D3S vs D800 on low light High ISO noise

[Theodoros Fotometria]

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

Having extensive experience with all Nikon FX bodies (current or past), I believe that the choice is more on the functioning and how the body suits the owner than the IQ differences between them... all current FX bodies are capable of providing usable results up to 12800 ISO which is considerably better than the previous generation but the D3S... D4 & D3S will have the edge above that value.
OTOH Guy, I process for best print quality and thus I never upsample or downsample an image... My conclusion is that sampling can never benefit a print... no matter what PPI the print comes out (as long as there are more than 72ppi available to be printed) and I do print in my studio 7.8m2 per day (year average) on my Epson 9900. It's best to choose the nearest printing size to the required one, so that printing DPI divide accurately with output PPI. The reason for the above is that sampling doesn't add printing density on the printing area, but does induce artifacts, while the printing density remains constant. By having the DPI of the printer to divide accurately with the output PPI of a given picture we avoid both sampling artifacts and printing artifacts too.

 

[D&A]

Having extensive experience with all Nikon FX bodies (current or past), I believe that the choice is more on the functioning and how the body suits the owner than the IQ differences between them... all current FX bodies are capable of providing usable results up to 12800 ISO which is considerably better than the previous generation but the D3S... D4 & D3S will have the edge above that value.
OTOH Guy, I process for best print quality and thus I never upsample or downsample an image... My conclusion is that sampling can never benefit a print... no matter what PPI the print comes out (as long as there are more than 72ppi available to be printed) and I do print in my studio 7.8m2 per day (year average) on my Epson 9900. It's best to choose the nearest printing size to the required one, so that printing DPI divide accurately with output PPI. The reason for the above is that sampling doesn't add printing density on the printing area, but does induce artifacts, while the printing density remains constant. By having the DPI of the printer to divide accurately with the output PPI of a given picture we avoid both sampling artifacts and printing artifacts too.

+1 to most of what you expressed....with regards to all the nikon Fx bodies, which I and many others here have shot extensively...adn also to large format printing considerations and philosophy.

With reagdrs to higher ISO performance, it all depends what the intended output is, the subject matteer and what the individual's threashold is for noise with a give particular image.

Dave (D&A)

 

[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.

Jason, after keeping a D600 in box for a few months brand new (especially and primarily purchased for a family members use)... I finially cracked it open (the box, not the camera...LOL), over the weekend for a shoot. Very low ever changing light, fast moving action, color temp of lighting constantly changing and other quite demanding shooting conditons...where previously such shoots were reserved for a D3/D3s pro type body.

These conditions are a far cry from the more typical uses of the D600, such as for outdoor static landscapes, travel photography, weddings etc. The big surprise was the low ISO performance....excellent in all respects and more than sufficient and not all that far off (to an extent) from the D3/D4 domain. Af lock-on in low light definitely as sure footed as the Pro bodies and there was a distinct difference, but did a adaquate job in this regard.

Clusters of Af sensors in the viewfinder for this type of shoot are too centralized and not sufficently spread out across the frame. Frame rate was adaquate. Camera was sort of responsive enough but just barely for this the kinds of demands this shoot requires. AF tracking was decent too but not on par with the Pro bodies. Handling (size, ergonomics, button placement and responsiveness to button/review etc commands), was just OK and being used to the larger pro bodies, I thought the D800 in this regard was better thought out. I think they had D7000 users steping up to a D600 in mind when they designed it. The Pro bodies are simply instantanious (almost) in whatever function one requires and one has to expect a sort of compromise when using bodies such as the D600.

File quality exceptiionally good and except for having 24MP compared to the D800 36MP...it's almost neck and neck. The D800 in a similar shoot didn't fair as well as the D600...for a variety of obvious reasons. It's a somewhat more specialized camera than the D600. In landscape work, that's probably a different story and the D800 will reign supreme. Some wedding photographers I know who want that bigger file size, and tried both the D800 and D600...overall preferred the D600 for that sort of application. Each excelss in somewhat different areas than 12MP DSLR.

24MP is a sweet spot when needing larger than 12MP files.

I've been posting for ages (OK, the last 6-9 months), the need for a Pro level Nikon 24MP body...maybe similar to a D700 size and build quality body....with a frame rate of at least 7FPS, the AF and responsiveness and abilities of a D700/D3/D3s etc., as well as many of it's other shooting and handling characteristics. I think there is a sizeable market ripe for this type of offering. For me, and these shoots, that would certainly be idea. Not as a replacement for a 16MP D4 camera thats more applicable to PJ...but a somewhat higher resolution camera (and possibly based more on a D700 bodies as opposed to a D3/D4 one)...that has a more manageable file size (24MP) as compared to the D800, but has handing and many of the specs resembling those of say the D3s etc.

