The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

D3S vs D800 on low light High ISO noise

jfirneno

Member
For anyone who has worked with these two cameras, how would you rate the D800 with respect to the D3S? I've read and seen evaluations that give the edge to the D3S with respect to low light noise but for anyone who has used both for available light photography can you give me your thoughts on how they compare?

Thanks,
John
 

Paul2660

Well-known member
I can't speak to the D3s, (which I believe is still Nikon's best high iso camera including the D4). I was able to shoot a D4 for a few days. I was mainly interested in seeing how much better the high iso response was, compared to the D800.

Net, what I found was D4 and D800 are very close up to iso 3200, after you start to see a gradual improvement with the D4 up to 6400 and after that the D4 I found was good up to iso 12K.

I felt to compare files you either down res the D800 to 16mp or upres the D4 to 36mp. To me there really is no other way to do a side by side comparison.

The D800 high iso file down res'd to the 16mp is very very good, the D4 file upres'd to 36mp, not so good. I was surprised by this not really having shot the D800 past iso 400. The D800 was good enough up to 3200 that I sent the D4 back since I didn't need the faster frame rate and rarely use any iso higher than 3200 for landscape/wildlife work. I also still prefer the DX mode on the D800 for birds and most wildlife as you still have 15mp of image to work with where as with a D4 you are down to around 7mp in DX mode. With most of my wildlife work with a full frame sensor I find myself cropping into the file as I don't have a super telephoto.

With the D3s you have an even great gap in size of file, 12mp vs 36mp. The D3s is an amazing high iso camera and from what I have read is still the champ as far as Nikon bodies go, so on first pass at 12mp more than likely the D3s will still be a better file. (I am now on the hunt for a used D3s).

What I would love to see is a firmware update to the D800 that gives a medium raw file like Canon has. Many times when I am shooting with higher iso's I know in advance I will not need anywhere near 36mp.

I will say in advance, sorry no pictures as some on this site seem to feel that is a requirement. Just takes a bit too long to get all the crops and side by sides. I noticed on Lloyd Chambers site, he pretty much has come to the same conclusion on the D4.

Paul
 

D&A

Well-known member
Paul Wrote>>>"Net, what I found was D4 and D800 are very close up to iso 3200"<<<

Hi Paul,

In the (your) statement I quoted above, were you referring to the D800 at it's native resolution of 36MP or its file downsized to 16MP, when compared to the D4. Thanks!

Dave (D&A)
 

Paul2660

Well-known member
Dave,

Sorry for the confusion. I found the down res'd D800 file very close to the standard 16mp file from the D4. I tried several different tools for this but ended up just using CS5.

When I tried to take a 16mp file from the D4 up to 36mp, then I started to see the standard noise artifacts that seem to get worse when up-resing a high iso file. I used LR 4 for the raw conversions. I used LR4 for the upres, along with on-one's perfect resize, and CS5.

I was surprised at how close the two files were.

Paul
 

D&A

Well-known member
Dave,

Sorry for the confusion. I found the down res'd D800 file very close to the standard 16mp file from the D4. I tried several different tools for this but ended up just using CS5.

When I tried to take a 16mp file from the D4 up to 36mp, then I started to see the standard noise artifacts that seem to get worse when up-resing a high iso file. I used LR 4 for the raw conversions. I used LR4 for the upres, along with on-one's perfect resize, and CS5.

I was surprised at how close the two files were.

Paul
I realize uprezing the D4 files to D800 file size equivelent wasn't going to be all that good. It's the comparision of the higher ISO D800 native sized 36MP files compared to the native 16MP higher ISO D4 files that I'm trying to get a handle on. In this particular case say files at ISO 3200, I feel the D4 probably has at least a stop to 1.5 stop advantage over the D800. IS that essentually what you observed? Thanks!

Dave (D&A)
 

jfirneno

Member
Folks:

I really appreciate the information being provided. I think I will make it easier on the repliers if I give a little background on my question. I currently have a camera that provides very competent daylight photos. The only kind of photography that I need to assist is low light indoor non-flash work. Noise free ISO 6400 would be the ideal case. I was debating whether to get a used D3S or a new D800 or D600. Any other suggestions are also welcome.

Thanks,
John
 

Bryan Stephens

Workshop Member
I currently have a D3s and the D800 and up to iso 1600 there is almost no difference, and as Paul said only a little at 3200, but above that, you can clearly see where the D3s shines, in both noise, color retention and clarity.

