Latest FX bodies: significantly better hi ISO than D3/D700 generation?

<p>Hi Guys,<br />I shoot concerts/danceperformances using a D3 (before that D700) and 80-200 f2.8AF-S<br />Quite happy with the IQ up to ISO3200, but feel like I could appreciate even better IQ at those hi ISO's.<br /><br />Lately I'm contemplating a smaller/lighter set-up and am interested in the 70-200 f4. The price is ok for me, IQ seems great from what I've read and subject isolation at f4 vs f2.8 is no objection for me.<br />So if I go that route I need a body that will give me at least 1 stop hi ISO improvement over my D3 to be able to shoot what I shoot now. And preferably even a bit better.<br /><br />So how much real world, significantly better is ISO 6400 on a D610, D800 or Df compared to ISO 3200 on a D3? A D4(s) is unfortunately out of pricerange...<br /><br />I am aware of the 'downgrade' in buildquality, ergonomics, buffer, fps and what not, but that's a compromise I'd be ready to make. 'Feel' and ergonomics of a body are important to me, but since I find myself shooting less paid concerts and dance gigs, and more and more shooting film again for my personal fun, I can enjoy all those things with my F2, 3, 4 or 5 ;-)<br /><br />Thanx for your thoughths,<br />Ray</p>

<p>The D800, D800E, D600, D610, D3s, D4 and D4s all basically have somewhat better image quality at high ISO than the first FX cameras (the D3 and D700). The breakthrough sensor in terms of high ISO image quality was in the D3s, after which the changes have been mostly the increase of resolution and dynamic range (i.e. reduction of shadow noise) while retaining much of the tonal quality of the D3s. I think 1 stop maybe a reasonable estimate of how much improvement there has been over the D3/D700.</p>

<p>With the D3/D700 I used comfortably up to ISO 3200, ISO 6400 required definitely perfect exposure and the details were blurred due to the noise reduction required. With the D800 I use ISO 6400 quite often but it does have significant pattern noise in the blue channel that shows up after color correcting warm artificial light to give reasonable skin tones. If the lighting is not excessively warm this is not a problem. D800 images are also much sharper at ISO 6400 than D3/D700.</p>

<p>For low light photography, the new (2012+) generation cameras have a more sensitive AF system that allows faster and better autofocus with less hunting in low light than the D3/D700 generation cameras did. This is a significant improvement. The D800(E)/D4 has greater AF spread and at least in some cases faster acquisition of focus than the D600/D610. If you want the larger AF point spread in the image then get the D800 or D800E. If you want to save a bit of money and accept that all the AF points are close to the center then the D610 would be a good choice. If you like the ergonomics of the Df and don't mind the cost, that's a valid option as well. I happen to like the ergonomics of the Df a lot but without Multi-CAM 3500 I am not likely to get one any time soon.</p>

<p>Ilkka, I think the difficulty you're having with the D800 at high gain settings is not pattern noise but thermal noise. With a dark frame subtraction, you can mitigate that. It looks just as you describe it.</p>

<p>And that is one issue with the D800 (perhaps a bit less with the D600). It has excellent low light response, and negligible pattern noise. You can get amazing low light images with it, with some dividends in detail enhancement. But you will have to put in the extra time and manual labor.</p>

<p>The D4/Df are capable of low light work with no further considerations. They are the best performers today.</p>

<p>And they are both way beyond the D3/D700. Those cameras topped out /just barely/ at ISO 6400, and had very serious problems with pattern noise. Worse yet, they had problems with blooming in high contrast, low light scenes, and it was impossible to fix. Trust me, compared to the newer cameras, these were troublesome.</p>

<p>While back in 2007, the D3 was a major break through in terms of high-ISO capability, and the D700, introduced approximately a year later (2008) with the same sensor and electronics, produces essentially identical results, all newer Nikon FX-format DSLRs starting from the 2009 D3S can easily top the D3/D700 by at least one stop of high-ISO results.</p>

