D7100 - Face close-ups test images, harsh lighting, ISO 1600-6400

Started Apr 1, 2013 | Discussions
lock Veteran Member • Posts: 6,202
Re: That explains it

The default Nr seen in your NEF converted jpegs file (default NR values of intensity 22, strength 5, see above) comes from the in camera settings of NR. VNX basically translated your in camera settings to reproduce the effect you had on your camera. If you save the NEF from VNX, than you also save it with the NR in effect.

Disabling the NR settings in the camera should lead to no NR in a jpeg produced by VNX.

Reilly Diefenbach
Reilly Diefenbach Forum Pro • Posts: 13,226
Re: D7100 - Face close-ups test images, harsh lighting, ISO 1600-6400

If I can't get number four to look at least as good as this, I'll eat my Ottawa Senators tuque.

6400

 Reilly Diefenbach's gear list:Reilly Diefenbach's gear list
Nikon D500 Nikon D850
OP RudyPohl Veteran Member • Posts: 5,559
Re: That explains it

Hi everyone:

Thanks so much for all the helpful responses and comments. If I can steal some time this evening I will zip and upload all four NEF files and anyone you wants to try making something half-decent out of them can give it a shot.

It would be most helpful to see what someone who knows what they're doing in post processing can do with these.

Rudy

rhlpetrus Forum Pro • Posts: 25,859
These are actually excellent
3

Camera didn't try to compensate for ambient WB, it seems what we see is likely very close to what you saw there. Our brain plays tricks on us. Once I had my daughter pose for me were I'm typing here, with fluorescent lighting as well. I shot it and uploaded. It looked ugly, lots of extra greens and yellows at first sight. I called her back and looked carefully at image and then at her side by side. It was much closer than I would have believed from just a couple minutes earlier.

People tend to want camera to always produce someting close to the typical bright daylight WB. But lighting usually is not like that, especially in concerts and other night events, and we should not try to always make it look "daylight"-like. It tends to become quite artificial.

-- hide signature --

Renato.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rhlpedrosa/
OnExposure member
http://www.onexposure.net/
Good shooting and good luck
(after Ed Murrow)

 rhlpetrus's gear list:rhlpetrus's gear list
Leica D-Lux (Typ 109) Nikon D7000 Nikon 1 V1 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 12-24mm f/4G ED-IF Nikon AF Nikkor 35mm f/2D +4 more
Mako2011
MOD Mako2011 Forum Pro • Posts: 25,566
Edit...Always on

lock wrote:

The default Nr seen in your NEF converted jpegs file (default NR values of intensity 22, strength 5, see above) comes from the in camera settings of NR. VNX basically translated your in camera settings to reproduce the effect you had on your camera. If you save the NEF from VNX, than you also save it with the NR in effect.

Disabling the NR settings in the camera should lead to no NR in a jpeg produced by VNX.

There will always be some NR present at ISO 1250 and higher (though you can greatly reduce it with CaptureNX2, I think...not sure) even when High Iso Noise reduction is turned off. As per the manual on page 228..."Noise reduction is only performed at ISO sensitivites of ISO 1250 and higher. The amount of NR is less than the amount performed when Low is selected for High ISO NR"

In this pictuire...High ISO NR is set to "normal" per the EXIF

ISO 6400 RAW no PPing

-- hide signature --

My opinions are my own and not those of DPR or its administration. They carry no 'special' value (except to me and Lacie of course)

Brev00
Brev00 Veteran Member • Posts: 9,470
Re: D7100 - Face close-ups test images, harsh lighting, ISO 1600-6400

Thank you for the detailed response! . I have sort of the opposite attitude from you. While you test the camera to see if it meets your standards, after three years I still feel like I am chasing my D90. If my images don't work, it is usually me not coming up to standard. I believe that, as mosswing suggested, if you give the D7100 some time, you will come to a meeting of the minds. If I were you, I would just make sure the camera operates properly--according to spec--and then let the honeymoon begin. Relax and enjoy! If I can get decent wildlife shots with my gear, I am sure you will get images that blow you away. With time.
--
www.flickr.com/photos/brev00

 Brev00's gear list:Brev00's gear list
Nikon D90 Nikon D610 Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D Tamron AF 28-300mm F/3.5-6.3 XR Di LD Aspherical (IF) Macro Tamron SP AF 180mm F/3.5 Di LD (IF) Macro +5 more
Daisy AU
Daisy AU Senior Member • Posts: 1,565
Re: D7100 - Face close-ups test images, harsh lighting, ISO 1600-6400

Hi Rudy,

I think the third and second shots are quite good considering the high ISO and conditions.  I own the 70-300 VR and it is softer at both ends, which is pretty much the case with any consumer telephoto lens. We have to remember that it is NOT a portrait lens and considering all the above, I think the camera performed very well.