If you dont need to go above 1600, then a D800 is clearly an excellent option, and it costs a lot less, leaving some money for the high quality glass you need to optimize all of those megapixels.

Now in your situation where you are looking to shoot ISO 6400 indoors, a D3s would most likely be a better choice. An excellent condition D3s would should cost you about $600 to $900 more than a new D800, judging from what I have seen them going for.
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
Let's not forget the D3s is 12MP. If you take a D800 ISO 12,000 36MP frame and downsample it to 12MP, you might be surprised at just how good IT is at extremely high ISO :)
 

Paul2660

Well-known member
To Jack's point, exactly. The issue with the D800 is you have so much more information to work with and for sure when you downsample the high iso files from the D800 are Very Impressive. I had totally overlooked this at first based on what I had read and didn't test the D800 at high iso until I had the D4.

My main reason for not purchasing the D4 besides cost :) was the fact that I don't need 10 or 11 fps and the D800 files are actually very clean up to a certain point in native resolution and when you down sample them, you can get up to 6400 iso files that are still very useable, never tried 12K. In fact I didn't realize it went that high.

When the D800 first came out, everyone stated it was "great" noise wise at base iso, but was not that good performer in the higher iso range. I would disagree with that. For sure the D800 is better than anything my 5D MKII could do up to 6400 and 1ds MKIII either.

I was pleasantly surprised with the high iso of the D800. Since I sold my original D800 for an E, my results are not quite as good and I don't understand that. I have worn out testing the 800 and 800E files side by side. My E shows a bit more noise than my 800 did at higher isos and I have to assume that is due to the lack of the AA filter?

Paul
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
My down sampled D800 files from the last show i did at ISO 1600 where extremely good. I have no issues with the D800 and high ISO work since most times you really dont need a full 36mpx image anyway and even not down sampled 1600 looks really good.

What REALLY bothers me lately is these camera's are bought, reviewed , hammered on and beat up by its high ISO alone. Its actually pretty moronic to hear this. Not on this forum I should add but i cant even read those threads anymore. For 36 years I NEVER ever needed anything over 1600 but on a couple occasions 3200. Im baffled by this need for ISO 64000000000000000000
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
I was pleasantly surprised with the high iso of the D800. Since I sold my original D800 for an E, my results are not quite as good and I don't understand that. I have worn out testing the 800 and 800E files side by side. My E shows a bit more noise than my 800 did at higher isos and I have to assume that is due to the lack of the AA filter?
Paul,

Yes, while the sensor is behind the OLPF and theoretically noise is a function of sensor only, the OLPF in the D800 seems to attenuate noise to a certain degree over the D800E. In fact, that very fact coupled with two others: the the fact the D800's OLPF is so nearly perfect in it's design -- meaning very light and near Nyquist such that its negative effects can effectively be processed out -- and then add the fact that the D800 and D800E both require significantly different processing protocols, are the reasons why I decided to go with a pair of D800's and sold Guy my E.
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
I just like the letter E. LOL

Its against the ownership rules to have the same exact model. ROTFLMAO
 

Paul2660

Well-known member
Guy, unfortunately I should have listened to Jack on this one. I usually do and have yet to make a bad call on his advice. I just got caught up in the whole E vs no E thing. The noise issue was a unpleasant surprise :facesmack:

I had hoped that I could make it up with a D600 but Nikon cut too much out of it more me. Bracketing (3) only and no cabled remote especially.

I very well may go the other way again.

Paul
 

Alon

Not Available
All this is very nice.

Try to shoot in low light while attaining focus and keeping focus without illumination on a relatively non stable subject or while you are moving yourself and the D800/E is good for the laundry while the D3s is ironed, starched and ready to wear.

Shoot a static subject with a strong contrast light and the D800/E is your Uncle. GO above 1600ISO and the D3s is your Auntie - nephew and all the family!

So it all very nice to say that downsampling D800/E gets you close to the D3s but you have to achieve focus and get the £$!?&% shot in the first place and that's why the D3s reigns supreme.

So when we compare, let's compare in real life situations and not while pampering the shot.
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
Guy, unfortunately I should have listened to Jack on this one. I usually do and have yet to make a bad call on his advice. I just got caught up in the whole E vs no E thing. The noise issue was a unpleasant surprise :facesmack:

I had hoped that I could make it up with a D600 but Nikon cut too much out of it more me. Bracketing (3) only and no cabled remote especially.

I very well may go the other way again.

