D3s high ISO is impressive

[Brent McCombs]

Got the D3s by post yesterday. It was a really ugly, dull day, and after a full week of work, I was a bit too lazy (and it's way too cold) to go outside, but of course, when a new camera arrives, you can't just let it sit around - I had to do a couple tests, and of course the first shot from each of my previous dSLRs is of the ubiquitous house cat (Jetta, the saddest looking cat I've ever met).

Pics below ISO 8000 & 100 per cent crop of same.

(no PS done to these - all out-of-the-box camera defaults)

The real-world effect of this on my work is going to be extremely positive. I do a fair bit of fashion work (such that it is) here in Halifax, and the events/shows are invariably horribly lit. I have been struggling with shooting runway at 1/60 @ ISO 3200 f/2.8... ISO 8000 makes these events a no brainer now.

[fpoole]

Brent,
Thanks for posting the sample. Yes, the hi-iso quality is amazing.
Did you upgrade from a D3?  YOur sample confirms what i have seen of  the quality of the Nikon samples on the web.
 Do you see any improvement from the D3 at base iso 200  - especially in highlight gradation and tonal range.  A big improvement here would be the deal-breaker for me.  
Best,
Frank Poole

[HarryHoffman]

Brent,
Thanks for posting the sample. Yes, the hi-iso quality is amazing.
Did you upgrade from a D3?  YOur sample confirms what i have seen of  the quality of the Nikon samples on the web.
 Do you see any improvement from the D3 at base iso 200  - especially in highlight gradation and tonal range.  A big improvement here would be the deal-breaker for me.  
Best,
Frank Poole

Looks like the only artifacts are dust. Have to clean your kitty next time ; ' )
Nice quality for the ISO

[Brent McCombs]

Brent,
Thanks for posting the sample. Yes, the hi-iso quality is amazing.
Did you upgrade from a D3?  YOur sample confirms what i have seen of  the quality of the Nikon samples on the web.
 Do you see any improvement from the D3 at base iso 200  - especially in highlight gradation and tonal range.  A big improvement here would be the deal-breaker for me.  
Best,
Frank Poole

I won't know til I get a chance to shoot in the studio. I didn't use the D3 very often at ISO 200. I have been a Canon guy for a long while, only getting the D3 when the 1DIII from Canon has massive focus issues, and I needed something that would be reliable for a fairly important job. I've been carrying both systems for over a year now, and want to switch out to just one. The D3 didn't have a clear advantage over the 1DIII (once it got fixed, about 4 months ago). That, combined with Canon's advantage in their 70-200 2.8 and 300 2.8, kept me with Canon.  With the new 70-200 2.8 and 300 2.8 from Nikon, and the crazy good high ISO of the D3s, makes it now worth the switch.

[Theresa]

I won't know til I get a chance to shoot in the studio. I didn't use the D3 very often at ISO 200. I have been a Canon guy for a long while, only getting the D3 when the 1DIII from Canon has massive focus issues, and I needed something that would be reliable for a fairly important job. I've been carrying both systems for over a year now, and want to switch out to just one. The D3 didn't have a clear advantage over the 1DIII (once it got fixed, about 4 months ago). That, combined with Canon's advantage in their 70-200 2.8 and 300 2.8, kept me with Canon.  With the new 70-200 2.8 and 300 2.8 from Nikon, and the crazy good high ISO of the D3s, makes it now worth the switch.

Its better than I thought possible.  Too bad its out of my reach (or even needs).
Congratulations, and that is the saddest looking kitty I've ever seen.

[kers]

Its better than I thought possible.  Too bad its out of my reach (or even needs).
Congratulations, and that is the saddest looking kitty I've ever seen.

[Brent McCombs]

Its better than I thought possible.  Too bad its out of my reach (or even needs).
Congratulations, and that is the saddest looking kitty I've ever seen.

She's the saddest looking kitty I've ever seen too. And she sounds sadder - her 'meow' is more like 'meh'... and sounds like a smoker's cough more than anything.

