Reading mode: Light Dark

Official nikon samples

Go to last post
sandy b

sandy b

Veteran Member
Messages
9,918
Solutions
3
Reaction score
5,979
Location
Southern Minn, US
Wow, if that's the best they could do with 12k I'm not looking forward to seeing the 100k :O

To me, this looks worse than ISO 3200 on my rather ancient 30D. So it's got about 1, maybe 1.5 stops better low-light capabilities than a 5 year-old camera. Why in gods name are they even giving the boost option to 100k? It's going to look horrendous.

--
--
http://www.pbase.com/dremeaux

My gear:
Camera
Lens
Lens
Lens
Tripod
 
Unfortunately, I see serious pattern noise in the bird shot.
 
i find 12800 very impressive. have you seen D3 12800 samples which, until today, was considered to be a high iso champion?
 
And your probably on crack cocaine or LSD too. You see Nikon doesn't make sensors that produce those defects you are mentioning. What you are thinking of are the Canon series of cams like 50D, 5D2, 1Ds etc. Nikon produce the the best sensors and those is proven in the benchmarks (DXOMark).
 
Please let me know if someone makes a camera without banding.. even the $30k+ medium format cameras I shoot with have banding.
 
  • The iso6400 of the boxer looks great, but it is no where near low light at 1/1600 - so can't tell anything
  • The iso12800 of the goat (whatever) is nearly B&W, can't tell any color use at all - so no help there
  • The iso200 shot, umm, who cares, could be any camera
  • The iso12800 bear is decent, but again 1/800 at f4 is not really low light (I guess as a wedding shooter I think 1/100, f4 as low light)
  • The iso640 shot of the eagle is nice, but could be any camera, and has notable banding in the water and background foliage
  • The iso12800 of the DJ is OK, and finally in pretty low light - but the color spectrum represented does not tell us much.
Overall I would say it is a smidge better than the D3, big surprise, and offers no reason to upgrade for a D3 owner). Unless that quiet mode is super quiet for the church weddings :)

BTW here is a D3 iso12800 shot for comparison

D3, 70-200VR, f5.6, 1/50, iso12800



--
http://www.arizonadigitalphotography.com - commercial site
http://www.davidlakephotos.com - wedding site
PPA, WPPI, NPS member
 
Unfortunately, I think they just chose the bird shot because they liked it. These are all pretty poor choices of samples, actually. Yes, ISO 100K is going to look terrible. I can only image it being used for technical work in extremely low light where flash is not an option...nothing artistic unless your idea of art involves a noise-fest.

Pic above looks like Chuck Norris!
--

http://flickr.com/photos/rcaron/
 
Sorry, I meant the ISO 640 shot...

Anyway, I'm glad I'm not the only one...
It reminds me of the whole D200 issue.

I haven't noticed any banding on the D3/D700 from my experience with them....
Except for the banding caused by bright light sources. Thats different!

Also, yeah, many cameras may show signs of banding if one provokes it by heavy and unrealistic editing... My D2x has no banding, nor has a D3... This makes the D3s slightly disappointing. I hope that its fixed with V1.0 firmware or later...
Martin Zimelka said:
Well, apparently a complete redesigned also brings banding???

Am I imagining things or can I see a little vertical banding on the ISO 800 Nikon sample shot of the eagle?

[ http://imaging.nikon.com/products/imaging/lineup/digitalcamera/slr/d3s/img/pic_005b.jpg]
Click to expand...
 
Vivid for an iso 12800shot and havy sharpening would not be my fav. setting for the yak? shot. Nikon did it, why ever.
manfred
--
Pbase supporter, NPS Austria
http://www.pbase.com/manfred_b
 
That 12,500 ISO sample is excellent! How could anyone possibly complain about it... Check out the light level as well which is pretty poor...
 
What a joke.. Already asking for a firmware upgrade for a camera that isn't even released or fully tested yet. You cannot be serious...!
 
Not possible to compare this shot taken in good lighting with one where there is hardly any light at all... Silly comparison
 
First you made me laugh then I took a look at you Pbase pictures. You might think you have a great camera. But I have news for you. Almost ALL your shots are soft and OOF. So is it your camera or just you that suck?
hoppa said:
Wow, if that's the best they could do with 12k I'm not looking forward to seeing the 100k :O

To me, this looks worse than ISO 3200 on my rather ancient 30D. So it's got about 1, maybe 1.5 stops better low-light capabilities than a 5 year-old camera. Why in gods name are they even giving the boost option to 100k? It's going to look horrendous.

--
--
http://www.pbase.com/dremeaux

My gear:
Camera
Lens
Lens
Lens
Tripod
Click to expand...
 
When Nikon introduced the D3, I think they cherry-picked their high ISO samples -- mainly well lighted scenes.

I'm a little encouraged by the DJ shot here. The EXIF says that NR is off. Very little pattern noise that I can see. I would be seeing streaking coming from the blown bulb on the D3.

But strange the amount of pattern noise I see in the eagle photo. Those aren't JPG artifacts are they? Something weird about that.
 
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