Insanely impressive performance of D850 in low light and high ISO

b935925555c9421c8f2220613f71fd0d.jpg

I know the D850 is supposed to be on par with D750 when it comes to noise, but I don't remember getting results like this straight out of the camera at 4000 ISO on the D750. Perhaps the extra resolution (twice as much in this case) is changing the way high ISO images are perceived. Again, nothing but LR's default 25 sharpening. Oh, and high resolution or not, handheld on the long end of the 200-500 at 100th of a second.
 
Last edited:
I found it hard to believe when looking at the detail the D850 captured in extreme low light conditions of 1 ev - 5 ev with ISO's between 32K and 51K using fine jpeg. The photos taken by a Singapore photographer of a Fisher cat (apparently called a "Fishing cat in that country) are amazing using Nikon's 80-400mm lens at f5.6 while hand-held. All the details and photos are in this article which is a must see and read!

https://www.mentorgraphy.com/single-post/2017/10/21/Nikon-D850---Extreme-Low-Light-Challenge
Now waiting for the usual suspects to show up and try to throw shade on your enthusiasm, explianing why it isn't impressive to them as well as how it's not better than (insert camera model here).
 
Looks very good for ISO 4000.

Re. 1/100 SS ... were you sitting or standing while shooting?

Btw. it's one cute big eyed cat!
b935925555c9421c8f2220613f71fd0d.jpg

I know the D850 is supposed to be on par with D750 when it comes to noise, but I don't remember getting results like this straight out of the camera at 4000 ISO on the D750. Perhaps the extra resolution (twice as much in this case) is changing the way high ISO images are perceived. Again, nothing but LR's default 25 sharpening. Oh, and high resolution or not, handheld on the long end of the 200-500 at 100th of a second.
 
Last edited:
I found it hard to believe when looking at the detail the D850 captured in extreme low light conditions of 1 ev - 5 ev with ISO's between 32K and 51K using fine jpeg...
Hard to believe indeed. I just tried to duplicate this type of shot, using one of our resident felines. I turned off the lights in my studio, leaving only the indirect illumination from a 27" monitor. To my eyes, this created illumination levels similar to a very dark night, with perhaps partial moonlight. I put a D850 on tripod, with a 105mm f/1.4E.

First of all, the camera would not focus reliably in this situation, using PDAF or CDAF. My eyes are not good enough for manual focusing in such light. Live View was just a pane of flickering noise. I tried pre-focusing with a brighter light on, and then turning it off for some shots. Most of the resulting images were nothing at all like what is posted on the Mentography blog. Very noisy, even with High ISO NR enabled. I would not call them usable. Here's a link to the best one I produced. Raw file imported into Capture One, default processing, exported as JPEG. I did not try JPEG shots from camera.

ISO 25600, f/1.4, 1/40 sec.

http://julianv.zenfolio.com/img/s/v-2/p2595069504.jpg

I'd like to know how he gets those results. Does it require extensive PP? In any case, I am impressed.

Note that neither the photographer nor the OP of this thread claimed that only the D850 could produce this quality of low light captures. Perhaps other cameras can do it. But it might some serious skill by the camera operator.

EDIT:

I tried a few more test shots, attempting to more closely duplicate the shooting conditions described on the Mentorgraphy blog:

JPEG fine out of camera, f/5.6, 1/40 sec, High ISO NR Normal, ISO 25600, or Hi 1.0 or Hi 2.0.

The results were even worse than the shot that I linked above. Note that, at these ISO levels, the camera has only about 2 to 4 stops of dynamic range. The images that I made seem consistent with this. The ones in that blog seem to have much more DR, much less noise. I'm starting to wonder if those images are legit.
 
Last edited:
This is really funny! :D

"A straight out of camera JPEG FINE only resized to 3000 pixels for upload"

Should be read as:

Resized to 3000 pixels because at original resolution it looked like c*ap.

When shooting high ISO, does getting small raw file from camera offer any advantage over working with large files from the camera in post production?
 
Interesting, but I bet none of those were cropped much, and most of the images he posted on that page were like 400x600. I'd have to see the same shots taken with another camera to make any kind of judgment. Without a basis for comparison, it doesn't mean much.
It does. Based on the exposure settings he shared (f/5.6, ISO 40.000, 1/20th (!!!) of a second) you can deduct that this is absolutely silly dark... pitch-black even... it's amazing he even managed to get accurate focus on his subject in that kind of darkness.

Of course these are downsized without cropping (he does share 200% crops in his post though). If you were to view this without NR and at 100% full screen you'd probably see a ton of noise.

But that's not the point. The point is apparently you can make pictures in total darkness which are (after processing) ridiculously sharp, noise-free, still have contrast and some colour in them, so at the end of the day: perfectly usable.

