D800 performance in low light « Nikon Rumors Forum

The new Nikon Rumors Forum is now live at http://forum.nikonrumors.com/discussions. This forum is now in "read only" mode until I figure a proper way to import all data over to the new platform. Please register over at the new forum.


Nikon Rumors Forum

where there’s smoke there’s forum fire

Register or log in - lost password?

Nikon Rumors Forum » Nikon DSLR » [D800]

D800 performance in low light

(94 posts) (28 voices)
  • Started 9 months ago by Wingston
  • Latest reply from itsnotmeyouknow
  • Related Topics:
    1. LIghtroom 4 and Capture NX2 fail with D800 NEFs
    2. D800 Noise in Low Light Video
    3. Nikon D4/D800 Green Tint Fix
    4. Nikon fixed by D800 left autofocus problem
    5. D4 and D800

Tags:

  • 85mm
  • cheap ugg boot
  • D800
  • D800 iso6400
  • Dresses for dresses
  • http://w
  • prom 2011 dresses
  • Replica Miscellaneous watches
  • Wedding & Events
12…4Next »
  1. Wingston

    junior member
    Joined: Jul '12
    Posts: 8

    offline

    Hi people

    I have been thinking about a D800 as I understand that the full frame cameras are better than their DX cousins in low light. I didn't understand the tech to be honest but took it on spec. My D700 performs brilliantly in low light but I want the video option. I went to Greys of Westminster (what a place) to ask abut the D800. The guy there says that as the 800 has so many megapixels the low light performance won't be as good. I didn't get it but didn't have the guts to quiz the guy further as he had already given me a 'what, you didn't work it out for yourself' kind of looks.

    So, any opinions out there.

    I am looking for an excuse to just go for a D7000 and the new 18-300 (27-450) Nikon lens instead

    Posted 9 months ago #
  2. Bland

    preferred member
    Joined: Nov '09
    Posts: 883

    offline

    Someone posted the other day that there's a file size (I think in raw) on the D800 that works extremely well in low light.

    Posted 9 months ago #
  3. sevencrossing

    preferred member
    Joined: Sep '10
    Posts: 1,265

    offline

    Wingston said:
    My D700 performs brilliantly in low light but I want the video option.

    Plenty of reviews on the D800

    the Man from Greys clearly has not read them, or even used a D800

    The D800 is at it gobsmacking best at ISO 100
    but at all ISO levels it is better than the 700
    although at the higher levels the difference is less marked

    Posted 9 months ago #
  4. maxout

    member
    Joined: Jul '12
    Posts: 14

    offline

    sevencrossing said:
    Plenty of review on the D800

    the Man from Greys clearly has not read them, or even used a D800

    The D800 is at it gobsmacking best at ISO 100
    but at all ISO levels it is better than the 700
    although at the higher levels the difference is less marked

    +1

    Posted 9 months ago #
  5. TaoTeJared

    preferred member
    Joined: Apr '10
    Posts: 2,422

    offline

    It's better than the D700 - it has more detail, noise is "smaller" and cleans up easily.

    D800 - Tokina 28-70mm @ 70mm f/2.8 - 1/640 Shutter- ISO 3200 - Auto NR with Nik Define 2.0.

    Posted 9 months ago #
  6. jonmacapodi

    new member
    Joined: Jul '12
    Posts: 3

    offline

    TaoTeJared said:
    It's better than the D700 - it has more detail, noise is "smaller" and cleans up easily.

    D800 - Tokina 28-70mm @ 70mm f/2.8 - 1/640 Shutter- ISO 3200 - Auto NR with Nik Define 2.0.

    Now... why would you shoot at 1/640th of a second, ISO3200, when you're only at 70mm on a full-frame body? You'd be getting such a higher quality exposure at 1/160th, ISO800 or even 1/80th ISO400 if you're confident in your hand-holding technique.

    Posted 9 months ago #
  7. spraynpray

    preferred member
    Joined: Feb '10
    Posts: 1,514

    offline

    @Tao: Even without a chance to pixel peep to assess your PP I have to say I have revised my opinion of the low light performance of the D800. It looks pretty good at 3200 on that small pic.

