'Realistic' high ISO expectations

<p>Surely the Df rules itself out by its lower AF sensitivity?<br /> According to Nikon's figures the Df has an AF sensitivity of -1 EV (same as the D700), while the D810 is specified at -2 EV and the D750 at -3 EV. So the Df would give no AF advantage over your existing D3 and D700 Ray. Also the AF module fitted to the Df is only "consumer" spec with 39 AF points, as opposed to the pro spec module with 51 points fitted in the D750 and D810.</p>

<p>I agree that shooting RAW and using good noise reduction is pretty essential. The high-ISO noise reduction used in-camera during JPEG processing is pretty aggressive, and can remove some quite large image detail along with the noise!</p>

Shun,

Thanks for your response.

 

Following that rule of thumb, the (12,800 iso) D750 should be good to 6,400 and my OLD D70s (1600 iso) hits it's limit at

800, which is what I've found. If the D610 and D7100 both list iso up to 6400, giving them a usable range up to about

3200, are the very similar in low light ability or are there other factors at play? If they are nearly the same in iso, would

you still feel fx d610 over dx7100 is the way to go?

<p>Chris, there is no way to go around the fact that FX has over twice the sensor real estate compared to DX. If you want high-ISO results, you want to stick with FX for its larger sensor to collect more light.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>if you do research Sony, you'll find their lenses lacking for concert photography. no 2.8 zooms</p>

</blockquote>

<p>There is at least a Sony 70-200 F/2.8 G SSM II lens, or am i missing somtehing here ?</p>

<blockquote>

<p> But since we're talking low light here..... they have f4 zooms and the high ISO capability more than makes up for the faster 2.8 zooms. </p>

</blockquote>

<p>not for concert photography, as i stated before. the problem is stage lighting which can be uneven and usually directed at the face of the main performer. the problem there is that the face could be illuminated to 3EV but the backgrounds and surrounding areas could be 1 EV or less. if you raise the ISO to get the entire scene, you can overexpose the face severely... this is also an issue with light sources within the frame, neon lights in particular are terrible. so with the Sony F/4 zooms you're giving back a stop due to slower aperture vs. 2.8 and potentially having to raise ISO to unhealthy levels when trying to capture background details, i.e. within the context of a scene. ive encountered this on many an occasion which is why i always carry at least one fast prime. just no alternative to a fast aperture; high-ISO is a workaround at best in practice.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Apparently they focus fairly fast in low light. </p>

</blockquote>

<p>i haven't heard that. in fact focus performance has been one of the gotchas of ALL mirrorless systems. we're probably at least a generation away from DSLR-equivalent performance. too bad, because one of the Gotchas of full frame DSLRs is the AF coverage area, i.e. where you can put the focus point in the frame. On the D3s, the focus array is tightly-clustered around the center so it's impossible to put the focus point on the edges. this makes it difficult when trying to capture moving subjects with shallow apertures. you can focus on the body but getting the face or eyes sometimes is impossible. and you need the shallow aperture to keep the shutter high and the ISO manageable. with the Fuji mirrorless cameras, you're not limited to the center cluster but have the entire frame to work with. this is an enormous aid in composition. unfortunately, the Fuji AF performance isn't close to a pro DSLR. and from what ive read, neither is Sony, Olympus, or Panasonic. too bad, because a mirrorless FF body with available fast primes and superior focus capabilities would be a concert shooter's dream. <br>

</p>

<blockquote>

<p>There is at least a Sony 70-200 F/2.8 G SSM II lens, or am i missing somtehing here ?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>if im not mistaken the Sonny 70-200/2.8 G is an E-mount lens, not a FE-mount lens. <a href="http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/the-full-frame-e-mount-lens-roadmap-15-lenses-will-be-launched-until-late-2015/">there is an FE mount 70-200</a>, but its f/4. so what that means is you either have to use a lens designed for APS-C with an adapter, or suffer the aperture penalty of the slower full-frame zoom. to me this is a missed opportunity, to not have pro zooms and faster primes out the gate. if Sony would have done that, you would see these bodies in photo pits, which would brand the A7 series as concert photog-friendly. i dont know anyone who looks forward to lugging pro DSLR kits around to these events, but there's no other option if you dont want to be limited in performance capabilities.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Surely the Df rules itself out by its lower AF sensitivity?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>the Df is another missed opportunity for the action/street shooter/concert photography market. the body is nice and compact, but the UI is clunky and causes you to miss shots, and the AF isn't pro-spec. i would have easily paid d750 prices for the D4 sensor in a compact pro-oriented body with superior AF. That is one thing missing from the Nikon FX lineup that the D700 had. there is no compact pro FX Nikon body right now. The D750 comes closest but still has some consumer build features.<br>

<br>

down the line, there is definitely a need for compact, full-featured, performance-oriented bodies which can handle action in dim light and shoot video. most shooters and videographers i know are taking lighter kits. especially for productions which may go no farther than social media or website use, a massive kit is overkill. so the pro market is downshifting or becoming adaptive to emerging technology, while at the same time, more consumer media is being produced by market segments which didnt exist 5 years ago.</p>

