# Acceptable noise w/ D90 for wedding photog.



## gl600 (Jan 16, 2010)

Hey,
I was wondering what ISO you think is acceptable to shoot with in low light situations for wedding photography (with a D90)? I.e. how much noise do you think is passable? Shooting with an f/2.8 will still require me to boost the ISO up to at least 1600 in some situations. How high do you go?
Thanks


----------



## Daver123 (Jan 16, 2010)

I got married in the summer and checked out some of the darkest pics (during our first dance) for you.  Looks like he stayed at 800 for all of them.  He was shooting with a Canon 5D, using a flash, but I'm not sure which lens; looks like his largest f-stop was 2.8.

Hope that helps!


----------



## KmH (Jan 16, 2010)

It's hard to say without knowing how much ambient light is available, what high ISO de-noise menu settings you have set in the camera, what de-noise software you have available on your image editing workstation, and how much time your willing to spend editing noise.


----------



## Aritay (Jan 16, 2010)

KmH said:


> what high ISO de-noise menu settings you have set in the camera



^^^^

does that effect the raw files??


----------



## chip (Jan 16, 2010)

for 4x6 prints I think ISO1600 is fine.


----------



## Sw1tchFX (Jan 16, 2010)

probably wouldn't want to go any higher than 1600. 

For the reception part, you can always drag the shutter and do rear curtain sync, otherwise, i'd rent a 50mm f/1.4 and/or 85mm f/1.4 for when you need the speed.


----------



## Garbz (Jan 17, 2010)

Here's a question. Is noise or motion blur, or completely missing the shot acceptable. Choose one of the three.

Unless you have external flashes and other ways to work around the issue I say standard D90 + standard lens you're somewhat stuck with the 3 above at some point during many weddings (especially receptions).


----------



## gl600 (Jan 17, 2010)

What camera would dramatically improve the chances for less noise?


----------



## schumionbike (Jan 17, 2010)

well, it depend on  what you shoot but an external flash is pretty useful if you can bounce it, it's a much cheaper option than a new body.  The D90 is pretty good with noise and there are few cameras out there that can beat it, and those that that perform better cost much more.  Also, noise don't show up in prints as much as they do on the computer screen.  I had prints from 1600 ISO files on my D40 and the noise don't show up at all, not even in dark areas.  Granted, the pints were only 4x6 but still.


----------



## KmH (Jan 17, 2010)

gl600 said:


> What camera would dramatically improve the chances for less noise?


From the D90 you would need to step up to the full frame D700 to go to the next ISO level.


----------



## lamergod (Jan 18, 2010)

gl600 said:


> What camera would dramatically improve the chances for less noise?


leica m9
d3s
d3
d700
5dmII


----------



## AtlPikMan (Jan 18, 2010)

With a D90? I'd say 1600 with use of Noise reduction software in PP and you should be ok. Just dont underexpose shots.


----------



## usayit (Jan 18, 2010)

lamergod said:


> gl600 said:
> 
> 
> > What camera would dramatically improve the chances for less noise?
> ...




No no no...  I shoot with Leica.  The m8 and m9 can produce absolutely stunning images with excellent image quality, resolution, etc..   Just like many of Kodak made sensors found in Hasselblad digitals, they are ~not~ known for high iso performance.   Simply put, the R&D budget of the big players have put they ahead of the game in that respect.  

Would I switch to something else?  Hell no...


----------



## robertwsimpson (Jan 18, 2010)

AtlPikMan said:


> With a D90? I'd say 1600 with use of Noise reduction software in PP and you should be ok. Just dont underexpose shots.



exactly.  You can shoot at ISO 800 and end up with a noisier shot than at ISO 1600 if you don't expose it properly.  Shoot at whatever ISO you need to in order to get the shots that you want.  If you don't shoot, you're not going to get the shots anyway, so what's the difference in having shots with a little bit of noise in them.  Most people won't be scrutinizing every photo anyway.  They probably wouldn't even notice a little bit of noise unless they wanted an 8x10 print of something that you shot above 1600 anyway.


----------



## gl600 (Jan 18, 2010)

The D700 and D3 is out of my price range right now. It looks like getting the correct exposure at whatever ISO is the best thing to do and then deal with it later if there are any issues.
Thanks


----------



## Sw1tchFX (Jan 19, 2010)

lamergod said:


> gl600 said:
> 
> 
> > What camera would dramatically improve the chances for less noise?
> ...


M9? no way. 

Like what usayit said, the Kodak sensors blow at higher ISO. and in the case of the Hasselblads, basically anything over 100. believe it or not, a D700 will outprint the H2D22 at ISO 400 because the H2D does so much noise reduction. we were shooting a car in the studio using hotlights, and in the long exposures, the tires looked like racing slicks because the NR took the tread off. :/


we ended up switching to the 5D mark II's for the rest of the shoot.


----------



## gsgary (Jan 19, 2010)

M9 is better than you think, i would rather have one than a D3S
LEICA M9 High ISO Performance


----------



## Garbz (Jan 20, 2010)

Please tell me you're not basing your desire of the M9 on that. If you are you really should look more into the D3s, or the D3, or the D700. Heck even a Nikon D300 matches if not betters that performance.
Leica M9, $7000
Nikon D3s, $5000.

I want a Leica M9 because it's a beast of a rangefinder, but image quality has nothing to do with that.


----------



## NateS (Jan 20, 2010)

gl600 said:


> The D700 and D3 is out of my price range right now. It looks like getting the correct exposure at whatever ISO is the best thing to do and then deal with it later if there are any issues.
> Thanks



Is an SB-600 w/ or w/o a bounce card out of your price range?

D90
Tamron 17-50 f2.8
SB-600 bounced 
ISO 200






And this shows how horrendous the lighting was.  One florescent strip against the wall and the rest turned off....so basically no ambient.  





You wouldn't have even been able to shoot in here at f1.4 and have enough light.....plus if you are doing a wedding, many shots are going to be of more than one person so shooting under f2.8 is out anyway.

Get an SB-600, some regarchable NiMh's and put your worries on the back burner.


----------