    Posted 9 months ago #
  8. kevin pan

    member
    Joined: Mar '12
    Posts: 40

    offline

    I have seen many people testing d800 iso performance online. I didnt like anything above 800 soley from internet informations. Once i tired iso at 1000-1600, I got a WOW factor. The image looks Perfectly nice. I am no longer scared to use iso 1600. I will try 3200 some other time but i dont really find myself ever need it.

    Posted 9 months ago #
  9. R8R

    preferred member
    Joined: Aug '11
    Posts: 352

    offline

    http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/studio-compare

    Check it out by choosing the D800, D700 and D7000 and set to RAW and ISO 3200.

    The D700 has a slight edge over the D800 in the shadows but not by much. The D7000 isn't close to either in performance. (it's no slouch though, I love mine)

    I would say if low light performance is critical it's hard to beat the D700, especially since used ones in good shape are going for well under $2k. If you need more resolution and video the D800 is the obvious winner.

    Posted 9 months ago #
  10. sevencrossing

    preferred member
    Joined: Sep '10
    Posts: 1,265

    offline

    I wonder if the man from Westminster was going to try and sell you a D4?
    or may be he cant get any D800's and had a load of 7000's to shift

    Posted 9 months ago #
  11. orangebox

    senior member
    Joined: Apr '12
    Posts: 86

    offline

    sevencrossing said:
    I wonder if the man from Westminster was going to try and sell you a D4?
    or may be he cant get any D800's and had a load of 7000's to shift

    or maybe he was just a moron! and didnt know his arse from his elbow :)

    Posted 9 months ago #
  12. adamz

    The Predator
    Joined: Mar '09
    Posts: 3,461

    offline

    I would say that d800 is certainly not a d3s, but after having this camera for more than 4month and shooting around 5k pictures I would say it's excellent till 800, good till 3200 and usable till 6400 - which is pretty much 1.5 to 2 stops lower than this what I could say about my d3s, but... it's only when I look for the "true" file. Once I size down the d800 file to d3s resolution the difference is maybe 0.5ev, which is barly visible.

    Posted 9 months ago #
  13. Wingston

    junior member
    Joined: Jul '12
    Posts: 8

    offline

    Well, I was looking to buy the 800 from Digital Rev, and looking through their site I found this -

    If you're a D700 user like I was then you may think (as I did) that the D800 is the next step on from the D700. It isn't. Don't get me wrong - the D800 is absolutely stunning, but it does come short on a handful of key issues:

    1) it is not as good as the D700 in low light. Noise on ISO 3200 and upwards in poor light is an issue

    Posted 9 months ago #
  14. orangebox

    senior member
    Joined: Apr '12
    Posts: 86

    offline

    Wingston said:
    Well, I was looking to buy the 800 from Digital Rev, and looking through their site I found this -

    If you're a D700 user like I was then you may think (as I did) that the D800 is the next step on from the D700. It isn't. Don't get me wrong - the D800 is absolutely stunning, but it does come short on a handful of key issues:

    1) it is not as good as the D700 in low light. Noise on ISO 3200 and upwards in poor light is an issue

    as adamz has said the D800 is no high iso slouch and given that at the extreme high iso you have the option to downres files even @6400 the files are very usable, there are plenty of samples out there now of high iso D800 files, i would say look at the end product rather than what someone selling a camera has to say about it.

    and being that i was previously a D700 owner i can say the files are cleaner at higher iso's although @ 6400 at full res its only just better than the D700, howevver if you were to downsample the the files to 12mp then the D800 is clearly better than the D700 ever was.

    In the end you will have to use one my advice would be to buy one and test ride it and then make your mind up, not sure where you live, but here in the UK we can return good within 14 days of purchase if bought online called the "distance selling regulation" so if when the good arrive we don't like or want them you can return for a full refund, if you have this or similar option could always get one and make the decision based on actual use. and if you don't like it return it.

    could always rent one for a day or two as well.

