'Realistic' high ISO expectations

<p>Hi there,<br>

I realise I might have asked this question in another, less specific way earlier, but I'm still not sure...<br />Having shot rock concerts, dance performances and available light indoor events (speeches, awards etc.) with a D700 and a D3 for the last years, lately I feel more and more the need for an improvement in the IQ- department, mainly with regards to noise but also AF-acuity.<br>

I often shoot at ISO3200, f2.8 and 1/125s, but sometimes need to drop the speed to 1/60 (greatly increased risk of camera shake) or bump the ISO to 6400 (severe drop in IQ). For me ISO 3200 is the limit of my IQ-comfortzone with these camera's.<br>

Which is not bad, and there's always room to improve my skills to nail the exposure even more right, but it would be great if I had a camera that I could use at ISO 6400 and that would give me the IQ comparable with that of my current D3 at ISO 1600 in those situations (2-stop ISO improvement). With the new generation of camera's, is that a realistic expectation?<br>

I'm talking about either a D810 or D750 coming from a D700/D3 (D3s, D4/s is no option for me). I know the D750 has great AF and hi-ISO performance, but from what I've read the D810 is no slouch either and has some things going for it which I value.<br>

I'm not so much interested in which camera is (slightly) better than the other at exotic high ISO, but is it realistic to expect a stop improvement at ISO 6400 compared to my D3 at ISO 3200 with either of those camera's?<br /><br /><br>

Thanks for your thoughts<br />Ray</p>

<p>I would also consider faster lenses (primes) but YMMV in this respect.</p>

<p>In your case, definitely get the D750. Its high-ISO capability is superior to that on the D810. 36MP is pretty meaningless once you are beyond ISO 1600 or so.</p>

<p>BTW, I noticed that prices for used D4 (not the D4S) have dropped quite bit. I was checking them last year when the D4S was introduced. The used market had some D4 as people upgraded, and the D4 was going for around $4500 or so in May/June 2014. In less than a year, currently they are down to the $3600 to $3700 range in Ex to Ex+ condition at KEH. You can probably get even better deals privately.</p>

<p>What are you using to process the images? I shoot performances professionally and almost always shoot at 6400 and use Lightroom's noise processing cranked up fairly high. The current version does an excellent job of reducing noise without making the image mushy. Also, some people just let them go noisy, most of this photography only hits the web and it isn't much of an issue.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I would also consider faster lenses</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br /> <br /> As I said above, I do this professionally. I've never run into any experienced shooters using primes for this type of photography. It's not realistic. And shooting wider than 2.8 frequently causes focus and/or DOF problems. Do you have some examples you've shot with primes?</p>

<p>I PP in CS6 and prefer not to use noise reduction software. <br>

I have a nice set of primes (28 1.4, 50 1.4 and 85 1.4), but indeed learned that for this kind of work shooting at f1.4 is not realistic. <br />In fact, if the ISO- and AF performance of a D750 or D810 would permit it, I'd be contemplating to switch from my 80-200 f2.8AFS to a 70-200 f4VR and shoot a lighter lens at f4 for a little more DoF.<br /><br />Shun, what do you mean with 36MP being meaningless beyond ISO 1600? Do you mean from there on the ISO-performance of the D750 is significantly better than that of the D810?</p>

<p>Two stops of improvement at high ISO is unrealistic, but you can get a bit better results using a newer camera. Adobe converters in my experience give quite poor quality results with D700/D3 at ISO 6400; I felt Nikon's converter worked much better with this sensor and I was happier with the rendering.</p>

<p>I use primes mostly (35/1.4, 85/1.4, and 200/2) when I shoot low light dance / music events but there is some risk involved in using such a wide aperture in low light; you may need to get a few shots to get one that is precisely in focus. Also if you cannot move about and are in the wrong position you may find the focal length sometimes less than ideal. ;-) Using f/2.8 zooms you can be more flexible but shutter speeds may be too slow so you get some movement blur (and/or noise). I guess 95% of photographers shooting events would pick the f/2.8 zooms over the primes, but then there is the exception. ;-)</p>

