D7500 iso noise

Started 6 months ago | Questions
toomanycanons Forum Pro • Posts: 13,424
Re: With example

Shunda777 wrote:

erv60 wrote:

Not much need for FF for amateur purposes IMO

I've got the D7500 and love it, but it doesn't produce files anywhere near as good as full frame.

Beg to differ.  Saying "doesn't produce files anywhere as good as full frame" is just plain misleading and wrong.  I own a D7500 and many full frame bodies and the D7500's files are very similar.  I wouldn't say that if I hadn't done a lot of comparison testing.

Shunda777 Junior Member • Posts: 42
Re: With example
1

toomanycanons wrote:

Shunda777 wrote:

erv60 wrote:

Not much need for FF for amateur purposes IMO

I've got the D7500 and love it, but it doesn't produce files anywhere near as good as full frame.

Beg to differ. Saying "doesn't produce files anywhere as good as full frame" is just plain misleading and wrong. I own a D7500 and many full frame bodies and the D7500's files are very similar. I wouldn't say that if I hadn't done a lot of comparison testing.

I own a D7500 and a D610, the D610 is a full stop better for noise all the way up the iso range. It has better color rendition, tone and more malleable RAW files.
The D7500 is one of my most favorite cameras ever, but it can not match the D610 on any image quality metric.
For someone that wants the best image performance (as the OP mentioned), he could buy a D 610, a Tokina 100mm macro and still have money left in the bank compared to the cost of a new D7500 body.
This is a more recent development, you can now get an FX body that still matches the latest sensors for the cost of a mid range zoom (or a new D5xxx body) as people offload their D600/610's.

 Shunda777's gear list:Shunda777's gear list
Nikon D7000 Nikon D5100 Nikon D610 Nikon D7500 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR +10 more
Mako2011
MOD Mako2011 Forum Pro • Posts: 27,229
All...
2

toomanycanons wrote:

Beg to differ. Saying "doesn't produce files anywhere as good as full frame" is just plain misleading and wrong. I own a D7500 and many full frame bodies and the D7500's files are very similar.

All else being equal...the D7500 images will always be a stop nosier than the FF counterpart. D7500 will reach diffraction limit sooner than the FF counter part. The FF body will have a higher DR potential. FF gives you more control over the depth of field. The equal full frame systems will perform better when the light is weak. A full frame lens/camera combination is also more suitable for wide-angle shots, which is relevant for architectural, landscape or product photography. FF gives one a viewfinder advantage

There are certainly some advantages with APS-c. Cheaper, smaller, and at low sensitivity settings the smaller pixel size of APS-C sized sensors could actually enable you to capture more fine detail...but that advantage can be negated (to a degree) if one is able to get closer with FF.

"near as good as"... is by definition subjective.  How valid it is depends to a large extent on practical use.  No perfect camera.

-- 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)

toomanycanons Forum Pro • Posts: 13,424
Re: All...
2

Mako2011 wrote:

toomanycanons wrote:

Beg to differ. Saying "doesn't produce files anywhere as good as full frame" is just plain misleading and wrong. I own a D7500 and many full frame bodies and the D7500's files are very similar.

"near as good as"... is by definition subjective. How valid it is depends to a large extent on practical use. No perfect camera.

Back when I shot exclusively with DX bodies I lusted after a "noise free" full frame body. After I'd bought a D600 and saw that, indeed, it had noise as well, DxO numbers notwithstanding, I got a bit disillusioned.

Fast forward to today where I shoot mostly with my D850 for work (at ISO 400 or below), my D610 is my car camera at home and my D7500 goes with me as my snapshot camera on work trips: I've seen all of these in action.

I want good IQ, just like the next guy, but as you say, Mako2011, it's all about practical use. After shooting with my D7500 a ton, I began taking it instead of my D6xx cameras along with me on my work trips. I'd found no "practical" difference between them. The slight difference in dynamic range means nearly nothing, the noise levels difference between my D7500 and my D6xx cameras was practically negligible, DxO numbers notwithstanding.

https://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm

You could probably see a difference between the D5100 and the D610 but I don't see any between my D7500 and my D610.  Of course, the next guy might say the D610 is "clearly better"  than the d7500 

Check out the higher ISO images I uploaded here a few replies ago from my D7500. My full frame cameras would have looked the same (I know this, I've done the comparison).

