Nevertheless, while this procedure works pretty well I prefer to use noise ninja in post-processing.
How would you determine that a picture is good or acceptable with minimum noise impact.
I do not judge my images by 100% viewing on screen but by test prints. (I come from the traditional darkroom school and that's how I have done it then and now
Thank you for your welcome.
I don't see how taking half as many pixels with the same noise per pixel would reduce noise. Additionally, using reduced shooting resolution is only available when shooting jpeg, which results in a poorer image than processing externally. If one were to shoot full frame and apply noise reduction to a degree that reduced the printing resolution to the equivalent of shooting half frame one would end up with a better print than just using half of the pixels. I wouldn't dream of shooting with in camera jpeg, no matter what the camera. High capacity memory cards are common and cheap now so that is almost a non-issue. It takes a bit longer to write the RAW file to the card and I suppose that might be a problem for sports photographers but I loath sports. I think the noise controversy has been blown out of proportion and shoot iso 800 much of the time with no noise problems esp. after noise reduction. The top of the line Nikon is certainly better at high ISOs but at more than three times the price, which is way beyond my budget.
Anyway, the noise issue is largely only present when pixel peeping at least when shooting at a reasonable ISO.