The D3 and D3s had modest banding at Ultra High ISOs. It's not very noticeable on the D4s/Df.
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!
High ISO Test: A7s vs Df vs A7r vs A7
- Thread starter horshack
- Start date
Here's an ISO 12,800 image from the Df (20 second exposure):
And an ISO 12,800 from the A7s (15 second exposure):
Both are suitable to my tastes for large'ish prints.
I have two Ms I can let you have a play with that show definite banding, especially when shooting as fast and furious as they allow. Add to that, underexposing via tricky lighting situations and you're toast -- or a mille feuille.
I think a lot of it has to do with the way a person uses the camera and what they shoot… Let's just say, if a camera has banding issues, I have a talent for bringing it to the fore
I'll have a very interesting experiment on Wednesday night, shooting side by side with an MM and my new A7s (with an RX1 for good measure) for a blues jam at a local bar… I have shot there frequently, though not recently, and the lighting is very very tricky (lots of shadows and bright lights to fool metering, no real lighting for performers so you have to trust the camera)… I still haven't decided what cap to put on the A7s (I let the MM go to 10,000 with an f/1 lens, underexposing by -2/3 to save some highlights). Noise doesn't fuss me if the detail is there, but banding is the bane of my existence!
Maybe I just dont have the talent to bring up the banding. I dont doubt that one can bring it up - probably also has to do with a) how one exposes and b) how much shaddow one wants to bring up. I am not the HDR-type liker.I have two Ms I can let you have a play with that show definite banding, especially when shooting as fast and furious as they allow. Add to that, underexposing via tricky lighting situations and you're toast -- or a mille feuille.
I think a lot of it has to do with the way a person uses the camera and what they shoot… Let's just say, if a camera has banding issues, I have a talent for bringing it to the fore
...
V
Vivek
Guest
Any camera company would love to have you as their customer.
You are missing out on the capabilities of the MM. 4 stops is a breeze with that camera.
Untitled by Vivek Iyer, on Flickr
5 stop push in the post.
You are missing out on the capabilities of the MM. 4 stops is a breeze with that camera.
Untitled by Vivek Iyer, on Flickr5 stop push in the post.
Shooting stills or movies in abandoned buildings using available light comes to mind, otherwise I agree with you.
rayyan
Well-known member
horshack, lovely images. Great you can handhold at 15 sec!!
My point was that, at least for me, I shoot mostly handheld. And that in practice, I have found, that I do need excessive iso going to 128k and above.
I went out as mentioned and shot across my balcony. All auto, jpg. Let my Df choose what it wanted. It chose iso 1800. Good enough for me. And it had plenty in reserve and raw, if needed.
Maybe the Sony could do better..with comments from experienced forum members, I am sure it could.
But the Df can do just about what I want handheld in pretty miserable light.
Just wanted to make the point that having a high iso is excellent. But I do not go out and shoot over 3200... very rarely..maybe 6400 at times. And pixel peeping into dark corners at 100% is not really my kind of photography.
And if on a tripod..another ball game.
Thank you for posting the excellent images.
My point was that, at least for me, I shoot mostly handheld. And that in practice, I have found, that I do need excessive iso going to 128k and above.
I went out as mentioned and shot across my balcony. All auto, jpg. Let my Df choose what it wanted. It chose iso 1800. Good enough for me. And it had plenty in reserve and raw, if needed.
Maybe the Sony could do better..with comments from experienced forum members, I am sure it could.
But the Df can do just about what I want handheld in pretty miserable light.
Just wanted to make the point that having a high iso is excellent. But I do not go out and shoot over 3200... very rarely..maybe 6400 at times. And pixel peeping into dark corners at 100% is not really my kind of photography.
And if on a tripod..another ball game.
Thank you for posting the excellent images.
rayyan, I think horshack did that comparison for those of us that DO need to go above 128K sometimes, whether it be for shutter speed of DOF in dark lighting situations, with nary a tripod in sight.
I found it really useful and, to be honest, it made me feel a bit better that I went for the Sony rather than the Df. Not that the Nikon doesn't look to be a beautiful camera, but I think it would have overwhelmed as a non-DSLR shooter -- especially one unfamiliar with Nikon… The only reason I was looking at the Df, indeed, was for its high ISO capabilities and that's likely the only situation I would have shot it in aside from inclement weather as I'm not looking to by a plethora of Nikon glass… Not bashing the camera at all!
Your camera looks stellar, and the A7 and A7R are just showing how good high ISO is getting in all cameras, really mind-blowing!
For me, though, I think the little A7s hits a sweet spot. Pretty small, pretty light, utterly silent, and 12 gorgeous MP that harkens me back to one of my favourite camera's rendering at high ISO -- the mighty 6MP Epson R-D1 at 1600 ISO
I found it really useful and, to be honest, it made me feel a bit better that I went for the Sony rather than the Df. Not that the Nikon doesn't look to be a beautiful camera, but I think it would have overwhelmed as a non-DSLR shooter -- especially one unfamiliar with Nikon… The only reason I was looking at the Df, indeed, was for its high ISO capabilities and that's likely the only situation I would have shot it in aside from inclement weather as I'm not looking to by a plethora of Nikon glass… Not bashing the camera at all!
Your camera looks stellar, and the A7 and A7R are just showing how good high ISO is getting in all cameras, really mind-blowing!
For me, though, I think the little A7s hits a sweet spot. Pretty small, pretty light, utterly silent, and 12 gorgeous MP that harkens me back to one of my favourite camera's rendering at high ISO -- the mighty 6MP Epson R-D1 at 1600 ISO
Why not just expose correct in the first step?Any camera company would love to have you as their customer.
You are missing out on the capabilities of the MM. 4 stops is a breeze with that camera.
5 stop push in the post.
When you're shooting on the street at night or in a dark bar, catching a moment, you don't usually have time to correct exposure if a light or whatnot fools it… It's often all you can do to focus (especially at f/1) in time to catch it.
Different shooting styles, different needs.
V
Vivek
Guest
Did you notice the subject movement? What do you think? Menu dive and change the exposure compensation or even push the ISO button, look at the wonderful rear screen to change the ISO? The options are limited in real life situations.
I see, good thing your ISO was not set to 200 and you didnt have a 21mm lens on the cameraDid you notice the subject movement? What do you think? Menu dive and change the exposure compensation or even push the ISO button, look at the wonderful rear screen to change the ISO? The options are limited in real life situations.
biglouis
Well-known member
I can see a definite one stop improvement of the A7s over the A7r (which is what I own and therefore my interest). I can only see a 'possible' 2 stop improvement.
What I can see is that all iso levels the A7s colours are less saturated than the A7r. Or possibly a drift towards underexposure.
Were the settings identical in each camera?
The lower saturation really kicks in above 6400. I'm wondering if it is the lower saturation which is contributing to the apparent lower noise levels?
LouisB
What I can see is that all iso levels the A7s colours are less saturated than the A7r. Or possibly a drift towards underexposure.
Were the settings identical in each camera?
The lower saturation really kicks in above 6400. I'm wondering if it is the lower saturation which is contributing to the apparent lower noise levels?
LouisB