the D4 how does it handle compared to D600?

Hiya

 

I am thinking of investing in the D4 as I need a top body

that handles high iso really well. I have the D600 and I

shoot weddings.... I am new to weddings but without

flashiI don't like pushing the iso up beyond 800. I hear the

600 can handle 1600 really well....but I find it doesn't. I

hate noise. I notice that in the church the iso needs to be

at 1600 plus without flash sometimes and this worries me.

Do you think the D4 is better for this situation please? I

would like some opinions and some comparisons if

possible

Thank you

<p>its' a lot of money to put on someone else's opinion; consider renting one for a week and see if it fits your requirements.</p>

<p>If you are underexposing, any camera will handle high ISO badly, but I find it hard to believe that the 600 doesn't handle ISO 1600. From what I've seen, it should handle it great.</p>

<p>D4 is probably overkill for weddings. big and heavy, made for sports and stuff.</p>

<p>Can you post a sample of this bad noise?</p>

The D4, D4s, or evn the older D3s definitely are better at super high ISO settings.

 

But I'm also wondering if you are underexposing. Noise levels are always more apparent when you underexposed and

then "push" the exposure process settings.

 

Are you shooting NEF or JPEG?

<p>Hmmm! What level do you have Hi-ISO NR set to in the camera menu Sam? My D800 is capable of shooting at 1600 ISO with almost no visible noise, but noise does depend on how much light there is rather than purely on the ISO setting. For example: sufficient light to give you 1/200th @ f/5.6 and 1600 ISO will show less noise than an exposure of 1/15th @ f/4 and 1600 ISO. FWIW I once accidentally left my D700 on 1600 ISO for a whole day without noticing any loss of quality, but I was shooting in overcast daylight.</p>

<p>I've briefly handled and used a D4s at a trade exhibition under quite dim lighting conditions. It coped very well, allowing ISO 6400 to be used easily with little noise visible on the review images at maximum zoom. However, as Peter stated above, it is a big heavy beast that you wouldn't want to hold out at arm's length for very long. Especially with one of Nikon's pro series zooms attached. Not that uncomfortable to hold, but definitely a notch up in weight and size from the D700 & D800. Probably two notches up from a D600.</p>

<p>I'll second the advice to hire one, or at least handle one for yourself before buying.</p>

<p>I have the D3s, and it will handle just about anything I can throw at it. I have also shot the D600, and it took me one afternoon to figure out that it was not the camera for me.</p>

<p>There really is no contest. Yes, the D4 will handle sports and other action situations, but it would be great for just about anything you want to do. The price right now is good, too, given the arrival of the D4s.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p>According to the stats, all post 2010 FX sensors are, in effect, identical noise wise, ie within 1/6 of a EV.</p>

<p>At 1600 ISO the D610 & D810 have inferior Dynamic Range to the D4 or D4S by about 1 EV, so assuming you got the exposure right, should be just fine.</p>

<p>I suspect exposure accuracy and RAW processing will have more effect on final image IQ than the hardware involved.</p>

<p>If you hate noise, there is an easy way to cure yourself: shoot one roll of ISO800 or ISO1600 film, and gasp.... You have no idea how spoilt we are with the performance of today's sensors. On my D300, I avoided ISO1600 if I could, but used it when needed. And with a bit of decent care in post processing (=mild noise reduction, nothing excessive), it was perfectly fine. The D700 doesn't need a lot of noise reduction in post processing at all since it is virtually noise-less at ISO1600 (meaninh you can disable the noise reduction in the editor to retain more detail, and not have visible issues). The D600 is at least at the level of a D700, and very probably better. So, rather than investing in an expensive body (which will also be heavy for a full day carrying around), I would really first look seriously at why you feel your D600 isn't delivering.<br>

