where there’s smoke there’s forum fire
Here is another example of the D800 low-light capacity on long exposition (also posted on the PAD).
Day or Night?
D800, ISO640, Bulb (3 minutes) + 1 EV, Nikkor 14-24 @ F2.8, 14mm.
This was taken on an especially dark midnight. I had to feel the ground with my feet because I could not see it and had to take several shots just to get the bench right. I could barely see the light comming from the left. Lucky that there was absolutely no wind.
Pierre - What amazes me is the color... I have had similar experiences. Did you use Long Exposure Noise Reduction? Did you have to remove any hot pixels in post? It looks like there may be a couple hot spots in the water, but I can't tell at the size you posted. 'OnTheRopes' over on the D4/D800 issues forum (page 13) has had some hot spot issues with his D800, so I was wondering about your technique.
There is no post-processing Eric, what you see is the in-camera jpeg as is and I have the camera default as far as noise reduction is concerned. What you see in the water is not noise nor hot pixel, it's something floating. You can also see some stars.
This show what you thought was a hot pixel along with real ones.
There is plenty of noise and hot pixels when viewed at 100% (in par with OnTheRopes top image on page 13 but I no not have any of his hot spots), which is expected for a 3 minutes exposure but as soon as I zoom-out even just a bit, the noise disappear.
I find this performance far superior than my old D700. What I find amazing is that I got it to focus. A hot pixel is 3 times bigger on the D700 when viewed at the same picture size.
@Pierre - I just took a 5 minute exposure with my D800E. No LENR, RAW. My results are very similar to yours, except my focus was really bad. At 1:1 I can find some hot pixels, By 1:2, they're gone. I have no hot spots like OnTheRopes. Overall, I'm pleased and I think its pretty clean..
Interesting photos Pierre. The thing I look for in almost all photos is can a camera see what we see if you have good vision? In this case it displays better vision than we have. HOW THOUGH do you depict a true night scene. These of course just look like just another daylight shot (which they are NOT! I do not think I am alone trying to photograph and video night scenes the way we see them??
I accept the D800 is pretty amazing here and I appreciate seeing these. Have you tried the D7000 Pierre?? I am certain the D7000 could not do this.
Incredible examples of D800 DR found on Canon dedicated forum:
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=1214104&highlight=d800
I wish photos were bigger though I'm totally having a serious case of D800 envy now!
Heck if someone wants to see a D800E raw file at a high ISO, let me know if your email client will handle a ~40 meg attachment. I'll shoot one at night, probably at a HS football stadium since I that is what keeps me busy this time of year.
Now if 937 people ask for this, it might be a problem as Comcast might slapp me for overuse. ;- )
On a side note, still waiting on a supervisor from the Nikon Store to call. ;->
To all NR with interest in low light for anything other than D800 or higher Nikons I have NOT tried. The D90, D300, D300s, D7000 according to my field testing have NO low light capability. Pierre describes very well the D800's low light capability with a TRIPOD and a timed exposure. Do the lesser Nikons have any low light capability say to photograph a moonlight canoe paddling still or video where the human eye can CLEARLY see the scene??? NO!!! The cameras won't even release their shutters unless you switch to manual focus and the resultant photos to 6200 ISO do NOT record the scene as much other than a few reflections s on the water+nothing else.
So forget D7000 etc. if you are looking for true low light photography. NOW can anybody answer what the D800/D800E can do in this kind of true low light situation? And don't answer in terms of lighted football fields at night. The human eye can detect a single photon in a dark enough setting. A Nikon can record scenes beyond the capability of our vision for SOME things. But unless Nikon D800s can do what I intuitively think they cannot......I am disappointed. I do see Geoff_K's point about football at night keeping him busy. I agree with his use and obviously it is producing here. BUT I do not think of a lighted stadium at night as low light at all!!!! So where is the REAL low light performance?? Any of you with experience in settings like Pierre describes or in heavily moonlight scenes WITHOUT very long slow exposures.
I think you are looking for what is called image intensification.....
I sense some frustration DaveyJ ;)
I'm not entirely sure what exactly you are wanting to see or if you are wanting something that always has been beyond any type of existing camera system. Your statement of " have NO low light capability" and describing what you are tying to do seems to be on the extreme side that any system could do. I have seen scenes like you have described but what I have seen is that people "darken" the image from a much lighter version from post. I am not versed on video but I would think what you are wanting is the ole "Hollywood magic" more than the equipment to attain it.
I plucked some examples from Youtube - are any of those something you are looking for or close (not subject but light etc.) to what you are trying to do?
General (no idea the camera) examples
D800 examples
Id wait for a full moon and a sky full of stars and use a bunch of reflectors to improve the light on the water and subject.
SquamishPhoto said:
Id wait for a full moon and a sky full of stars and use a bunch of reflectors to improve the light on the water and subject.
Perhaps something like this 26 seconds exposure?
