Top Nikon High ISO performers for DX and FX.

TaoTeJared

Good video find! I like seeing the D700 in the mix as well.

Except for very specialized circumstances, the other properties of these 3 cameras (size, weight, control system, focus, resolution, cost, frame rate, versatility, body robustness etc) are the decision points for purchase or suitability. Relative high ISO performance is a trivial factor in this comparison.

I am not even sure that these very small differences in quantum sensor efficiency will ever actually translate to a noticeable and repeatable difference in real photography and PP.

Many still use D300, even though the D7100 is a much better high ISO camera because of the above reasons.

Regards .... H

+1
To many focus on High ISO noise as a factor in making a body purchase - in real world, it is very low on the list of needs. As he showed, (although image sample would be for beneficial when looking at 7mp downsized) when you downsize the images you can easily shoot any of them to 6400. If High ISO is truly a need, then you will be buying a D4 and have the money to do so.

DXV_Photo

NP guys. I was lucky to run across that video for this discussion.

ads

You might find this comparison interesting - shows D600 compared to D800, D700 and D3s in the full range of ISO performance, all files reduced to 12mp for comparison before cropping:

http://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-d600

From what I've read the D3s is fairly close to the D4 in this dept (anyone shot both?).

There's little in it for the best part between all of them (though the D700 falls back by a stop at higher levels) reinforcing the general point of this thread that image quality at high ISO isn't a significant factor between the current bodies.

Golf007sd

@DXV_Photo: Great find amigo. Thank you for sharing it with us. Very informative.
@TaoTeJared: Well put!

That said, it is the final result that counts. Take this shot for example by a friend of mine that has a D3s shot at 12800. As a D4 owner, I would be a fool to say that his cameras is nothing but amazing. I wish I was there to see him take it....yet here I'm some 10,000 miles away giving him a high-five...and happy to do so.

Image info: D3s 24-120 1/8 ISO 12800 @ f/4.0 -1/2 EV

TaoTeJared

That is Nuts Golf! Who could -1 that? Playing around with settings, my D800 can't do that at all. The top is 6400 for good quality. Paid stuff, I don't go above 2500 for anything that might get printed to a 8x10 or viewed full screen. The fact is, great quality drops after iso 400 (most previous cameras this dropped lower than that if not after their native iso) so depending on the end use, the high iso performance could not matter at all.

In my office I have a 52" LCD TV that I preview images on (which many use similar to show family/friends/workers) and it's not the noise, but the blurring from noise reduction that starts to show it's nasty head.

With more experience one gains, you begin to understand High iso performance just means iso 400 looks better, 1.4/2.8 glass is bought so you can beat the hell out of it and it still works and is rarely shot wide open, larger bodies are better for balance, U1&U2 is nothing compared to the 99+ custom settings I can program into a pro-style body but never do because the muscle memory in my thumbs can set the settings up almost without looking, and when you are out shooting, you are complaining about the weight of this dang stuff and silently envy the person with the "Kit" camera as their feet and back won't hurt as much tomorrow.

spraynpray

That is a shot taken by Darkslide - formerly of this forum but ejected due to a misunderstanding with the management. He has to shoot without flash in venues where any distraction is intolerable hence using such a High ISO.

Msmoto

FYI..my shot on PAD today is ISO 204,800 in almost total darkness.

SquamishPhoto

better, 1.4/2.8 glass is bought so you can beat the hell out of it and it still works and is rarely shot wide open,

You've got to be kidding. Maybe if you're vision is terrible and you can't nail focus, but I know few people who "rarely" shoot wide open with expensive fast primes. Most people who own the 200 f2 tend to never shoot anything other than f2. Myself its generally at f2 and deviates occasionally to 2.2 or 2.5. The performance of many fast primes is so good at those widest apertures that the only variable one needs to mitigate during shooting is flaring and CA from intrusive light.