-- hide signature --

Thanks,
Daisy AU - Brisbane

 Daisy AU's gear list:Daisy AU's gear list
Nikon D7000 Nikon 1 V1 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 35mm F1.8G Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G VR +8 more
Daisy AU
Daisy AU Senior Member • Posts: 1,565
Re: D7100 - Face close-ups test images, harsh lighting, ISO 1600-6400

RudyPohl wrote:

Brev00 wrote:

Since I do not own one, I will suggest that you try another set but, this time, in slightly more forgiving light.  In other words, give your lens enough light to operate but use your camera settings to regulate the light.  Then, create a decent but difficult high iso exposure.   Shoot late in the day so you can watch the light dip, shoot outdoors to give yourself some room, and zoom out to a reasonable portrait fl like 135. That will also add some speed to your lens.  Borrow the blond from the store and you are set!  You want to be close enough with enough light to grab focus clean and precise.

Just because the light levels were beyond the limit of your gear in the first set does not mean that the D7100 cannot be an all around camera with consumer type lenses.  I would love to give it a go and compare the results immediately with my D90 and the rest of my kit.  My suspicion, from what I have seen, is that the results would be 1-2 stops better at the higher iso's (shooting more comfortably between 800-1600 instead of considering 400-800 the upper range) with finer grain in the lower registers.  Noise would not completely disappear.  I think you have to weigh the iso benefit with the other features of the camera.  Judging by noise alone, why not just get a D7000?  I think the 1.3 crop mode, the lack of an AA filter, and the revamped af system must be thrown into the stew (no frogs) of your judgment.

What other lenses are you considering at this point to get the most out of your new camera?

Hi Brev00:

Thanks for taking the time to respond. Perhaps you will understand what I'm trying to do when you understand my photography context... I'll give a few details...

After many years of absence from photography I bought a Panasonic FZ200 super-zoom camera last Fall and happily discovered the world of wildlife photography. After taking about 15,000 shots and going as far as I felt I could with this type of equipment I recently opted to buy a DSLR rig costing me $1800 instead of $600, this is with the 70-300 G VR lens. I am not prepared or able to immediately spend an additional $1000 on a better lens unless and until I can demonstrate to myself that I will be any good at DSLR wildlife photography. Thus, I have set myself the limitation of NOT buying anything else until I master the equipment I now have - which is alleged a top-rated wildlife camera (sharp as all get-out and great AF), plus a not great, but moderately "half-decent" zoom lens).

To sum up, if I can't consistently get nicely-coloured, properly exposed, in-focus images of birds and animals with this rig that means that wildlife photography can't possibly have $2000 as it's entry level, and really requires $3000 expenditure before the images are actually worth looking at. If that is the case, then I'm definitely in the wrong hobby.

And what's more, I'm not satisfied with the D7100 if that shoots only birds well; I want it to do a few more things besides that. I'm not expecting it to shoot flawless portraits in low light like a Canon 5D MKII would do, but I am expecting it to do a wide variety of things reasonably well  under reasonably challenging conditions. That's one of the reasons I shot these images in the camera store under the harsh florescent lights.

Anyways, I have 3 more days left on my trial period and I'll do my best to try various scenarios and see how things come out. Thanks for your help.

Rudy

Rudy,

All is relative!  What might be considered "not good enough" by some, may be good for what you expect out of photography.  I own the D7000 hence cannot speak for the D7100, however I doubt it is only good for wildlife.  The 70-300 VR sweet spot is not at either end, hence try using it at various different focal distances and compare the results then.  Just my two cents worth!