We got her when the director of a local shelter found her in at a school playground being poked by evil school-aged boys with sticks. She was in terrible shape, underweight and with bad teeth. And about 12 years old, or more. Anyway, my wife was there the day the cat came in, dropping off a donation to the shelter from her office's 'casual friday'. She came home with the cat after hearing the story of how she was found.

She's addapted very well, and gets along okay with our other two (pre-resident) cats.

She's happier than she looks, but we suspect, from her demeanor and her gentleness and her propensity to sit in the laps of old people, that she belonged to someone who passed away, and just got lost in the shuffle.

[Theresa]

She's the saddest looking kitty I've ever seen too. And she sounds sadder - her 'meow' is more like 'meh'... and sounds like a smoker's cough more than anything.

We got her when the director of a local shelter found her in at a school playground being poked by terrible school-aged boys with sticks. She was in terrible shape, underweight and with bad teeth. And about 12 years old, or more. Anyway, my wife was there the day the cat came in, dropping off a donation to the shelter from her office's 'casual friday'. She came home with the cat after hear the story of how she was found.

She's addapted very well, and gets along okay with our other two (pre-resident) cats.

She's happier than she looks, but we suspect, from her demeanor and her gentleness and her propensity to sit in the laps of old people, that she belonged to someone who passed away, and just got lost in the shuffle.

At least she has a nice home now and is loved.  I have a fifteen year old maltese/cocker-poodle mix.  She had to have one eye removed last year and is losing her sight in her one eye.  But she is the most loving dog I've ever known, she likes everyone (unless they are threatening me) and all dogs and cats.  She is especially enamored with cats.  She is often the only reason I keep going.  She did catch a squirrel a couple of years ago (she was on a leash in a park, but I wasn't paying attention) and she disembowled it before I realized what she was doing.  She's only eight pounds, the squirrel wasn't that much smaller.  As they say in Washington, if you want a friend, get a dog (or cat).

[Ray]

She's the saddest looking kitty I've ever seen too. And she sounds sadder - her 'meow' is more like 'meh'... and sounds like a smoker's cough more than anything.

We got her when the director of a local shelter found her in at a school playground being poked by evil school-aged boys with sticks. She was in terrible shape, underweight and with bad teeth. And about 12 years old, or more. Anyway, my wife was there the day the cat came in, dropping off a donation to the shelter from her office's 'casual friday'. She came home with the cat after hearing the story of how she was found.

She's addapted very well, and gets along okay with our other two (pre-resident) cats.

She's happier than she looks, but we suspect, from her demeanor and her gentleness and her propensity to sit in the laps of old people, that she belonged to someone who passed away, and just got lost in the shuffle.

 

Sad? She looks very angry. Where's my breakfast?

You've got a good reflection of yourself in the cat's eye, Brent. At ISO 8,000, the detail is remarkable. If only Nikon could deliver upgraded lenses equivalent to the Canon 24-105 IS and 100-400 IS, I think I wouldn't be able to resist switching systems.

[Brent McCombs]

Sad? She looks very angry. Where's my breakfast?

You've got a good reflection of yourself in the cat's eye, Brent. At ISO 8,000, the detail is remarkable. If only Nikon could deliver upgraded lenses equivalent to the Canon 24-105 IS and 100-400 IS, I think I wouldn't be able to resist switching systems.

Ray, that's how I used to feel about the 70-200 2.8., But now I think Nikon has answered the bell mightily. In my view, they've equalled or bested Canon from 16-300mm in most areas.

14-24 is superior to the 16-35; 24-70 far outshines the Canon version. 70-200 2.8s are now a wash, as are 300 2.8s. Canon has a slight edge on the 85 f1.2, but the Nikon 1.4 version is very good, and set to be replaced in the coming months with something possibly better. And I've never been a fan of the 100-400, but Nikon's 200-400 is excellent. The 24-105 can be a good lens, but you have to hunt for a good copy. One of my best friends has a great one, but I've tested 3, settled of the best of that lot, and it's noticeably less sharp then his on side-by-side comparisons. I use mine only for travel snaps.

[Ray]

Ray, that's how I used to feel about the 70-200 2.8., But now I think Nikon has answered the bell mightily. In my view, they've equalled or bested Canon from 16-300mm in most areas.