<p>I shoot at 6400 frequently and have given up primes for sport/theater usage for the reasons Jeff states. A VR/IS zoom wins over a really fast prime in most cases. I also do shoot at 12,800 very rarely and given that this is very dark, the results are pretty good with noise reduction. I use the Canon 6D, but I think you would find the same with the D750, for example. At 3200 I usually don't employ noise reduction unless the image is heavily cropped.</p>

<p>Technology in the D3/D700 is from 2007. When Nikon introduced the D800 back in 2012, it was easy for me to show that the D800 offers one more stop of high-ISO results, after down-sampling to 12MP for a fair comparison: http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00aEHd</p>

<p>My experience is that the D810 offers no further improvement from the D800. The D750 maybe a bit better but you are not going to get another stop from it. Probably the only way to gain yet another stop is the D4S, but understandably the cost is too high.</p>

<p>Concerning 36MP, as soon as you reach ISO 1600 or so, there is enough noise and smearing in your image such that there is no longer 36M distinct pixels. You might as well start with fewer pixels so that you get a higher frame rate and smaller image files to work with.</p>

<p>I wouldn't switch to a 70-200mm/f4, though. Under dim light, Nikon AF is clearly superior with an f2.8 lens compared to an f4 lens. When you have more light hitting the AF module, AF is faster and more accurate. The 70-200mm/f4 AF quite well under good light. Indoors, regardless of whether you shoot @ f2.8, it'll give you much better AF.</p>

<p>[[i PP in CS6 and prefer not to use noise reduction software.]]</p>

<p>It may be time to re-examine your bias here. </p>

<p>Just to add to the agreement, I found that my D800 was roughly a stop better than my D700 at high ISO, over the whole image (not pixel-by-pixel). The D3s, D4(s) and Df are a bit better. The D750 is slightly better. I've not done much with my D810 yet, but don't expect much change - other than improvements to the JPEG processing. If you want the camera mostly for shooting in the dark, don't get a D8x0; if you usually shoot in good light and you want to know if it'll hold up in the dark - yes, it does. It's just a shame that the D810's "small raw" doesn't do proper binning, or it would be more useful in these conditions.<br />

<br />

The only significant low-light advance since the D3s generation (I believe) has been in the Sony A7s, but while the results are impressive, reports indicate that some weird processing is going on there which might make the camera look better in tests than it actually should. But please don't take me as an authority on that.<br />

<br />

If you want to improve noise by a stop, I'd think about getting hold of a copy of DxO and trying out their PRIME noise reduction. It doesn't always work miracles, but it can sometimes do very well (if you're not in a hurry). I export to Photoshop afterwards.</p>

<blockquote>

<p> I've never run into any experienced shooters using primes for this type of photography. It's not realistic. And shooting wider than 2.8 frequently causes focus and/or DOF problems. </p>

</blockquote>

<p>i'm an experienced shooter. and i frequently use f/1.4 primes for low-light action photography such as concerts, when i need to maintain a high shutter speed. i use a d3s which is good to ISO 6400 or even higher, but the reason to go with sub-2.8 primes even when you could raise the ISO is because of uneven concert lighting which typically can overexpose faces at high ISO levels. in that situation, there is no substitute for a fast aperture. when i shoot fast primes im typically in the f/2-2.8 range, which gives me more latitude than a 2.8 zoom. i also have the pro zooms and have shot with those as well in these situations, so i believe i know what i'm talking about. with respect to Jeff, he typically uses flash in concert photography, so there's litte benefit for him in using fast primes. i will use flash on occasion, but i generally like the mood and atmospheric look of available-light photography which is difficult to capture using flash.<br>

<br>

also not sure why the OP wouldnt consider a d3s if he's shooting now with a D3. it does give you that extra stop, and only the A7s is significantly better, as has been pointed out -- but the A7s doesnt have many fast lenses available for it. from what ive read, the D750 is slightly better at high-ISO than the D810. and i would consider 36mp overkill for this type of application, anyway.</p><div></div>

