# If this is the best the D800 can do...



## GL (Feb 29, 2012)

http://www.fotosidan.se/forum/showpost.php?p=1792662&postcount=1457 

I don't understand the language, but I'm assuming D800 samples reduced to 1600px. If this is the best this camera can do at ISO 1600+, the 5D MkII has nothing to fear let alone the Mk III!


----------



## olemartin (Feb 29, 2012)

Is 5d mkII better than this?

It is so much better than my old 40D, so I am easily impressed 

Translated:
Some ISO-steps. No noisereduction used, except at ISO25600 that is available without noisereduction as well. All the photos is at 1:1, 100% resolution.
The photos are shot with shuttertime halfed for every double ISO, so the ISOs should be correct.


----------



## tt (Feb 29, 2012)

GL said:


> http://www.fotosidan.se/forum/showpost.php?p=1792662&postcount=1457
> 
> I don't understand the language, but I'm assuming D800 samples reduced to 1600px. If this is the best this camera can do at ISO 1600+, the 5D MkII has nothing to fear let alone the Mk III!



" Developed without noise reduction, except the last ISO25600-image that are in your own noise reduction as well. All images except the overview is a 1:1 scale, ie 100% pixel scale."

Doesn't help that the angle of taking the shots is changing shot for shot, and also seemingly the focus/depth of field
eg 3200 vs 6400 the focus shifts further into the shot, 12800 it again changes. 
Pretty unfair, as presumably it looking more in focus affects how the non-NR noise looks.


----------



## psolberg (Feb 29, 2012)

GL said:


> http://www.fotosidan.se/forum/showpost.php?p=1792662&postcount=1457
> 
> I don't understand the language, but I'm assuming D800 samples reduced to 1600px. If this is the best this camera can do at ISO 1600+, the 5D MkII has nothing to fear let alone the Mk III!



not sure about what those samples are but the D800 has similar performance to the D7000 at 100% crop. and massively better performance to the model it replaces when scaled down
http://nikonrumors.com/2012/02/22/nikon-d800-vs-nikon-d700-high-iso-comparison.aspx/

although we all know this is not a low light camera but rather a landscape/portrait/studio camera with an enphasis on detail, not low light. So I don't think the 5DIII is going to have trouble being better in this regard since it is purposed for low resolution high ISO whereas the D800 is high resolution low ISO. totally different thngs.


----------



## RedEye (Feb 29, 2012)

There is a smoothness to the high MP photo, they're beautiful.


----------



## JavaBean (Feb 29, 2012)

I am not sure this is a fair comparison. I have seen better high ISO samples and I think most wedding photographers would have no trouble shooting at 3200. Especially considering that most will scale the image down. No one in the portrait world would hand over files to the customer that large, and prints will be mostly 8X10 or smaller. Now landscapers on the other hand will love the big files. but they mostly shoot lower ISOs sooo....

I still think that with the improvement in sensor design, and the advent of the Digic 5 processor, there should be no reason that the 5D3 will not have stellar high ISO performance.


----------



## nesarajah (Feb 29, 2012)

I'm happy if this is the best Nikon can do .


----------



## EYEONE (Feb 29, 2012)

Not the best test shot in the world but I think 1600 looks fine. They all look a little soft so maybe there was a lot of NR going on. I think the shots a good and usable all the way to 6400. Possibly maybe iffy usable at 12800.

But, as much as I'd love to rip on these because it's Nikon I don't think these shots are anything Nikon should be embarrassed about.


----------



## K-amps (Feb 29, 2012)

Very impressed with the D800 vs D700 shots, the detailed resolved is remarkable.

I am very excited... I denied myself instant gratification and lived with the 5Dc till now.... I can't wait to see what can be done with the 5diii.... I hope Canon makes them available for us mortals by early April... just in time for Spring Break ( I know I am getting carried away  )


----------



## RedEye (Feb 29, 2012)

Bingo, I absolutely need to complet my purchase by May 10th.


----------



## traveller (Feb 29, 2012)

It's difficult to judge from down-ressed files, but I'd have to say that there's little difference in these images between ISO400 & ISO800; ISO1600 looks pretty clean as well. ISO3200 is starting to show higher levels of noise, but it's mostly luminance and not chroma. At ISO 6400, I see considerably more noise with chroma noise creeping in; additionally, the noise has an ugly pattern to it -it appears to have lost some of the randomness that gives the ISO3200 noise a 'film grain' appearance. Things only get worse from there. 

Personally, from what I see here (which isn't fully representative) I think that I'd be happy shooting this camera up to ISO3200. For a 36MP camera that looks set to deliver medium format quality, this is an outstanding achievement. Well done Nikon.