Dave (D&A)

 

[glenerrolrd]

ISO performance aside there is quite a difference between a Pro body and the D800/E in size (without the grip) . One of my last shoots with high ISO was Christmas in NYC . On the street with 2 bodies and a 28/50 R lenses...the form or size was fine ...never had any issues photographing anyone on the street (this was not the case with my D3 a few years back ).

The ISO performance at 800-3200 was just excellent and the balance between DR,color,noise and the ability to render fine detail was the best I ve used . Hard to shoot Christmas without leveraging street exhibits,window light ,tree lights etc and black shadows come with the territory . (Try Ice Skating for a test of DR).

With that said if I was doing commercial work ..the better DR of the D4 at higher ISO s would probably move me in that direction .

 

[Jason Muelver]

Dave.. So the wedding people you know moved from a D3S to D600?

 

[Theodoros Fotometria]

Dave.. So the wedding people you know moved from a D3S to D600?

Many did Jason... I am not a "wedding photographer" (although I do a lot of weddings annually), but I can tell you that "wedding photographers" don't care much about body quality... or ultra super-dupper speed... or battery survival... ("visible" - as in "depth of scene visibility") DOF and DR is their main concern, as well as "sensible" (800-6400 Iso) low-light performance.... Personally, I am shooting D800 & D800E (although I would slightly prefer D600 for low light), but this is due to "body personal like preference". My "ultimate" (and perhaps other "wedding photographers" too), would have been a D800 body with D4 sensor and processing electronics in it...

 

[D&A]

Many did Jason... I am not a "wedding photographer" (although I do a lot of weddings annually), but I can tell you that "wedding photographers" don't care much about body quality... or ultra super-dupper speed... or battery survival... ("visible" - as in "depth of scene visibility") DOF and DR is their main concern, as well as "sensible" (800-6400 Iso) low-light performance.... Personally, I am shooting D800 & D800E (although I would slightly prefer D600 for low light), but this is due to "body personal like preference". My "ultimate" (and perhaps other "wedding photographers" too), would have been a D800 body with D4 sensor and processing electronics in it...

Jason, I agree with much of what Theodoros wrote! Wedding photographer I know who deired a bigger file than the typical D3s 12MP camera have optied for the D600, not D800. reason being is the D800 file size is overkill for their uses and slows the entire workflow own. 24MP is really a sweet spot for those that desire cropable files and a greater abundence of pixels as compared to 12MP.

In terms of ergonics feel and overall responsiveness, they often prefer the D800...as it can at times feel like a D700 or a mini D3..the D600 doesn't and feel and handles more like an amateur body like the D7000...but except for this, is preferable to the D800 for wedding use.

You will get arguments both ways.

I really need at least the 24MP for my type of performing arts shoots but the responsiveness of the D3s/D4....so I am in no-wheres land and not sure if I wil or won't keep using the D600 for this use (only used my brand new body/grip one time. for the uses I outlined and for it's image quality, even at ISo 2000 and higer...it was remarkable...maybe surpassing the D800 too!

Dave (D&A0

 

[Jason Muelver]

Thanks, Dave.

To be honest, I think I need a double barreled approach. I just can't do a D4. Doesn't make business sense, but it's the almost perfect camera. Frame rate is waaaay overkill.

Thinking D3S/D800 or D600 will be my combo. Seen some good alternative workflows for the D800 files by turning to DNG's and maxing files size to 15-20MB with no ill effects, but can still grab the big files from my archives if needed for full page spreads, etc. Might try that route for a couple of weddings, and if it's too cumbersome, ditch the D800 and go D600.

I know my April wedding I'll need both ISO5000 minimum AND a lot of MP's cause I have to stay in the back of a dark cathedral. We'll see!!!

 

[Theodoros Fotometria]

Thanks, Dave.

To be honest, I think I need a double barreled approach. I just can't do a D4. Doesn't make business sense, but it's the almost perfect camera. Frame rate is waaaay overkill.

Thinking D3S/D800 or D600 will be my combo. Seen some good alternative workflows for the D800 files by turning to DNG's and maxing files size to 15-20MB with no ill effects, but can still grab the big files from my archives if needed for full page spreads, etc. Might try that route for a couple of weddings, and if it's too cumbersome, ditch the D800 and go D600.

I know my April wedding I'll need both ISO5000 minimum AND a lot of MP's cause I have to stay in the back of a dark cathedral. We'll see!!!