Photosite are photon-counting device so there has to be photons to count, if there are not many, you have to wait longer, there is no magic about it. Hubble ultra-deep-field http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble_Ultra-Deep_Field image required days of exposition (if not weeks).
DaveyJ, I don't know if this is the kind of thing you're referring to, but I think that's a misleading way to represent what our eye can do to say it can detect single photons—a little like bragging that you can roll a six every time you roll a six.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_threshold#Vision
A better way to think of it is that about 90% of the photons are not even absorbed by the photoreceptors, and you still wouldn't be able to see 10 emitted photons because you would need 9 cells that simultaneously detect the pulse of light, and 10 photons would only stimulate one on average. Reading that paragraph carefully tells you that there is an appx. 50% loss before the light gets to the sensor, and then the photoreceptor layer has approximately 20% quantum efficiency. Even that is generous because of the definition of absolute threshold, so it's probably more like 10%. I'm not knocking the human eye, though. You're actually seeing the effects of an amazing on-"chip" noise reduction/compression scheme that puts our video codecs and noise reduction to shame. (Random fact: the eye has over 100 million photoreceptors but only about 1 million wires that communicate their info to the rest of the brain. Better than 100:1 compression right on our retina!)
What about the D800's quantum efficiency? Well, Nikon doesn't release specs like this, but it's a rumor site, right? http://trs-new.jpl.nasa.gov/dspace/bitstream/2014/39312/1/05-1215.pdf This paper has a 2005 silicon device's quantum efficiency curve. In fact, it compares the QE for a front-side illuminated device and a back-side illuminated device on page 3. To be fair, we should use the FSI plot since our retina is FSI (vasculature and nerve "wires" are between lens and photoreceptors). I'm convinced that with micro lenses and careful design, Nikon is actually gunning closer to the BSI curve.
The bottom line? The FSI peaks at 30% and the BSI peaks at 70%, both better than the human eye.
[disclaimer: I didn't read the paper carefully, and some people's definition of QE can actually give you QE>1 so the assumption I'm making is that their definition is fraction of photons converted into electrons. If you want me to explain this more, I can. I'm just sick of typing on an iPad keyboard!]
Great info, jonny. Save your sanity and just write an update when you're on a desktop computer next time. I definitely appreciate well elucidated scientific understanding, something you've become quite synonymous with here at NR, so please continue to share your insights. :]
Thanks for the replies! I am to be sure doing as TaoTeJared says "Trying to push photography to its limits" Not even a good summary of TTJ's statement! Also Jonnyapple did accurately state what I do know about our light perception and what I said about the human eye's ability to see a single photon under optimum conditions I READ when I was in med school. So obviously johnnyapple is totally right here. So all good replies and I will have to try some ENHANCEMENT techniques. SquamishPhoto has suggested a couple I thought of, but given that it takes a moonlit perfect night to try.....and TONIGHT when things should have been premo.....well it clouded over!
So it is back to the drawing board. It sure is a good thing I don't depend on doing low light photos for a living as this farmer for now has what we fear in my business.....A CROP FAILURE. But I will try again. Sure would like to try a D800 but now I'll have to wait for the right weather and enlist a few helpers out on the lake! Again, THANK YOU ALL. I do want to say too.....We live on such a beautiful planet, and I have always thought some of these moonlight scenes were very powerful. But for now I only have a handful of really decent ones. My best moonlight scenes were done with snow on the ground which of course acts like one big light reflector. The subject I now am trying to do justice to is paddling in the moonlight. So it seems time to push the photos somewhat earlier and to use reflectors.
I think all the photos of lights in the night don't accurately demonstrate what you are trying to do. Moomlight reflected off water and trees is much, much lower light than illuminated city streets at night. I don't think any sensor in any camera is yet capable of reproducing what you see when you are out on a lake in moonlight.
My last post sounds like I might have been trying to attach you, DaveyJ. I wasn't, I was just conserving words because I wasn't on a keyboard.
So did you get a D800, then? Congratulations if you did. It has been a bad year for farmers, hasn't it? Where I live we've been in drought for a while now so it's kind of just business as usual, but I guess the midwest has been hammered by this dry heat.
After reading the paper carefully now (I thought it was fun), they didn't explain their definition of quantum efficiency. So I thought I would explain my quantum efficiency quote now that I'm on a proper keyboard. Feel free to not read this. Most people define quantum efficiency as the number of photoelectrons created per photon. I've posted here about photoelectrons before (http://nikonrumors.com/forum/topic.php?id=23&page=4#post-56114 ), and I'll paste in part of that:
Here's an analogy that might help someone understand. Someone sets up a lot of beautiful women (applied voltage) along one wall in a room (a silicon diode) full of sleeping men (electrons). You take off the roof (shutter) and let golf balls (photons) fall from the sky (outside the camera) into the room. Some golf balls miss but others hit the men and wake them up (excite them across the band gap). Some of the men that are awoken notice the women (positive charge) along the wall and start drifting that way to get closer to them. Once there are so many men that have gone to the female wall that the newly awoken men can't see the women and so don't have any reason to move, they just start going back to sleep (this is called saturation of the photodiode). The roof (shutter) is closed, the number of men on the wall initially lined by women are counted (Analog to Digital Conversion), and it gives you an idea of how many golf balls were lobbed into the room.