<p>There is always going to be some noise, even if you're shooting as low as ISO 400. You can shoot at ISO 3200, 6400, or higher depending on the final usage and the amount of processing that you're willing to do.</p>

<p>If you print 4x6 or upload small JPEG files to the web, the noise won't be very noticeable. If you plan to make a large print or upload a full resolution file, then the noise in an unprocessed file will be visible. </p>

<p>Can you reduce the effect of the noise? In most cases, yes, you can reduce it substantially.</p>

<p>If you shoot in raw format, you can use Lightroom or other software to reduce the amount and effect of the noise in the image. If you prefer to shoot JPEG and skip post processing (e.g. if you are on a publishing deadline), the camera's built in High ISO Noise Reduction feature will be a big help. Do everything that you can to avoid underexposure.</p>

<p>I have a friend (Canon guy) who shoots at or above ISO 12,800 regularly. He sells and publishes lots of photos. If Canon can do it... ;-)</p>

<blockquote>

<p>i haven't heard that. in fact focus performance has been one of the gotchas of ALL mirrorless systems.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Eric, that hasn't been true for a good year now. With the latest lenses, the Panasonic and Olympus 4/3 are very fast. The Fuji's have greatly improved and the X-T1 is very fast. The newest Sony's are fast. Maybe not as fast as your fastest SLR's, though the M4/3 are very very close.</p>

<p>Barry, I haven't tried the newest but the Fuji X100s was unable to focus to slowly walking subjects in candle light without turning the distracting focus assist light on (everyone was looking at me when I had it on at first). With the D700 and D800/D810, I have obtained some success with f/1.4 Nikkors in such conditions. The light at this event is typically about f/1.4, 1/80s, ISO 6400. The XT1 to my knowledge uses the same sensor as the X100s (or a very similar one; both have 16 MP X-trans with PDAF in the sensor) but perhaps AF with the interchangeable lenses is better? I have seen reports by wedding photographers trying to use mirrorless cameras e.g. A6000 and the focus has failed in circumstances where the DSLR focus was just snap.</p>

<p>Could you post examples with exposure details in circumstances where you got good results with mirrorless in low light without focus assist light?</p>

<p>low light focus works best if the settings are reduced.<br /> i use a d3<br /> i never use anything but 21 af points<br /> it does only hunt if is realy dark, low low contrast and lens set to 1.8 or 1.4<br /> also, if you are having troubles you can always pre focus<br /> set tghe camera to af-s not af-c and use the af-on button.</p>

<p>i find iso 2k to work very well with what i would need.<br /> i expose for the light.<br /> on the d1x i crank the iso up and shoot it brainless into the pitch black.<br /> very nice..</p>

<p>still<br /> i am pretty sure that anything about iso 2k is rarly needed.<br /> and i shoot alot of dark stuff..</p>

<p>to me photography should not be about the fancy camera that delivers noise free iso 100000000000 shots but<br /> an emphasis on athomsphere and story.</p>

<p>high iso performance is not to be worried about, really but it is very convenient if the new camera you just bought goes up to silly amounts of iso..</p>

<p>16k iso on the 1dx looks not too dfferent from iso 2k on the d3 ....<br /> yeah..you read that...go try it..is it worth 6k euros? i hardly think so.</p>

<p>cocnerning the af in low light discussion:</p>

<p><img src="http://41.media.tumblr.com/6bdb578901adfb4d1f3b930794d4d6e1/tumblr_n9ivym5WTY1tipmvdo1_1280.jpg" alt="" width="1278" height="1920" /><br /> from my tumblr: http://nwfoto.tumblr.com/image/93301008635</p>

<p>not: this is heavily edited due to conceptual reasons and for aluminum vapour prints, out of a series</p>

<p>this is good example of what i was talking about.<br /> your camera will ahrdly find anything to focus on.<br /> the light in the background is too weak to be enough contrast to focus.<br /> i used live view to focus (tripod)</p>

<p>what helps however, is to either pre focus and then wait til lthe subject of inetrests enters a contrasty zone<br /> or to focus on something that is on the plane of focus and then reframe.</p>

<p>concerning lowlight focus, exposure and iso performance<br /> also from my tumblr:</p>

<p>iso 6400 on a d3<br /> not edited much</p>

<p><img src="http://40.media.tumblr.com/d35056d1bba84343fec4e8d67e3588e1/tumblr_nbqks4ZhYG1tipmvdo1_1280.jpg" alt="" width="1280" height="852" /></p>

