NikonGear'23
Gear Talk => Processing & Publication => Topic started by: elsa hoffmann on January 10, 2018, 12:42:00
-
High is relative - but if I can work with files like this - at these ISO levels - I can get away with a lot. No noise reduction - all taken with the D500 and 200-500 lens.
Last one also ISO 6400
this is not "show-case" stuff - merely to show what I got at those levels
-
A great testament to the feats of engineering and processing that Nikon is able to produce.
I came in my APS-C journey from a D50 to a D300. The D50, I'd never really use above ISO 800...and the D300 never really above ISO 1600 and in a pinch I might push it to ISO 3200. The D500 I've used ISO 10,000 and 25,600 with no qualms.
-
I can only agree, ISO 6400 is not a problem, had to use it today, when this bird, European Goldfinch, came by for lunch, not much light in the light rain :(
This is as close I could get to 100% crop. Image quality could easily be better, but a an example I hope it will pass ;)
This is one of the most colourfull birds we have.
-
Beautiful bird Bent. And ye - before you wouldnt have had that shot.
Which is totally the reason I shoot on Manual - set SS and Aperture - and ISO auto. And shoot. If I didnt get the shot then due to too high ISO - I wouldnt have had it anyway
Thanks Gryphon1911 - good to know others are also happy enough.
-
Which is totally the reason I shoot on Manual - set SS and Aperture - and ISO auto. And shoot. If I didnt get the shot then due to too high ISO - I wouldnt have had it anyway
I just learned someting new, that you, very useful. I do sports photo, and sometimes I want a slow shutter speed, now it is easy, don't need to adjust ISO just change the shutter speed ;)
-
I just learned someting new, that you, very useful. I do sports photo, and sometimes I want a slow shutter speed, now it is easy, don't need to adjust ISO just change the shutter speed ;)
Exactly that. Steve Perry's book on understanding AF is excellent - get it if you can
also - here is his video on the topic.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mFLxYMLsv8I
-
I use Manual plus Auto ISO plus Exp Comp almost exlcusively! (on Df)
-
that is a pretty impressive set Elsa.. very convincing, perhaps some of the best high ISO shots i have seen with that camera.
-
that is a pretty impressive set Elsa.. very convincing, perhaps some of the best high ISO shots i have seen with that camera.
thanks Bob - I am really "comfortable" with using Auto ISO on this body
I remember when Auto ISO first was available on a body.... it was the (controversial) talk of the town!
-
Ich consider ISO 20.000 usable. Above that heavy editing seems necessary
-
Great pictures again Elsa... :-) I fully agree with the technique and the high ISO levels ! I usually stop at ISO 12600 while setting the ISO maximum at 16000 (x03 in Nikon's jargon) on the Df! But of course I don't have such nice subjects ;D
-
The lion portrait is magnificent
-
thanks Jacques - ISO was my biggest Achilles heel to date - and I wont say I am "over" it - but I certainly have learned to at the very least shoot - and then evaluate later. Previously I would just not even GO there.
Armando - thanks - at least a semi workable acceptable shot. If I didnt have anything else - I would have been over the moon with this. Until I was able to get a better shot.
-
What happened to the mouse? I liked the mouse. Was it in a different thread?
Dave
-
Thanks David :)
I dunno - but here's one for you :)
-
The mouse is Here:
http://nikongear.net/revival/index.php/topic,6972.0.html
Together with the delightful frog!
-
thanks Seapy!! ;)
-
The mouse is Here:
http://nikongear.net/revival/index.php/topic,6972.0.html
Together with the delightful frog!
Thank You!
I had a thought to add about companies like the lion but naming them would be too political.
Dave who identifies with the mouse rather than the lion.
-
The mouse is Here:
http://nikongear.net/revival/index.php/topic,6972.0.html
Together with the delightful frog!
Seapy - that "frog" is an Amaga Lizzard. Toooo beautiful for words to watch.
David - these lion and cheetah and Leopards all have names. I avoid using that if I can. Wildlife shouldnt have names. Except Frikkie. Frikkie isnt wildlife anymore. He lies by die fire at night (the jackal in the other thread)
-
Seapy - that "frog" is an Amaga Lizzard. Toooo beautiful for words to watch.
Whoops! My apologies to the Amaga Lizzard. I applaud the diversity of wildlife you have covered so well in what I imagine are demanding conditions.
-
so the mouse is ISO=1600
-
Whoops! My apologies to the Amaga Lizzard. I applaud the diversity of wildlife you have covered so well in what I imagine are demanding conditions.
nah no worries :) and thanks for the kind comment
Bob . - ye it was
-
The usability seems to have been improved in recent years thanks to the reduction of the chrominance noise. I can easily observe the luminance noise in these images, but don't see any chrominance noise which looks more bothersome than the luminace noise.
Also, users of the newer cameras without anti-aliasing filters are less in need of unsharp masks which tend to exaggerate the noise.
-
Elsa,
Is the Lion's name Bezos?
Dave
-
Elsa,
Is the Lion's name Bezos?
Dave
not a clue David...
