High ISO on D500

[Seapy]

The mouse is Here:

http://nikongear.net/revival/index.php/topic,6972.0.html

Together with the delightful frog!

[elsa hoffmann]

thanks Seapy!! 

[David H. Hartman]

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.

[elsa hoffmann]

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]

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.

[bobfriedman]

so the mouse is ISO=1600

[elsa hoffmann]

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

[Akira]

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.

[David H. Hartman]

Elsa,

Is the Lion's name Bezos?

Dave

[elsa hoffmann]

Elsa,

Is the Lion's name Bezos?

Dave

not a clue David...

[spraynpray]

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. 

[Ilkka Nissilä]

My biggest disappointment was the performance of my D850 with its BSI sensor in comparison to my D750.  D750 wins. 

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.

[spraynpray]

The members on Nikon Rumours were sure BSI gives a one stop advantage for low-light noise.  I am not seeing that.

[Ilkka Nissilä]

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.

[ArthurDent]

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.