<p>the Sigma 35 in my experience is a go-to lens for low-light action photography such as dance. it's invaluable for shooting things like flamenco, which is often performed in extremely dim environments, and requires a high shutter speed. i can get lots of keepers even at f/2-2.2 and there's not much of a drop-off in focus acquisition speed and accuracy compared to my nikon 24-70/2.8. but... to a large extent this will also depend on the camera. the d3s has an advanced AF, which the 750 tops, albeit at a slower frame rate. if you are using, say, an 85/1.4 AF-D with a Df, i wouldn't expect the same results as the d3s/Sigma 35, since the nikkor doesnt have particularly snappy focus and the Df's AF is inferior, despite its excellent high-ISO performance. </p>

<p>Ok, thank you all so far.<br /> <br />For me to sum it up:<br /> -It seems the consensus is that a one stop improvement while shooting at ISO 3200/6400 is a realistic expectation, with eiher one of the new camera's, including the D810.<br />D750, Df an D4(s) give slight improvements from there onwards, but nothing spectacular and only at really, really high ISO's, right?<br /> -I am aware that my preference for not using noise reduction software is a factor I could reconsider. I just rather not if I had the option.<br>

<br /> The reason for not including a D3s/D4 is that I feel it is time to consider a smaller, but most of all lighter camera. Never thought that would be an issue for a healthy strong young man like myself, but I did have several long shoots where my elbow and wrist hurt for weeks after...<br />Another reason is that I felt I left the D3 at home on trips and travels because of the size. Started using a V1 in combination with a FM/FE or F2/F3 instead and that works fine. For some trips though I wish I could bring a not to big and heavy (semi)pro dSLR for maximum IQ.<br /><br />And btw thank you Ilkka for the tip on the Nikon RAW converter vs the Adobe convert. Will give it a try!</p>

<p>Again, I think the most realistic choice is the D750. Supposedly it can AF at one stop dimmer than even the D4S and D810, but I am not sure it has much real-life difference.</p>

<p>If weight is an issue, can you use a monopod, at least sometimes?</p>

I hope I'm not complicating things, but I find myself in a similar situation as the op, shooting in dark music venues.

Needing to upgrade, I'm deciding between a D7100, D610, and a D750. I was wondering if anyone could tell me the

differences in low light between these three bodies. I understand that the D750 would be best, but I don't know how much

better it is than the other two, especially the D7100. Budget is issue. I've been using a dx body, D70, and this upgrade is

long overdue.

 

Thanks,

Chris

<blockquote>D750, Df an D4(s) give slight improvements from there onwards, but nothing spectacular and only at really, really high ISO's, right?</blockquote>

 

<p>Actually, not that high. Have a look <a href="http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Nikon-D750-versus-Nikon-D810-versus-Nikon-Df___975_963_925">at DxO's measurements</a> - the Df overtakes the dynamic range of the D810 and D750 by ISO 800 (it's about even at 400). Other than a big bump at ISO 1600, where the Df/D4 seem to excel, there's not that much in it - the worst is around 2/3 of a stop, and less for the D750. (The Df is essentially identical in sensor to the D4 - but the Df's AF will be more of an issue.)<br />

<br />

If you look at <a href="http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Nikon-D750-versus-Sony-A7S-versus-Nikon-D3s___975_949_628">lower resolution bodies</a>, the D3s does overtake the D750 for dynamic range, but never by much - and the gap at low ISO is huge. If you switch systems, the A7s is light and appears to do extremely well once you get above ISO 6400 - if there's any image quality left on anything by that point. DPReview's comparison tool is also instructive on these cameras. Compared with an original D3, I find the <a href="http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Nikon-D750-versus-Nikon-D3s-versus-Nikon-D3___975_628_438">generational difference</a> interesting. I shot my D700 at auto-ISO and didn't pay much attention to it - there was little image quality difference anywhere in the ISO 200-800 range, and beyond that I usually actually needed the ISO I was using. Because there's more dynamic range, I'm much more sensitive to keeping ISO low on the D800/D810 because I can actually use the sensor advantage.<br />