I can't bump up my D6xx cameras farther than ISO 3200 and not have the images start falling apart. And I trust the AF on my D7500 more.

FingerPainter Veteran Member • Posts: 9,759
Re: With example
1

Shunda777 wrote:

erv60 wrote:

Not much need for FF for amateur purposes IMO

I've got the D7500 and love it, but it doesn't produce files anywhere near as good as full frame.
Once the argument went along the lines that is was better to invest in good glass for your DX than pay a small fortune for a new full frame body, and that was certainly true in the past.

But now with the price of a used D600/610 in great condition being around the same price as a new D5600 body, things have changed somewhat.
I got a D610 with only 2900 shots on the shutter for NZ$850 ($567USD), the sensor output is as good as any of the later full frame Nikons. Pair that up with the tokina 100mm 2.8 macro and you've got an awesome set up for flowers, macro and a perfect portrait capability to boot.

If someone is after the best image quality for their money it is a very compelling option to consider.

While I agree with your comments about quality of sensor output, there is a lot more that goes into getting a good shot than the quality of the sensor output. The D7500 has significantly better focusing and metering than the D610, and a better JPEG engine too. The D7500 has more advanced AF- fine tune, a faster shutter, a faster x-sync,  a faster frame rate and deeper buffer.  Compare also the bracketing and WB options. The D7500 is smaller and lighter and has a tilt screen to facilitate shooting from unusual positions.

In short, with a D7500, you are more likely to get the shot. With the D610, if you do get the shot, it will have less noisiness and more DR.

Shunda777 Junior Member • Posts: 42
Re: All...

toomanycanons wrote:

I want good IQ, just like the next guy, but as you say, Mako2011, it's all about practical use. After shooting with my D7500 a ton, I began taking it instead of my D6xx cameras along with me on my work trips. I'd found no "practical" difference between them. The slight difference in dynamic range means nearly nothing, the noise levels difference between my D7500 and my D6xx cameras was practically negligible, DxO numbers notwithstanding.

The OP is not happy with the noise level of his D5100 above ISO 250, with that in mind my recommendation to consider a D610 seemed to be a reasonable solution to what he is looking for. If iso 250 is the limit on his D5100, the D7500 isn't going to be much of an improvement.
As to the DXO numbers, I'd suggest they are spot on the money, just last night I was shooting astrophotography with both the D7500 and the D610 on tripods beside each other, my best mate had his D7200.

The results are clear, a full stop (at least) noise advantage which is a huge advantage in this instance, the difference between shooting at ISO 1600 or 800, or half shutter speed for higher iso value.
But even at ISO 100, landscape shots with the D610 are cleaner, have better colour, tone, dynamic range and are easier to work on in RAW.
My friend was so impressed after we compared results in lightroom that he found a used D600 with 4000 shutter actuation's on ebay and managed to get it sent to NZ for the grand total (including freight from Japan) of $570US, the cost of a mid level zoom.
When all that was available were used D700's (which held more value for longer) it made little sense to get an FX camera, but that is different now. Where the D700 had been outclassed by later sensors, the D610 has (as yet) not been.

Getting a D610 as been the largest jump in the performance of my kit since I moved from bridge cam to Nikon DX almost 10 years ago, and again, for the cost of a mid level zoom.

 Shunda777's gear list:Shunda777's gear list
Nikon D7000 Nikon D5100 Nikon D610 Nikon D7500 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR +10 more
Shunda777 Junior Member • Posts: 42
Re: With example

FingerPainter wrote:

While I agree with your comments about quality of sensor output, there is a lot more that goes into getting a good shot than the quality of the sensor output.

Absolutely.