14-24 is superior to the 16-35; 24-70 far outshines the Canon version. 70-200 2.8s are now a wash, as are 300 2.8s. Canon has a slight edge on the 85 f1.2, but the Nikon 1.4 version is very good, and set to be replaced in the coming months with something possibly better. And I've never been a fan of the 100-400, but Nikon's 200-400 is excellent. The 24-105 can be a good lens, but you have to hunt for a good copy. One of my best friends has a great one, but I've tested 3, settled of the best of that lot, and it's noticeably less sharp then his on side-by-side comparisons. I use mine only for travel snaps.

First, let me say it does not make much sense to buy a camera on the strength of it's high ISO performance, and then buy a lens without Image Satabilisation or VR. The Nikkor 24-70 may outshine the Canon version, but neither brand has IS or VR and both are rather heavy for the type of photography I do, which is of a peripatetic nature in exotic locations.

The 70-200 both have IS or VR, but are too heavy for me, which is why I don't already own the Canon 70-200/2.8 IS.

I want a reasonably lightweight range from 14mm to 400 without negating the advantages of excellent high-ISO performance. I already have the Nikkor 14-24/2.8, which doesn't have VR. I can tolerate that because it's wide angle and therefore doesn't require as fast a shutter speed as a longer focal length.

However, for any longer focal lengths, I require IS or VR.

[Brent McCombs]

First, let me say it does not make much sense to buy a camera on the strength of it's high ISO performance, and then buy a lens without Image Satabilisation or VR.

Can't say I agree, but that's fine. If one shoots objects in moiton, like birds or bears or planes, or models, then one likes to have fast shutter speeds. To me, that's  from 1/250 to 1/500 for most of what I do. High ISO helps with that, as does fast glass. VR is wonderful, and I won't give it up where I have it, but it's not the deal breaker for me below 135mm. If one shoots still life only, or doesn't mind a puddle full of blur, then shooting at 1/5 of a second with great VR/IS assistance is wonderful.

The 100-400 is a great lens, if you can always secure great lighting. Without a lot of light, I find that 400mm at f/5.6 rather frustrating at best, or downright useless, at worst. And the image quality on that piece of glass is so terribly variable as to be as or more frustrating than the 24-105. For me, that is. If you do well with your kit, then that is wonderful. Keep it up.

[Brent McCombs]

double post/deleted

[Ray]

Can't say I agree, but that's fine. If one shoots objects in moiton, like birds or bears or planes, or models, then one likes to have fast shutter speeds. To me, that's  from 1/250 to 1/500 for most of what I do. High ISO helps with that, as does fast glass. VR is wonderful, and I won't give it up where I have it, but it's not the deal breaker for me below 135mm. If one shoots still life only, or doesn't mind a puddle full of blur, then shooting at 1/5 of a second with great VR/IS assistance is wonderful.

The 100-400 is a great lens, if you can always secure great lighting. Without a lot of light, I find that 400mm at f/5.6 rather frustrating at best, or downright useless, at worst. And the image quality on that piece of glass is so terribly variable as to be as or more frustrating than the 24-105. For me, that is. If you do well with your kit, then that is wonderful. Keep it up.

In any situation where camera shake is more predominant than subject movement, the absence of VR on a lens will reduce the advantage of that great high-ISO performance of the D3s.

Whilst it's true that certain subjects such as sports events and birds in flight will require such a fast shutter speed that the prsence of VR becomes irrelevant, there are lots of relatively still subjects that do benefit from VR on a lens without a tripod. Even birds sometimes sit relatively still on their perch, just as people often sit relatively still when their portrait is taken.

In terms of both noise and resolution, I get the impression the D3s would have a 2 stop advantage over the 5D at very high ISOs. For example, I would expect the D3s at ISO 6400 to be as clean and sharp as the 5D at ISO 1600, approximately.

However, if the subject is a landscape or other subject with little or no movement, and your Nikkor lens does not have VR but your Canon lens does have IS, then in low light conditions you would likely be comparing the 5D at ISO 1600 with the D3s at ISO 12,800. I think the 5D shots would be better.