<p>When the D800 first came on the scene two years ago, I posted some A/B comparisons against the D700. It is fairly easy to see that the D800 has better high-ISO results. However, the D3/D700 are 12MP cameras while the D800 is 36MP. You'll get much larger image files from the D800 and you need to down sample them to match the D700's size for a fair comparison. Additionally, those large D800 files will require more computer resources to work with.</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00aEHd</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I shoot concerts/dance performances using a D3 (before that D700) and 80-200 f2.8AF-S</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If you use auto focus indoors under dim conditions, I would not replace an f2.8 zoom with an f4 zoom, regardless of which Nikon body you mount behind the lens. Nikon AF is noticeably faster and more accurate with an f2.8 lens than with an f4 lens under low light. If you switch to an f4 lens, I would expect that you'll experience more AF hunting that will likely lead to missed shots and poorer results. That is why I always recommend f2.8 or faster lenses indoors, even though you may actually capture images at f4 or other smaller apertures. You need f2.8 (or faster) for AF purposes.<br>

<br>

Nikon has indeed improved the Multi-CAM 3500 AF module in cameras introduced in and after 2012. I even find AF performance on the lowly D7100 superior to the D3 and D700. The D600/D610 and Df use the Multi-CAM 4800 AF module that has only 9 cross-type AF points in a 3x3 matrix in the center of the frame. That is going to have more restrictions.</p>

<p>Ok but so I have to make a dark frame in the specific conditions that I'm taking the shots? Would the shutter speed have to be the same or just the ISO? What I mean by pattern noise is noise that has spatial structure i.e. it's not the same in each part of the image. The noise I'm seeing with the D800 has structure (some lines). Thermal noise should be random but I guess some areas of the sensor might have more than others (non-uniform noise). I could look into cancelling it but in practice I will have to vary the shutter speed during an event even if I can keep the ISO constant.</p>

<p>I went from a D700 to a D800 and initially I was surprised that the D800, pixel for pixel, was not as good at iso 6400. It's true and it's easy to demonstrate. That being said, the D800's 36mp can be manipulated so that you can end up with a better 12mp high iso file than the D700. My monitor is about 3mp's and I bet if you reduced both to that size you would have a tough time seeing the difference. The D800's greater dynamic range does come into play and is a definite advantage over the D700.<br /> My conclusion is, yes it is better but do not expect miracles.<br>

Shun, do you really think a fine camera such as the D7100 deserves to be called lowly?</p>

<p><em>I went from a D700 to a D800 and initially I was surprised that the D800, pixel for pixel, was not as good at iso 6400. It's true and it's easy to demonstrate.</em></p>

<p>The quality of the signal (SNR) recorded by a pixel is to the first order of approximation proportional to the square root of the number of photons detected. If the photosites are one third the area (36MP vs. 12MP FX) with equal technology there would be 1/3 of the photos recorded per pixel in the D800; this would lead to 43% reduction in the SNR compared to the larger photosites. In reality the D800 has better efficiency of gathering photons so that the difference is actually less, but you cannot expect miracles (i.e. photons to be created from nothing). It is the photons that carry the information that is recorded and their number is limited especially in a low light situation. They arrive at random intervals and this variation in photon count creates the main part of the noise in a high ISO image (apart from shadows which are also affected significantly by the electronics). However when you actually <em>use </em>the image for anything, you make a print of a given size or computer image of a given pixel dimensions. At equal dimensions, dicated by how much space you allocate the image in your application, the smaller photosites get averaged in the process of preparation of that print or image file. In this averaging process what was lost by using smaller photosites is gained back, and in practice a 12 MP file resized from an 36MP original is better in terms of detail than a 12MP original. I would not call it "manipulation" since it always happens, automatically by the image processing that takes place in the preparation of the final output.</p>

<p>Quite. The D800 is very similar to a D7000 at the pixel level. I concur with the claims that it's about a stop better in low light (and more if you want dynamic range at low ISOs). However, three times as many pixels - and so pixels a third of the area - isn't quite made up for by being about twice as good per area. For the whole image, the D800 is appreciably better; per pixel, there's no magic. I only own a D700 and D800e so I've not checked, but I imagine a D610 might be about <br />