    Posted 9 months ago #
  15. sevencrossing

    preferred member
    Joined: Sep '10
    Posts: 1,265

    offline

    Wingston said:
    My D700 performs brilliantly in low light

    Hi Wigston

    I have just reread your post

    I would not say my 700 performed brilliantly in low light , it s good but not Brilliant
    friends who have D3s get better results

    the same goes for the D800 the results are marginally better than the D700 but hardly noticeable. friends with D4s get better results

    we all have a different criteria to what is acceptable

    I would wait until Calumet, in Wardour Street, have a demo model stock, take along a card and shoot some test shots

    ( the D700 is definitely better in low light than the 7000)

    Posted 9 months ago #
  16. TaoTeJared

    preferred member
    Joined: Apr '10
    Posts: 2,422

    offline

    jonmacapodi said:
    Now... why would you shoot at 1/640th of a second, ISO3200, when you're only at 70mm on a full-frame body? You'd be getting such a higher quality exposure at 1/160th, ISO800 or even 1/80th ISO400 if you're confident in your hand-holding technique.

    Because I was playing with it! Geeesh! There was two of us at the wedding (wedding was of a friends son) so I wasn't being paid and got the "unusual" shots for it. I also only had the camera for 18 hours so I got to play like crazy. One doesn't get that chance at a real "event" too often!

    I have been ripping though my gamut of what this D800 can do and I am actually just chuckling at the "reviews" and how people put so much emphasis on them. Allow me to point out one thing about the trusted review sites. They shoot RAW and to be able to have a base line, they turn every setting off or just use the defaults that the came comes with. Supposedly that is so they can do 1 to 1 comparisons with the D700, Canon and the like. The problem is, that none of us shoot with the default settings, and different manufactures (cough cough Canon) ups the NR in defaults. Nikon has always gone more detail vs NR.

    Here is a novel idea, instead of down sampling the D800 files, Up-sample the D700, 7000, etc. and see what you get. We all crop our images, which makes noise more noticeable. To me up-sampling makes since.

    Now I'm not going to touch the D3s/D4 with any comparisons. The D800 is a whole new class of FX camera in my mind. Nikon now has dedicated FX cameras directed toward specific uses - not just the all-in-one.

    Low light - better than every Nikon BUT the D3s & D4 by at least a stop and easily 2-3 stops more detail & better color in high ISO than previous Nikons (excl D3s/D4). Better metering, AF, more accurate exposure... blows my mind. We all apply NR to every image, and with these files, the detail remains even with NR to the max in LR4. D700 files with that much at 3200+, they look more like a Monet.

    Real world and not a set test, I would take the D800 over the D700 in every situation. Except for maybe sky diving - it would be cheaper to loose a D700 in that case.

    Sorry to all D700, D7000, and film lovers, it will be hard to justify to yourself that you don't want one. In my mind - this camera kicks those body's a$$es! :)

    Posted 9 months ago #
  17. TaoTeJared

    preferred member
    Joined: Apr '10
    Posts: 2,422

    offline

    Ok it took a while to find an example that was not touched up but here are a couple. I was playing so no raw. RAW files are so huge, and Jpegs are so good out of this camera, I probably will be shooing RAW much less for haphazard shooting. 20-30mb Jpegs!

    D800 - Tokina 28-70 f2.8 (Angenieux) @ 52mm 1/60th @F/2.8 - ISO 6400 - Jpeg

    Now I will admit there is some camera shake going on there and I was just focused on the eye, @ 2.8 at that distance maybe 4" of DOF. But Noise? Pixel peepers beware - you may go blind starring at it that long. I kid it's there, but so small, and the details are still so pronounced that it is not even remotely noticeable.

    Full res 25mb file is loaded on Flickr.
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/taotejared/7682887682/in/photostream/lightbox/

    Now let's up the ante.

    D800 - ISO 10,000! - Tokina 28-70 f2.8 (Angenieux) @ 70mm 1/200th @ F/2.8

    Put a D700 next to this:

    Full res 25mb file is loaded on Flickr.
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/taotejared/7682887682/in/photostream/lightbox/

    Posted 9 months ago #
  18. msmoto

    big gun cougar
    Joined: Mar '10
    Posts: 2,736

    offline

    @TaoTeJared.....I think you are trying to mess up my D400 plans.... amazing, absolutely amazing hi ISO performance....and from JPEG as well.

    I did not see what I would call significant camera shake, rather a DOF of maybe 1/2 inch at best. But, my real question as I fiddled around on Flickr...what was that moon shot taken with? That is a shot I would love to do!

    Whoops, I found it on PAD, LOL.

    Posted 9 months ago #
  19. TaoTeJared

    preferred member
    Joined: Apr '10
    Posts: 2,422

    offline

    Lets do a bit more. It was Night when I took these.