The usual reason is one of two; either it is underexposure as the others said, or it is down to looking at it from too close up (yes, pixel-peeping, basically). I do not mean this insulting, but it is something to seriously ask yourself: how do you assess noise? Watching 100% magnified on screen, or in actual prints, or magnifications that most people would use (i.e. a 1920*1080 resolution at some distance - PC or TV) ? At a 100% magnification, you will always see some "rubble" and noise-like structure (also with the D4 or Df I think), but that's not really a problem. The end-product is a print, or an on-screen image at some given resolution - it's the end product that matters, so you should judge the noise performance against that. If your D600 cannot deliver perfectly acceptable medium-sized prints at ISO3200, something else is wrong, really.<br>

A third possible reason that can occur quite easily in natural light is, in my view anyway, a lack of good quality light, causing too flat and dull low-contrast images. Often this can cause the grey mid-tones to become muddy and ugly; this looks a lot like noise too. Inside a church with high windows and indirect light, with overcast weather outside (if I recall well, you're in the UK where overcast weather is the norm?), you'll often see this kind of bland, lifeless light. Flash really is the solution there.</p>

<p>I Nikon Df will give you the high ISO performance of a D4 at about 1/2 the cost.</p>

<p>For Nikon DSLRs, my rule of thumb is that you should be able to get very good results up to one stop below the top rated ISO. E.g., the D600 goes to ISO 6400, so I think it should give you good results to ISO 3200 and then "decent" results @ 6400, although obviously everybody has different standards.</p>

<p>Can Sam provide some image samples to demonstrate the issue? A lot of times, underexposure significantly contributes to noise. If you underexpose, you can get serious noise problems at ISO 100.</p>

<p>Below is a sample from a D600 @ ISO 1600. At least to me, noise is hardly an issue.</p><div></div>

<p>ISO 6400 at the same location, different crop</p><div></div>

<p>Here is a different crop from the ISO 6400 version. See the arm of the sofa looks quite decent, because it is better lit. However, a couple of feet away, the back of the sofa is noisy because it is in the shadows, all within the same image.</p>

<p>I think the D600 should be able to do a fine job at most weddings.</p><div></div>

<p>The combination of shooting RAW, getting the exposure right and state-of-the-art image processing software pretty much eliminates noise from the equation from higher ISO images with pretty much any body at this point (except for perhaps extreme ISO settings. Print size is also be a factor. Huge prints will expose more noise properties while smaller prints tend to suppress noise due to down sampling. </p>

<p>Noise free ISO 6400 images with very good detail and color is easy to obtain with just about any of Nikon's recent bodies, especially but not limited to full frame.</p>

<p><em>"at 1600 ISO the D610 & D810 have inferior Dynamic Range to the D4"</em><br>

<em> </em><br>

While this is true according to posted test results, in reality, it would be extremely difficult to see the difference after post processing RAW files (and possibly even with out-of-the-camera JPGs.</p>

<p>hhhmmm some interesting points. the picture posted with the d600 at iso 1600 looks way NOISY in my opinion though.<br>

here is an expample<br>

http://www.photo.net/photo/17859820<br>

in fact, this aint so bad...I will try find another one.....this is the thing i don't understand, with some shots it was great, and others not so great with the same settings. You are probably right to observe the underexposure. I do tend to under expose sometimes so maybe this is the cause</p>

<p>thanks</p>

<p>At ISO 1600 you should be able to see some noise in the shadows; it is mostly just the small number of photons that causes the appearance of noise; theoretical maximum for SNR is sqrt(N) where N is the number of photons recorded. Personally, what I do is I increase the midtone contrast using a mild S curve and then the image looks something like this (I hope you don't mind the edit). There is still low contrast in the background which may be caused by flare from the light from the windows in the background. It is not usually called "noise". You can reduce this by using a lens that is resistant to flare and produces a high contrast image.</p><div></div>

<p>At ISO 1600 you should be able to see some noise in the shadows; it is mostly just the small number of photons that causes the appearance of noise; theoretical maximum for SNR is sqrt(N) where N is the number of photons recorded. Personally, what I do is I increase the midtone contrast using a mild S curve and then the image looks something like this. There is still low contrast in the background which may be caused by flare from the light from the windows in the background. It is not usually called "noise" in the conventional sense. You can reduce this by using a lens that is resistant to flare and produces a high contrast image. </p>

