Reading mode: Light Dark

D700 - how much noise improvement at high ISO

Go to last post
P

partitura

Well-known member
Messages
119
Reaction score
0
Location
US
I'm a current D80 owner - shooting a lot of dance in low light conditions. I'm using mainly a 50mm f/1.4 lens, with ISO set at 1600 and still having trouble getting fast enough shutter speeds.

For those of you who have made the move up to a D700 - what is your feeling about the noise improvements at high ISO, compared with a D80 (or something similar). Do you think I might get one or two stops of extra speed with the equivalent noise?

For example would the noise of a D700 at ISO 6400 roughly equal a D80 at 1600? Or am I too hopeful??
 
Haven't ever used a D80, but I'd say that the D3 (which shares the same sensor as the D700) is better at high ISOs than the D200 was by at least 2-3 stops -- and better than the D300 from what I've seen by about 1.5-2 stops.
--
Cheers,
Joe
 
partitura said:
For example would the noise of a D700 at ISO 6400 roughly equal a D80
at 1600? Or am I too hopeful??
Click to expand...
I think 2 stops is a safe bet. Maybe even more ... But where the FX sensor really shines IMO is its ability in the intermidiate range; 800 is essentially noise free, and only a little bit of luminance noise at 1600. 3200 still very very good.

I get more details at 6400 than I did at ISO1600 with my D300, but you could start to see some banding especially if you have direct light sources in your pictures ..
 
I had D80 and went via D300 to D700.

There is maybe a 1.5-2 steps difference in raw data but the important thing on top is that noise reduction works better on D700 (and D300) than on D80 because of different structure of noise so you may feel even up to 2.5-3 stops difference.

On my D80 I set the AutoISO max to 800 and on D700 I have it on 6400 without having complaints!

Another difference is that lenses tend to look sharper and you seem to have more details in the (low ISO) picture.

If your lenses allow then go D700!
--
Greetings
Franz
An amateur using a D700 with several nice Nikon lenses
http://einscherz.smugmug.com/
 
My experiments with the D700 are being heavily influenced by my fears of noise shooting with D2x and D80 bodies. I'm VERY hesitant to just turn it up - but when I have, I'm completely blown away. At 1600, I'm getting results better than d80 at 400. It's wildly better enough that I'm going to go out and just hunt for awful light for a day and never turn it down below 800, to see what I get.

I bought D80 bodies because the D2X was useless above 800. The D700 is a much bigger leap above the D80 than the D80 was over D2X. Big enough that I can't get a handle on how much better without an absurd torture test.
 
The D300 is one of the cameras I decided to skip over - I tend to be an every-other-generation guy. I know that some of my die-hard D300 using friends bought D700 bodies to be their low-light cameras, and they think they get at least one and a half stops objectively, and more than that subjectively. What that means is that a big part of the D3/D700 noise magic has to do with engineering what noise there is to be more visually acceptable.

If you're into architecture, I'm sure you'd be thinking FX. All the nifty PC lenses are pretty long on a DX sensor. Now that I have an FX body, I'm looking at a couple of the PC lenses myself.
Philip Scott said:
And what if you have used the D300 for your last 10,000 shots? Still
gasping or at least inhaling sharply?? Seriously...that's the leap I
am looking at taking to get wider with FX for Architectural
Photography.
--
http://philscottphotography.com
http://pwscott.smugmug.com
Click to expand...
 
The D300 is very capable in low light - but not in the same league as the D3/D700.

The D300 is way, way, way, way better than the D80/D200. I found I didn't want to use by D200 at ISO 800. But, with the D300 I'm perfectly happy up to 1600. The D3/D700 is nice up to around 6400.

I think the ISO 100 of the D200 is a tad cleaner than the ISO 200 of the D300, but not significantly so. I find the D300 in 14-bit is especially richer in color than the D200. The D3/D700 can always shoot in 14-bit (no extra shutter lag), so colors are nice and rich too.

If you're shooting architecture, then the FX would be a bonus to get more wide angle and the PC lenses.

j.

--
'The soul never thinks without an image.' - Aristotle

http://jfurlan.zenfolio.com
 
I just made the same switch a few weeks ago and I can tell you for sure that the D700 at 6400 is much better than the D80 at 1600. At 1600 images are awsome just a bit grainy but lots of detail and little color noise if any.

Something like that.
partitura said:
I'm a current D80 owner - shooting a lot of dance in low light
conditions. I'm using mainly a 50mm f/1.4 lens, with ISO set at 1600
and still having trouble getting fast enough shutter speeds.

For those of you who have made the move up to a D700 - what is your
feeling about the noise improvements at high ISO, compared with a D80
(or something similar). Do you think I might get one or two stops of
extra speed with the equivalent noise?

For example would the noise of a D700 at ISO 6400 roughly equal a D80
at 1600? Or am I too hopeful??
Click to expand...
--
Currently shooting w/Nikon gear
 
I came from a 1D MKII and 20D. I hated shooting at ISO 3200 equivalent so tried to stay at 1600 or below. The other day I set my D700 to auto ISO for night soccer, min shutter of 1/500 and max ISO of 6400. I frequently hit the upper end of the ISO range and the shutter speed dropped below 1/500 on occasion.

In reviewing the pictures, what really struck me was how sharp most of the images were, even at ISO 6400. No way this was possible with my other bodies. Here as an example at f2.8, ISO 3600 at the long end of a 80-200:



This shot has been substantially cropped.
 
A few more even higher

ISO 5600, 1/500, f4, 300mm



ISO 6400, 1/500, f4, 300mm



All posted shots have been cropped a fair bit. The low noise of this camera greatly impresses me but its the sharpness in near darkness that really amazes me. I can't ever remember getting sharp shots like this in similar lighting with my Canon bodies at ISO 3200 and the noise was far worse. I know that some say the 5D and 1DS III has better image quality than the D3/D700; maybe this is the case at lower ISOs but I love the Nikons at higher ISOs.

Randy
 
How would you compare ISO 100 on the D80 to ISO 200 on the D700 in terms of noise?
jlf said:
The D300 is very capable in low light - but not in the same league as
the D3/D700.

The D300 is way, way, way, way better than the D80/D200. I found I
didn't want to use by D200 at ISO 800. But, with the D300 I'm
perfectly happy up to 1600. The D3/D700 is nice up to around 6400.

I think the ISO 100 of the D200 is a tad cleaner than the ISO 200 of
the D300, but not significantly so. I find the D300 in 14-bit is
especially richer in color than the D200. The D3/D700 can always
shoot in 14-bit (no extra shutter lag), so colors are nice and rich
too.

If you're shooting architecture, then the FX would be a bonus to get
more wide angle and the PC lenses.

j.

--
'The soul never thinks without an image.' - Aristotle

http://jfurlan.zenfolio.com
Click to expand...
 
I own D80 and D700. I bought D700 because the performance of D80 at low light conditions (ISO800 and above) was dissapointing... I get certainly better
results at ISO 3200 with D700 compared to ISO 800 with D80...
I believe D700 is the best all around camera at the moment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top