----------



## yunusoglu (Feb 29, 2012)

The strength of the D800 is obviously its resolving power. Since it will mostly be favored by studio and landscape photographers, I don't see how its high-ISO performance is any important...


----------



## awinphoto (Feb 29, 2012)

well the sample shots, not to defend nikon, but are a worst case scenario, lots of shadow detail, subject backlit with little foreground lighting... Then again it's a perfect test to show where the sensor isn't perfect, but I thought, for what it is, comparing to the density similar to the 40D, it showed pretty admirably. Now if the 5d3 is "only" 22MP, i'd expect it's ISO 1600 to be as clean if not cleaner than the D800's ISO 800 shot and so on and so forth, but that's my wishful thinking coming back to bite me in the butt.


----------



## GL (Feb 29, 2012)

No question there's lots of details, and it looks like a great studio/landscape camera. As a wedding photographer, however, it makes me realise just how good the 5D2 is now, and how great I *expect* the Mk III to be.


----------



## gummyrabbit (Feb 29, 2012)

*Nikon will sell a ton of D800 and D800e*

with this amazing performance. The $3k price seems low for the capabilities of this camera. I think they'd sell lots of them at $3500+. If Canon is really thinking of charging $3500 for the 5D Mark III, they'll have a lot of work to prevent people from jumping ship.


----------



## jrista (Feb 29, 2012)

GL said:


> http://www.fotosidan.se/forum/showpost.php?p=1792662&postcount=1457
> 
> I don't understand the language, but I'm assuming D800 samples reduced to 1600px. If this is the best this camera can do at ISO 1600+, the 5D MkII has nothing to fear let alone the Mk III!



As far as I can tell, they are all 1200x1800 pixels. At that size, noise certainly looks pretty good, better than I've seen from most Canon cameras at ISO1600+ over the last few years. But...if they are indeed down scaled images and not crops, then we still don't know anything. Nothing really matters until someone posts true full-size, 1:1/100% crops of RAW Nikon D800 images.


----------



## bvukich (Feb 29, 2012)

ISO800 looks good to me. At 1600 the luminance noise is creeping up, but still usable. 3200 isn't horrible. It starts getting funky at 6400 especially in the shadows though.

Also keep in mind, unless things have changed, there is no such thing as no NR with Nikon, even the RAWs have it cooked in.


----------



## moreorless (Feb 29, 2012)

yunusoglu said:


> The strength of the D800 is obviously its resolving power. Since it will mostly be favored by studio and landscape photographers, I don't see how its high-ISO performance is any important...



Given that theres no sign of Nikon releasing another "budget" FF body in the near future though it seems that this camera is aimed at more than just studio and landscape users.

As a potential buyer for the latter use the one thing that worries me isnt the ISO performance but that all the 100% views I'v seen so far look rather soft, the sensor outresolving the lens?


----------



## K-amps (Feb 29, 2012)

Tuggen said:


> GL said:
> 
> 
> > http://www.fotosidan.se/forum/showpost.php?p=1792662&postcount=1457
> ...



100% efficiency? Hopefully we are not even close to it.. e.g. Retroreflector designs... nature has so much to offer to engineering.


----------



## GL (Feb 29, 2012)

Tuggen said:


> GL said:
> 
> 
> > http://www.fotosidan.se/forum/showpost.php?p=1792662&postcount=1457
> ...



Not sure what's wrong with your 5D2 then, because mine is at least 1/2 stop better than this at 1600+. That said the D800 is 36MP, so 1/2 stop worse than 5D2 is still an incredible achievement for Nikon. Just don't expect the D800 to be a low-light superstar, which is what I *AM* expecting the 5D3 to be. That - and video - will be the 5D3's trump cards in my opinion. As a professional wedding filmmaker and photographer, I know for fact my colleagues and I are going to lap up the Mk III if it improves on the Mk II in these aspects. Anything else is gravy. Nikon just can't compete when it comes to pro video on an SLR, and the early reviews of the D800's video capabilities (and quality) seem to pan this out.


----------



## keithfullermusic (Mar 1, 2012)

my 50D shoots better than that in those ranges!!!

That can't be from a high end camera. If it is, it must have been really dark in there. Also, to be fair - it is really easy to see noise on solid colors and smooth gradients.


----------



## wrack_of_lamb (Mar 1, 2012)

There was a link on NikonRumors to download these photos, full res, in both jpg and NEF. They were shot hand held (one photo not from this series shows motion blur with a low shutter speed) and presumably they are the best in the series because they are not sequential (indicating the photographer likely deleted photos with motion blur at each ISO).

I suspect these 100% crops were taken from the NEF files because the jpgs have brighter, more vibrant colors.