<p> </p>

<p>1 st pic is to show the entrance to the arcade in Redondo, Its covered and indirect light this is not low light but I want you to see the area. For this I had a Pany 12-35 F5 ISO 320 1/60 taken about 12:30, entrance on east side of the building, covered in open shade. <img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/17760970-md.jpg" alt="" /> Second is in the back of the arcade out of sight of the entrance at 3:30 in the afternoon in early May with a Pany 20mm 1.7 at 2.0, 1/60 ISO 640 just using the house lights. I realize this isn't dark compared to certain stage shows, but even though the 20mm is not a fast focusing lens (the 12-35 is incredibly fast) I had no hunting problems. <img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/17760980-md.jpg" alt="" /> and <img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/17760981-md.jpg" alt="" /> And to not put too fine a point on it, the remark I responded to was "i haven't heard that. in fact focus performance has been one of the gotchas of ALL mirrorless systems." In normal light to fairly low light these cameras are fine. But a camera like the A7s virtually sees in the dark and not having one I can't prove it focuses fast in low light, but with a capability of useful photos at over ISO 100,000, f4 shouldn't matter. I don't know about your 100S Ellis, I have a friend who uses the X100 on the street and it was slow, but she said the firmware update sped up quite a bit. She doesn't have problems. Sometimes its a matter of technique. I used manual lenses and get all kinds of "action" pics. 1 at night at LACMA GX7 50 sum micron <img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/17937835-md.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>This debate has maybe taken up a lot of this thread. If you all don't mind, I'm going to ask the photographers on the Mirrorless forum if anyone is shooting concerts with those cameras. See what they say.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Eric, that hasn't been true for a good year now. With the latest lenses, the Panasonic and Olympus 4/3 are very fast. The Fuji's have greatly improved and the X-T1 is very fast. The newest Sony's are fast. Maybe not as fast as your fastest SLR's, though the M4/3 are very very close.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>barry, sorry but ISO 320-640 isnt a real challenge. guarantee you will never see a m4/3 camera in the photo pit at a concert. or a Sony. or a Fuji. not their current bodies, anyway. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>But a camera like the A7s virtually sees in the dark and not having one I can't prove it focuses fast in low light, but with a capability of useful photos at over ISO 100,000, f4 shouldn't matter.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>i already explained why it does matter in concert photography, Barry. high-ISO capability wont help you with uneven stage lighting. or not past a certain point, anyway. ultimately. f/4 absolutely matters. what we need are f/1.8 full frame zooms. f/4 is strictly amateur and not up to the demands of extreme low-light shooting. </p>

<p>i almost got an XT-1 -- i already have an XE1 and a bunch of fuji lenses; and the XE1 is pretty good between ISO 3200-5000. but i read reviews carefully and paid attention to focus performance. consensus seems to be there's an improvement over the earlier generation, but the subject tracking--which you absolutely need to shoot dance--isnt on a DSLR level yet. the Olympus cameras dont always use phase-detect in certain conditions, with certain lenses. focus performance is consistently listed as a weak point of the Sonys. not sure about the Panny GH4, but <a href="http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonic-lumix-dmc-gh4/8">according to DPReview</a>, focus tracking is unreliable -- and that's from a test subject shot in sunlight. So... i have to stick with my earlier observation that mirrorless AF is still about one generation behind the best DSLRs. to be reliable action cameras, you need top-level AF performance, and mirrorless just isnt there yet. also, "useful photos at over ISO 100,000"? i will believe that when i see it. in the meantime, my next camera will probably be a D750.</p>

<p>Ok Eric, no problem. Just so you know, I never use focus tracking and have never really needed it. and I actually don't like it, never use it on my D700 or 4/3 cameras and never felt it added anything to my picture taking, but then I'll shoot just about anything with a manual lens so go figure. But I asked the question on the mirrorless forum and answers are dribbling in. Some in support of your perceptions others saying they get results and a bit of both. So take a look there. I guess I'm going to have to rent a A7S with a f4 sony zoom and out with it to music to test my theory on using that camera. Will post some results when I get around to doing that. I'll also try it with my GX7 and the 2.8 zoom.</p>

<p>Use 1.4 lenses and move up to the D810. Problem solved.</p>

<p>I'm still shooting my used eBay vintage D3s for its low-light capabilities and dynamic range, and I'm still very happy with it--but I do like high resolution, too. I simply do not necessarily try to get both high resolution and excellent low light capabilities in the same camera. The D750 might be the best, most economical way to try to cover both requirements at once, but I have never used it.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p>Lannie;</p>

<p>The d810 is not bad either. I am comfortable shooting at 3200 with mine. 6400 is a bit of a push.</p>

<p>-O</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Use 1.4 lenses and move up to the D810. Problem solved.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

How does that solve the problem if the composition requires an f-stop of 5.6? Or 11?</p>

A while ago I made a table comparing the DXO low light ISO ('sport') ratings

of different Nikon cameras. At most you are going to gain half a stop over a

D700/D3: <br>

<IMG src="https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-

Qo4q9PWElI4/VOjTIGchdPI/AAAAAAAApFw/5PrYTBEJh-

s/s400/Screenshot_2015-02-21-12-44-51%257E2.jpg">

 

The DXO ISO rating is for 'decent' color depth and noise, so depending on your demands your actual usable maximum ISO might be a bit higher.