There should be EXIF data with all of these. All were taken with either the 55-300 or the 70-200 VR II. Surprisingly, the ones taken with the 70-200 are considerably sharper. All were taken between ISO 200 and 12,800.
SECOND EDIT: This post is an absolute disaster. My relatively new MAC has me technology challenged, so when I checked it out on my PC today at work, I realized that half of the images do not show the ISO info so I am deleting most of them and just leaving the ones that line up with my other post. Sorry for the mess.
Edit: The only reason that I posted these was because I was amazed at the high ISO capabilities of this little camera, but I now realize that you can't really enlarge these tiny jpegs so I am including crops of some of these in a second post.
>There should be EXIF data with all of these. All were taken >with either the 55-300 or the 70-200 VR II. Surprisingly, the >ones taken with the 70-200 are considerably sharper. All were >taken between ISO 200 and 12,800.
Congrats on the new equipment!
I need to ask... Were you really surprised that the 70-200mm II was sharper than the 55-300mm?
---------+---------+---------+---------+ Joseph K Seattle, WA, USA
These are crops of some of the images from my original post. I'm not sure whether this is working right or not. If not, the ISO for the 1st Bus is 200, Bus 2 is 12,800, the Dodge is 3200, Sign 1 is 200, Sign 2 is 12,800 and the Cafe is 3200.
I am not suggesting that anyone should or would use ISO 12,800, only that there are very few cameras that are capable of producing an image with that much detail at such a high ISO.
Sun 06-May-12 07:41 PM | edited Sun 06-May-12 10:19 PM by jpFoto
I think that I have this right now. The first attachment and crop was taken with the 55-300 as a basic Jpeg at 1/40, f/5 and at ISO 6400. The crop is a 100% crop as were the others in my second post. This is really an amazing camera for the price or, for that matter, any price.
The second attachment and 100% crop was taken with my 24-70 at 1/80, f/2.8 and also at 6400.
Again, my purpose is really to show the high ISO capabilities of this camera. At 1/40 of a second and 1/80 of a second for shutter speeds, there is probably a bit of camera shake here, but still not too bad for handheld shots.
Although I don't usually mind the sound of my own voice, I don't want to bore anyone or post shots that are of no interest to anyone, so let me know whether or not you want me to post any more of these samples, and if so, what comparisons would you like to see. Otherwise, I appreciate your indulgence and apologize for putting you to sleep.
I was interested in the D3200 images you have posted. Could you tell me what focal length the birds were shot at? I would like to see shots at 250-300mm at different ISOs (if the ones you have shown aren't that focal length) cf shorter focal lengths. Using the 55-300mm.
Does that make sense?
The 6400 ISO shots seem pretty good to my untrained eyes.
The top shot of the bird was shot at 200mm with the 55-300, and the bottom one was at 38 mm with the 24-70. If you download the pictures into iPhoto you should be able to see the EXIF data. Also I downloaded a program called EXIF viewer for my iMac which gives you more extensive information. I'm still struggling with the Mac and use Opanda on my PCs which gives very detailed info.
I can't really take pictures of these birds at much lower ISOs because of a lack of light, but would be happy to give you some samples of other subjects. I'll try to post a few later.
Here are two more. Both are at ISO 100 and shot at F/7.1. Both are also shot with an SB900 flash with the diffuser attached.
As for your comment about ISO 6400, your "untrained eyes" work quite well. That was my reason for starting this thread, since IMHO the D3200 may be the best high ISO DX camera body, to date.
The top two were shot at 260mm and the bottom two at 300mm. I'm not sure about the crop ratio here. I thought that they were both 100%, but the bottom one may be less.
Edit: I suspect that you are more interested in the performance of the 55-300 than the low light performance of the D3200, and although that question is probably better addressed in the Nikkor Auto-Focus Lens Forum, I can assure you that this lens is extremely competent. IMO, it far exceeds the IQ of older Nikkor lenses that cost double or even triple the price. Here is a link to a review from a very well respected authority.
Thanks for extra photos of your beautiful birds and the link.
While I was interested in the performance of the 55-300 lens, I have to say, the more photography I do the more I realise the value of high ISO for low light. The D3200 has impressive high ISO performance.
Sorry I took so long to reply; I lost track of the thread and found it in a search I did.
OK, here are two more images to compare high ISO capabilities between the D3s and the D3200. Both of these shots were taken at ISO 6400. The top one was with the D3s. This isn't apples and apples, but pretty close. Once again, this is an ISO comparison vs. an IQ comparison. There is obviously some camera movement because of the slow shutter speeds in many of these shots.
EDIT: Tomorrow or the next day, I am going to post a few comparisons between the D2Xs and the D3200 at ISO 800. For those who don't know, the D2Xs used to be Nikon's flagship pro body. I'll need fill flash if I'm going to use Marco or Marcy, the birds, as models.