    ISO 25,000 -

    Original Jpeg out of camera:

    Edited: D800 - LR4 NR set to 80 on all levels - details at 50

    Posted 9 months ago #
  20. TaoTeJared

    preferred member
    Joined: Apr '10
    Posts: 2,422

    offline

    Another 25,000.

    Original Jpeg. BTW I could barely see the outline of my dog when I shot this - grabbed focus on a screw drive lens almost instantly.

    My edits to B&W - NR in Lightroom - NR set to almost 100 in LR4

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/taotejared/sets/72157630610550362/with/7685034970/

    Posted 9 months ago #
  21. spraynpray

    preferred member
    Joined: Feb '10
    Posts: 1,514

    offline

    WOW! It seems most of what is written about the D800 not being much good at hi ISO is BS - your pics show it to be very good.

    Sorry Tao, but I think your NR on the last one hasn't changed it significantly or if it has it has made it worse.

    It would be interesting to see one at that ISO that is downscaled to around 15-16mp.

    Posted 9 months ago #
  22. TaoTeJared

    preferred member
    Joined: Apr '10
    Posts: 2,422

    offline

    With that amount of NR in LR4 my D300 and X100 files would look like a box of crayons was left on a dashboard of a car. The amount of Info in these files is nuts. The above images of my dog were 34mb Jpeg out of the camera (flickr wouldn't take them - too big!) The edited are 14mb with that much NR.

    And did I mention it was pitch black out? And it focused!?!

    I appreciate the reviewers that take the time to be paid to do reviews. They usually have a "set" that has worked for 10-12 years that compared cameras very well. This camera just sits outside the limits that they never anticipated. When it comes down to it, the "usability factor" with editing software extends way beyond what their current tests are capable of showing. The really sad part is, it is obvious some really didn't test the camera and use it, if they say the noise is a problem and a D700 just as good or better.

    Posted 9 months ago #
  23. TaoTeJared

    preferred member
    Joined: Apr '10
    Posts: 2,422

    offline

    spraynpray said:
    WOW! It seems most of what is written about the D800 not being much good at hi ISO is BS - your pics show it to be very good.

    Sorry Tao, but I think your NR on the last one hasn't changed it significantly or if it has it has made it worse.

    It would be interesting to see one at that ISO that is downscaled to around 15-16mp.

    I wasn't going for "clean" just wanted to show what B&W was. Kind of looks like Ilford 3200 film to me but at iso 25,000! It was pitch black out - I can't believe there is enough detail for it to even look like anything.

    Full files are on Flickr - I think you can download them.

    Posted 9 months ago #
  24. Rx4Photo

    preferred member
    Joined: Oct '10
    Posts: 951

    offline

    spraynpray said:
    WOW! It seems most of what is written about the D800 not being much good at hi ISO is BS - your pics show it to be very good.

    For what it's worth, since getting my D800 I've totally stopped reading the negative comments on the internet about the camera. I think it's pretty damned amazing. With regard to the 36MP sensor, there's just something magical about the way it renders images if one takes the time to shoot properly. Most of my low-light photos so far have been landscape stuff with the use of a tripod, but I've sat here at home and shot flowers in a semi dark room and found that the camera grabbed focus as well as capturing a pretty nice photo without a trashy noisy grain.

    Posted 9 months ago #
  25. spraynpray

    preferred member
    Joined: Feb '10
    Posts: 1,514

    offline

    TaoTeJared said:
    I wasn't going for "clean" just wanted to show what B&W was. Kind of looks like Ilford 3200 film to me but at iso 25,000! It was pitch black out - I can't believe there is enough detail for it to even look like anything.

    Full files are on Flickr - I think you can download them.

    Sorry Tao, I was referring to the last two of your previous posting (the fellow in the pool) - I was typing while you were posting those last two.

    Posted 9 months ago #

RSS feed for this topic

12…4Next »

Reply »

You must log in to post.

NikonRumors Forum (http://nikonrumors.com/forum) is proudly powered by bbPress
Disclaimer: This site has no affiliation with Nikon USA or any other subsidiary of Nikon. Please visit the official Nikon website at nikon.com
Copyright © 2008-2011 NikonRumors.com