TaoTeJared

Probably depends what you shoot. If you do single subject portraits - maybe, but get more than one subject in a frame that needs focus, even 2.8 doesn't cover most situations. I suppose I'm not a fan of the "single eyeball in focus shot" for my work. To each their own.

heartyfisher

i thnk now that we have the High iso FX sorted out. can we turn to 2 other espects of this thread i wanted to address?
namely.
1) What is the order of High ISO performance for the DX range.
2) Does any of the DX cameras actually beats an FX camera? Specifically does Any DX camera beat the D700? (The D700 being the worst performing FX camera in terms of High ISO)

Any one have a D700, D7000 and 7100, to compare to see the High ISO performances of these cameras?

SquamishPhoto

Probably depends what you shoot. If you do single subject portraits - maybe, but get more than one subject in a frame that needs focus, even 2.8 doesn't cover most situations. I suppose I'm not a fan of the "single eyeball in focus shot" for my work. To each their own.

Sounds like you need to spend some more time shooting in different situations to understand that subject distance can make up for loss of DOF. Get two subjects at different distances in frame from too close of a shooting position and f8 wouldn't get everyone in focus(same goes for a tilted headshot at f8). When shooting sports action from a parallel postion to the athletes direction of travel it can allow for wide open shooting and also successfully nailing focus where one wanted it. Example below:


200 f2 @ f2 • 1/1000 • ISO 100

TaoTeJared

Sounds like you need to spend some more time shooting in different situations to understand that subject distance can make up for loss of DOF

Well aware of it - thought that went without saying. As I said, it depends on subjects. I do a fair amount of shooting wide open for personal stuff, but a lot of what I do are events, business products, home/commercial remodels, I'm at f4-f16 most of the time (unless the event coordinator wants a photojournalistic style). Even the boring head shots I'm at F5.6-8 so the nose to ears are sharp. I generally don't have more than 10-15ft of space to move back in.

I'm not trying to take away from anyone who properly applies shooting wide open - just the reality of the work that pays the bills, is rarely that.

TaoTeJared

i thnk now that we have the High iso FX sorted out. can we turn to 2 other espects of this thread i wanted to address?
namely.
1) What is the order of High ISO performance for the DX range.
2) Does any of the DX cameras actually beats an FX camera? Specifically does Any DX camera beat the D700? (The D700 being the worst performing FX camera in terms of High ISO)

Any one have a D700, D7000 and 7100, to compare to see the High ISO performances of these cameras?

I'm sure the D7100/D5200 are right with each other at the top, then the D3200/D7000. No matter what year of releases, this has always held true with the "newest" generation of releases. I have yet to see anyone say DX has surpassed the D700 on High iso yet (D700 still has a stop better). The catch is the resolution sampling with the new sensors that can make up "perceived" ground when downsampled. The caveat is the retention of detail from 1600-6400 between the two where "measurements" just don't take into account.

Seeing all companies High ISOs, only Fujifilms DX sensors have matched the first gen FX sensors - Canon maybe real close, if not there now as well. Of course both are keeping their sensors at that 16-18mp mark as well. Nikon, with it's choice to go with higher resolution, has not added much, if any headroom for great quality at high isos but the quality of the images at lower isos do appear better. Just like everything else, it's all a balance and putting emphasis in one area over another.

DXos tests.

SquamishPhoto

I'm not trying to take away from anyone who properly applies shooting wide open - just the reality of the work that pays the bills, is rarely that.

For you, perhaps? The plurality of people I know shooting exotic fast glass have no hesitation about shooting paying gigs wide open. Maybe among your circle things are different, but I'd imagine you're in the extreme minority.

Aaron

Well I do a lot of nighttime work.

IMO nothing compares to the d3s. Used a d4 and d800 just not quite the same thing.

One thing I can comment on is the d4 autofocuses better then the d3s and has better color retention but in the dark it seems if I get the focus right the d3s images just come out cleaner.