What I didn't mention then is that the falling golf balls (photons) actually have enough energy to promote more than one electron across the band gap—in other words, some can bounce off of one guy and wake him up and then bounce off another and wake him up, too. To give you a feel for this, visible light photons have roughly 2 or 3 electron-volts of energy and the bandgap of silicon is 1.1 electron-volts. That means a blue light photon, which has ~3 eV of energy, can create two electrons to be counted. So a QE of 50% for blue light would actually mean that the sensor absorbs 25% of the photons but because they each create two photoelectrons, you get an average of half an electron per photon that hits the sensor.
This still isn't the whole story (is it ever?), but it gets you closer to being able to understand quantum efficiency. For those who actually want to look at that graph in the paper, to get the energy in each photon of a given wavelength, you take 1200 and divide by the wavelength in nm and it's very close to the number of electron-volts per photon. Red (~650 nm) would have a little less than 2 eV per photon, then, and blue (400 nm) would have almost exactly 3 eV.
By the way, thanks for your kind words, Squamish. I'm sure some people just wish I would shut up.
No to johnnyapple I DID NOT buy a Nikon D800! And I did not take you setting the physics of lighting straight compared to my assertion that human eyes were quite good at low light as an attack on me. Jonnyapple's posts have always been one of the highlights on Nikon Rumors for me. Donalddejose's posts led me to finally get a D7000 and I have been using it a fair amount. It does OK for video and seems to be about in the D300 and D90 league for stills. He also seems to be very right about what current cameras can do (or can't do) with moonlight paddling scenes. One reason I do follow NR is to see what Nikon cameras and lens I don't own MIGHT do for me. STILL I am totally aware that I might scrimp for say a D800 and a 24-120 lens and then not get that camera in excellent photo opts and have thrown away money that could help save the farm. And to answer johnnyapples statement on farmers it has been a very tough year in the farming business. Here we had just enough rain so I did not have to irrigate row crops but our maple sugaring this year was so bad I don't dare even tap out this next spring. Farmers USA wide overall had a very, very tough year. Unfortunately this will hit us all and not I believe just in the wallet! But still we all hope for the best.
I sure hope that msmoto's "prediction" that the D400 gets announced soon does come true. When I am shooting anything with a camera I am striving for maximum depth of field and the build quality and utility of the D300 and D300S (I don't own that one) are very good for my use. It is amazing how many working photographers are using them now.
HockeyMan said:
Donald and TTJ, thanks for the response! I really appreciate it. Yes, I think a D4 would be more ideal for what I need. But I am not pro at all. I've learned way more from this forum than I could ever give back.TTJ - this sentence made me say 'Dang it!!!' - "That is probably close to the worse type of shooting situation you can have." Here I am, just a guy who wanted to shoot landscapes with the 14-24 f/2.8 and use the 50 f/1.4 for all other things and I've gotten myself into a situation that requires so much more.
The lighting in the theater depends on the number being performed, sometimes, it's very bright and shooting is easy. Other times, the teachers want lower lights for a more *moody* performance. The D4 is twice as expensive as a D800 and a used D3s is also quite a bit more than a new D800. I currently do not have to blow up images larger than 8x10 (for parents), but the theater where I shoot may start asking me to print larger for advertising or whatever they happen to think of. However, I keep telling myself that these are just small kids. I originally intended my shots to only be used for myself and other parents, but now since people are asking more of me, I may have to start charging them. At least that way I can justify buying the D4 - to myself, my wife, etc...
DoF isn't that much of an issue since I'm only capturing 1-2 dancers at a time. If it becomes an issue, I'll come back here for more advice.
For the time being, I'll stick with the D800 and the 85 f/1.8 and see how it goes. After Xmas, I'll try to remember to post some stuff on PAD and get advice / feedback.
There are few things to be considered regarding image quality.
When comparing different bodies with different resolution, its nonsensical to compare them at 100% for anything other than detail. Even then what detail you actually see when printed/viewed at smaller sizes is debatable. You have to downsize to the same size to stand a chance of a fair comparison. The obsession with pixel peeping has distorted many people's view on what makes for good image quality.
Secondly when you talk about printing bigger for posters, you have to consider viewing distance. Just as photographs aren't intended to be looked at from pixel distance, a poster isn't intended to be viewed with your nose against the poster. I'm sure you will more than get away with 3200 ISO. That being said, if you use a wider lens and crop in, you are multiplying the noise. The Sigma 85 1.4 is an excellent piece of glass on my 5D mk III and was under consideration for my D800 - it's not a focal length I use a lot so got the nikkor 85 1.8D.
Good Luck
You must log in to post.
