D3S vs D800 on low light High ISO noise

[D&A]

Paul,

I believe it's been fairly well demonstrated that the reduction of high ISO noise in D800 files when they are downsized (ie: in photoshop) to approx 12-16MP, does not occur when you simply set the D800 to shoot in DX mode. In camera downsizing of files does not significantly (or possibly not at all) reduce noise levels as seen in high ISO images.

Dave (D&A)

 

[Paul2660]

Dave


Once again, I wasn't clear. All I was referring to was the value of the DX mode on the D800. Most of the wildlife shots I have taken over years require a crop usually as much as 50%. All taken with full frame cameras. I realize that the DX mode has no effect on the noise.

When you shoot a full frame on a medium to small bird odds are you will have to crop (unless you have a top dollar lens or are right there) neither apply to me. So when you crop the D800, via DX, you still have a ton of material left, almost as much as the Full frame from the D4. The D4 when cropped to DX is giving around 7mp, just not enough to really pull out the details in small feathers IMO.

I just mean that the DX mode is a great addition for wildlife shooter since many will be cropping anyway. That combined with a very good low noise performance in the iso range of 800 to 2000 gives the photographer a great asset.

Paul

 

[Guy Mancuso]

The DX comes in handy when your stuck in a spot and can't get closer and you have to shoot a lot of images. Cuts the cropping down in post. For me it helps with runway stuff sometimes. My comment over 3200 was sort of a side bar so ignore me . I know it certainly has valid reasons when shooting. I'm just a little sick of hearing it as a excuse to beat up a cam because maybe its lack of it. Just buy one that does. Lol

It's just that we hear this in every model that comes on the market endlessly .

 

[stngoldberg]

usually don't have to crop wildlife/sports images shot on full frame camera as I try to fill up the viewfinder by using a lens that has a matching FOV. Having said that I noticed recently that using the dx function on the 800E allowed a high number of fps-almost continuous shooting given the buffer capacity with lower megapixel images.
Recently photographed surfers in Newport RI and was able to document their efforts for almost 20 continuous seconds; must admit though my D3 is superior in maintaing focus of moving objects.
Stanley

 

[D&A]

Dave


Once again, I wasn't clear. All I was referring to was the value of the DX mode on the D800. Most of the wildlife shots I have taken over years require a crop usually as much as 50%. All taken with full frame cameras. I realize that the DX mode has no effect on the noise.

When you shoot a full frame on a medium to small bird odds are you will have to crop (unless you have a top dollar lens or are right there) neither apply to me. So when you crop the D800, via DX, you still have a ton of material left, almost as much as the Full frame from the D4. The D4 when cropped to DX is giving around 7mp, just not enough to really pull out the details in small feathers IMO.

I just mean that the DX mode is a great addition for wildlife shooter since many will be cropping anyway. That combined with a very good low noise performance in the iso range of 800 to 2000 gives the photographer a great asset.

Paul

No problem Paul. Just confirming we're all on the same page when discussing noise level of images from these various cameras in conjunction with the particular mode they are set in (full frame, DX, etc.

Dave (D&A)

 

[D&A]

The DX comes in handy when your stuck in a spot and can't get closer and you have to shoot a lot of images. Cuts the cropping down in post. For me it helps with runway stuff sometimes. My comment over 3200 was sort of a side bar so ignore me . I know it certainly has valid reasons when shooting. I'm just a little sick of hearing it as a excuse to beat up a cam because maybe its lack of it. Just buy one that does. Lol

It's just that we hear this in every model that comes on the market endlessly .

Guy, as we all know, there are some fantasic digital cameras, past and present (with various sized sensors) that have exceptional quality files at base and lower ISO levels but have relatively medicore to poor performance at higher ISO. Simply put, some of those cameras actually produce files of such high quality at lower ISO's, that they can often be superior to cameras that have unbelivable high ISO/low noise performance.

There are a lot of criteria for judging a digital cameras output.