I ran the jpgs through LR3 and with some NR and sharpening they look great at 100% up to ISO 1600. Some minor loss of fine detail is clear at 3200 and obvious loss of detail above that.

As for how it will look in prints, well, consider that a 16x20 from the D800 is 307 dpi at native resolution. In other words, you won't notice a loss of detail even at ISO 6400 unless printing huge and getting up close.

I know most of us here love our Canon cameras, but there is no harm in giving credit where credit is due. Nikon made an impressive camera at a great price. I for one hope to see the next 5D deliver a similar value proposition.


----------



## SiliconVoid (Mar 1, 2012)

As an owner of a D700 (in addition to my Canon equipment) I am very disappointed in the D800 performance I have seen so far. I have plenty of shots with my D700 with significantly better resolve than those posted on Nikon's D800 site, not to mention better ISO performance up to 1600. The lack of resolve could just be the lenses, but even if that is the case you are looking at yet another additional cost for the handful of Nikon's most expensive lenses - something not required for their other bodies.

As for downsizing to achieve the performance of its predecessor - why the hell spend the money, endure the post processing, and slow your workflow with giant files if you will be downsizing in the end.
As a photographer (and moderately interested in video) it is simply not worth the trouble just to have video. You would be better off just buying a D7000 or T2i to keep in your bag for video.

The friction and disappointment of other D700 owners isn't the ISO performance, it is the mp. By Nikon's own admission (check their guide posted for the D800) they will be discontinuing the D700 eventually and offered a replacement that no longer provides a walk around shoot anything camera. D800 = tripod and kilowatts of lighting. Better buy a new backpack and a couple car batteries with your purchase.


----------



## bellarmine (Mar 1, 2012)

Woah, anyone else notice how much more chroma is in the noise on the D800?

I always liked how Nikons usually reined that stuff in, guess _thats_ over 

Boo. They just lost a big edge in my mind, just another reason to go Canon. Come on friday!


----------



## V8Beast (Mar 1, 2012)

GL said:


> http://www.fotosidan.se/forum/showpost.php?p=1792662&postcount=1457
> 
> I don't understand the language, but I'm assuming D800 samples reduced to 1600px. If this is the best this camera can do at ISO 1600+, the 5D MkII has nothing to fear let alone the Mk III!



Looks good to me. Can't wait for UPS to deliver mine


----------



## wickidwombat (Mar 1, 2012)

V8Beast said:


> GL said:
> 
> 
> > http://www.fotosidan.se/forum/showpost.php?p=1792662&postcount=1457
> ...


what is your first lens gonna be? the 14-24? do yourself a favour and get the little 50mm f1.4G too


----------



## Circles (Mar 1, 2012)

Shots look fine to me.


----------



## GL (Mar 1, 2012)

I hope my post didn't come across as critical of Nikon or the D800 - that's not what I meant. What I want from a camera upgrade is a stop or two better ISO than my 5D2, and from what I've seen the D800 is not it. If the Mk III doesn't improve on the Mk II's high-ISO noise then I won't be buying it either, but frankly, since it seems they're keeping the resolution about the same, I can only imagine they'll improve the quality of the sensor and photosites in this regard.


----------



## wickidwombat (Mar 1, 2012)

GL said:


> I hope my post didn't come across as critical of Nikon or the D800 - that's not what I meant. What I want from a camera upgrade is a stop or two better ISO than my 5D2, and from what I've seen the D800 is not it. If the Mk III doesn't improve on the Mk II's high-ISO noise then I won't be buying it either, but frankly, since it seems they're keeping the resolution about the same, I can only imagine they'll improve the quality of the sensor and photosites in this regard.


I hope so i would love the 12800 to be the new 3200


----------



## GL (Mar 1, 2012)

I just want a clean 6400. Anything more is gravy


----------



## takoman46 (Mar 1, 2012)

GL said:


> I just want a clean 6400. Anything more is gravy



That's true. I don't recall any scenario where I would have needed to exceed ISO 6400 to get adequate exposure with a decent shutter speed for hand held shooting. 6400 seems to be enough for most ambient light situations as well. Unfortunately ISO 6400 on my 5DmkII has been almost unusable and required intense post processing. The Nikon D800 sample photos don't seem much better if at all at ISO 6400. Is there hope for the 5DmkIII ISO 6400 performance? :


----------



## GL (Mar 1, 2012)

takoman46 said:


> GL said:
> 
> 
> > I just want a clean 6400. Anything more is gravy
> ...



That's what I'm hoping for. I started this thread when I saw the D800 ISO 6400 sample!


----------



## moreorless (Mar 1, 2012)

Tuggen said:


> GL said:
> 
> 
> > Tuggen said:
> ...



You've posted this before but on a pixel by pixel basis it does seem pretty clear that more megapixels = worse ISO performance on sensors of the same size and technology.

