D500, ISO 45600

[Tersn]

Just a quick high ISO shot today. Some noise reduction applied to the background, otherwise just cropped after minor adjustments in CNX2.

 

[Bjørn Rørslett]

"It works" - although there are jpg artefacts in the plenty?

What shutter speed was used?

[Tersn]

This is 24mm, 1/100 sec, f/2.8. Shot in non compressed RAW, opened in CNX-D, exported to CNX 2 as TIF file, then downloaded as a jpg file.

[Frank Fremerey]

Yes. A lot of Artifacts. But still usable. Post this and others to the super-ISO thread please: http://nikongear.net/revival/index.php?topic=1335.0

[Tersn]

Here is one at iso 1600(I forgot the name of those flowers): (20mm, 1/200 s, f/2.

D500 at iso 1600 by tersn, on Flickr

[Bjørn Rørslett]

It's a Saxifraga (perhaps S. rosacea or thereabouts). However, this is a large genus with > 400 species and plenty of cultivars and ornamental hybrids.

As to the picture itself, it certainly looks smooth and fine-grained for a 1600 ISO capture. Here at least detail is preserved (the earlier cat picture had almost no detail left).

[Tersn]

Good there are botanical experts here 
Here is one at ISO 7200 (I am not quite satisfied with it, and believe the D500 can do better).

[ColinM]

Thanks Terje, keep them coming.

And is there a story to what the cat was doing in the first shot? 

[Tersn]

Thanks Terje, keep them coming.

And is there a story to what the cat was doing in the first shot? 

The cat was just drinking water

[Bjørn Rørslett]

I'm pleasantly surprised about the natural colours and amazed of the massive noise and jpg artefacts at the ISO 7200 setting. You are probably right in the assumption the D500 can do better ...

[Andy]

I'm pleasantly surprised about the natural colours and amazed of the massive noise and jpg artefacts at the ISO 7200 setting. You are probably right in the assumption the D500 can do better ...

Noise is so dependent on the available quality of light - besides pure sensor performance. Without this information, it is almost impossible to compare the technical capabilities of sensors in HighISO when photos were taken in different circumstances.

Below 2 photos with the D500:
1) taken with ISO 51200 and probably a more (spectral) balanced light source vs. the cat picture (light source: Profoto OCF B2)
2) ISO 8000, same light source
postprocessing: NX-D, switched from fast to high quality NR 2013 (30/50), USM 10, resized to 1500x1000
The respective RAW files can be downloaded <here> if someone wants to play by him/herself.

rgds, Andy

[Bjørn Rørslett]

I agree that artificial lighting is not very optimal for digital photography. However, the earlier posts for ISO 45600 and 7200, respectively, were simply far below even a pessimistic expectation of the outcome. Your samples are in contrast on the exact opposite end of the quality scale. Thus at the very least we can assume there is a wide range of potential results from the D500.

I will get my own camera as soon as Nikon Nordic can deliver my order and I presume there will be a learning curve to relate to when it arrives.

[Øivind Tøien]

When I checked out the dpreview raw studio samples (low light) with CNX-D I noticed that the files had a very considerable amount of noise reduction turned on at higher ISO. Whether this was the camera default (likely considering how the dpreview operates) or not is an open question others may be able to answer. I did not particularly like the way things looked with that much noise reduction. To evaluate files, I turned all noise reduction off. I liked the noise patterns resulting - low levels of chroma noise compared to other bodies I compared to and fine structure of the luminance noise.

[simsurace]

Are the two cat pictures 100% crops?