-
I think Nikon's Hi ISO performance has been great since the D7100 and for images taken in good light, it's easy. I shoot starscapes a lot and the best conditions are moonless nights - that really sorts out the good noise performers from the bad. My buddies Canons can't touch my nikon. My biggest disappointment was the performance of my D850 with its BSI sensor in comparison to my D750. D750 wins. :o
-
My biggest disappointment was the performance of my D850 with its BSI sensor in comparison to my D750. D750 wins. :o
Right. Nikon's high pixel count sensors tend to be optimized for the best base ISO (in this case 64) image quality and then high ISO is as good as it can be given the design for optimal base ISO.
BSI was used to organize the wiring and circuitry in such a way that high fps rate (and full frame 4K) was possible.
Sony seem to be able to do a bit better at high ISO with their 42 MP sensor but Nikon seems to consider ISO 64 a priority. I like it because it reduces the need for high speed sync in outdoor flash and also reduces the need for ND filtering for water flow images, not to mention of course the higher SNR.
-
The members on Nikon Rumours were sure BSI gives a one stop advantage for low-light noise. I am not seeing that.
-
The members on Nikon Rumours were sure BSI gives a one stop advantage for low-light noise. I am not seeing that.
Well, it depends on the metric used. According to dxomark, the dynamic range and color sensitivity of the D850 are ahead of the D750, provided that the images are resized to equal size (8MP) for comparison.
However, photonstophotos.com measure so-called photographic dynamic range, using a slightly different metric, and in those graphs the D750 seems to be ahead of the D850 at ISO 100-400 whereas at higher ISO the D850 is equal or slightly better than D750, if I am reading correctly.
Both sites present normalized metrics i.e. like the photos would appear printed to the same size.
Now, why is there a discrepancy here? I am not sure there is one; the metrics and methods used are different and so are the results. I am sure the keepers of those sites have a lot to say about it. Dxomark measurements look deeper into the shadows than some other sites and it could be there that the D850 improvement is. Nikon may have used the dxomark results as basis of their advertising a 1-stop improvement at high ISO. I think the metrics may not always agree with what a human observer would say, but then two human observers may also come to different conclusions.
My impression is that I am happy to use the D850 up to a slightly higher ISO e.g. in figure skating photography, but the D5 is clearly better. I am not surprised you'd find the D750 to be a bit better also, but I do wonder if you are looking at the final image at equal scale (same display size, not 100% original pixel view). Anyway, the characteristics that one values the most may not be what the designers optimized (it really depends).
My subjective feeling is that the D850 has shaken some of the high ISO problems of its predecessors (D800/D810) but it is still a camera which is at its best at low to medium ISO.
-
My first dslr was a D7000. I got usable images up to about ISO 1600. On the D500, anything under 6400 looks good to me, and I wouldn’t hesitate going higher if it meant the difference between getting the shot and not getting it. The delete key is always close by if the image doesn’t work.
-
Sorry I just don't get this..you take a photo at high iso in a well lit environment with virtually no black areas and then say how great it is .. Why not try a 13th century church lit with 5watt low energy bulbs and stained glass windows in winter. To test you should be reducing the light on the scene to force the iso up not just turning the iso up.
-
Sorry I just don't get this..you take a photo at high iso in a well lit environment with virtually no black areas and then say how great it is .. Why not try a 13th century church lit with 5watt low energy bulbs and stained glass windows in winter. To test you should be reducing the light on the scene to force the iso up not just turning the iso up.
The purpose of high ISO is not only for the dark situations. Even in the fairly well lit conditions, you need to crank up the ISO in order to enable highest possible shutter speed. If the entire frame is evenly lit, the image quality won't suffer too much.
-
Sorry I just don't get this..you take a photo at high iso in a well lit environment with virtually no black areas and then say how great it is .. Why not try a 13th century church lit with 5watt low energy bulbs and stained glass windows in winter. To test you should be reducing the light on the scene to force the iso up not just turning the iso up.
I tried this and it works. Russian icon with a near dark converter bulb in the Krypta. Handheld. Great color fidelity, next to no noise, ISO 20.000
-
I fully understand what both of you are saying but the DXO review of the D500 puts the noise at -18db at 1300 iso .No different to a D7200 and a lot worse than an old D810 at 2700 iso
-
I fully understand what both of you are saying but the DXO review of the D500 puts the noise at -18db at 1300 iso .No different to a D7200 and a lot worse than an old D810 at 2700 iso
Along with DxOMark and Photons to Photos, I often refer to the "Image Quality" section of dpreview.com:
https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikon-d500/7
You can compare four different cameras using the pull-down menus both for JPEGs and RAWs at various ISO settings. You can select "Comp" above right of the comparison window to compare the images in the same image size. According to the test, D7200 is noticeably noisier than D500 at higher ISO settings like 1600 and above.
-
I fully understand what both of you are saying but the DXO review of the D500 puts the noise at -18db at 1300 iso .No different to a D7200 and a lot worse than an old D810 at 2700 iso
I often use my D850 in parallel to the D500. Both have the same pixel density but completely different noise characteristics. The D500 stays crisp clean and emphasizes luminance noise over chrominance noise the D850 reenters chominance noise at same ISO setting as D500. The more total pixels per picture cannot always compensate for the definition loss. So I feel more comfortable to use the D500 at HighISO than the D850. The D850 is the greatest low ISO camera build to date