Dave (D&A)

 

[paulraphael]

For 36 years I NEVER ever needed anything over 1600 but on a couple occasions 3200. Im baffled by this need for ISO 64000000000000000000

I never did either, but after I got the d800 I found myself doing a project on the subways in NYC. I've gone from doing everything at ISO 100 in my regular work to spending most of the day at iso 2000 to 6400.

I think the talk of downsampling / upsampling is just a pixel-peeping approximation of how a photograph actually gets used. You're always aiming for a particular print size or web image size. Any time you print two files of disparate resolutions at the same size, you are normalizing them. This is effectively the same as upsampling one or downsampling the other. I don't think there's much to be learned from comparing a 12mp file to a 36mp file at 100%. Who cares? We care how they compare in actual use, which is always a normalized comparison.

The d800 files at 6400 are very noisy. But it doesn't take much to eliminate any hint of chroma noise, and what remains looks a lot like film grain. It's not ugly. I'm planning to print these at 20x30 … I'd be curious to see how d4 files treated similarly would compare.

 

[D&A]

Paul, I couldn't agree with you more! The upshot of the quality of any file, is ultimately examining it in the form of it's final output, whether it be web, print use, or some other form of presentation. I often have to print files at 24x36 and larger and so how a camera performs image quality wise under certain conditions that allows me to get close to what I consider ideal for my stAted output, is often how I judge a camera performance for that given use. If it's usd for a different requirement or form of output, thn a camera that's subpar for the first senario, may be superb for another.

As for use of the D800 at high ISO in the NYC subway system...that's the least of your worries while brandishing a D800 on certain platforms (in certain locations)...LOL! Hey I should know, both originally growing up in NYC and the myriad of dangerous places I didn't have the good sense to avoid doing street photography alone (at all hrs of the night), where I'd have my Spotmatic F by my side at all times. Guess you could say it was my weapon of choice . All done in hoping for a positive critique from my photographic mentor. As for the ISO film I used, generally 100 and later on possibly 400. The term ISO 6400 was like speaking a foreign language to me.

Dave (D&A)

 

[Guy Mancuso]

BTW this morning in C1 I processed a D800E at 150 percent 24x32 300 dpi output and holy cow it looked to have no degradation at all. It handled it very well. Only file I have been able to do that in the past was my Phase files with quality. Just have not tried it on these files yet. I was like right on brother. Nice sidebar

Makes me want to go much further. Lol

 

[paulraphael]

As for use of the D800 at high ISO in the NYC subway system...that's the least of your worries while brandishing a D800 on certain platforms (in certain locations)...LOL!

Well, the way I'm working people seem to regard me as one of the street lunatics, so no one bugs me. Also it's my habit to cover all the camera logos with black tape and use a cheap generic camera strap. So whether I look like a tourist or a nut, I look like a cheap one!

 

[D&A]

Well, the way I'm working people seem to regard me as one of the street lunatics, so no one bugs me. Also it's my habit to cover all the camera logos with black tape and use a cheap generic camera strap. So whether I look like a tourist or a nut, I look like a cheap one!

LOL! No doubt times have changed. Back when I was street shooting there on almost a daily basis, photographers were few and between on on the streets (relatively speaking of course), and so the large SLR around the neck and people notiicing someone taking images of people, elicited quite a different reaction that if done today. More photographers now but also many more people suspecious what one is taking pictures of. Bottom line, both pluses and minuses if one compares the changes....except for lunatics one runs into LOL. some things on the streets never change!

Dave (D&A)

 

[paulraphael]

When were you there? I was just looking at Bruce Davidson's subway project from the early 80s. It was a different world. He said he trained for six weeks before taking his cameras underground, just so he'd have a better chance when running for his life. He got mugged so many times that the police took him up on his offer to travel with undercover escorts, and use his camer as bait. In the famous picture with the gun at the passenger's head, that's actually a cop arresting a would-be camera thief. And looking like he's enjoying it just a little too much.

 

[paulraphael]

I just posted my project here. At web size there isn't much to tell about the low light performance, other than it's cool that such a project is even possible. I'll report back when I start working on prints. There will be a hunt for funding before that happens, but I'll be delighted if the iso 6400 images work acceptably at 20x30.