Obviously Jason we are all in much agreement here... Let me tell you though, why I sold my D3S and the danger you may have to face by keeping it.... You see, if you keep it, we photographers tend to use the most "macho" (responsive?, feeling friendly?) body we can if we have it along... sometimes, we say "what the hay" I can do it with smaller files too... "I'll take better pictures if I can feel better with the camera"... and then you may end up using this as your prime body leaving the rest as back up! If I was ever to use the camera professionally at 12800 Iso and above, I would have kept it, although all other aspects of it, are way overkill for the use... It's exactly the reason why I didn't invest on a D4 either... all modern FX bodies are capable of providing good up to 6400 ISO raws and that's the maximum I'll ever (rarely too) go! The D600 would have been ideal if it had wider AF area and CF card slot, otoh the D800 is almost perfect but the file size which is only time consuming in the sense that you have to wait for the conversion, or for "DG photo art" to open the files for the book, but undoubtedly the camera is both the right size, feels solid and trustful and is an ergonomically "pro" camera. I now use my old D700 as back up to the two D800s that are my prime bodies... I've thought of replacing it with a D600 but ended up thinking that it's only back up and D700 is already a trustful back up (as macho as the D800 too), if the rumored D4 sensor in D800 body though will come true, I'll replace both the D800 and D700 with two of those and only keep the D800E for the MFDB quality it offers me for the few (wedding) shots that I used to use my Contax 645 and MFDB a couple of years ago, or whenever there is a studio session with the couple... If I may add, I do slightly prefer (after having tried the D4 and D600 extensively - the importers have lend me one of both for more than a week) the D4 sensor than the D600 one, but again, I use D800 although I prefer (again slightly) the D600 sensor from the one that it has... this of course excludes the "E", ...oh yes, it excludes the "E"!!! :thumbs:

 

[D&A]

Theodporos...once again I can completely agree and identify with everything you expressed...virtually word for word! I personally need at least 24MP in a body as responsive as a D700/D3s preferably in a D800 sized body..with superb high ISO performance, Af sensor spread across most of the frame, 7FPS and more. The D600 comes slightly closer to my requirements than a D800, but neither is ideal for my needs. The D4 would be perfect if it had at least 24MP. 36MP is fine and preferable for landscape use but unless there is a very specific need, 24MP is close to ideal for wedding work, in my opinion.

Nikon has a gap in DSLR's bodies in a number of key areas and hoefully they'll address them by the end of 2013.

The D800/e should have had at least an option to shoot 24MP, Combined with a processor that responded more quickly with read/write times with this smaller (downsized) file size and also boosted the FPS in this lower 24MP resolution mode. The optional grip could have been partly involved with these requirments if it was necessary.

Guess some of it will come in due time.

Dave (D&A)

 

[Theodoros Fotometria]

Theodporos...once again I can completely agree and identify with everything you expressed...virtually word for word! I personally need at least 24MP in a body as responsive as a D700/D3s preferably in a D800 sized body..with superb high ISO performance, Af sensor spread across most of the frame, 7FPS and more. The D600 comes slightly closer to my requirements than a D800, but neither is ideal for my needs. The D4 would be perfect if it had at least 24MP. 36MP is fine and preferable for landscape use but unless there is a very specific need, 24MP is close to ideal for wedding work, in my opinion.

Nikon has a gap in DSLR's bodies in a number of key areas and hoefully they'll address them by the end of 2013.

The D800/e should have had at least an option to shoot 24MP, Combined with a processor that responded more quickly with read/write times with this smaller (downsized) file size and also boosted the FPS in this lower 24MP resolution mode. The optional grip could have been partly involved with these requirments if it was necessary.

Guess some of it will come in due time.

Dave (D&A)

I guess it all depends on how "heavy" crop is involved, personally I don't crop much, besides the difference between 16mp and 24 files is small... would of course prefer the 24mp sensor in D800 than the existing one (not for the E though), but I have to admit that the quality of the 16mp sensor has impressed me, it's not because of the pixel count, it's its high(er) Iso DR and the quality of noise (!!) that I find superb... I like sensors with narrower linear part in their DR (like film was) and higher compression in their HLs and LLs... I find they end up (after processing) with more usable (natural looking) DR... If you have a chance to try D4 you'll see what I mean, not that the difference is much, or that you can't work around things without it, but ...it suits me! :chug:

 

[Jason Muelver]

Boy Dave, only being a partial smart ***, but a 5DMk3 sounds like just what you (and I guess I ) need?

 

[Theodoros Fotometria]

Boy Dave, only being a partial smart ***, but a 5DMk3 sounds like just what you (and I guess I ) need?

I thought we were talking about photos here Jason.... not video!!!! :facesmack:

 

[D&A]

Boy Dave, only being a partial smart ***, but a 5DMk3 sounds like just what you (and I guess I ) need?

I know Jason but the last think I want to do is switch systems. Anyhow, years of watching this "digital game" has taught me (and I'm sure you and everyone else), that when either Nikon or Canon is ahead with a particular product...it's only a matter of time when the other company catches up and leapfrogs over the competition. This game is played endlessly....but unfortunately it's often a long waiting game.