The D7500 has significantly better focusing and metering than the D610, and a better JPEG engine too.

The D610 jpeg engine is actually pretty good, but I don't use it for JPEG, in fact i never use jpeg.

The D7500 has more advanced AF- fine tune, a faster shutter, a faster x-sync, a faster frame rate and deeper buffer. Compare also the bracketing and WB options. The D7500 is smaller and lighter and has a tilt screen to facilitate shooting from unusual positions.

Did I say that I LOVE my D7500! it is indeed a pocket rocket.
The lack of twin card slots is a pain though, and the cheaper build quality (it has the same strap mounts as my D5100 for example)

In short, with a D7500, you are more likely to get the shot. With the D610, if you do get the shot, it will have less noisiness and more DR.

For action photography and birding the D7500 is awesome. In saying that, today I was shooting motorcycle street races, I had the tamron 150-600 on both cameras at various times and the D610 focus hit rate was equal to the 7500 all be it at a lower frame rate.
I do prefer the D7500 for that use, but i wouldn't hesitate to use the D610 either.
The output of the 610 was better due to superior subject isolation at full telephoto, that actually made quite a difference to some shots.
Regardless of all this, my rationale is to have a two camera kit where you can get the best of both worlds. My D610 is now my astro/landscape/portrait camera and my D7500 is telephoto/birding/action or just grab and go all-rounder.
A few years ago it wasn't a good idea to do this if you were on a budget (FX cameras were too expensive) but now as time rolls on things have changed.

 Shunda777's gear list:Shunda777's gear list
Nikon D7000 Nikon D5100 Nikon D610 Nikon D7500 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR +10 more
ANAYV Forum Pro • Posts: 20,399
Re: All...

Shunda777 wrote:

toomanycanons wrote:

I want good IQ, just like the next guy, but as you say, Mako2011, it's all about practical use. After shooting with my D7500 a ton, I began taking it instead of my D6xx cameras along with me on my work trips. I'd found no "practical" difference between them. The slight difference in dynamic range means nearly nothing, the noise levels difference between my D7500 and my D6xx cameras was practically negligible, DxO numbers notwithstanding.

The OP is not happy with the noise level of his D5100 above ISO 250, with that in mind my recommendation to consider a D610 seemed to be a reasonable solution to what he is looking for. If iso 250 is the limit on his D5100, the D7500 isn't going to be much of an improvement.
As to the DXO numbers, I'd suggest they are spot on the money, just last night I was shooting astrophotography with both the D7500 and the D610 on tripods beside each other, my best mate had his D7200

The results are clear, a full stop (at least) noise advantage which is a huge advantage in this instance, the difference between shooting at ISO 1600 or 800, or half shutter speed for higher iso value...

Interesting that 1 stop is considered a ' huge advantage.

I mean , we are not talking film...nor 12 year old cameras.

If one was to use DXO PL with PRIME, I would think most would not see that 1 stop difference.

ISO 800 and 1600 on even the D7500 would not really show much difference, me thinks.

Deep PRIME is said to improve , over PRIME, giving more details , while removing noise, with less artifacts...or so I read ( from.users, not from DXO)

Stay healthy

ANAYV

Mako2011
MOD Mako2011 Forum Pro • Posts: 27,229
Can be...
1

ANAYV wrote:

Shunda777 wrote:

toomanycanons wrote:

I want good IQ, just like the next guy, but as you say, Mako2011, it's all about practical use. After shooting with my D7500 a ton, I began taking it instead of my D6xx cameras along with me on my work trips. I'd found no "practical" difference between them. The slight difference in dynamic range means nearly nothing, the noise levels difference between my D7500 and my D6xx cameras was practically negligible, DxO numbers notwithstanding.

The OP is not happy with the noise level of his D5100 above ISO 250, with that in mind my recommendation to consider a D610 seemed to be a reasonable solution to what he is looking for. If iso 250 is the limit on his D5100, the D7500 isn't going to be much of an improvement.
As to the DXO numbers, I'd suggest they are spot on the money, just last night I was shooting astrophotography with both the D7500 and the D610 on tripods beside each other, my best mate had his D7200

The results are clear, a full stop (at least) noise advantage which is a huge advantage in this instance, the difference between shooting at ISO 1600 or 800, or half shutter speed for higher iso value...

