Reading mode: Light Dark

D500/D610/D4s/D5 at ISO 6400

Go to last post
mxcoppell said:
Indeed, nice BIF shots!

Is it straight out from D610? The lens looks good too! Sigma or Tamron?
Click to expand...
I shot in raw and processed in lightroom. Nothing drastic. Pretty much the same workflow I use for all wildlife shots. Add some sharpening and contrast. Reduce shadows. Maybe adjust the white balance a bit.

I was using the tamron 150-600 handheld. Light was good that day so I could get a nice 1/2000 shutter. The young eagle turned out really sharp. Maybe one of the best pictures I have got with this lens. Lots to do with the time of day and how close he was. I kinda lucked out.
 
AwesomeIan said:
mxcoppell said:
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.
Click to expand...
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
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
Low ISO = good detail. Again the AF worked great

bd48c3c2dd824912bed94210743707bf.jpg

-
Click to expand...
With respect, shooting slow-flying herons and circling raptors is not particularly challenging, nice as your images are. The flight is slow and 99% predictable. Further, in these examples the birds' line of flight is transverse to the camera/lens, which is again not particularly challenging to follow. Following the play in a football (soccer) game or AFL (USA) game from near range (sidelines) is far more difficult. Or try shooting swallows in flight or even terns near the sea.

--
Mike McEnaney. (emem)
www.veritasmea.com
 
emem said:
AwesomeIan said:
mxcoppell said:
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.
Click to expand...
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
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
Low ISO = good detail. Again the AF worked great

bd48c3c2dd824912bed94210743707bf.jpg

-
Click to expand...
With respect, shooting slow-flying herons and circling raptors is not particularly challenging, nice as your images are. The flight is slow and 99% predictable. Further, in these examples the birds' line of flight is transverse to the camera/lens, which is again not particularly challenging to follow. Following the play in a football (soccer) game or AFL (USA) game from near range (sidelines) is far more difficult. Or try shooting swallows in flight or even terns near the sea.

--
Mike McEnaney. (emem)
www.veritasmea.com
Click to expand...
I have shot swallows in flight. They are tough! The problem is if they are close the flight is really unpredictable and I can't track them zoomed in at 600mm with them filling a good portion of the frame. I believe the problem isn't with the AF system unable to get focus but more the speed of the AF motor in the lens itself.

The herons are definitely easier but are challenging in there own right. I would say if I spot one flying I might get 5 seconds to get focus and fire off some shots before they are too far away. I would like to add that if the bird is flying towards me, or away, the composition doesn't do it for me. I like to get the eye in the picture. I actually do have many shots like that where I did get focus but I never converted them from raw.

Really at the end of the day the D700 and other camera bodies probably have more advanced AF systems. In fact the D500 is very tempting for the AF alone. I constantly see the D610 getting slagged for poor AF. I just don't see it. Mine works great. Perhaps ignorance is bliss for me :-)

--
Blog
 
AwesomeIan said:
emem said:
AwesomeIan said:
mxcoppell said:
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.
Click to expand...
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
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
Low ISO = good detail. Again the AF worked great

bd48c3c2dd824912bed94210743707bf.jpg

-
Click to expand...
With respect, shooting slow-flying herons and circling raptors is not particularly challenging, nice as your images are. The flight is slow and 99% predictable. Further, in these examples the birds' line of flight is transverse to the camera/lens, which is again not particularly challenging to follow. Following the play in a football (soccer) game or AFL (USA) game from near range (sidelines) is far more difficult. Or try shooting swallows in flight or even terns near the sea.

--
Mike McEnaney. (emem)
www.veritasmea.com
Click to expand...
I have shot swallows in flight. They are tough! The problem is if they are close the flight is really unpredictable and I can't track them zoomed in at 600mm with them filling a good portion of the frame. I believe the problem isn't with the AF system unable to get focus but more the speed of the AF motor in the lens itself.

The herons are definitely easier but are challenging in there own right. I would say if I spot one flying I might get 5 seconds to get focus and fire off some shots before they are too far away. I would like to add that if the bird is flying towards me, or away, the composition doesn't do it for me. I like to get the eye in the picture. I actually do have many shots like that where I did get focus but I never converted them from raw.

Really at the end of the day the D700 and other camera bodies probably have more advanced AF systems. In fact the D500 is very tempting for the AF alone. I constantly see the D610 getting slagged for poor AF. I just don't see it. Mine works great. Perhaps ignorance is bliss for me :-)
Click to expand...
Just as a BTW - I should have added as a rider that I am pretty crap at BIF photography anyway, so there was no intention of criticising you from the position of superior ability. It was more of an abstract observation. :-D



--
Mike McEnaney. (emem)
www.veritasmea.com
 
emem said:
Just as a BTW - I should have added as a rider that I am pretty crap at BIF photography anyway, so there was no intention of criticising you from the position of superior ability. It was more of an abstract observation. :-D
Click to expand...
 