<br />

I find my arms ache because I've been holding them in a bent position, not from the weight. Stretch a bit when shooting and you might be okay - but it depends on what you've done to yourself! Just a thought.<br />

<br />

I've had a policy of not letting camera makers run their software on my computer, because I hear such horror stories about the programming skills. But seriously, I'd give DxO a free trial, as well as whatever Nikon do. PRIME is different. Good luck.</p>

<p> Sony A7s. But you'll have to research the lens choices.</p>

<p><<I hope I'm not complicating things, but I find myself in a similar situation as the op, shooting in dark music venues. Needing to upgrade, I'm deciding between a D7100, D610, and a D750. I was wondering if anyone could tell me the differences in low light between these three bodies. I understand that the D750 would be best, but I don't know how much better it is than the other two, especially the D7100. Budget is issue. I've been using a dx body, D70, and this upgrade is long overdue.</p>

<p>I've been using D7100, now D800E. I am a night shooter, and have some thoughts. With the D7100 I can shoot pretty clean at ISO 2000. With the D800E that goes to about ISO 3200, maybe a bit more depending on the scene. I looked at a D750 and DxO rates it a tiny bit better at higher ISO, not even a tenth of a stop:<br>

http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Nikon-D750-versus-Nikon-D810-versus-Nikon-D7100___975_963_865</p>

<p>Your best bang for the buck might be a used D7100 with a couple of nice f1.4 lenses. I have the Sigma ART 35mm & 50mm f1.4 lenses and they are just stunning! You gain a stop & half using those vs. an f2.8 lens. It's not ISO you are wanting, it's shutter speed. There's more than one way to get that--the other is fast glass. Otherwise a used D800 is now selling for under $1,500. I also agree that ISO 6400 is right at the edge, maybe a bit beyond it depending on what you have in mind. The DxO software might be part of what you need to getting what you want. Software has now become a central piece of photography.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

 

Thank you Kent.

D7100 clean at iso 2000, is that at 2.8, or with 1.4 glass?

Did I understand correctly, if I opt for the D750 I'd be good at iso 3200 with 6400 pushing the envelope, and with

the D7100 I'd be good at iso 2000 with 3200 pushing it?

I do have a 50 / 1.4, but for these venues I'd be using a 17-50 / 2.8 for the dx or a 24-70 / 2.8 for the fx.

<blockquote>

<p>The reason for not including a D3s/D4 is that I feel it is time to consider a smaller, but most of all lighter camera. Never thought that would be an issue for a healthy strong young man like myself, but I did have several long shoots where my elbow and wrist hurt for weeks after...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>the D3s is a heavy camera but it has great ergonomics. i havent had elbow/wrist problems, but i have had back pain after long PJ assignments carrying that body and the pro zooms (24-70/70-200) in a messenger bag. which is one reason why ive started shooting with the faster primes in certain situations when i dont need every focal range between 24 and 200. i would also suggest a good quality leather wrist strap for a pro body to reduce muscle strain, i use the herringbone which is great.<br>