I personally do not buy the arguement that downrezing will always give equal or better results either, I'v seen more than a few NEX vs NEX 7 comparisons recently and the NEX 7 has looked significantly worst at higher ISO's even downrezed to 16 megapixels.


----------



## Viggo (Mar 1, 2012)

wickidwombat said:


> GL said:
> 
> 
> > I hope my post didn't come across as critical of Nikon or the D800 - that's not what I meant. What I want from a camera upgrade is a stop or two better ISO than my 5D2, and from what I've seen the D800 is not it. If the Mk III doesn't improve on the Mk II's high-ISO noise then I won't be buying it either, but frankly, since it seems they're keeping the resolution about the same, I can only imagine they'll improve the quality of the sensor and photosites in this regard.
> ...



1d X


----------



## KeithR (Mar 1, 2012)

moreorless said:


> You've posted this before but on a pixel by pixel basis it does seem pretty clear that more megapixels = worse ISO performance on sensors of the same size and technology.



Care to cite some proof of that? I can't find any...


----------



## Martin (Mar 1, 2012)

If AF is only thing that will be improved in 5d3 there would be nothing keeping me in Canon. I expect a big step in DR, AF, ISO. I have already decided, that if that would not come, I end my relation with Canon. I was a Nikon user a year and ago, and switched to Canon, expecting next 5d3 will be outstanding, but so far it seems that my old friend Nikon made a camera that meet all my expectations, even a little bit too much (mpix). I am little bit upset about Canon, however we will see if there's a really a new nicely improved 5d3 coming or only an old one with a perfect marketing around and better AF. Hope the first option will be valid, because selling my Canon lens would be a financial loss for me. To be honest, after I had bought a 5d2 a always waited for 5d3, i did not like the camera, I was being used to AF and other things in Nikon like WB, colors, configuration options, built quality, raw files. 5d2 images was better in terms of quality but i just hated capturing things with 5d2. People who own s Nikon know exactly what I am talking about. Bought 5d2 it for Canon primes and other lenses. Right now a 5d3 will be a kind of decision maker for me. Stay or go away. I know, i know- i write it many times, but I am really frustrated with Canon and made a bad decision about year ago.


----------



## V8Beast (Mar 1, 2012)

wickidwombat said:


> V8Beast said:
> 
> 
> > GL said:
> ...



My first lens will be the 24-120, but I'm going to keep all my Canon glass and roll dual systems for a while. If I like the results from the D800, I'll follow that up with a 70-200 and a 16-35 or a 14-24, then sell off my Canon gear to complete the transition. If the D800 ends up being a complete POS, I'll order up a 5DIII and sell what few pieces of Nikon gear I will have acquired at that point. 

Maybe it's wishful thinking, but with a native ISO range up to 25,600, I'm expected great improvements in low-light and DR from the 5DIII. Hell, maybe I'll pre-order it too and compare it side-by-side to the D800 for a couple of shoots, then decide which system to keep from there. I'd really like to test out a new body ASAP for some gigs I've got coming up. It's only money, right ?


----------



## moreorless (Mar 1, 2012)

KeithR said:


> moreorless said:
> 
> 
> > You've posted this before but on a pixel by pixel basis it does seem pretty clear that more megapixels = worse ISO performance on sensors of the same size and technology.
> ...



D3s vs D3X? obviously not idenetical techology but sensors the same size produced around the same time.


----------



## thure1982 (Mar 1, 2012)

GL said:


> http://www.fotosidan.se/forum/showpost.php?p=1792662&postcount=1457
> 
> I don't understand the language, but I'm assuming D800 samples reduced to 1600px. If this is the best this camera can do at ISO 1600+, the 5D MkII has nothing to fear let alone the Mk III!



It's Swedish, it just explains how they took the shots, dubble ISO while halfing the exposure-time and no crop. But it's written really badly like it's auto-translated from some other side before this side.


----------



## KeithR (Mar 3, 2012)

moreorless said:


> D3s vs D3X? obviously not identical techology but sensors the same size produced around the same time.



Actually, at the image level they're really pretty close - close enough for the differences to be accountable for by other variations in the tech (I have always been of the belief that there's some software NR going on in the D3S - I've read no plausible technical explanations for its noise performance improvements over the D3).


----------



## Tuggem (Mar 4, 2012)

moreorless said:


> Tuggen said:
> 
> 
> > GL said:
> ...



It would be interesting if you could provide links.
What I had found so far, dxo, dpreview, steve huff, and luminus landscape have all failed to show that NEX-5n would have less noise than NEX-7 at high iso.

I think you are right in your comment about downsizing. The result may vary somewhat depening on choosen method of downsampling.


----------