I have a very hard time replicating these kind of results, so I'm in awe of this (assuming they are real).

--
www.barbellphotography.com
STS2

Indeed.

The safari starts always like 10PM in the mini-jungle. They drive the van like 5o yards, stop and turn the lights off and so on. No flash is allowed. Pitch black. Even with a full moon, under canopies could hardly see the guy siting next to you. None is allowed to step out of the truck.

It does not run on daylight, it is very always late in the night.

Ol G

--
Old Greenlander
"I show the world the way I see it"
35 years of photography and still learning
Yep, been there about 3 times to the Night Safari. Great experience. You can also walk the zoo via paths and take photos. Here are some from a trip in 2011 using the trusty oldD700. I remember at the time taking the photo and a Canon guy with a 1DX coming up to me and asking to look at my photo on the back screen and then walking away shaking his head in disbelief. He couldn't get the photo!! LOL.

D700 + 70-200 f2.8G VRII, 1/25s f/2.8 at 200.0mm iso25600

original.jpg


D700 + 70-200 f2.8G VRII, 1/25s f/2.8 at 200.0mm iso25600



original.jpg




--
Lance B
 
I found it hard to believe when looking at the detail the D850 captured in extreme low light conditions of 1 ev - 5 ev with ISO's between 32K and 51K using fine jpeg. The photos taken by a Singapore photographer of a Fisher cat (apparently called a "Fishing cat in that country) are amazing using Nikon's 80-400mm lens at f5.6 while hand-held. All the details and photos are in this article which is a must see and read!

https://www.mentorgraphy.com/single-post/2017/10/21/Nikon-D850---Extreme-Low-Light-Challenge
...these results seem too good to believe. Looks like flash was used to illuminate the subject (see the catch light in the cat's eyes).

Doesn't change the fact that those are some impressive results at stupid-high ISO, but it changes the whole story about getting this much detail and contrast from such a dark environment. High ISO or not, using flash makes an enormous difference in picture quality (sharpness, colour saturation, contrast).

--
www.barbellphotography.com
 
Last edited:
...these results seem too good to believe. Looks like flash was used to illuminate the subject (see the catch light in the cat's eyes).
Would he use 1/15s when using flash?
 
...these results seem too good to believe. Looks like flash was used to illuminate the subject (see the catch light in the cat's eyes).
Would he use 1/15s when using flash?
Down loaded this one 04f6b7_91580816fcc54d789459dcb25dd02853~mv2_d_3000_1999_s_2.jpg and the exif says no flash..

 
Last edited:
It is images and narratives, such as these, for which I have been waiting, to confirm low-light AF capability, helping me to decide whether to buy a D5 or D850. Thanks for posting the link.
 
...these results seem too good to believe. Looks like flash was used to illuminate the subject (see the catch light in the cat's eyes).
Would he use 1/15s when using flash?
Down loaded this one 04f6b7_91580816fcc54d789459dcb25dd02853~mv2_d_3000_1999_s_2.jpg and the exif says no flash..

https://static.wixstatic.com/media/...54d789459dcb25dd02853~mv2_d_3000_1999_s_2.jpg
 
It is images and narratives, such as these, for which I have been waiting, to confirm low-light AF capability, helping me to decide whether to buy a D5 or D850. Thanks for posting the link.

--
I wear a badge and pistol, and make evidentiary images at night, which incorporates elements of portrait, macro, still life, landscape, architecture, and PJ. I enjoy using both Canons and Nikons.
What would you be shooting? Seems like having a choice between a D850 and D5 is strange as the D5 is very targeted in its use....although you could use it for general photography.
I already use a D3s for much “general” photography, because I tend to shoot in the evening and at night, so a D5 would be a logical progression. I use a Df, too, which has a better sensor (than the D3s) for low light, but not nearly the AF capability.

As for subjects, I am fascinated by local owls. I am often able to get very close to Screech Owls, perched on low-hanging oak branches, making their distinctive call, which is not a screech, in spite of their name. (I could use flash, but, well, no.) Juvenile Great Horned Owls make a very distinctive sound when begging for food from their parents. This begging call continues after the juveniles are able to fly, and are being taught to hunt.

We have Yellow-Crown Night Herons and Fulvous Tree Ducks in our neighborhood, too, both very active in low light, though the ducks are not actually truly nocturnal. (We may erect nest boxes next year, as the rotten portion of the tree, in the neighbor’s yard, which the ducks previously used, finally had to be trimmed, before it fell.)

Two blocks away is a small, heavily-wooded nature center, which is a designated site on the Great Texas Coastal Birding Trail. Other sites are relatively close; we are along the routes followed by migrating birds that follow the coast, as well as the birds that fly across the Gulf of Mexico, to and from the Yucatan Peninsula.

I have, actually, mostly used Canon gear for bird/wildlife shooting, at least in good light, but as my wife is a dedicated Nikon shooter*, presently loving her D500 and 80-400G, it makes sense to buy Nikon-mount lenses when we start acquiring really expensive tele lenses. My newest “baby” is a Chubby Baby, a pre-owned Nikkor 200/2 VR.

My wife is very interested in visiting the US Pacific Northwest and western Canada relatively soon, for nature photography, and anthropological reasons, as she is very interested in a particular tribe in the region. Coastal rain forest is, obviously, shaded. Another region we love is along and near the Natchez Trace Parkway, very heavily-wooded.

I could use a better night-shooting camera for some police-related tasks, too, as I am assigned to night shift, but I am likely to retire in early 2018, so would probably not be able to acquire a D850 before then, and would not be able to afford a D5 until after retirement, when I will be compensated for a large amount of unused leave. (I use a pair of 7D Mark II cameras, with several flashes, for crime scenes.)

*My wife is the mentor who persuaded me to try SLR photography, and guided my early path. Although she insists she is happy with DX, I foresee buying her a D850, even if I do not buy one for myself.

--
I wear a badge and pistol, and make evidentiary images at night, which incorporates elements of portrait, macro, still life, landscape, architecture, and PJ. I enjoy using both Canons and Nikons.
 
Last edited:
I found it hard to believe when looking at the detail the D850 captured in extreme low light conditions of 1 ev - 5 ev with ISO's between 32K and 51K using fine jpeg. The photos taken by a Singapore photographer of a Fisher cat (apparently called a "Fishing cat in that country) are amazing using Nikon's 80-400mm lens at f5.6 while hand-held. All the details and photos are in this article which is a must see and read!

https://www.mentorgraphy.com/single-post/2017/10/21/Nikon-D850---Extreme-Low-Light-Challenge
A polar bear in a snowstorm
 
...these results seem too good to believe. Looks like flash was used to illuminate the subject (see the catch light in the cat's eyes).
Would he use 1/15s when using flash?
Down loaded this one 04f6b7_91580816fcc54d789459dcb25dd02853~mv2_d_3000_1999_s_2.jpg and the exif says no flash..

https://static.wixstatic.com/media/...54d789459dcb25dd02853~mv2_d_3000_1999_s_2.jpg

--
karl reed "let's change the tone-civility in!"
Then what's the catchlight in the cat's eye?
It probably was some kind of auxiliary light like a flashlight. You don't want to blunder around in the jungle in the dark; you could fall in the creek. Note that the background in the cat photos was quite dark. This suggests that the cat was illuminated by something, probably a hand-held light.

You can't take pictures in the dark. Dim light, yes. But not in darkness.

--
Leonard Migliore
It definitely looks like some kind of light source was used. Like others mentioned, look at the catch light in the eyes. I can't imagine any camera doing that well in total darkness. We need photons to make pictures :-)



8edf98c8c0724e35b36b6f3728baed14.jpg.png
 
I found it hard to believe when looking at the detail the D850 captured in extreme low light conditions of 1 ev - 5 ev with ISO's between 32K and 51K using fine jpeg...
Hard to believe indeed. [...]

ISO 25600, f/1.4, 1/40 sec.

http://julianv.zenfolio.com/img/s/v-2/p2595069504.jpg

I'd like to know how he gets those results. Does it require extensive PP? In any case, I am impressed.
There was some artificial light involved, and it seems like it was a perfect daylight, if not even more blue-ish white type of light source, on the subject itself. If you look at anything but, you will see how "good" the camera does there. So, instead of using tungsten or even worse light sources, make them white, maybe even with a hint of blue, ideally properly lighting the subject.

Next important thing is to have a subject which supports strong finer contrast in itself. Your cat has relatively uniform coloring and only some large scale / low frequency contrast, barely any finer contrast to offer. If you squint your eyes at your picture and at the pictures of the referenced article/blog, you will see how much more detailed contrast all over the subjects there is compared to your cat.

So, nothing special to see here, just perfect conditions to get good pictures while using ISOs far beyond what the camera is able to handle without trickery of that sort.
 
Last edited:
I found it hard to believe when looking at the detail the D850 captured in extreme low light conditions of 1 ev - 5 ev with ISO's between 32K and 51K using fine jpeg. The photos taken by a Singapore photographer of a Fisher cat (apparently called a "Fishing cat in that country) are amazing using Nikon's 80-400mm lens at f5.6 while hand-held. All the details and photos are in this article which is a must see and read!

https://www.mentorgraphy.com/single-post/2017/10/21/Nikon-D850---Extreme-Low-Light-Challenge
A polar bear in a snowstorm
 
No mention of a flash being used even though you can see it in the eyes and the shadows. lol using a 80 400mm 5.6 will obviously hunt.
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top