Dave (D&A)

 

[jfirneno]

So I'm reviving this thread because I decided to do an experiment. I've rented a D3S for an occasion next month and that should allow me to get a feel for what good high ISO can do for me. Of course not being a regular Nikon user I thought I could ask some Nikon shooters what good set points I could use for available-light shooting in an indoor low-light environment. So what AF mode (spot, etc.) is best with this camera in that environment. I'm shooting a gathering of people that will include some moving targets. I'll be using a stabilized zoom lens with a maximum aperture of 2.8. All advice is welcome.

regards,
Joh n

 

[Hulyss Bowman]

I like this thread because it took an interesting derivation about some essential "things" of photography, in some ways. Guy screamed the first ^^

I started my own business in January and actually build it slowly. I know some pros who gave me some great advices, like... renting what we need in the high end level. Like... MFDB ... I will never buy one, I do not like it, its to big, slow, expensive... as I will never buy a Nikon D800.

I own a brand new D700 bought last year, some very nice lenses, a Nikon F65 who do the job very well to (lol), a DP3 Merrill (who is a pro tool in my world), a good screen a good computer, good Epson Pro Printers ... This is more than one can want in some areas. Then some ppl lend me sometime a Leica S2, D800 and some other things, I'm happy.

Then come someone who offer me a wast amount of cash, to spend it in gear only (so sad, but I will not complain). So I did a "heart list" who will land on my table in some weeks.

Over the D800, I will take a D600 as a companion of my D700, because I think, from my experience of photography, that it is a great tool at the end. I do not care about the toughness and AF, I care about the sensor output with my lenses and the D600 is class leading actually, isn't he ? At a sensor level ? So, why the hell I will buy a 36 MP camera ? For what ? to buy the lastes Zeiss lenses ? of AFS-G lenses ?? C'mon !! If I need rez, I go rez, not pussy rez.

So what do I ordered too ?? Now way I will ask someone to pay me an MFDB system. If my clients want something out of it, I rent it. I took what seems logic in my mind (and I'm 34 years old, I do have I hope a lot of road to do ^^):

A brand new Mamyia 7ii with the 80 and the 150, a vast repro bench, light tables and load of films to fill out the fridge, negatives and reversibles, a good expo/flashmeter and here we go baby.

Some asked me via mail my new scanning method of 6x7 films... some might now guess is I will do a review about it. I will scan by stitching with the DP3merrill on a repro bench. My guesstimate is it will go FAR beyond what can do a V750 and very close what can do a drum scan (and might surpass it in some ways). Marrying foveon and film should be spectacular but I might be wrong. Since I have the gear, why not trying it ??


So, D4... D800, ISO, Mpx ... why asking ?? They are not the same tool and both very expensive. One cost a lot but have very good and flexible files, the other cost a lot too and need class leading optics to come close to a simple DP3 Merrill... + the investment in storage ... well, you get it.

The D3s, if very unused, is a very very good choice even today, of course !

 

[Hulyss Bowman]

Of course, If you have another advice for me I'll be happy to listen !

 

[jfirneno]

So I used the rented D3S last week with a Tamron 24-70 F2.8 with VC. My guesstimate is that the D3S has about a 2 to 2-1/2 stop advantage over my Sony A-850. But what turned out to be almost as important is the Auto ISO settings that the D3S has that my Sony doesn't. In aperture mode, the camera will use a maximum exposure duration (e.g. 1/200 sec) after which it will bump up the ISO to a maximum (e.g. 6400) and after that is reached will then use longer exposure times as a strategy for shooting in low light. This was a fantastic option for me. I feel that this optimized the shots I got in an environment where lighting varied a lot and motion blur was a big factor. Do all the high end Nikons (D800, D4, D600) have this option?

Regards,
John

 

[Jan Brittenson]

Yes, they all have auto ISO. The auto exposure is good enough IMO to make auto ISO very useful, especially combined with a little ADL to protect the highlights. I use it whenever the D800E is off the tripod. You'll want to enable the ADL with auto ISO because dynamic range (and hence exposure headroom) drops with an increase in ISO and the exposure system appears to "expose to the center". ADL makes it operate more ETTR.

The A850 is a fine camera, too - I still have mine. With a type M screen it's a nice companion for my somewhat random, adapted lens collection. (Which frankly doesn't see much use, but none of it is valuable enough to bother selling.)

 

[jfirneno]

The A850 is a fine camera, too - I still have mine. With a type M screen it's a nice companion for my somewhat random, adapted lens collection. (Which frankly doesn't see much use, but none of it is valuable enough to bother selling.)

Jan:
Thanks for the Nikon info. It's good to get help with a new system from someone familiar with it. As for the A850, I agree with you. It is a fine camera for everything but high ISO use. I love using it for everything in good light. I do wish it had live view though. That would improve usability for macro and landscape uses.

Regards,
John