<br>

honestly, if your main need is one stop better ISO performance, i would absolutely include the D3s/D4/D4s in your choices, especially if you come across a used low-actuation body. not that i would rule out a D750 (i may get one myself), but there are two ways to reduce weight: use a lighter body or use lighter lenses. so again we come back to the fast primes. if you shoot avail-light in dim venues, that's what you want.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>shooting in dark music venues. Needing to upgrade, I'm deciding between a D7100, D610, and a D750. I was wondering if anyone could tell me the differences in low light between these three bodies.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>a d7100 will have the same limitation as any APS-C/Bayer body in low-light: it will max out and get noisey between 1600-3200 (which is about one or two stops better than a d70). a d610 should give you at least one stop better performance, and a d750 should be like a stop and a half to two stops. another reason to consider a d750 is it will focus in lower light than all your other choices. A d610 wouldnt be ideal because of the slow buffer and worse AF (though likely an improvement over d70). in your shoes, i'd consider a d750 and then a low-mileage d700 if you cant swing the pricier camera. <strong>you absolutely do need full frame for "dark music venues" as well as fast lenses as previously mentioned.</strong> a d700 would be better than a d7100 in dim light and would be better than a d610 for fast action.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Sony A7s. But you'll have to research the lens choices.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>if you do research Sony, you'll find their lenses lacking for concert photography. no 2.8 zooms and only one 1.8 prime. also they dont have the focus speed needed for action. too bad, because i would jump on an A7 at the current price if those two things were different.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Your best bang for the buck might be a used D7100 with a couple of nice f1.4 lenses. I have the Sigma ART 35mm & 50mm f1.4 lenses and they are just stunning! You gain a stop & half using those vs. an f2.8 lens. It's not ISO you are wanting, it's shutter speed.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>actually, sometimes, you need both. you do need the 1.4's (or at least sub-2.8), but ISO 2000 would be underwhelming for a lot of avail-light concert photography, especially clubs and similar venues below the auditorium level. concert shooting has more specific requirements than just night shooting and an APS-C Bayer sensor just isnt going to cut it for what the OP wants to do. i used to shoot concerts with a d300s and fast lenses. that body was good up until about ISO 2000, but my shutter speed sometimes was as slow as 1/100 or 1/125 at f/2 (which is as open an aperture as you want shooting live action). its limitations were why i got a D3s. when i got the D3s, i didnt have to worry about ISO up to 6400, and now i was able to dial in shutters of 1/200 or 1/250, which resulted in sharper-looking shots from reduction of motion blur, and/or stop down (resulting in more detail with my zooms -- important for stagelit faces). so it's worth it to spend a little more on a body if it makes a difference in performance, and it does for shooting in music venues.</p>

<p>there are some good bang for the buck lens choices out there--the older Sigma 50 is less sharp in the corners than the ART model, but it's pretty crisp with good acuity in the center, plus excellent bokeh (better than Sigma 35 ART)--and the corners rarely matter for subj.-iso shots you'll typically take. also the tamron 28-75/2.8, which is extremely good for how little it costs. you can also find some killer used gems out there. i have the nikon 24-70, but if i was buying now, i might actually forego that for the 20/50/85 1.8 G primes (or the 1.4 ART lenses if you can afford them). the zoom is pretty good, but the primes are sharper and lighter and really only a disadvantage when you have to switch focal lengths and have to get the shot quickly. ive been experimenting for the past two years switching between zooms and primes in different music venue environments, so i've gotten a lot more comfortable with using fixed focal lengths and the framing/composition choices you have to make when using them. the weight of the 24-70 is a drag sometimes, so if i can get away with just using the 50, or just the 35, or a 35/85 combo, i'll do it sometimes just to keep my bag lighter and make myself more maneuverable. when i do take the 24-70 and/or 70-200 nowadays, i always take a backpack which is less-accessible than a shoulder bag. this can actually factor into music venue shooting, because a) a backpack is more likely to get in someone's way if you have to wade through the crowd and b) you can change lenses much faster with a messenger.</p>

<p>>>Thank you Kent. D7100 clean at iso 2000, is that at 2.8, or with 1.4 glass? </p>

<p>The lens shouldn't matter--ISO 2000 is ISO 2000. The D700 has about 2/3 stop advantage over D7100 in ISO, but OTOH the D7100 has truly outstanding low light AF. Again, DxO comparision:<br>

http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Nikon-D750-versus-Nikon-D7100-versus-Nikon-D700___975_865_441</p>

<p>Again, what you are after, really, is higher shutter speed. A D7100 should give you at least one more stop ISO and probably more like two. A D700 will give another 2/3 stop more albeit with 13mp rather than 24mp and older AF system. A newer camera will obviously help you, as will an f1.4 lens. A lot depends on what size prints you are making too.</p>

<p>Here's a shot I did in Revelstoke BC last summer with D7100 and Nikon 17-55mm f2.8. The stage lights were pretty bright and I shot this at ISO 800, 1/250s, f5. Not a test of really high ISO, but I didn't need it here.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