AwesomeIan said:
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.
Click to expand...
There are several dozen Heron pairs that come back to nest every year in Kenmore. The nests are located just north of the Park & Ride lot on Bothell Way, which is 1 block east of 73rd Ave, next to Kenmore Community Church. It is a park area which Swamp Creek passes through. If you go there in late winter or early spring before the trees leaf out, you can see the nests clearly, and as the chicks grow, many of them are openly visible. The parents keep busy flying back and forth between the nests and the river or lake.

The antics of these birds - not to mention the chicks - can be hilarious. You can photograph them from the parking lot; the nesting area is fenced off so you need to maintain a respectable distance.
 
mxcoppell said:
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.
Click to expand...
Bill Claff's data on Photographic Dynamic Range puts the D500 ever so slightly ahead of the D700 above ISO400. At ISO400 and below, the D500 is furthet ahead.

Since the D500 has a smaller sensor than the D700, it will have more shot noise.
 
Jim Holtz said:
This is a comparison from Bill Claffs website. D5 has a 1 stop advantage above ISO 1600.
Click to expand...
That's an advantage in Dynamc Range, not noise.

Bill's data shows the D5 actually has more read noise below ISO 6400. Shot noise should be the same because they have same size sensor.
Jim Holtz said:
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
Click to expand...
 
FingerPainter said:
Since the D500 has a smaller sensor than the D700, it will have more shot noise.
Click to expand...
Given the same shutter speed and subject distance and framing (i.e., keeping lens focal length in proportion to sensor width), it is the effective diameter of the lens objective which determines shot noise, not the sensor size.

Example: An FX camera with 70mm f/2.8 lens is no better than a DX camera with a 50mm f/2 lens; both have 25mm objective diameter.
 
Marianne Oelund said:
FingerPainter said:
Since the D500 has a smaller sensor than the D700, it will have more shot noise.
Click to expand...
Given the same shutter speed and subject distance and framing (i.e., keeping lens focal length in proportion to sensor width), it is the effective diameter of the lens objective which determines shot noise, not the sensor size.

Example: An FX camera with 70mm f/2.8 lens is no better than a DX camera with a 50mm f/2 lens; both have 25mm objective diameter.
Click to expand...
Well sure. But that requires you to have a different lens, with a smaller f-number for the smaller sensor. If all you own is a 50mm f/1.8 prime, you'll get less shot noise using it on a bigger sensor.

Same lens, same max aperture, making shooting distance inversely proportional to sensor diagonal to keep framing, and the larger sensor will have less shot noise, but you'll get different perspective.
 
FingerPainter said:
Jim Holtz said:
This is a comparison from Bill Claffs website. D5 has a 1 stop advantage above ISO 1600.
Click to expand...
That's an advantage in Dynamc Range, not noise.

Bill's data shows the D5 actually has more read noise below ISO 6400. Shot noise should be the same because they have same size sensor.
FingerPainter said:
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
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Not according to Bill. There was an extensive discussion with him regarding this exact question and he stated that his charts indicated noise performance and then went into lengthy detail explaining the technical reasons why.

If you disagree, you argue with him this time. He blew all of us dissenters out of the water very quickly. :-D

Jim
 
FingerPainter said:
Same lens, same max aperture, making shooting distance inversely proportional to sensor diagonal to keep framing, and the larger sensor will have less shot noise, but you'll get different perspective.
Click to expand...
Yes, but it's still not due to the larger sensor. In that case it's due to the closer shooting distance, allowing the same lens to admit more photons from the subject. Also, one often does not have a choice about subject distance.

The real advantage of the larger sensor is at base ISO, where it can accept more photons without saturating.
 
Jim Holtz said:
FingerPainter said:
Jim Holtz said:
This is a comparison from Bill Claffs website. D5 has a 1 stop advantage above ISO 1600.
Click to expand...
That's an advantage in Dynamc Range, not noise.

Bill's data shows the D5 actually has more read noise below ISO 6400. Shot noise should be the same because they have same size sensor.
Jim Holtz said:
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
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Not according to Bill. There was an extensive discussion with him regarding this exact question and he stated that his charts indicated noise performance and then went into lengthy detail explaining the technical reasons why.

If you disagree, you argue with him this time. He blew all of us dissenters out of the water very quickly. :-D
Click to expand...
Got a link?
Jim Holtz said:
Jim
Click to expand...
Perhaps you are misinterpreting Bill's comments. DR is definitely related to total noise (not just shot noise), but they are different. In addition to PDR charts, Bill also provides read noise charts.
 
Last edited:
Marianne Oelund said:
FingerPainter said:
Same lens, same max aperture, making shooting distance inversely proportional to sensor diagonal to keep framing, and the larger sensor will have less shot noise, but you'll get different perspective.
Click to expand...
Yes, but it's still not due to the larger sensor. In that case it's due to the closer shooting distance, allowing the same lens to admit more photons from the subject. Also, one often does not have a choice about subject distance.

The real advantage of the larger sensor is at base ISO, where it can accept more photons without saturating.
Click to expand...
SIgh.

I mount my D810 on a tripod and an 85mm f/1.8G lens on my D810. I set the aperture, shutter and ISO in M mode, without Auto-ISO.