According to DXO, the biggest advantage of the D3S is dynamic range, where it overtakes the d800 around iso 1600. Lucky for me this project made no demands on DR ... but a lot of demands on signal-to-noise. By that metric the d800, d3S, and d4 measure about the same.

 

[D&A]

Paul,

I was there (shooting) throughout the 70's and parts of the 80's. Of course after that, I'd take fairly frequent trips to NYC. Its not surprising how much has changed, not only the landscape and culturally but just the overall experience of street shooting and the public reaction to it.

Dave (D&A)

 

[Jason Muelver]

I just posted my project here. At web size there isn't much to tell about the low light performance, other than it's cool that such a project is even possible. I'll report back when I start working on prints. There will be a hunt for funding before that happens, but I'll be delighted if the iso 6400 images work acceptably at 20x30.

According to DXO, the biggest advantage of the D3S is dynamic range, where it overtakes the d800 around iso 1600. Lucky for me this project made no demands on DR ... but a lot of demands on signal-to-noise. By that metric the d800, d3S, and d4 measure about the same.

Now this is where it's at. Dynamic range.

I shoot with a D700/D3 combo. Been thinking of adding an M9/D800 or selling my D700 for a D3S. This may have made my decision easier.

When I'm shooting a reception with strobes, I tend to float from iso 800-1600. These days dark ceremonies are very popular, so I max out at 5000. Mouse shmoize. That can be wiped out. DR can't be added.

 

[Shashin]

I think comparing noise between a 12MP and 37MP sensor is a little pointless. Even if the noise is identical or even a little worse in the 37MP sensor at 100%, it will be be better in the 37MP at a standard viewing distance because the relative size of the pixels are smaller. The limits of your vision will act as noise reduction--no need to downsample.

 

[D&A]

Although we may be talking about a different catagory of camera, it would be interesting to throw the D600 into the mix with regards to this comparison. From some past brief comparisons I made of the D600 vs. D800 and D3s under low light, high ISO conditions, I found the D600 (as others have found) even more advantagous than the D800 and held it's own quite well when compared to the D3s beyond the D800's 3200 ISO.

The 24MP file size is a good compromise between the often too small 12MP and 36 MP file size, when one is not exclusively shooting landscapes for considerably large prints. I believe there is a market for a Nikon 24MP DSLR with the image qualities of the D600 but maybe more of the body capability (AF aquisition, tracking frame rate and build) of a D700/D800 type body.

Dave (D&A)

 

[Mr.Gale]

I have very little experience shooting at a high ISO so I nothing to compare this camera with but I'm impressed on how well it worked in this situation.
Mr.Gale

D800E
70-200 + 2x @ 370mm
1/3 sec @ f5.6
ISO 6400
Monopod


CAUGHT IN THE HEADLIGHTS

@~100%

 

[RVB]

Photographic Dynamic Range versus ISO

The above site is for comparing DR and SNR on different bodies..

 

[Jason Muelver]

Although we may be talking about a different catagory of camera, it would be interesting to throw the D600 into the mix with regards to this comparison. From some past brief comparisons I made of the D600 vs. D800 and D3s under low light, high ISO conditions, I found the D600 (as others have found) even more advantagous than the D800 and held it's own quite well when compared to the D3s beyond the D800's 3200 ISO.

The 24MP file size is a good compromise between the often too small 12MP and 36 MP file size, when one is not exclusively shooting landscapes for considerably large prints. I believe there is a market for a Nikon 24MP DSLR with the image qualities of the D600 but maybe more of the body capability (AF aquisition, tracking frame rate and build) of a D700/D800 type body.

Dave (D&A)

And this is where I'm torn. My D3 and D700 are showing age. So which do I add? D3S, D800, D600? A D4 is straight out. I know I shoot a lot at ISO5000 and above in some of these churches during the processional, so that's why I'm leaning D3S. A D900 (D4 guts, D800 body) would be perfect and I'd buy 2 in a heart beat. But that's not an option.

Ugh.