Just my 2cents

Msmoto

Let us keep comments about the subject and not about any other's work experience.

donaldejose

Fast glass shot wide open is great, in fact essential, for certain purposes. Likewise, medium apertures are great, in fact essential, for certain purposes. High ISO is great, in fact essential, for certain purposes. etc, etc. It is all about having tools in a toolbox and being able to take out and use effectively the right tool to create the effect you are seeking to produce. But which Nikon DX sensors are the best at high ISO? I don't know and I don't think we can make a list yet until all the DX sensor are here (still waiting on the D400 which should be at the top of the list but who knows until it gets here).

heartyfisher

Nice blog posting comparing all the FF cameras for High ISO. that D600 sure looks tempting now.. too bad about the oil spots issue.. How bad is it really ? sigh.. I will ask that on the Oily thread :-)

http://www.borrowlenses.com/blog/2013/03/the-best-nikon-for-night-photography/

Golf007sd

I'm in agreement with David Kingham when he says:

"When price is taken out of the factor, the D4 is king. It is incredible in every aspect. It wins in overall performance–hands down. I found the images to be consistently clean, detailed, and with pleasing colors. If money is no object, get the D4 and never look back–it is truly exceptional."

Check mate :P

spraynpray

@Golf007sd You are coming over as rather boastful lately. :-q

Golf007sd

@spraynpray: I'm quoting what is in the article. If you do not agree state your position....

spraynpray

My point is not the correctness of the review Ali (which of course I agree with - who wouldn't expect that at the price of the D4?), it is the 'check mate' comment which comes over as 'ha-ha, mine is the best!' Maybe 'elitist' would have been a better choice of word than boastful, but you know what I mean.

There are people in the club I belong to with D40's, 60's and 80's who think my D7000 is 'wowee' because they have the most they can afford. I don't rub their noses in the differences in performance to make me feel 'better than', and they don't produce bad pictures because their cameras aren't the latest greatest. In fact one of the best shots of the year last year came out of a D60. The guy with the D800? Nowhere. The D800 just shows that he has deep pockets, but that's all.

Golf007sd

The article in the link is talking about: "The Best Nikon for Night Photography." Moreover, the topic of this tread is: "Top Nikon High ISO performers..." If the end user is trying to obtain the best photograph at night, where by he or she is not happy with the result obtained with their current Nikon body, then the end user will have to be willing to spend some capital in getting that shot. David Kingham has chosen to compare the current Nikon FX bodies and share with the public at large those results. Note the first few words of the paragraph: "When price is taken out of the factor, the D4 is king..." The author is thus taking price out of equation in his conclusion when comparing the bodies agains each other. You have not.

Side bar: Look up Ethos, Logos, and Pathos and how it is used in argumentative writing. It will help better understand how to author is trying to make his point.

heartyfisher

I guess it deps on your perspective.. for me i read the results of the blog as the D3S being the best High ISO sensor second is the D4 and a third is the D600 these 3 being really close in performance sensor wise. that makes the D600 exceptional value for money !

heartyfisher

Thought we needed an update on this thread.. we now have the new high iso performance king in the Df .. not only does the DXO measurements show it as a slight improvement on the D3S but also comments forums and vlogers like matt granger seem to point to a subjective assessment that it is indeed the best High ISO performer.
Another interesting Dxo result shows that the D610 performs marginally worse than the D600 in High ISO. However most comments I have read say that they are at least equal maybe the D610 even edges out the older D600.

Which leads me to believe that there is some quality (magic nikon dust?) in the latest batch of Nikon cameras that provides some perceivable subjective improvement in High ISO although this is not fully measurable. our own @spraynpray is adamant that the D7100 has about 1 or more stop high ISO performance improvement over the D7000 although the DXO measurements doesn't show this at all ( i need to check this but I thought the D7000 dxo score for high iso was better!).

So for the best HIGH ISO performance in the DX we have the D7100 and D5300 and now the D3300 will probably be the new DX hi ISO prince... if the numbers are right it should clearly perform better than the D3/D700.

One thing that frustrates me is the Fuji sensor.. most people put the Fuji XTrans sensor high ISO performance as significantly higher than the D7000 and some even say it beats the D800. but there are not good test results that I have found that conclusively shows either way..