D4 vs D800 high ISO comparison

<p>Has anyone seen comparison of D4 vs D800 high ISO shots?<br>

I am seriously interested in high ISO for astrophotography. I might be able to afford the D800 but the D4 is a big stretch financially. I really want the high ISO but wondering if the extra pixels downsampled can compete. I really don't care much about the resolution but want the best Nikon DSLR for low light under $3000 I can get. The D800 looks much better than the D700 as far as I can tell. I'm also wondering if a used D3s would be the way to go. </p>

<p>D4?? D800? Where.....where.......where is it? I placed my order on the 12th of Feb, and the B&H was very sympathetic towards me when I wondered about my chance. Hope I will get one by fall......<br>

;-)</p>

<p>Lol, Thomas, you have about as much chance as running into hobbits from middle earth as you do a D800\D4 high ISO comparison, at least for another week. Supposed people are supposed to start getting there cameras next week, so hold tight and hopefully soon you'll get your request (notice the double supposedly, means I'm hopeful but skeptical).</p>

<p>Here is a link to DPREVIEW that shows some high ISO shots taken with the D4:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/studio-compare#baseDir=%2Freviews_data&cameraDataSubdir=boxshot&indexFileName=boxshotindex.xml&presetsFileName=boxshotpresets.xml&showDescriptions=false&headerTitle=Studio%20scene&headerSubTitle=Standard%20studio%20scene%20comparison&masterCamera=nikon_d4&masterSample=dsc_4681.acr&slotsCount=4&slot0Camera=nikon_d4&slot0Sample=dsc_4681.acr&slot0DisableCameraSelection=true&slot0DisableSampleSelection=true&slot0LinkWithMaster=true&slot1Camera=nikon_d3s&slot1Sample=bsb_9938.acr&slot2Camera=canon_eos5dmkii&slot2Sample=img_0038.acr&slot3Camera=canon_eos1dmkiv&slot3Sample=canon1d4_iso100.acr&x=0.16419566313666164&y=0.17951194385422703">http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/studio-compare#baseDir=%2Freviews_data&cameraDataSubdir=boxshot&indexFileName=boxshotindex.xml&presetsFileName=boxshotpresets.xml&showDescriptions=false&headerTitle=Studio%20scene&headerSubTitle=Standard%20studio%20scene%20comparison&masterCamera=nikon_d4&masterSample=dsc_4681.acr&slotsCount=4&slot0Camera=nikon_d4&slot0Sample=dsc_4681.acr&slot0DisableCameraSelection=true&slot0DisableSampleSelection=true&slot0LinkWithMaster=true&slot1Camera=nikon_d3s&slot1Sample=bsb_9938.acr&slot2Camera=canon_eos5dmkii&slot2Sample=img_0038.acr&slot3Camera=canon_eos1dmkiv&slot3Sample=canon1d4_iso100.acr&x=0.16419566313666164&y=0.17951194385422703</a></p>

<p>and<br>

<a href="http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/studio-compare#baseDir=%2Freviews_data&cameraDataSubdir=boxshot&indexFileName=boxshotindex.xml&presetsFileName=boxshotpresets.xml&showDescriptions=false&headerTitle=Studio%20scene&headerSubTitle=Standard%20studio%20scene%20comparison&masterCamera=nikon_d4&masterSample=dsc_4681.acr&slotsCount=4&slot0Camera=nikon_d4&slot0Sample=dsc_4681.acr&slot0DisableCameraSelection=true&slot0DisableSampleSelection=true&slot0LinkWithMaster=true&slot1Camera=nikon_d3s&slot1Sample=bsb_9938.acr&slot2Camera=canon_eos5dmkii&slot2Sample=img_0038.acr&slot3Camera=canon_eos1dmkiv&slot3Sample=canon1d4_iso100.acr&x=0.16419566313666164&y=0.17951194385422703">http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/studio-compare#baseDir=%2Freviews_data&cameraDataSubdir=boxshot&indexFileName=boxshotindex.xml&presetsFileName=boxshotpresets.xml&showDescriptions=false&headerTitle=Studio%20scene&headerSubTitle=Standard%20studio%20scene%20comparison&masterCamera=nikon_d4&masterSample=dsc_4681.acr&slotsCount=4&slot0Camera=nikon_d4&slot0Sample=dsc_4681.acr&slot0DisableCameraSelection=true&slot0DisableSampleSelection=true&slot0LinkWithMaster=true&slot1Camera=nikon_d3s&slot1Sample=bsb_9938.acr&slot2Camera=canon_eos5dmkii&slot2Sample=img_0038.acr&slot3Camera=canon_eos1dmkiv&slot3Sample=canon1d4_iso100.acr&x=0.16419566313666164&y=0.17951194385422703</a></p>

