stillbound Posted July 9, 2008 Share Posted July 9, 2008 got my hands on it again and while I still can't seem to open the raws (i tried converting to dng - and i tried downolading the newest acr) I took three shots at 800, 3200, and 6400 I'd say the 6400 is less than impressive...again as before these are not art. These are just super quick tests...<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stillbound Posted July 9, 2008 Author Share Posted July 9, 2008 here is the 6400<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stillbound Posted July 9, 2008 Author Share Posted July 9, 2008 and the 800<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jose_angel Posted July 9, 2008 Share Posted July 9, 2008 Could I ask about the lens used? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jay_poel Posted July 9, 2008 Share Posted July 9, 2008 I'd say for being at 6400 - it's not bad at all. At least on my cheap monitor at work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elliot1 Posted July 9, 2008 Share Posted July 9, 2008 >> I'd say the 6400 is less than impressive. Compared to what? Looks good to me! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stillbound Posted July 9, 2008 Author Share Posted July 9, 2008 you know something - when i look at it on the pc monitor (i am using a mac but i have another monitor set up for PC) it does look pretty good... as for the lens 85 1.4 JC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShunCheung Posted July 9, 2008 Share Posted July 9, 2008 I think it is safe to say that the D700 has essentially identical high-ISO performance as the D3 (since the two are supposed to have identical electronic engines, not merely the same sensor). The D3 is still quite good at 3200. 6400 is still fine and I wouldn't hesitate to use it, but if you don't have to go to 6400, I would stay with 3200 or lower. Of course, the closer to the based ISO 200, the better the quality will be. I know that is vague, but that would be my suggestion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
haroldjerome Posted July 9, 2008 Share Posted July 9, 2008 They all look good. Maybe conduct a real test with the subject in a static position for all 3 photos, including the same focal length, aperture, and shutter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dan_brown4 Posted July 9, 2008 Share Posted July 9, 2008 Wow, that 3200 shot is clean, clean, clean. At 6400, the gain/grain is starting to show, but still very impressive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stillbound Posted July 9, 2008 Author Share Posted July 9, 2008 i shot all 3 with the subject in same spot under same lights with fixed 85 1.4 @ f2 the one is just turned portrait style.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
photo5 Posted July 9, 2008 Share Posted July 9, 2008 Are these cropped at 100 percent? I don't see how we can judge image quality unless we're looking at an original out-of-camera file... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aaron l Posted July 9, 2008 Share Posted July 9, 2008 I'm not sure what people are complaining about noise. Perhaps we've all forgotten the D100 at 1600? How about ISO 800 film pushed to 1600? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dan_brown4 Posted July 9, 2008 Share Posted July 9, 2008 Aaron, you make a good point. I've got lots of Fuji 800 negs, shot at ISO 1600, f2.8 and 1/500 sec from the sidelines of Texas Stadium. They pretty much look like crap compared to everything coming out of the D3/D300/ and now the D700. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevinwalsh Posted July 9, 2008 Share Posted July 9, 2008 Thanks for posting Joseph. Any in camera NR? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ben__evans Posted July 9, 2008 Share Posted July 9, 2008 I suppose one of the (dis)advantages of working at B&H is worldwide publicity with Nikon aficionados... Interesting to see the shots, had my F100 stolen recently, which I preferred using to my D2Xs, and think this will be the perfect replacement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
photo_dark Posted July 9, 2008 Share Posted July 9, 2008 6400 isn't just good, it's great... I'd say if you were really stuck, that is completely usable. My 40D at 3200 is worse than the D700 at 6400. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Collins Posted July 9, 2008 Share Posted July 9, 2008 I'm with Aaron...perhaps people have forgotten (or have never used!) 800 and 1000 film and how great the 800 was, and still is by many, considered to be. The fact that we can have a discussion about any digital camera shooting at 6400ISO is pretty amazing to me, and that it really is quite good--better than most cameras shot 800ISO just a few years ago--is even more amazing. I think the camera's performance at 6400 is great! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marcsharp Posted July 9, 2008 Share Posted July 9, 2008 Just looking at the noise, the ISO 3200 is similar to ISO 400 with my Canon 40D under similar lighting conditions. The ISO 6400 is not much worse. They are very nice quality shots. I think they are better than what would be possible with film. What do you all think about that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rene11664880918 Posted July 9, 2008 Share Posted July 9, 2008 Very clean shots! I really like the bokeh of that lens! OK! It's settled! I am not buying a D3! Joseph... Thank you! I don't wanna complaint but.... Do any girls work at B&H? too many shots of man! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wogears Posted July 9, 2008 Share Posted July 9, 2008 Yeesh. I used to shoot Konica 3200 rated at 1600, and the 6400 here just annihilates the film. Looks like 200-400 ISO color neg as far as grain is concerned. Wow. I really need that D300... :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beau 1664876222 Posted July 9, 2008 Share Posted July 9, 2008 Those poor B&H workers sure have to pose for a lot of photos. On the other hand, they get Friday afternoons off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
juan_su Posted July 9, 2008 Share Posted July 9, 2008 Impressive results. I'm sure the D700 is going to be in a lot of wedding photographer's bags. I certainly would choose it if could not afford the D3 and was not able to handle the weight of the D3. Thanks for the posts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim_winters Posted July 10, 2008 Share Posted July 10, 2008 3200 on a d700=800 on a d300...4x the speed for and additional $1200? sold! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gy Posted July 10, 2008 Share Posted July 10, 2008 jim..I think you are being too excited about d700 :) I dont think 3200 on d700 would equal to 800 on a d300.. I can get very good 3200 results from my d300. maybe not as good as the samples above but not certainly 4x worse.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now