When I consider the occasions when I really wished that the high-ISO performance of my camera were better, they are sometimes situations where the use of flash and tripod are not allowed, as in most churches and museums in Italy, or in generally low light conditions where use of a flash would be intrusive.

However, there clearly are situations where that better high-ISO performance of the D3s would be of great benefit. It's just a pity that in practice I estimate I would only find such benefit useful about half the time, without a good Nikkor zoom with VR.

[Brent McCombs]

In any situation where camera shake is more predominant than subject movement, the absence of VR on a lens will reduce the advantage of that great high-ISO performance of the D3s.

Whilst it's true that certain subjects such as sports events and birds in flight will require such a fast shutter speed that the prsence of VR becomes irrelevant, there are lots of relatively still subjects that do benefit from VR on a lens without a tripod. Even birds sometimes sit relatively still on their perch, just as people often sit relatively still when their portrait is taken.

In terms of both noise and resolution, I get the impression the D3s would have a 2 stop advantage over the 5D at very high ISOs. For example, I would expect the D3s at ISO 6400 to be as clean and sharp as the 5D at ISO 1600, approximately.

However, if the subject is a landscape or other subject with little or no movement, and your Nikkor lens does not have VR but your Canon lens does have IS, then in low light conditions you would likely be comparing the 5D at ISO 1600 with the D3s at ISO 12,800. I think the 5D shots would be better.

When I consider the occasions when I really wished that the high-ISO performance of my camera were better, they are sometimes situations where the use of flash and tripod are not allowed, as in most churches and museums in Italy, or in generally low light conditions where use of a flash would be intrusive.

However, there clearly are situations where that better high-ISO performance of the D3s would be of great benefit. It's just a pity that in practice I estimate I would only find such benefit useful about half the time, without a good Nikkor zoom with VR.

Well, in most of the cases where things aren't moving - like the church, or a landscape - I'm very likely to be using a tripod, and in those cases, the distortion of the 24-105 at short and long ends would rule it out as a lens I'd even consider for high quality images. In those situations, I'd be most likely using a prime anyway, if I'd plan for the shoot. If I were traveling light, then it would be stopping down the 24-70, and on a travel tripod, and again, IS would be turned off.

Just different strokes, but I started with f/4 glass, and got some quite nice images from the 17-40 and the 24-105. When traveling with family, I'd often just bring a 5D and 24-105, and take happy snaps. Now I'm more inclined to take an S90 in those situations.  When I'm serious, however, I want the 2.8 glass or primes.

B

[Ray]

Well, in most of the cases where things aren't moving - like the church, or a landscape - I'm very likely to be using a tripod, and in those cases, the distortion of the 24-105 at short and long ends would rule it out as a lens I'd even consider for high quality images. In those situations, I'd be most likely using a prime anyway, if I'd plan for the shoot. If I were traveling light, then it would be stopping down the 24-70, and on a travel tripod, and again, IS would be turned off.

Just different strokes, but I started with f/4 glass, and got some quite nice images from the 17-40 and the 24-105. When traveling with family, I'd often just bring a 5D and 24-105, and take happy snaps. Now I'm more inclined to take an S90 in those situations.  When I'm serious, however, I want the 2.8 glass or primes.

B

For my type of shooting, primes are not suitable. A good zoom lens with IS or VR is invaluable for me. The resolution advantage of a prime is lost whenever the focal length is not perfect for the shot. If you are too close, you may compromise the composition. If you are too far away, you will definitely compromise resolution.

A good quality zoom can sometimes be as sharp as a prime, the Nikkor 14-24/2.8 being a good example.

I'd rather not bother with a tripod and I really appreciate computer programs that enable me to accomplish tasks which would previously have required the use of a tripod, such as auto-alignment of bracketed exposures for merging to HDR, or automatic stitching of hand-held shots.

Image stabilisation is a wonderful invention. I don't know why any manufacturer would produce a modern lens without it. The Canon 70-200/F4 IS is at least the equal of, and probably better than, the older non-IS version it replaced. The same applies to the new Canon 100/2.8 IS macro which claims a 4 stop advantage and actually slightly better resolution than the non-IS version it replaced.