<p>Are you viewing the images at 100% in photoshop and judging the noise that way or are you making prints at your normal sizes and finding the camera too noisy. In prints you shouldn't find noise from the D600 any problem at all unless you are making huge prints. Viewing 100% crops on a typical 100ppi monitor is rather like looking a 60 inch wide 100ppi print. You will see noise viewing hi ISO shots at 100% from every DSLR.</p>

 

<p>ISO 1600 should be fine assuming the the D4 is about the same as the Df that I have. I can see grain with Ektar 100 but not noise at ISO 1600 with my Df. So how could you shoot film? You would need an 8x10 I guess. </p>

<p>It's those wonderful, polished WWII fighters that really tests both DR <em>and</em> Noise. </p>

<p>You can easily get noise at base ISO as the shiny upper surface exposure is so much brighter than the shadows beneath. HDR is tricky 'cos their moving so fast!</p>

<p>The higher DR at base ISO for the D610 and D810 makes them the ideal studio camera, but not as good as the D4S in dark, handheld places....like some weddings.</p>

<p>I have used D700 and D800 for weddings with fine results in terms of clarity, ISO noise, and etc. If you want to see examples stop by my galleries at http://e2photography.zenfolio.com/f88678741 I do use flash, mostly bounced.</p>

<p>I looked at your pics Sam and they are very nice indeed. I use a D4 and it is a great camera. Unless you need its speed and build quality it might be a bit of overkill for weddings. At ISO 1600 I really don't see much difference in noise between the D3 - D4 and the D7100. All are really good.</p>

<p>I know this is not happening to you but I will share a story that happened recently at an event I was shooting. There was a guy there with, if I recall correctly, Canon 70D but don't hold me to that. He was complaining about the same issue you are. Noise at 1600 ISO. He said he was surprised at how bad it was. After walking through what he was doing it came down to this. He said, "I always shoot manual". This usually sends up a red flag for me. To cut to the chase, what we figured out was this. He would take some shots and chimp them with the highlight detection blinkies (or whatever that is called) turned on. Seeing the occasional blown out highlight he would reduce his exposure to try to get rid of all of the blinkies. He told me he was having to really adjust for proper exposure in post. You can see where I am going with this. Just bringing him up to speed on the importance of correct initial exposure probably fixed his problem. I had him switch over to AP mode and see what the difference in exposure was between what he had pushed himself down to and what the camera called good to go and he could see he was way off.</p>

<p>My opinion is that you should not be seeing unacceptable noise at ISO 1600 with your D600 provided your exposures are pretty close. That said, the D4 is a lovely camera. You might just fall in love. Why not rent one for a weekend and see what you think.</p>

<p>thanks so much for all these answers, this is so very helpful advice, I shall take your advice and hire one for the day and see how it goes for me - thank you. You are right i think. On some pictures, I had underexposed (yes they were on manual), and these were indeed the ones whereby I could make out noise at 1600 after PP. Aha - I see. i shall try AP mose and see how this plays. thanks also for kind worlds about my pictures.....the ones on this site are well over a year old mind, I have got a ton better these days hahaha but thanks so much, I shall upload more recent pictures soon. thanks everyone for your advice, i shall hire one and have a play - but I shall take your advice regarding the exposure....its nice to understand that bit mnore so thanks so much :)) </p>

<p>I don't know of any camera from any manufacturer that will produce noise fee high ISO files. BUT, after post processing, you can get totally noise free images with exceptional detail from just about any recent DSLR body, DX or FX - noise reduction software is not like it used to be and in general eliminates noise without reducing detail. FX files, especially from the higher end recently produced bodies such as the D4 series, D8xx series, D6xx series and likely the D7500. I get noise fee, high detail high ISO images from my old D3 and other 'lesser' bodies I own. And if you are not making large prints (larger than 8 x 10 for example), downsampling contributes to improve image quality even more.</p>

<p>You can easily make noise free images with great detail from you D600.</p>

<p>"Noise Free" can also often depend on good post-processing as much as anything else, too.</p>