<br />

The D3s, D4, D4s and Df appear to be about half a stop (depending where you measure) better than the D800/D600/D610, matching image size. For reference, the 5D3 is pretty close to the D800 and the 6D and 1Dx are closer to the lower-res cameras (at high ISO, at least). The newer cameras seem a bit better at low frequency noise (comparing D4 to D3s and D4s to D4) - they go less "blotchy" at extreme ISOs, as far as I can tell.<br />

<br />

The D610 and D800 are about equal for noise, and a good step up from the D3/D700. The Df is a small step ahead, depending on ISO, but I'd think carefully if you're looking at it as a cheap D4. I wouldn't rule out a D3s, if you can find one and don't mind 12MP - it's still near the cutting edge of low ISO performance.</p>

<p>The D700 had some problems with "streaking" or banding from bright highlights at high ISO speeds (>3200). There were a few threads about it on this forum and I've experienced it myself. Once spotted it's difficult to ignore. That said I was able to use Hi-2.0 in an emergency as long as I shot RAW and was prepared to do some considerable NR afterwork.</p>

<p>I've seen no such streaking issue with the D800 at any ISO speed, but the poor shadow colour is IMO a much more difficult effect to deal with - unless the dark frame subtraction mentioned above is done. Plus the D800 has a much more aggressive NR algorithm built into its JPEG processing, and if you rely on JPEGs you'll find image sharpness at high ISOs is severely compromised. Not so with the D700; if you want aggressive noise reduction on your D700 JPEG files you have to apply it yourself afterwards. This, IMHO is as it should be.</p>

<p>Edit - PS: Having handled the D4s and shot a few high ISO frames, I can say that it is <strong>the</strong> camera to get for high ISO use. I think if you're really serious about wanting the best high ISO performance then a D4s should be at the top of your shopping list. However, I shoot some stage performances myself - usually music performances under dimish small or amateur stage lighting. I find that both the D700 and D800 perform more than adequately at ISOs in the region of 3200 - 6400, giving me shutter speeds of 125th and faster at f/4.</p>

<p>A D700 streaking and banding? That's a new one for me.</p>

<p>See this thread: http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00TTdv<br>

and others like it Phil. I had some examples myself but I've recently migrated to a new laptop and left those images on my old one.</p>

<p>The D3/D700 had blooming in the presence of blown highlights. With the right tools, you could see it happens at every gain setting. But the level of pollution is just low enough that it rarely became evident except at high gain settings, and with a dark region flanking the blown highlight. The problem was the pollution extended horizontally across the entire frame. Almost impossible to fix.</p>

<p>Doing a lot of shooting in the dark, I complained to Nikon for over two years, until they finally agreed to trade me for a new D3s. The problem was solved on that camera, and ever after.</p>

<p>My D3 has never banded at any ISO but my D800 a bit did at ISO 6400.</p>

<p>Ray, give DXO Prime noise reduction a try with your ISO 6400 images from your D3. You may be as pleasantly as I was. Faster glass is generally a better alternative than higher ISO so you may want to consider the f2.8 version of the 70-200mm instead of the f4.</p>

<p><em>"</em><em>So how much real world, significantly better is ISO 6400 on a D610, D800 or Df compared to ISO 3200 on a D3?"</em> Well, it depends on how you shoot (RAW vs JPG), how you process your images, and the print size.</p>

<p>Hi Ilkka,</p>

<p>The thermal noise source on the D600/D800 is from the active circuitry on the sensor. There are some localized hot spots around the frame, and a concentration along the bottom of the frame. Without seeing what you're seeing, I can't be entirely sure whether it's the same.</p>

<p>I kept a small library of dark frames shot at a few different shutter speeds. Do a capture on the black frame with the same WB as the target, and with NR turned entirely off. This pretty much will work. When you do a subtraction in photoshop with "Apply Image..." you can adjust the "percentage" parameter to get a little less effect. You will get a sense of what is enough when the black levels are restored to black. </p>

<p>It is sometimes a useful exercise to load up a black frame and check out its structure by ramping up the gain.</p>

<p>A massive D3 body or better to put a slow little lens on it seems perverse to me. If you really wanted to save weight, you could go pure DX and a D7100 + Sigma 50-150 f2.8 for 1550g total which would claw back a stop over the 70-200 f4 <em>and</em> give you better and more accurate focus point coverage across the viewfinder- in return for losing the stop re FX.<br>

If you just want to an overkill body and an overpriced slow lens to show off to people - then I can't help you.</p>

<p>I missed that you already had the 80-200mm lens f2.8 lens. If you can get by with primes, that may be a welcome alternative. Although the D3 is heavy, with a prime lens on it, not only do you get a weight advantage but you also can shoot with lower ISOs and potentially get nicer images due to more control over DOF.</p>

<p>Another option to consider to lighten the load when using the D3 with heavier lenses is a monopod.</p>

<p>I actually find it beneficial that the weight of the camera+lens combination is close to the camera body end of the rig, as it is also closer to my body and easier to hold steady. If the weight is distributed far away from my chest, I need to extend my left arm and this creates a less favourable situation in terms of hand-held stability (especially if the elbow is not properly supported on the chest). So from that point of view a D3/D4 type body w/ a light lens is reasonable and one I frequently employ myself. For vertical images these camera bodies are more comfortable to work with at least with my hands. However, I do think that at least f/2.8 is often needed for low light dance/concert photography; autofocus works better and you have more options in terms of exposure and depth of field. In the studio context by contrast, dance images can be photographed at small apertures (f/8 using studio flash) which is in some ways much easier because you don't have to worry about movement or focus as much. But of course it's not a live performance situation then.</p>

<p>Hi all,<br>

Thanx for your input. <br />I'm glad to hear that there is a real -albeit not spectaculair- improvement to be expected from a D600 @iso 6400 compared to 3200 on a D3, noise wise and DR-wise.<br /><br />I always shoot RAW and never cared for PP noise treatment, but that's a suggestion I might reconsider.<br /><br />The point of AF-performance due to smaller max aperture is also taken; I'll definitely check that if I ever come to the point of buying an f4 lens.<br /><br />My preference is shooting with primes, and I shoot most of my other work with them. For a while I shot concerts with a 28, 50, 85 and 180. The 180 AF is too slow for me unfortunately. Otherwise it is indeed a nice light lens with great IQ. <br /><br />The D3 with a small prime (especially the 50 1.4) is one of my favorite configurations for just about everything.<br />The versatility and the long end of a 70/80-200 is just very useful for concert situations.<br /><br />For now it was just my need for advice regarding one of the new smaller bodies in combination with the smaller f4 zoom, compared to the D3 + 80-200 f2.8 (and 28 1.4) I currently use, IF I would go that route, to see if I could get an overall smaller and lighter bag for tose times I will be shooting concerts/dance.<br /><br />My conclusion is that a D600 (or even a Df) could work for me with the 70-200 f4 IF the AF-performance in low light is acceptable for me, which I have to test before buying.<br />Thanx!<br /><br /></p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>My conclusion is that a D600 (or even a Df) could work for me with the 70-200 f4 IF the AF-performance in low light is acceptable for me, which I have to test before buying.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>So I've been doing professional theater and concert work for a few years. I've had the D3, D3s, D3x, D4, and D800 in these settings. For this kind of work, the D4 (or D3s) are the only cameras that will work in these settings without further considerations. </p>

<p>The D800 (and D600) are heavy producers of thermal noise, which at high gain settings produces a blusih-magenta cast over the frame with many local hot spots. There are times when I choose these cameras for the additional detail they bring in certain situations. But in order to do that, I have to be prepared to do a dark-frame subtraction each time in post. And that means also carrying around a library of dark frames. To sum up: you can get a great ISO 12800 from the D800, but never without a dark frame subtraction. The D4 will oblige you all night. :-)</p>

<p>When I first got the D800, I couldn't wait to take it into the club. True, the camera has great DR, but the DR measurements do not take thermal noise into account. </p>

<p>Late post, but I prefer the D600 over the D800 at around 6400 or a little more. I still use the D3 some, but try to keep the ISO below 5000 with it.</p>

<p>For a two camera setup, I will put a wide prime on the D3 and the tele on the D600.</p>

<p>Had a D3s for a while that was significantlyu better at high ISO than the D700 it replaced. Have not used a D4.</p>