Reading mode: Light Dark

D800 "ISO performance" clean to 1600 only?

Go to last post
2

260684

Senior Member
Messages
1,910
Reaction score
3
Location
UK
Seen this comment on Nikon Rumours: What do you think? I've seen a few samples too...Maybe it doesn't match the D3/D700's performance in low light.

"So just as many suspected… this is a mini-D3x on steroids. With a practical ISO limit of 1600, it’s DEFINITELY a studio/landscape camera. D3x-es will be going on eBay with a vengeance.

Well, damn. That means I’m DEFINITELY looking for a D3s or a way to afford a D4. I was at least hoping the D800 would have the same ISO capability as my D700.

Read more on NikonRumors.com: http://nikonrumors.com/2012/02/04/few-last-minute-nikon-d800-updates.aspx/#ixzz1lRdXmZsc "

It still looks interesting though. It also depends what you deem 'clean' to be. Next week will be interesting.
 
I, like many, want the D800 primarily for landscape (and some studio) work and will most often shoot it at native ISO.

Nice if "clean" above 1600, but not necessary for the kind of shooters the camera will be aimed at.

Been waiting for this baby for quite awhile and bought a 5DMkII in the meantime. Now, if D800 proves worthy the 5D2 will go on the auction block and I'll be a "one-camp Nikon man" again instead of owning both systems.

Keeping my fingers crossed!
 
agree
Chaz f64 said:
I, like many, want the D800 primarily for landscape (and some studio) work and will most often shoot it at native ISO.

Nice if "clean" above 1600, but not necessary for the kind of shooters the camera will be aimed at.

Been waiting for this baby for quite awhile and bought a 5DMkII in the meantime. Now, if D800 proves worthy the 5D2 will go on the auction block and I'll be a "one-camp Nikon man" again instead of owning both systems.

Keeping my fingers crossed!
Click to expand...
 
I considered my D3 and D700 useable until iso 3200, over that I didn't like it. Some claim getting excellent performance at iso 6400....

I expect D800 to be a stop cleaner than D7000 and that's more than enough for me.
--
Kindest regards.
Stany Buyle
http://www.nikonuser.info

I like better one good picture in a day than 10 bad ones in a second..
 
260684 said:
Seen this comment on Nikon Rumours: What do you think? I've seen a few samples too...Maybe it doesn't match the D3/D700's performance in low light.

"So just as many suspected… this is a mini-D3x on steroids. With a practical ISO limit of 1600, it’s DEFINITELY a studio/landscape camera. D3x-es will be going on eBay with a vengeance.

Well, damn. That means I’m DEFINITELY looking for a D3s or a way to afford a D4. I was at least hoping the D800 would have the same ISO capability as my D700.

Read more on NikonRumors.com: http://nikonrumors.com/2012/02/04/few-last-minute-nikon-d800-updates.aspx/#ixzz1lRdXmZsc "

It still looks interesting though. It also depends what you deem 'clean' to be. Next week will be interesting.
Click to expand...
The D700 isnt even clean at 1600 ! The D800 will be better.. !
 
It wouldn't make any sense.

The D3x was accused of lacking in the high iso department, but the reason was that it shared the Alpha 900 wonderful sensor: loads of dynamic range and beautiful colours, but noise creeping in early.

But that was 2007 or so. Just look at what the D7000, or the Nex-7 produce: pixel level may not be excellent, but general image is outstanding.

Even if it uses the now "old" D7000 sensor technology – meaning 1 stop or so below D700 – the D800 will have a 1.25x larger sensor, thus gathering enough light to recover that stop and even improve.

So, it will probably be competitive with the D700 at higher isos, but at lower isos it will probably be an amazing machine, with incredible detail and dynamic range.

I was pondering a D3s over my D700, but if the D800 lives up to these expectations, I won't have a doubt and buy one immediately.

Lory
--

'The human race is a race of cowards. And I'm not only marching in that procession, but carrying a banner.'
Mark Twain
 
rayman 2 said:
260684 said:
Seen this comment on Nikon Rumours: What do you think? I've seen a few samples too...Maybe it doesn't match the D3/D700's performance in low light.

"So just as many suspected… this is a mini-D3x on steroids. With a practical ISO limit of 1600, it’s DEFINITELY a studio/landscape camera. D3x-es will be going on eBay with a vengeance.

Well, damn. That means I’m DEFINITELY looking for a D3s or a way to afford a D4. I was at least hoping the D800 would have the same ISO capability as my D700.

Read more on NikonRumors.com: http://nikonrumors.com/2012/02/04/few-last-minute-nikon-d800-updates.aspx/#ixzz1lRdXmZsc "

It still looks interesting though. It also depends what you deem 'clean' to be. Next week will be interesting.
Click to expand...
The D700 isnt even clean at 1600 ! The D800 will be better.. !
Click to expand...
Dunno if I'd go that far. The D4 is a high iso camera, I expect the ISO performance to be poor compared to it. And I think it may struggle to match the D700. Who knows, wait and see!
 
Totally agree Stany.

I wouldn't take any stock in a "comment" on NR. Plus, on top of that the "spec" posted by NR is totally ambiguous. What is clean to one person is not going to be clean to another person.

In my opinion, and this is just my definition of clean, the D3 is not clean past ISO 800. To me "clean" means that there is almost no increase in noise over base ISO. The D3 (and the D700) do not qualify in my book based on my definition.

Now, having said that, the D3 and D700 are very, very usable up to ISO 3200. I have no problems using images shot at ISO 3200 if I need to. A tad application of noise reduction and they're fine. So what I guess I'm saying is that by my personal definitions, "clean" and "usable" are not even close to the same thing.

What was NR's definition of "clean"? I don't know. If it's anything like mine then the D800 would be a whole stop better than the D3 and D700. But who knows what NR meant. And since NR is probably only repeating information that it was fed, who knows what the original source meant.
stany buyle said:
I considered my D3 and D700 useable until iso 3200, over that I didn't like it. Some claim getting excellent performance at iso 6400....

I expect D800 to be a stop cleaner than D7000 and that's more than enough for me.
--
Kindest regards.
Stany Buyle
http://www.nikonuser.info

I like better one good picture in a day than 10 bad ones in a second..
Click to expand...
--
Mike Dawson
 
Totally fine with me. I don't even care for 1600, all I want is a super clean, native ISO 100 high resolution camera in a smaller than D3X/1DS3 package. I have few Canon/Nikon pro SLR bodies that can do high speed and/or high ISO when I need it, I am not a big fan of one fits all, and when it comes to landscape camera to carry around in the mountain, I prefer high resolution, small, light but with good weather sealing and great built quality.
 
In my opinion the D3/D700 are usable ´till ISO 3200, for the D3s it´s ISO 4000. If the D800 is usable to ISO 1600 (non cropped), I´ll be happy.

I don´t want the D800 only for base ISO, at some rare occasion everybody needs some ISO flexibility - e.g. if there´s no tripod allowed or if it´s impossible to place it.
 
What high ISO 36 Mpix downsized to 12 Mpix will look like.

There will be people, who will handhold a D800 in near darkness, but this camera really is meant to be shot with studio lighting at ISO 100 or on a tripod in the field.
This is how I intend to use it if I like the IQ.
--
Greetings from Germany,
Pam
http://www.model-kartei.de/sedcard/fotograf/184280/
 
260684 said:
Maybe it doesn't match the D3/D700's performance in low light.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't panic cause of one man's random comment on Nikon Rumors.
260684 said:
It also depends what you deem 'clean' to be.
Click to expand...
Very much so. So, is your D700/D3 "clean" shot in low light at ISO3200 and printed at A2?
260684 said:
The D4 is a high iso camera, I expect the ISO performance to be poor compared to it. And I think it may struggle to match the D700.
Click to expand...
Expectations based on?
260684 said:
Who knows, wait and see!
Click to expand...
Well, you seem to have already made up your mind.
 