-- hide signature --

Thanks,
Daisy AU - Brisbane

 Daisy AU's gear list:Daisy AU's gear list
Nikon D7000 Nikon 1 V1 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 35mm F1.8G Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G VR +8 more
OP RudyPohl Veteran Member • Posts: 5,559
Re: D7100 - Face close-ups test images, harsh lighting, ISO 1600-6400

Daisy AU wrote:

Rudy,

All is relative!  What might be considered "not good enough" by some, may be good for what you expect out of photography.  I own the D7000 hence cannot speak for the D7100, however I doubt it is only good for wildlife.  The 70-300 VR sweet spot is not at either end, hence try using it at various different focal distances and compare the results then.  Just my two cents worth!

Hi Daisy:

Thanks for your input, and yes of course, you're absolutely correct "it's all relative."

However, having said that, I also personally have fairly high standards of quality and I know that sometimes certain equipment is able to produce much more quality than some folks think it can, providing you learn how to best use it. I would like to believe that a new, really good camera (D7100) plus a fairly decent-quality lens (70-300VR) can produce some great images if done correctly under the right conditions. I hope to discover how to do that, and do it well.

Thanks for the tip on the lens' sweet spot.

Rudy

lock Veteran Member • Posts: 6,202
That is not nice.

I didn't see that line in the manual, and now the question is how much less is "less than low". It better be nothing more than marginal. But basically, I do not have the complete freedom to reduce noise the way I want it.

lock

karlreed Senior Member • Posts: 1,976
Re: D7100 - Not the lens Face close-ups test images, harsh lighting, ISO 1600-6400

Hi Rudy,

I support your choice of lens, I use a 28-300mmVR quite a lot, and, find it better than I expected on My D700.

The image issues are NOT, as I see it, due to the lens, they are due to the NR and PP.  I don't think you will see much difference using better lenses.

Plus, whilst the images have some problems, they are handling noise better than cameras were some two or three years ago.

Whether you should be happy probably depends upon what you are upgrading from, your budget, and your lenses.

I guess it may be that the D7100 isn't a replacement for the D700, except in terms of size and resolution.

I am grateful for your posting the images, it helps me make a decison.

Regards and thanks

-- hide signature --

karl reed

 karlreed's gear list:karlreed's gear list
Sony RX100 IV Nikon D200 Nikon D750 Olympus E-M1 II Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G IF-ED VR +6 more
Mako2011
MOD Mako2011 Forum Pro • Posts: 25,566
Many brands

lock wrote:

I didn't see that line in the manual, and now the question is how much less is "less than low". It better be nothing more than marginal. But basically, I do not have the complete freedom to reduce noise the way I want it.

lock

That has pretty much always been the case with most brands and cameras, per my understanding.

-- hide signature --

My opinions are my own and not those of DPR or its administration. They carry no 'special' value (except to me and Lacie of course)

Midwest Forum Pro • Posts: 18,309
Re: These are actually excellent

rhlpetrus wrote:

Camera didn't try to compensate for ambient WB, it seems what we see is likely very close to what you saw there. Our brain plays tricks on us. Once I had my daughter pose for me were I'm typing here, with fluorescent lighting as well. I shot it and uploaded. It looked ugly, lots of extra greens and yellows at first sight. I called her back and looked carefully at image and then at her side by side. It was much closer than I would have believed from just a couple minutes earlier.

People tend to want camera to always produce someting close to the typical bright daylight WB. But lighting usually is not like that, especially in concerts and other night events, and we should not try to always make it look "daylight"-like. It tends to become quite artificial.

When you view someone (in person) in a room with fluorescent lighting, do they look green to you there? No, because your eyes adjust to compensate for the color temperature of the light.

Lighting, and camera settings, are made to let us see the subject as they are, not as the color temperature of the light leaves them. There's nothing inherently 'natural' about leaving a fluorescent-lit portrait with a greenish cast. Just my .02.

JK5700
JK5700 Senior Member • Posts: 1,724
Re: D7100 - Face close-ups test images, harsh lighting, ISO 1600-6400

You have girls in your camera shops? Here we mostly have men ;(((

 JK5700's gear list:JK5700's gear list
Fujifilm X-E2 Fujifilm X-T1 Nikon D4S Nikon AF-S Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G ED Nikon AF-S Nikkor 500mm f/4G ED VR +6 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads