where there’s smoke there’s forum fire
Well, my wallet gave birth to a D800 today. :) This is my first full frame camera so I'm really excited to get shooting with it.
Here's my question, as I have a concert to shoot this Friday. Someone mentioned the other day on here that the high iso shoots best at a certain file size. Is this true and if so does anyone know what format and file size that would be?
Thanks for the examples, Tao!
@Bland
Here is a comparison set up which you can change to suit your desires.
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/studio-compare
You can plug in the cameras, RAW or JPEG, move the image magnifier around, and come to your own decision as to what the image looks like at ISO xxxx and also it shows the file size of the image so you can see it change with ISO settings
And...congratulations....
Thanks msmoto, I'm still floating on Cloud 9! :)
Fingers crossed I get the camera figured out before Friday night.
i couldn't use D800 pics at such high ISO's for my clients...that's just me.
And that's why I went with the D4.
You guys are also forgetting Lowlight AF'ing too...D4 will certainly be faster to acquire than a D800.
Bland said:
Well, my wallet gave birth to a D800 today. :) This is my first full frame camera so I'm really excited to get shooting with it.Here's my question, as I have a concert to shoot this Friday. Someone mentioned the other day on here that the high iso shoots best at a certain file size. Is this true and if so does anyone know what format and file size that would be?
Thanks for the examples, Tao!
Whooo hooooo!!!!! You're catching up now!!!! ;)
Go shoot a flower. Then zoom in - see "detail" on the pollen!?! Now go change your shorts and come back and do it again!:)
shivaswrath said:
i couldn't use D800 pics at such high ISO's for my clients...that's just me.
And that's why I went with the D4.You guys are also forgetting Lowlight AF'ing too...D4 will certainly be faster to acquire than a D800.
I certainly wasn't showing or intending the images for clients. In some cases like when I do events, I could get away with some up to 6400 for sure in B&W.
BTW - D800 has the same AF system as the D4 - there would be no difference in the initial acquire. Machine gunning might show a difference - never seen or read anything on that. That would be an interesting test.
TaoTeJared said:
I certainly wasn't showing or intending the images for clients. In some cases like when I do events, I could get away with some up to 6400 for sure in B&W.BTW - D800 has the same AF system as the D4 - there would be no difference in the initial acquire. Machine gunning might show a difference - never seen or read anything on that. That would be an interesting test.
I was initially going to ask "why?" regarding shivaswrath's autofocus comment but decided to wait it out expecting a follow up comment. I have no doubt that the D4 would have slightly better low light/high ISO IQ than the D800 but autofocusing speed should not factor into rendering image quality, right? If there is in fact a test comparing the AF of the 2 cameras I'd also like to review it.
BTW Bland, Congratulations!! That camera will feel so good in your hands. I've decided not to get the battery grip as I did with the D7000 because if feels so much nicer all alone.
Congratulations Bland! That's awesome. Looking forward to your pics!
Congrats Bland! I'm looking forward to the pics. I just want to emphasize what TTJ said about the D800 & D4: These are really two very different cameras. I think Nikon did a masterful job providing two high end bodies... I think many folks will want both.
Thanks guys, I hope to wear it out on Hank Williams Jr tomorrow night. I'm blown away with the pics it takes but I got a couple of quirks I got to get figured out.
Congrats, Bland.
What are the quirks? Maybe we can help.
Bland, I am sure you will enjoy the D800. I have had mine for about a month. I have found formatting cards a bit quirky as well. Most of the time I have to format both in camera twice so I don't have card errors.
I am looking at the D800 very seriously now. Why? Nikon doesn't seem to be getting off dead center on the D400 and the D600 is NOT what I want to be sure. The D600 will sell well, just NOT to me. Low light photography is the single test that to me is critical (after the usual function tests!!). If I look at my images, and those of others, the number of good low light images and VIDEO are pretty slim. I have tried the D7000 and several lenses in low light both for still and video and used ISOs up to 3200 and was frankly not impressed.
Given the topic of this thread, I am really wondering......How have TaoTeJared and the other NR veterans fared in LOW LIGHT? I see msmoto's suggestion on other links but I could not get them. I am not on the Internet much but EACH time I am I check NOAA (in the farming business weather is right up there in my list of concerns), and then I check Nikon Rumors. Looks like the D400 will NOT happen and now I should try to update and see how the really veteran posters did with their D800s. Also at some point I am going to have to check on their findings with glass I already own.
Buying the D800 body will be a long shot and in my reduced income years......I have to use my Nikkor 60 Micro, my 70-300VR, my 12-24DX, my 20-35 Nikkor from my F5, and I guess that is how I would start. What do you think that would do in stills and video in low light?? Maybe this is too sweeping or niche as a question, but then again, NR always impresses me with the quality of the assistance provided. I am NOT looking for photo proof just your assessment. I DO NOT have a mid-range FX zoom. All my zooms are 18-105VR, 18-200VR etc, DX zooms that will not work. I do hear the 12-24DX WILL WORK. But I do not know that.
What I do know is if I buy a D800 it will have to do to take these low light pictures I've been trying to do with no further investment. Thank you in advance for this serious question and any "light you can shed on this topic" After all photography is "painting with light" and so far I have found out that film and digital both crave more light than is out there when I am trying to shoot these subjects with the cameras I have used so far. Again Thank You ALL and best of luck to you!
DaveyJ: What is your baseline from which you are judging? What camera do you shoot now and what high ISO do you now think is adequate from that camera? If we know your personal baseline perhaps we can better tell you that a D800 is equally clean at X ISO or is X stops better in low light than the camera you have been using. TTJ was shooting a D300 so he can tell you how many stops better his D800 is or what ISO he feels the IQ of the D800 equals the D300 at X ISO. I was shooting with a D7000 and in my opinion I would estimate the IQ of the D800 will be between one and two stops better than that D7000 at high ISO. I shot indoor sports at ISO 1600 and 3200 with my D7000. Somewhere around ISO 3000 I felt the image quality became unsatisfactory. With the D800 I feel the IQ becomes unsatisfactory around about 6,000 ISO, a one stop improvement. But this is viewing both at 100%. A better comparison is to view both at the same size. When I reduce the file size of the D800 image to equal the file size of the D7000 image the noise also is diminished. Viewed same size I feel the D800 is very usable at ISO 6400. Hence, my opinion that the IQ of the D800 at high ISO is about one to two stops better than the D7000. Of course, every person has their own preferences and tolerances. So you may feel nothing above ISO 1,000 in the D7000 is acceptable and therefore you may feel nothing above about ISO 2,000 to 4,000 is acceptable on the D800. Hence our need to understand your baseline before we can comment on whether or not you can "take those low light pictures." Also, if you really want to work in low light you cannot expect to use lenses with f3.5 to f5.6. You are going to have to get some f2.8 zooms or some f1.8 primes in order to let enough photons reach the sensor to give any body a chance in low light. If you don't want to spend much money perhaps you could work with 50mm f1.8 and 85mm f1.8 primes.
@donalddejose: I have been using the D300, the D90, and the D7000. I can't say any of them are low light tolerant. The D7000 is the only one with video on board capable of any clarity. I have some interesting D90 video and the soft imagery was why I went to D7000. But in low light, like out canoeing in the moonlight.....not very adequate. Certainly not the way your eye sees it. SO it is back to the drawing board and the subject I am trying to do, paddling at moonlight, requires video. I have also found that ISO 3200 seems to bring in a lot of "noise" in stills. And in video. At least with the D7000.
Sounds like you need a 5DMKIII.
I don't know about video noise and I doubt many here do much video work with their D800. I would think if you want to photograph or video scenes light by only moonlight you better start with fast lenses like f1.4. It sounds like you have been using lenses which are 3 or 4 stops slower. Also, set your exposure compensation to minus 1 and minus 1.7 to obtain a darker image.
The D800 performs almost identically to the 5dMkIII at 12,800 ISO. At least the tests look the same... The D4 looks much cleaner and sharper at that ISO than either. At 25,600 the Canon is almost unusable and the D800 still hanging in there.
Check out dpreview.com
One problem is if the exposure is a bit off, toward the underexposure and it is saved in PP...the noise will go crazy on any of these...In the Canon, the camera's processor uses tools to reduce noise, but this also reduces sharpness...
And all this is so subjective, one person will see it one way, and the same photo will be seen differently by another....soo.....
The real fact is...all of these modern sensors are so good, if one understands where we were a few years ago...well....it really is about utilizing what one has and doing the best one can.
Sorry, msmoto, but the Canon is still a far superior for shooting video especially in low light and thats what Davey is most interested in. And at half the price of a D4 is a substantially better option for a videographer.
msmoto said:
The D800 performs almost identically to the 5dMkIII at 12,800 ISO. At least the tests look the same... The D4 looks much cleaner and sharper at that ISO than either. At 25,600 the Canon is almost unusable and the D800 still hanging in there.
Not a day in my life would go by where I would want to use either of those cameras at that ISO. Even the results from the D4 at those ISO's is hardly satisfactory. If Im going to bother with exotic glass Im not likely to ever push the ISO past 2000 on any camera.
Nobody has mentioned shooting to the right - I found that makes quite a difference on most of the cameras I've had?
DaveyJ - It has seemed like you and I agreed a while back the D300 was usable to about iso 750-800ish and for anything good, neither of us wanted to shoot above it. I actually thought the D7000 files at 1100 were the same as the D300 at 750 as well. That is my base line.
I would say the D800 for me is around 2000-2800, but at that level it is much better than the D300 at 800 and maybe even lower. The D300 at 1600 looks like the D800 at 6400-kind of. The D800's files are just so different with the amount of detail and color with the amount of noise reduction you can safely apply that it is hard to find the words do describe the difference. If you are cropping wildlife photos up to 30-50%, iso 1600 will give you gallery prints for sure. From 1600-2500 with no crop, you could easily keep a gallery print with a bit of PP work. Above 2500, it depends on the dynamic range and light on details - Low DR with light on the details, it is easily good to 3200 for an 8x10. High DR with little light on the details (i.e. back lit) it will look good on a webpage but probably not printed larger than a 5x7.
I'm really not a good judge on video at all nor do I have a base to go off of.
I have posted a few photos on my flickr account (just click my name and it is in my profile - and the d800 set) that has a bunch of high iso photos. It is kind of hard to tell what aspects of the photos that draw you to a yeah or nay conclusion. I'm kind of afraid you set the bar so high only a D4 will suffice. IMO the D800 blows the doors off of any DX camera released to date in all categories.
What I do know is that I shot a bunch of iso 400 film and I would take the D800 at 3200 over that any day.
As for lenses, the 70-300vr works better. I'm not kidding, it focuses and locks super fast now as do any slow lenses. my tokina 12-24 in FX mode can be used at 18mm on up, and the 35mm 1.8 works as well. Personally I would off load everything else and get the 24-85VR if you are looking to save some money. That lens sounds like it is built for video more so than any other. You probably will want something in that range I'm guessing.
What else can help?
You must log in to post.
