Better ISO performance is the difference

[orcama60]

<p>I took this photo with my D300 and Nikon 105 f/2.8. I could have use my flash SB-800 but I decided to give it a shot to my camera to find out how good it would perform by taking the picture with high ISO. I had to have at least 1/400 of speed to freeze the action and the only way was to increase the ISO.<br>

Here is the result. The picture was processed with Nik Silver Efex Pro II and a noise reduction was not apply to the photo. <br>

For sure, in situations like this, having a camera with high ISO performance is a most. If I would have had the D3s or D4 in my hands, this picture would have been very clean and neat. However, the D300 does not perform that bad and even though we can see noise and grain in the picture, it is usable and still not a bad picture after all. </p>

<p> </p><div></div>

[eric_arnold]

<p>maurice, nice job processing and great shot. i've personally found the d300/d300s is good up until about 1600, after that i have less confidence. that's why i got a D3s. here's a shot at ISO 5000.</p><div></div>

[tpernal]

<p>I've owned a D300 for about 3.5 years and I have come to the assumption that anything over ISO 800 is a stretch. I just bought a D700 sue to the severe price drop and if I get even ISO 1200-1600 I'll be happy, as I have fast lenses.</p><div></div>

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>IME noise doesn't just depend on the ISO setting of the camera, but on the amount of light you have. So a picture taken at (say) 3200 ISO in really dim light or with a slow lens and needing 1/10th of a second is going to look noisier than if you had a faster lens at 1/20th second. And if you have a bit more light on the subject and can shoot at 1/60th, then the noise will be even lower, etc.</p>

[DB_Gallery]

The correct term is "High ISO" and yes, it makes a difference in low light or medium light with action. I find my D800 better

than D700 in this regard...

[eric_arnold]

<p>daniel i would love to take your word for it but how can i when you dont post any shots? how's the d800 at 3200-6400?</p>

[DB_Gallery]

<p>Hi Eric, Look me up on here, you can take my word for it, I am not posting work from paid jobs on here, that is all I have at the moment.<br /> I think at pixel level, the D800 is right at or a little better than the D700/D3 depending on lighting, color balance, etc. But the sheer volume of resolution and tonality just buries the D3/700 up to ISO 6,400, this translates into MUCH better overall image quality from the D800, even at 3,200-6,400.<br>

In my 20 years of working with digital, this might represent the single biggest leap forward in Nikon's digital history, I have never seen anything like it, especially at these ISO levels.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>daniel, you didnt get the hint. we want to see some d800 hi-ISO pics. cant you shoot a random ISO 3200/6400/12800 shot and post it?</p>

 

[DB_Gallery]

<p>OK, quick and dirty, my book shelf at ISO 6,400, 50mm 1.4 at F/4..<br>

EDIT, can not edit attachments, awesome, so look below...</p>

[DB_Gallery]

<p>D800 whole image, out of camera JPG, noise reduction set to low,</p><div></div>

[DB_Gallery]

<p>D700, whole image, out of camera JPEG, noise set to low</p><div></div>

[DB_Gallery]

<p>D700, 100% crop</p><div></div>

[DB_Gallery]

<p>D800, 100% crop</p><div></div>

[kohanmike]

<p>I use ISO 1600 on my D300s all the time and find it to be very very good. When needed, I'll use 3200 without much concern.</p>

[shane_guthrie]

<p>I limit my D300 to ISO 800. I do shoot a lot in the dark, and don't like the noise and softness at ISO 1600. It's the main reason that's got me thinking about upgrading the camera. Otherwise, I'd rather spend the money on more lenses. I love the way the camera feels in my hands.</p>

[thomas_k.]

<p>After using noise reduction setting NORMAL on my D300 for years, recently I changed it to LOW. I do prefer noisier but sharper images from my D300 at iso 1600 and 3200. I convert many of these high iso images to black and white. I think in black and white images noise is more acceptable than softness from noise reduction.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>thanks daniel. no question d800 is better than d700 at 6400. i wasnt really thinking about a d800, but its looking like it's better than a lot of us suspected. the ability to crop severely and still have a hi-res image is definitely field-relevant, as is the better-than-it-should be ISO performance. hmmm...</p>

[mark_drutz]

<p>Granted that FX has an advantage when it comes to high ISO's, but one can get better high ISO performance than a D300 by going to a D7000. Also what's considered too much noise is subjective.</p>

[shane_guthrie]

<p>Thomas K., thanks for the tip. I'll do that. </p>