<div></div>

<blockquote>

<p>"I PP in CS6 and prefer not to use noise reduction software... I am aware that my preference for not using noise reduction software is a factor I could reconsider. I just rather not if I had the option."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You're a film user too, right? If you preferred finer grain without regard to light sensitivity, you'd choose a finer grain film, right? And if you needed finer grain in an ultra fast film you'd choose a finer grain developer.<br /> <br /> Choosing appropriate noise reduction is no different.<br /> <br /> Chroma noise reduction with good software has no perceptible effect on the inherent detail of an image. If you're shooting color there's almost no reason *not* to use chroma NR at high ISOs. Some camera manufacturers bake some non-optional noise reduction into their raw files, although they're tight-lipped about proprietary info for in-camera raw processing.<br /><br />Chroma noise looks awful. I've never seen any artistic use of chroma noise that made a photo "better". I always apply some chroma NR, even with some of my base ISO photos from cameras that show some chroma noise in shadows. The Nikon V1 you mentioned is a good example. Nikon applies little or no in-camera NR to NEFs. I can see a hint of chroma noise in shadows around jaw lines, under noses, etc., even at the base ISO, so I always apply some chroma noise reduction to my color photos. Even with monochrome conversions I apply some chroma NR to minimize blotchy noise. I've carefully examined areas with subtle color, such as irises, and even cranking Lightroom's chroma NR up to 50 or so doesn't eliminate any *true* color - it only minimizes the blotchy color noise. Same with subtle stuff like flushed capillaries in babies' cheeks. Well designed chroma NR tools preserve even the most subtle true colors while minimizing garbage.<br /> <br /> If you want to preserve maximum detail it's still possible to carefully apply luminance noise reduction without sacrificing essential detail. Lightroom, Noise Ninja, Noiseware and others offer flexible tools for NR without sacrificing fine detail. Some digital cameras produce high ISO luminance noise that's remarkably similar to b&w film grain, so I don't always use luminance NR. My b&w 8x10 prints from the very noisy Nikon D2H and Ricoh GX100 at ISO 1600 look fine without any luminance NR. The noise resembles Tri-X grain at EI 800 or so. The high resolution web displays do need a bit of NR, but not for prints.<br /> <br /> Omitting appropriate use of noise reduction unnecessarily hinders the best possible results. It's akin to white balance and other essential tools. Omitting these tools doesn't add to purity or getting it right in the camera, any more than omitting color correction from color negative film makes prints any more pure.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I'm deciding between a D7100, D610, and a D750.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Chris, if you are after high-ISO results, definitely get an FX body now. In these days, you can buy a new D610 for below $1500. Used D700 are almost dirt cheap. There is no point to consider DX any more.</p>

<p>As a rule of thumb, as long as you use up to one stop below Nikon's highest rated ISO, you should be able to get fairly decent results. For example, the D750 has an ISO range up to 12800. Therefore, as long as you stay below (and up to) ISO 6400, you should be fine. I would never venture into the extended, Hi range unless you are desperate for a "better than nothing" image.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The stage lights were pretty bright and I shot this at ISO 800, 1/250s, f5. Not a test of really high ISO, but I didn't need it here.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>rarely do i have the luxury of shooting at f/5 and ISO 800. in this shot of the wu-tang clan from last sept at the warfield theater, looks like i shot a 24-70 at 24mm, 3.5, 1/200 and ISO 5000, +0.7 EC. obviously, this would not be as clean a shot with a d7100 as with a D3s.</p><div></div>

<p>Eric - A7-S alleged usable ISO up to ISO 102,000 (note the number of zeros) for web viewing with a high of over 400,000 (nothing you'd want to see.) 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. Apparently they focus fairly fast in low light. These things pretty much see in the dark. I will be waiting to see what the II version is like. It would be very nice to shoot indoor events without a flash as my back dislikes lugging around heavy SLR's with back-up and strobes, etc.</p>