<p>Scroll down and you will see comparisons to the D3s and other cameras, unfortunately nothing from the D800, yet.</p>

<p>I am guessing that the D800 will be about the same as the D7000 which is almost as good as the D3/D700 at ISO 6400. ( I have read several online reviews that claim the D800 is as good as the D700 at high ISO - time will tell.)</p>

<p>The D3S is probably your best bet price wise based on your budget and IQ wise if you cannot afford a D4.</p>

<p>used D3s's are still over $3k.</p>

<p>True Eric, but they are not $6k!</p>

<p>There is a comparrison on you tube ... :<br>

<a href="

<br>

and <a href="

I cannot watchit from here, so i do not know if it's any good,<br>

Furthermore , Google is your friend ... ( i tried : "d4 vs d800 high iso" )...</p>

<p>I had my hands on a D800 at a trade show a week or so ago and, quite honestly, the high ISO performance didn't overimpress me in comparison to my D700. The few test shots I fired off with the D800 still looked quite noisy at 3200 ISO, but I suppose given the higher pixel density a final screen or print image would look a fair bit smoother than the D700.<br>

We'll just have to wait until all those pre-ordering eager beavers have taken delivery and actually used the cameras for a while before we see how good they are. I, for one, can wait until the dust settles before deciding whether to leap. So go ahead beavers, test the water for me!</p>

<p>If you want great high ISO performance for under $3000 you might consider the D7000 and putting the rest of your money into the glass. I've heard many find the high iso performance of the d7000 to be spectacular.</p>

<p>Your other option, at $3500, is the Canon 5D Mk III. Alas.</p>

<p>I cannot see a 36mp sensor outperforming either of those cameras, or the D3s or the D4, at high ISO. But I ain't no engineer so what do I know. It's a prejudice, really. </p>

<p>Looking at downloads of the dpreview shots, to my eye the D4 and D3s are about equal at ISO 6400 and the D3s is a shade better at 12,800.</p>

<p>Of course both the D4 and the D800 offer features beyond those of the D3s so you have to decide what's important to you of all those other things. For high ISO alone, I'd stick to the D3s for price. </p>

<p>I already have a D7000 and an astro-converted D5100 (same sensor but allowing larger spectrum through IR filter)<br>

ISO 6400 is borderline acceptable to me. Not good but OK. A lot of people like Ken Rockwell claim that the high ISOs are not useful but when you're shooting moving things by starlight they are absolutely necessary.<br>

I'd consider the Canon but I already have so much invested in the Nikon system. I find that the bodies sort of leap frog each other, one is better for a bit and then it changes back and forth. I might try binning (I know deep sky stacker (free) does it (making superpixels with no bayer interpolation) but doesn't nearly have the adjustments available in lightroom<br>

For an example of what I like to shoot See:

<p>http://www.flickr.com/photos/manasquantom/sets/72157613842292423/with/6958764627/</p>

<p><a href="00a9Dl">http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00a9Dl</a></p>

<p><em>If you want great high ISO performance for under $3000 you might consider the D7000 and putting the rest of your money into the glass. I've heard many find the high iso performance of the d7000 to be spectacular.</em></p>

<p>I guess that depends on where your reference is; I would not comfortably use the D7000 at ISOs above 400. 800 already showed blocked shadows and slightly more muted colours (compared to D700). Also, spending a lot of money on glass doesn't seem prudent if you're going to be throwing away over a half of the image projected by the lens. But I know many people who primarily use long glass like this camera a lot - it just didn't go down well for me, apart from base ISO macro and landscape detail applications. But we all expect different things from the images we make.</p>

<p>For astrophotography I would consider a second hand D3s - after a couple of months those should be available for 2000€ or so, I think. But I would also compare the D3s with D800 before buying, as there is always a chance that Nikon pulled out a miracle. I think live view is essential for astrophotography and the D7000, D800, and D4 have improved live view over the older Nikons as the quality of the LV image and the video are related and these have fixed the annoying mirror down-up cycle before a shot is taken. A higher resolution image such as given by the D800 <em>might</em> give you an advantage for LV focusing as it's always good to get a really high resolution image to focus on, but then it's also possible that the image of the stars is so noisy that you don't see any stars in the live view image under the conditions that you are shooting in. I found that for example LV focusing using my D3 and 14-24 was near impossible because there just weren't stars that I could focus on visible in the LV image, but using the 24/1.4 the focusing was much easier thanks to the brighter image.</p>