Paul
The E takes less sharpening which helps to reduce noise. Also we are working with a D800 profile in C1 not a E . Regardless this all goes away in 7. Just dont tell anyone that. LOL
 

D&A

Well-known member
My down sampled D800 files from the last show i did at ISO 1600 where extremely good. I have no issues with the D800 and high ISO work since most times you really dont need a full 36mpx image anyway and even not down sampled 1600 looks really good.

What REALLY bothers me lately is these camera's are bought, reviewed , hammered on and beat up by its high ISO alone. Its actually pretty moronic to hear this. Not on this forum I should add but i cant even read those threads anymore. For 36 years I NEVER ever needed anything over 1600 but on a couple occasions 3200. Im baffled by this need for ISO 64000000000000000000
Guy, I agree with what you expressed for the most part, but there are certain specific situations, where ISO 3200 and often higher is almost mandatory for the kind of quality shots a client demands (especially when used for very sizable large format prints). These situations comprise of extremely low light stage lighting combined with many fast moving stage performers. Due to a variety of reasons, capture for many of those shots require use of the camera "hand held" or occasionally with a monopod. The net requirement is relatively clean images where upon enlargement, shows minimal amount of noise. I wish all it took was ISO 1600, but in many of these situations, that's a far cry from reality.

I also agree with some other posters, that setting up stagnant low light test shots to test out a cameras high ISO performance vs. another, is really not "real world", regardless of how well controlled things are. Often times mixed lighting, very uneven exposure across an entire frame and a host of other related factors, often paints a very different picture, noise and image quality wise, especially at higher ISO settings. That's been my long time experience with digital capture.

Dave (D&A)
 

D&A

Well-known member
My down sampled D800 files from the last show i did at ISO 1600 where extremely good. I have no issues with the D800 and high ISO work since most times you really dont need a full 36mpx image anyway and even not down sampled 1600 looks really good.

What REALLY bothers me lately is these camera's are bought, reviewed , hammered on and beat up by its high ISO alone. Its actually pretty moronic to hear this. Not on this forum I should add but i cant even read those threads anymore. 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 know but its becoming outside the real need, its very irritating to read anymore.
Again Guy, I'm in almost total agreement with you and often view these ridiculously high ISO"s almost absurd for most shooting circumstances. In many situations, individuals want to simply avoid a tripod, whereby tripod use and setting the camera for reasonably ISO settings and proper exposure times is the way to go.

The situation I described above simply requires fast shutter speeds and use of fast telephoto lenses. The objective is to keep those shutter speeds high enough in an acceptable range to prevent un-usable blurs, while still achieving relatively clean images for the output I described. Unfortunately with the ridiculously low lighting conditions that often prevail, along with subjects constantly moving, there is no other alternative for manditory hand held or monopod shots, other than using extremely high ISO settings. Not an ideal way to go, but leaves one with few alternatives.

Dave (D&A)
 

Paul2660

Well-known member
I agree on needs above 6400 iso.

My needs for high iso are really wildlife only. When landscape shooting I will have a tripod, and the only time I can remember using higher iso settings is when I am working on a windy day and I need to stop motion of trees.

Wildlife, (Arkansas, Oklahoma, Texas) my main areas, tend to be early morning, or late afternoon shots. Never (should never say never) bright day shots. Here I am working in a blind or field and action has can be quite fast. Moving large animals in low light can be tough but also very rewarding. My solution has been to use a cheaper lens, example Canon 100-400 which won't give me the best 400mm=F6.3 so I am forced into the iso 1200, 1600, 2000 range very fast. The point I was trying to make, in the past with Canon and the 5d MKII getting something worth printing at iso 2000 @ F6.3 could be hard. With the D800 at 1600 to 2000 I am finding I tend to get very good results. Much cleaner files and the DX mode comes in very handy.

My other frequent addiction is to work birds, small and medium and again either in a tree or blind. In a tree working fast and not wanting to carry the larger glass. In a blind, the larger glass is usually fine. However it's very rare to have "great" light as if you do, the birds are not coming in. Mixed light tends to be the case. Here again I am quickly using iso 800 to 2000 to both get the shot and have a fast enough shutter speed to stop the motion.
The D800's iso range works great in this style of shooting. A real plus is that you are still at around 15mp in DX mode so you have a lot of resolution to work with.

The point I was trying to make is that you will be surprised by just how good the D800 in the mid to high iso range can be. It's actually pretty amazing considering it's a 36mp sensor.

Paul
 
Top