Interesting that 1 stop is considered a ' huge advantage.

When light is good and the subject is easy...may not be a huge advantage.  But when you are max performing the camera and light is at a premium...one stop really can be a noticeable large advantage.

I mean , we are not talking film...nor 12 year old cameras.

When you are working at the limits of the tech...12 year old vs one year old body vs film is a bit irrelevant.  All about getting the most when the situation is tough.  And if money is on the line (paid shoot) it really can be the difference when it comes to getting the next job

-- 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)

cyuill2007 Senior Member • Posts: 1,002
Re: D7500 iso noise

potterjo wrote:

My d5100 is dying and looking to upgrade. I take mainly wildflower photos. Many of these are in low light situations and need to bump the iso. The drawback is that anything above 250 the noise is unacceptable to me. Will I have the same problem with the D7500 or do I need a full frame sensor?

I haven't used the D7500 in low light, but have used it at high ISOs during a bird-photography-oriented "photo walk". I thought the images looked smoother and less "grainy" than similar photos I was taking at similar ISOs with my somewhat-older D7000. The D7500 is a sweet camera that produces great image quality.

One thing to consider, however, is that while the sensor gets all of the credit for ISO performance, the processor is also very important important. Olympus kept using a 12 MP Panasonic sensor for years because newer processors were able to get better and better image quality out of the same sensor. And there is another option to getting newer cameras with better sensors and processors  - recent improvements in post-processing software. Tools like Topaz Denoise Ai and DxO Photo Lab 4 (with new DeepPRIME NR) work wonders on noise. I have been amazed at how software tools like these can clean up image noise and improve detail on my older photographs taken with older, noisier sensors. A D7500, with images processed using good NR software as needed, should produce great photographs for several years.

You might perhaps also want to consider the Z 50 as a possible alternative, if you are okay with mirrorless cameras.

 cyuill2007's gear list:cyuill2007's gear list
Nikon D7000 Nikon 1 V1 Nikon 1 V2 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G VR +8 more
Bender79ita
Bender79ita Contributing Member • Posts: 547
Re: With example
1

Shunda777 wrote:

I own a D7500 and a D610, the D610 is a full stop better for noise all the way up the iso range. It has better color rendition, tone and more malleable RAW files.
The D7500 is one of my most favorite cameras ever, but it can not match the D610 on any image quality metric.
For someone that wants the best image performance (as the OP mentioned), he could buy a D 610, a Tokina 100mm macro and still have money left in the bank compared to the cost of a new D7500 body.
This is a more recent development, you can now get an FX body that still matches the latest sensors for the cost of a mid range zoom (or a new D5xxx body) as people offload their D600/610's.

There's a little more to it... like in low light, when the D610 won't even focus, while the D7500 will focus in pitch black... or serious action, where the DX body has basicly unlimited buffer and super fast tracking and fps.

We want to compare image quality from an action camera to a "portrait" camera ok, but real world is more then just about the sensor.

It's the same thing as the recurring question "a6400 vs A7II", if you want just a sensor buy FF, if you want a complete camera buy APS-C (on equal budget of course, otherwise just buy a D850 or A7RIV).

 Bender79ita's gear list:Bender79ita's gear list
Sony RX100 III Nikon D810 Nikon D5600 Sony a6400 Tamron SP 24-70mm F2.8 Di VC USD +8 more
Shunda777 Junior Member • Posts: 42
Re: With example
1

Bender79ita wrote:

There's a little more to it... like in low light, when the D610 won't even focus,

Well, it will focus in low light, I do it all the time.

while the D7500 will focus in pitch black..

Yes, my D7500 can focus in remarkable situations, so far I have never needed this 'extra' capability. it's performance on the margins for specialized photography, but it is indeed there if needed.