What we've seen from D3s to 4 is increase in MP, DR, color depth and still maintain more or less the same high ISO noise, so it will be a reasonable guess that D800 will has similar noise level as D3x but more MP, better DR and color depth. Technology is improving however not in the pace as many other dream. ;)

--
http://www.fotop.net/DonaldChin
 
We have to see if by "clean" it means actually clean or "very fine grain", but I think it makes sense.

If the d800 is targeted to the landscape/studio photographers, where high isos are marginally used, then it makes sense to have a practical limit of clean images at 1600. That's way higher than most landscape/studio photographers will use ever.

Another matter is that we might hope that d800 should have been meant to be the d700 sucessor. But Nikon clearly wants d800 to be the practical d3x sucessor.
 
That will be likely at full res on your monitor (90-100PPI) at 100%.
260684 said:
Well, damn. That means I’m DEFINITELY looking for a D3s or a way to afford a D4. I was at least hoping the D800 would have the same ISO capability as my D700.
Click to expand...
Before going for a D3s or D4, print both D700 and D800 at all ISOs available, you'll likely be surprised.

--
Renato.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rhlpedrosa/
OnExposure member
http://www.onexposure.net/

Good shooting and good luck
(after Ed Murrow)
 
Be happy if the D800 matches the D7000 noise wise - pretty usable to Iso 3200.
 
IF it is at 36MP, and IF they have used IMX071 as a base (D7000: correct pixel size for 36MPFX) is the almost 0.5Ev better than the D700 at high ISO. At least 2EV better at base ISO.

D7000 sensor is about 1/3EV more light sensitive, and has less than half as much electronic noise - even though the pixels are only 31% as large for the area.

text from Joakim Bengtsson the_suede and the same discussion in Sweden Fotosidan

And
Text from Tore Helming same discussion , translated by google

1) Sensor The size

A larger sensor can collect more light. It is not relevant to compare pixel density without taking account to sensor size.

2) The noise per pixel

The noise per pixel, or comparisons of 100% on screen is not interesting for the end result in the finished image. D7000 from 2010, have better noise per pixel than the D70 from 2004. In the finished picture, the result is quite different. The noise per pixel will usually improve with more pixels, but when normalized to the same size, the result may be quite different.

3) Normalization

To compare the image quality should be made to the images of the same size whether it be on screen or in print. Ordinarily is normalized by the camera with higher MP reduced in size but also on the smaller pixel dense camera images enlarged to the pixel dense camera's size, the result is the same: a camera with more MP will provide better image quality in the finished image regardless of image size.

4) The result of the finished picture after all the editing

Many people make the mistake of comparing images in 100% excision without normalization or no editing. Interestingly, rather than how the image quality fare in the finished image after normalization and image processing. A camera with more MP may have higher noise but also better resolution that level of detail. The end result can then be expected to be the camera with more MP can withstand more noise reduction and sharpening, and therefore - even though the files are more noisy from the start - will give a better finished image.
 
With 36MP, the SNR per pixel to fall on all but base ISO, everything else is moonshine. What you win is detail after downscaling to the "old" resolution level. You usually can not have both in the same generation, both increased resolution AND reduce noise.

So, say that the amount of noise will be exactly the ISO6400 between D700 and D800 after it scaled down D800 at 12.3MP. The difference you then see is the picture BEHIND the noise, the visual detailing. The D700 loses an awful lot of detail at ISO6400, although the picture is still very good. A camera with the same relative noise values, but higher resolution, will not lose as much detail.

It's probably easier to imagine that the image is detailed as the ISO3200, but contains noise as of 6400?

The noise will also be much more fine-grained, and therefore much easier to make a good noise reduction on.

Text from Fotosidan in Sweden and the_suede , translated by google
 
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