<p>So my summary is: try out the cameras before you buy. This is a specialized application and your requirements are different from that of many other photographers. My suspicion though is that for high ISO shots the D3s and D4 pull ahead in picture quality.</p>

<p>Something to keep in mind with noise, and comparing a D800 to a D7000. Now none of us have a D800 yet, but I think it's reasonable to speculate that the sensor would have a lot in common with the one in the D7000. Both are Sony CMOS sensors of roughly the same time period with similar pixel density. So, if you shot the same subject with both camera, using the same ISO, same exposure, same processing, and viewed both at 100% on your monitor, you'd expect to see similar amount of noise, right?</p>

<p>Sure, but looking at the images at 100% on your monitor is not the correct comparison, because it doesn't take into account that the D800 shot would have more pixels than the D7000. Consider a large print made from each of those shots (because where but in a large print can you really see the image quality difference between two good cameras these days). Print each of those shots at 36" on the long side and the D7000 shot is at 137 PPI while the D800 shot is at 204 PPI. Each pixel from the camera comes out smaller on the paper than it was one the monitor. (Even a pretty high pixel density monitor has larger pixels than either print - say, a 15.4" Macbook Pro with the high res 1680x1050 option, is about 129 PPI.) So the noise you saw on the monitor is shrunk when printing, and it's shrunk more when printing the 36MP shot than the 16MP shot. When you shrink the noise it becomes less visible and the eye tends to average it out.</p>

<p>In print, what you're going to find is that noise is controlled more by the size of the sensor and the year it was introduced (newer tech is better) than by resolution. It's the same as 35mm film versus medium format. You can shoot a 35mm shot and a 6x9cm shot using the same type of film in different size, make the same size large print using the same techniques from both and the 6x9 one is going to show less grain, more detail and smoother tones, because the film was larger and recorded more total information, which translated to more dense information in print.</p>

<p>Again, I don't have the cameras in hand to try them, but my guess is going to be that a D4 and a D800 will both produce better prints from high ISO images than a D700, D7000 or D3. The sensors are larger than the D7000 sensor and much newer than the D3 and D700. D3S... no idea, I'll leave that to people who have tried it. Comparing the D4 to the D800 I'm going to speculate that the prints will be quite similar.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I really don't care much about the resolution but want the best Nikon DSLR for low light under $3000 I can get.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>that will not be a d4 for many years, and may be awhile before it will be a D3s. right now, it's looking like the d700 and d3 fit your criteria...</p>

<p>The best Nikon DSLR for low light under $3000 is the D800 at $2999.99. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>The best Nikon DSLR for low light under $3000 is the D800 at $2999.99.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Ok, but what is the best Nikon DSLR for low light under $2999? :-)</p>

<p>It'll probably be a long while before any used D3S (in reasonable condition, not something totally beaten up and about to break down) to go below $3000. It'll be interesting to test the D800 agsinst the D700.</p>

<p>By the latest comparison between D800 and D3s. D800 is better than D3s at higher ISO.<br>

D800 is classified as high amateur full size model in Japan. but it is beating flagship now. It is a monster but has weak point in sport and animal photos.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>H Nakae,<br>

That is great news to me. . . do you have a link to samples or more info? I will be extremely happy if the D800 is better than the D3s at high ISO.</p>

<p>Luke, what makes you think the D800 is better for low light than the D700?</p>

<p>That is what everybody who's tested them has been saying. And anyway it makes sense - same sensor size, same company, same product class, but much newer, usually indicates you're going to have improvements in various measures including high ISO quality.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>That is what everybody who's tested them has been saying.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That has not been my impression so far. If you capture an image with the D800 and then down sample it from 36MP back to 12MP to match the D700, perhaps you can get similar high ISO results. But then your D800 is not really a 36MP camera any more; at least you are not using it as such.</p>

<p>But I need to do more careful testing before I can draw any solid conclusion.</p>

"That has not been my impression so far"

 

What's your impression of DxO Mark's ISO 2850 rating for the D800 vs 2300 for the D700?

<p>Shun, since screen res is easy and prints are the real test, have you tried comparing prints?</p>