. or serious action, where the DX body has basicly unlimited buffer and super fast tracking and fps.

The OP is shooting flowers, my comment was related to his question about whether dx or fx would be better for low noise shots. FX is better.

Incidentally, I shot motorbike street races on the weekend with both the D610 and D7500, the D610 did just fine, 6fps does the job. While the D7500 is indeed better for the action side of the equation, the D610 produced the better images on the day due to a depth of field advantage.

We want to compare image quality from an action camera to a "portrait" camera ok, but real world is more then just about the sensor.

No one ever suggested otherwise, but referring back to the OP, FX is better for his low noise requirement.

It's the same thing as the recurring question "a6400 vs A7II", if you want just a sensor buy FF, if you want a complete camera buy APS-C (on equal budget of course, otherwise just buy a D850 or A7RIV).

Or get a used FX camera like the D610 for little outlay and have a D7500 as well, (like what I have done). Best of both worlds for the cost of a mid range zoom lens.

 Shunda777's gear list:Shunda777's gear list
Nikon D7000 Nikon D5100 Nikon D610 Nikon D7500 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR +10 more
Shunda777 Junior Member • Posts: 42
Re: All...

ANAYV wrote:

Interesting that 1 stop is considered a ' huge advantage.

Have you ever shot astrophotography in pitch black conditions?

Take it further, why use an f2.8 lens for astro? why not just use an f4 kit lens? have we all been fooled into buying expensive fast glass?

I mean , we are not talking film...nor 12 year old cameras.

One stop is one stop, then, now, and forever more.

If one was to use DXO PL with PRIME, I would think most would not see that 1 stop difference.

ISO 800 and 1600 on even the D7500 would not really show much difference, me thinks.

lol, I've been doing this for some time and can tell you that it most certainly does make a difference.

 Shunda777's gear list:Shunda777's gear list
Nikon D7000 Nikon D5100 Nikon D610 Nikon D7500 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR +10 more
toomanycanons Forum Pro • Posts: 13,424
Re: All...

Shunda777 wrote:

ANAYV wrote:

Interesting that 1 stop is considered a ' huge advantage.

Have you ever shot astrophotography in pitch black conditions?

Take it further, why use an f2.8 lens for astro? why not just use an f4 kit lens? have we all been fooled into buying expensive fast glass?

I mean , we are not talking film...nor 12 year old cameras.

One stop is one stop, then, now, and forever more.

If one was to use DXO PL with PRIME, I would think most would not see that 1 stop difference.

ISO 800 and 1600 on even the D7500 would not really show much difference, me thinks.

lol, I've been doing this for some time and can tell you that it most certainly does make a difference.

I personally will never do astrophotography and I doubt the vast majority of photogs would either.  So grading a camera's performance strictly by how it would do shooting the stars in pitch black conditions to me just isn't a fair test.  I shoot real world locations, typically in daytime, maybe early morning or early sunset, ya know, real world stuff.

Has anyone here looked at the samples I put up a few days ago with real world high ISO performance?

Shunda777 Junior Member • Posts: 42
Re: All...

toomanycanons wrote:

I personally will never do astrophotography and I doubt the vast majority of photogs would either.

Seriously?

So grading a camera's performance strictly by how it would do shooting the stars in pitch black conditions to me just isn't a fair test.

How about shooting flowers where iso 250 produces unacceptable noise on a D5100?. Everything I have said is related to the OP and his question about fx or dx, I really am somewhat perplexed as to what I have done wrong here. For his purpose, a used D610 and a Tokina 100mm 2.8 macro could be purchased for less than the cost of a D7500. Am I wrong to suggest this as a possible low noise solution?

I shoot real world locations, typically in daytime, maybe early morning or early sunset, ya know, real world stuff.

As far as I know, stars, the milky way and Aurora Australis/borealis are as "real world" as anything else.

 Shunda777's gear list:Shunda777's gear list
Nikon D7000 Nikon D5100 Nikon D610 Nikon D7500 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR +10 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads