D500/D610/D4s/D5 at ISO 6400

[mxcoppell]

Just checked the latest DPReview D500 first impression review. From the High ISO samples for the 4 cameras mentioned in the title. How come I don't see the improvement for RAW noise from D610 to D5? I am D610 user and might be biased. Need a second pair of eyes to correct me, maybe. Looks to me D610 is better than D4S and, at lease the same as D5 if not better.

D500 is not even in the league with FX sensors.

Did I read something wrong?

 

[mxcoppell]

Still can't find a direct comparison of RAW noise level at 6400 between D500 and D700. Trying to adjust if the shifting from D700(8fps) to D500 worth the price.

 

[Jim Holtz]

Just checked the latest DPReview D500 first impression review. From the High ISO samples for the 4 cameras mentioned in the title. How come I don't see the improvement for RAW noise from D610 to D5? I am D610 user and might be biased. Need a second pair of eyes to correct me, maybe. Looks to me D610 is better than D4S and, at lease the same as D5 if not better.

D500 is not even in the league with FX sensors.

Did I read something wrong?

This is a comparison from Bill Claffs website. D5 has a 1 stop advantage above ISO 1600. D500 is very good for DX but still doesn't compare to FX for high ISO performance. The D500 excels for sports and wildlife.



I'll keep my D610. :-D



HTH



Jim

 

[AwesomeIan]

Just checked the latest DPReview D500 first impression review. From the High ISO samples for the 4 cameras mentioned in the title. How come I don't see the improvement for RAW noise from D610 to D5? I am D610 user and might be biased. Need a second pair of eyes to correct me, maybe. Looks to me D610 is better than D4S and, at lease the same as D5 if not better.

D500 is not even in the league with FX sensors.

Did I read something wrong?

This is a comparison from Bill Claffs website. D5 has a 1 stop advantage above ISO 1600. D500 is very good for DX but still doesn't compare to FX for high ISO performance. The D500 excels for sports and wildlife.

I'll keep my D610. :-D

HTH

Jim

Nice to see the D610 hanging with the big boys. I find mine very usable up to around ISO 5000. I try to stay away from 6400

--
Blog

http://iangeglia.wix.com/mysite

 

[mxcoppell]

Happy to find the D610 buddies! LOL

I tried to compare more with different FX sensors and found D610 sensor hangs around pretty well.

D500/D610/D800/D810 RAW noise at 3200. I am pretty sure that D610 wins out.



D500/D610/D800/D810 RAW noise at 6400. It's an easy one to tell the big difference.

 

[Yxa]

Happy to find the D610 buddies! LOL

I tried to compare more with different FX sensors and found D610 sensor hangs around pretty well.

D500/D610/D800/D810 RAW noise at 3200. I am pretty sure that D610 wins out.



D500/D610/D800/D810 RAW noise at 6400. It's an easy one to tell the big difference.

Different magnification

--
C-M

 

[D610 User 1867]

It seems that whenever anyone gets a new Nikon DSLR they start a thread about how great the high-ISO or low-light performance is as though there's been a great leap forward in sensor technology lately...

Anyway, the D500 is impressive for an APS-C sensor, it clearly holds its own against the full-frame bodies.

 

[mxcoppell]

I don't see the big jump as of High ISO performance. But the AF power of D610 is disappointing for tracking. For a travel camera, D610 is more than enough. But for moving targets, I normally fall back to the old faithful D700 and it's 8 years old AF beats D610 hands down.

 

[barrym1966]

Just checked the latest DPReview D500 first impression review. From the High ISO samples for the 4 cameras mentioned in the title. How come I don't see the improvement for RAW noise from D610 to D5? I am D610 user and might be biased. Need a second pair of eyes to correct me, maybe. Looks to me D610 is better than D4S and, at lease the same as D5 if not better.

D500 is not even in the league with FX sensors.

Did I read something wrong?

meanwhile in the real world, heres a real world ISO 6400 from a D750 crop

 

[barrym1966]

Just checked the latest DPReview D500 first impression review. From the High ISO samples for the 4 cameras mentioned in the title. How come I don't see the improvement for RAW noise from D610 to D5? I am D610 user and might be biased. Need a second pair of eyes to correct me, maybe. Looks to me D610 is better than D4S and, at lease the same as D5 if not better.

D500 is not even in the league with FX sensors.

Did I read something wrong?

meanwhile in the real world, heres a real world ISO 6400 from a D750 crop

that test looks heaps noisey compared to real life images

 

[AwesomeIan]

I don't see the big jump as of High ISO performance. But the AF power of D610 is disappointing for tracking. For a travel camera, D610 is more than enough. But for moving targets, I normally fall back to the old faithful D700 and it's 8 years old AF beats D610 hands down.

The only time the D610 AF has been a problem for me is in low light. The focus assist lamp helps in that situation. I leave it off and have only turned it on a couple times. I don't have problems tracking moving subject (i.e. birds in flight, kids running around). AF-C with D9 does the trick. Here are some pictures I took last week.


here we are at a high ISO. Lost some detail but the focus was spot on. Notice the tip of the wing is out of focus due to the DOF. However, the focus nailed on the body of the bird


Low ISO = good detail. Again the AF worked great



--
Blog

http://iangeglia.wix.com/mysite

 

[PaulV]

I don't see the big jump as of High ISO performance. But the AF power of D610 is disappointing for tracking. For a travel camera, D610 is more than enough. But for moving targets, I normally fall back to the old faithful D700 and it's 8 years old AF beats D610 hands down.

I loved my D700 the few years I had it, when it was new, until I sold it, but almost everything about the D610 is better, especially all the metrics by which you measure image quality. I got rid of my D600, too, which I loved, but I would choose that over my D700 any day of the week.

 

[mxcoppell]

Nice shots, Barry!

However, I care about the dark/shaded area the most. This especially important when shooting stage performance shots. These kinds of scenes normally have massive areas of shaded areas. How clean the shaded areas are handled decides how the "clean look" of the whole picture.

 

[mxcoppell]

I can clearly tell the difference between D610 AF and D700 AF when shooting kids soccer games. The initial lock-on speed of D700 is much faster and more accurate. For this kind of shooting scenario, subjects' timing and moving direction are always challenges. The keeper ratio from D700 is constantly higher.

But of course, D610 shots give me more space to crop with the same lens.

 

[scokill]

Just checked the latest DPReview D500 first impression review. From the High ISO samples for the 4 cameras mentioned in the title. How come I don't see the improvement for RAW noise from D610 to D5? I am D610 user and might be biased. Need a second pair of eyes to correct me, maybe. Looks to me D610 is better than D4S and, at lease the same as D5 if not better.

D500 is not even in the league with FX sensors.

Did I read something wrong?

meanwhile in the real world, heres a real world ISO 6400 from a D750 crop

Why shoot 1/500 f9 ISO6400?? Did you forget to change a setting?

 

[Marianne Oelund]

Just checked the latest DPReview D500 first impression review. From the High ISO samples for the 4 cameras mentioned in the title. How come I don't see the improvement for RAW noise from D610 to D5? I am D610 user and might be biased. Need a second pair of eyes to correct me, maybe. Looks to me D610 is better than D4S and, at lease the same as D5 if not better.

Looking at RAW results like this, one will not find huge differences between current camera models, as they are all approaching the limit of physics and light itself.

The major innovation in the D5 that sets it apart, is the advanced in-camera NR that produces much better detail and noise reduction than prior models - but is only utilized for its JPEG output. As I'm principally a JPEG shooter (due to sheer volume of output), the D5 suits me perfectly.

D500 is not even in the league with FX sensors.

DX cameras need to be compared at ISO settings that are one stop lower. In actual use, a DX camera with a specific lens model, is nearly equivalent to an FX camera with the same lens plus a TC-14.

For example, I typically shoot figure skating with the D5 and 70-200 VR II plus TC-14E wide open at f/4. If I used a D500, I'd omit the TC, use f/2.8 and set ISO one stop lower to obtain the same shutter speed: Makes a D500 sound attractive.

The FX advantage at higher ISO settings is only real when equivalent lenses are not available. For example, an FX camera with a 200 f/2 would be equivalent to a DX body with a 135 f/1.4, which is not obtainable. Also, I can use the D5 with the 80-400 VR at f/5.6, but there isn't an equivalent lens (55-270 or 60-300 f/4) for a DX camera: Doesn't make the D500 sound so attractive.

 

[Marianne Oelund]

The only time the D610 AF has been a problem for me is in low light. The focus assist lamp helps in that situation. I leave it off and have only turned it on a couple times. I don't have problems tracking moving subject (i.e. birds in flight, kids running around). AF-C with D9 does the trick. Here are some pictures I took last week.


here we are at a high ISO. Lost some detail but the focus was spot on. Notice the tip of the wing is out of focus due to the DOF. However, the focus nailed on the body of the bird

Howdy, neighbor! Herons at Sammamish River, I presume? My office is right next to the river and the trail makes a nice noon-time stroll, especially when the winter ducks are around.

Have you been out to the Heron rookery in Kenmore?



--
Source credit: Prov 2:6
- Marianne

 

[mxcoppell]

Well put, Marianne.

The only time sensor improvement really surprised me was the time D3 was announced. You might be right, with current generation of technology, the physical side of light sensing may not have too much space to squeeze now. This probably true for all the camera makers, including Sony.

 

[mxcoppell]

Indeed, nice BIF shots!

Is it straight out from D610? The lens looks good too! Sigma or Tamron?

 

[AwesomeIan]

The only time the D610 AF has been a problem for me is in low light. The focus assist lamp helps in that situation. I leave it off and have only turned it on a couple times. I don't have problems tracking moving subject (i.e. birds in flight, kids running around). AF-C with D9 does the trick. Here are some pictures I took last week.


here we are at a high ISO. Lost some detail but the focus was spot on. Notice the tip of the wing is out of focus due to the DOF. However, the focus nailed on the body of the bird

Howdy, neighbor! Herons at Sammamish River, I presume? My office is right next to the river and the trail makes a nice noon-time stroll, especially when the winter ducks are around.

Have you been out to the Heron rookery in Kenmore?

--
Source credit: Prov 2:6
- Marianne

You hit the nail on the head. I took these at Marymoor. I have not been to the rookery. Where is it at? I love shooting these birds. They are so crazy looking. Almost like some sort of ancient bird. Impressive you were able to see these were from Redmond. If only the weather was just a little better this week.

--
Blog

http://iangeglia.wix.com/mysite