I take a shot. Then I switch to DX crop mode, and take another shot with the same settings (the light on the scene hasn't changed.) while the per-pixel SNR is the same, the shot noise SNR of each whole image differs by a factor of about 1.4.

Only the sensor size has changed. How is it not the sensor size change that resulted in the different amount of light being collected and the different amount of noise therein?
 
Last edited:
FingerPainter said:
SIgh.

I mount an 85mm f/1.8G lens on my D810. I set the aperture, shutter and ISO in M mode, without Auto-ISO.

I take a shot,. Then I switch to DX crop mode, and take another shot with the same settings (the light on the scen hasn't changed.) whie eh per-pixle SNR is the same, teh shot noise SNR of each whole image differs by a factor of about 1.4.

Only the sensor size has changed. How is it not the sensor size change that resulted in the different amount of light being collectd and the different amount of noise therein?
Click to expand...
When you switch to DX crop without changing anything else, the size of your subject decreases. You are receiving photons from a smaller radiator - and, you are no longer taking the same photo.

How about if we stick to taking the same photo?

I'm really tired of the old lie about larger sensors producing better SNR. It's only true at base ISO, or when a comparable lens for the DX camera doesn't exist (which admittedly happens fairly often).

Larger lenses give you the advantage. There is a reason they call them "light buckets." No one calls larger sensors "light buckets." The point comes home quickly, when one switches from a DX body to an FX body, then realizes they need to add a 1.4x TC to do the same work. That's where I've been.
 
FingerPainter said:
Jim Holtz said:
FingerPainter said:
Jim Holtz said:
This is a comparison from Bill Claffs website. D5 has a 1 stop advantage above ISO 1600.
Click to expand...
That's an advantage in Dynamc Range, not noise.

Bill's data shows the D5 actually has more read noise below ISO 6400. Shot noise should be the same because they have same size sensor.
FingerPainter said:
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
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Not according to Bill. There was an extensive discussion with him regarding this exact question and he stated that his charts indicated noise performance and then went into lengthy detail explaining the technical reasons why.

If you disagree, you argue with him this time. He blew all of us dissenters out of the water very quickly. :-D
Click to expand...
Got a link?
FingerPainter said:
Jim
Click to expand...
Perhaps you are misinterpreting Bill's comments.
Click to expand...
I don't think so.
FingerPainter said:
DR is definitely related to total noise (not just shot noise), but they are different.
Click to expand...
They may be but Bill was very clear that his DR charts correlate pretty closely with noise performance. I forget where he sets the comparison line... 6.5 PDR? Compare cameras across that comparison line and you get the relative ranking of camera sensors for high ISO noise performance.
 
FingerPainter said:
Jim Holtz said:
FingerPainter said:
Jim Holtz said:
This is a comparison from Bill Claffs website. D5 has a 1 stop advantage above ISO 1600.
Click to expand...
That's an advantage in Dynamc Range, not noise.

Bill's data shows the D5 actually has more read noise below ISO 6400. Shot noise should be the same because they have same size sensor.
FingerPainter said:
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
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Not according to Bill. There was an extensive discussion with him regarding this exact question and he stated that his charts indicated noise performance and then went into lengthy detail explaining the technical reasons why.

If you disagree, you argue with him this time. He blew all of us dissenters out of the water very quickly. :-D
Click to expand...
Got a link?
FingerPainter said:
Jim
Click to expand...
Perhaps you are misinterpreting Bill's comments. DR is definitely related to total noise (not just shot noise), but they are different. In addition to PDR charts, Bill also provides read noise charts.
Click to expand...
Without rehashing the entire discussion I believe it goes like this:

Photographic Dynamic Range (PDR) is a function of Signal to Noise Ratio (SNR).

SNR is a function of noise.

Therefore PDR is a function of noise (as well as other factors).

However, noise in and of itself is not meaningful photographically.
What is important is how apparent noise is to the observer and that's why a measure based on a normalized SNR is the best place to start comparisons.

Regards,
 
Everything you wrote is correct but it's almost a matter of semantics. Although the larger sensor itself causing less noise, in practice it is so common that because of other reasons, the larger sensor does help with high ISO noise, it makes sense to refer to it like that.

I understand that you needed a TC to get the same results with FX, but IME in almost all cases people prefer the "better high ISO of FX" exactly because they can't or don't want to get lenses with more than one stop larger aperture (either they don't exist or not practical for one of several reasons).

When comparing the same photo you are right, different focal lengths and apertures would be more or less the same at high ISO, but why compare the same photo? If it\s the same there's no real point to compare FX and DX. The whole point is that they can be different with different advantages and disadvantages. So I'd say the practical comparison outweighs the technically correct comparison in this case.
 
I agree with you but this example is actually problematic. You are getting a very different frames, so the 100% noise is the same, but if you are looking at the same magnification then you are magnifying the DX photo much more and you get completely different frames.

Still I agree with you that in practice, almost no one is going to get lenses with more than a one stop larger aperture for DX just to get the same photo. So although technically the larger sensor doesn't have less high ISO noise, in practice it does.
 
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