Are they important?

[Leif]

Further to Don's post, you will find some reviews of noise reduction software here:

http://www.photozone.de/7Digital/noisenew.htm

There are other online review as well, so do not take the above as gospel truth. FWIW I recently purchased Noise Ninja as I liked the interface when I tried the demo.

[treeve]

Thanks Don and Leif, I am "getting the picture".
Just had a look at Neat Image, and I see a Freeware
edition for personal use is available; have downloaded
that, and I will "giv'em a go". Thanks for the URL.

[Adey Baker]

Originally Posted by Don Hoey

never use NR progs, mmmmmmm, guess that may put me in the top 10 of WPF crazies.

Don

You are not alone, sir!

Incidentally, Adobe Camera Raw supports quite a lot of cameras other than SLRs - my wife's Olympus 5600, for instance.

[Gidders]

Originally Posted by Adey Baker

Incidentally, Adobe Camera Raw supports quite a lot of cameras other than SLRs - my wife's Olympus 5600, for instance.

And Treeve's Finepix 9500

Originally Posted by Leif

With my Nikon D200 ISO 800 is also acceptable, as long as I shoot RAW, and use Noise Ninja to remove the grainy effect.

When shooting in RAW I use the 'luminance smoothing' and 'colour nise reduction' sliders in the detail module of Adobe Camera RAW (or Lightroom) to deal with any noise issues. I find this gives a better result, removing less fine detail, rather than converting and then using Noise Ninja.

[robski]

Originally Posted by Don Hoey

never use NR progs, mmmmmmm, guess that may put me in the top 10 of WPF crazies.

Don

I thought Nikon NX Capture included NR ??

[Leif]

Originally Posted by robski

I thought Nikon NX Capture included NR ??

It does, but it is poo if it is anything like the NR in NC 4.

[Don Hoey]

Originally Posted by robski

I thought Nikon NX Capture included NR ??

It does Rob but I do not use it. D2X noise is very random but it can show up in dark areas over ISO 400. I use selective sharpening instead of NR to overcome those probs. In the days of film I mainly used Tech Pan at ISO 12 or Agfapan at ISO 25 for B&W, and in colour tranparency the fastest I used was ISO 50. Now being able to go up to ISO400 with the D2X's resolution and quality is good enough for me.

Don

[Don Hoey]

Given that treeve has PSP 7 ( no RAW conversion available ) rather than Photoshop, I have had a net wander but am unable to find a downloadable RAW test image from the 9500. Thought being to see if Rawshooter Essentials ealier freebee version could read the file.

While on that trawl I came across the RAW write times for the 9500. A pedestrian 9.8 secs compared with 3 secs for a Jpeg fine. Given that the camera cannot take another shot while the buffer is emtying from a burst of 3 jpeg fine, then using RAW suggests a frame rate of one per 10 secs.

So a lot will depend on the low light situations that treeve is contemplating.

Don

[treeve]

I have checked out the camera database website;
Write up on the S9500 is not actually that bad; it
did seem to give me the conclusion that there was
precious little point in taking RAW on it, though.
I will bear in mind all I have learned from all the experts
on this Forum when getting a DSLR in the near future.
The other point is, in relation to this and noise, etc.,
do Nikon bodies have White Balance access via buttons?

The low light situations I have in mind are a dark evening
with mist; night shots over a harbour; woodlands without
sunshine; in the machine rooms of ships, with available
light only, etc.,. ..

Best Wishes, Raymond

[Don Hoey]

Originally Posted by treeve

The low light situations I have in mind are a dark evening
with mist; night shots over a harbour; woodlands without
sunshine; in the machine rooms of ships, with available
light only, etc.,. ..

Best Wishes, Raymond

Raymond,

I have found your gallery in Ships Nostalgia and will look through it later when I get a chance. ( lots of pics there. ) It will help me in providing an answer specific to your needs.

Don