Which one is the best low light performer of these four full frame cameras - D700, D3, D3s and D3x?

<p>Has anyone tried the low light performance on these four cameras? Are there any substantial differences on ISO performance?</p>

<p>Low-light photography ... you need to add in which lens you plan on using?</p>

<p>The D700 and the D3 handle ISO 6400 well. Going to a higher ISO makes noise a factor. </p>

<p>And no one can estimate the low-light condition(s) you are thinking of shooting in.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I haven't bought any lenses yet. I only know about 'low light conditions' - are there different ones? :-)</p>

<p>Jerry, a comparison can be made without a lens. </p>

<p>Just take a picture with a lens cap on at high ISO and at incremental exposure times, then compare results from the 4 cameras. </p>

<p>High-ISO performance on the D700 and D3 are identical; the D3X doesn't do as well, and the D3S is the high-ISO champ of the four you mention.</p>

<p>At which high-ISO do I get 'good enough' results with the D3 and the D3s?</p>

<p>According to dxomark the D3, D700 and D3X is very close when resampled to the same resolution. The D3 is the best of those three but the D3s is better. At low iso the difference is small (the D3s about 1/2 stop better) but as the ISO gets up to ISO 6400 and higher the D3s will start to pull away a bit more from from the D3 (up to one stop).</p>

<blockquote>

<p>At which high-ISO do I get 'good enough' results with the D3 and the D3s?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>What 's your standard? Compared to the D300 you will get about 2 stops better noise performance. The D3s has a little less noise at ISO 6400 then the D300 at ISO1600.</p>

<p>According to dpreview, the D3s is a significantly better low light performer (<a href="http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond3s/33"><strong>link</strong></a>).</p>

<p>According to <a href="http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Compare-Camera-Sensors/Compare-cameras-side-by-side/(appareil1)/628%7C0/(brand)/Nikon/(appareil2)/441%7C0/(brand2)/Nikon/(appareil3)/438%7C0/(brand3)/Nikon">DXOmark</a>, who are one of the few bodies with the resources to do objective tests on a variety of cameras, the D3s has the best high ISO noise performance of the 4 - by a whisker. The D3x is in tail position.</p>

<p>I would have to look at the links when my Internet connection is better again. I can't get through to DPReview at all now.<br>

I have always thought that my D300 was bad at ISO 1600. I am not sure if I have a bad copy in that regards or not.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>I have always thought that my D300 was bad at ISO 1600.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>This always makes me chuckle. Photographers have never had it so good with respect to clean, high ISO images. Anyone who thinks the D300 at ISO 1600 is "bad" obviously has no reference point to what bad "noise" really looked like ... on ISO 1600 color<strong> film</strong>.</p>

<p>as a d3s owner, i can confirm it does well at high ISOs, which i would define as above 1600, maybe above 3200. i also have a d300s, which for me has usable ISO 1600, maybe up to 2500, with 3200 being fairly noisy. in contrast, ISO 5000 on a d3s is fairly clean in shadow areas. other factors can impact ISO performance, such as lens/aperture used, exposure time, and external lighting sources' brightness. because i shoot live shows often, i frequently shoot with fast primes at sub-2.8 apertures so i can get a high shutter speed, say 1/200 or more. depending on the venue, i'm sometimes well upwards of 3200, often in the 4000-5000 zone. any more than that and i tend to get overexposure from stage lights. that's not a fault of the D3s, more like a fact of physics. so, to shoot low light, you need hi-ISO performance and wide apertures for best results. </p>

<p>Michael, all is relative :-) I was thinking of trying ISO 1600 film. They are not all that bad now :-)</p>

<p>Eric, I think your D300s must be better than my D300 regarding high-ISO. So the D3s is not very good at ISO 3200 and above?</p>

<p>I have a D3 and a D3s, and the latter is by far the best low light camera that I have ever used. I shoot all the time at ASA 12000 and it looks like 1600 on my older cameras. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>This always makes me chuckle. Photographers have never had it so good with respect to clean, high ISO images. Anyone who thinks the D300 at ISO 1600 is "bad" obviously has no reference point to what bad "noise" really looked like ... on ISO 1600 color<strong>film</strong>.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

Totally agreed! High speed film is so bad that I don't even use ISO400 film. I use ISO100 film most of the time. Sometimes Portra 160 and very rarely 200 film. <br>

I have used Fuji 1600 before and it was very bad.</p>

<p>I have two D3s's, one D3x and used to have a D3 (have a D4 too but will ignore that for now).<br>

I've not owned a D700, but I understand that it has the same sensor as the D3.<br>

In my experience the D3s is the best in low light of the 4 models mentioned.<br>

Rob</p>

 

<p>Are you shooting objects that stand still, Bebu? I can't imagine how ISO 100 can be enough. Maybe on a sunny summer day.</p>

<p>Would you say that the difference is substantial, Robert? I didn't know that the D700 and the D3 have the same sensors. Good to know. One thing I would definately miss if I buy a D3 something camera, is the built-in flash. You get that neither in D3, D3s, D3x, and nor in the D4. It looks like you get it in D600, D700 and D800 (I have only looked at the photos of the cameras).</p>

<p>Just be aware that there is a trade-off for superior low ISO performance, and that is resolution. The D700/D3/D3S are all identical at 12 MP and the D3X has 24 MP. I thought to mention since you included the D3X in your question. Perhaps it's resolution is worth a stop or two of high ISO performance.</p>

<p>Coming from ISO 25 film, I still have a hard time moving the ISO on my DSLR any higher than 100!</p>

<p>Based on personal experience, the D3s hands down...ISO3200 with no worries at all. A D4 on the other hand is even more incredible to the point where it's just plain silly...again based on personal experience.</p>

<p>Ann, you may look also at http://home.comcast.net/~NikonD70/Charts/PDR.htm for dynamic range. That is one factor too. Select your camera(s) to compare at the right side menu.<br>

One thing to note is how the dynamic range drops as the ISO gets higher.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Perhaps it's resolution is worth a stop or two of high ISO performance.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>John, I am not sure about that since I haven't seen what any of these cameras are capable of first hand. But better ISO results is what I would really like to see now.</p>

<p>What did you shot with ISO 25 film? :-)</p>

<p>Kari, I looked at that comparison. Very interesting. Maybe the graphs would be more or less similar when it comes to colors and increase in ISO. The D3s is the better of the four cameras regarding dynamic range.</p>

<p>Ann, if your D300 isn't giving you good results at 1600, maybe there's something in your technique that you should adjust. Can you post links to some of your samples?</p>