# D5 Noise samples posted



## ahsanford (Mar 27, 2016)

Full-res Nikon D5 noise samples from ISO 3200 to 3.2M here:
http://petapixel.com/2016/03/26/full-res-nikon-d5-photos-iso-3276800/
(click on each for the flickr link to the full res shots)

Unfortunately, the photographer didn't state how the shots were processed. 

- A


----------



## PeterAlex7 (Mar 27, 2016)

Canon must equal this amazing ISO performance through their new 5D4, or they'll still a step behind the dark side, in term of camera.


----------



## zim (Mar 27, 2016)

PeterAlex7 said:


> Canon must equal this amazing ISO performance through their new 5D4, or they'll still a step behind the dark side, in term of camera.



The 5d4 won't even go to anything like 3.2m so I guess that means it and the 1dx2 are ******* right out the blocks ?


----------



## cpsico (Mar 27, 2016)

They all look pretty good, the noise has a nice tight grain to it, the shadows don't have a lot of color noise. Of course its a straight jpg file. I would have to see unedited raws but to me it looks like you could get great prints of a wedding reception from some pretty high iso files. If i had nikon gear i would be excited by this camera!!


----------



## scyrene (Mar 27, 2016)

dilbert said:


> Too bad that the ISO 3200 shot isn't focused the same as the others (look at the top of the rear lens cap on the 24-70/2.8 to see what I mean - if not evident elsewhere.)
> 
> Personally, I don't know that I'd use anything over ISO 3200.



Tough crowd!

Each to their own, of course...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 27, 2016)

dilbert said:


> There's a reason why I don't even consider anything over ISO 800 for "critical" work on Canon gear and why I don't care for high ISO in general



Yes, that perfectionism clearly shows in the many photos you've posted.


----------



## scyrene (Mar 27, 2016)

dilbert said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



Everybody's cutoff is different  But may I ask, what is the reason? It's not obvious to me :/ My topmost ISO has changed with each camera, generally 1 stop below the highest native stop (so 12800 on the 5D3). Of course it depends what the output is - if I was sharing a large size, or printing fairly large, I'd probably not go that high. Also the subject matter makes a difference...


----------



## krisbell (Mar 27, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> Yes, that perfectionism clearly shows in the many photos you've posted.



A tad harsh and uncalled for?




scyrene said:


> Everybody's cutoff is different  But may I ask, what is the reason? It's not obvious to me :/ My topmost ISO has changed with each camera, generally 1 stop below the highest native stop (so 12800 on the 5D3). Of course it depends what the output is - if I was sharing a large size, or printing fairly large, I'd probably not go that high. Also the subject matter makes a difference...



I think its as you say, people's cutoff is very subjective. Mine is 1600 on the 5D3, but limits can be broken and if the only way I can capture something is to go higher then I will, I just will never consider it a 'great' picture. The below was shot at ISO3200 on the 5D3 and really is the max I would consider process-able. The D5 I would probably put at ISO6400 limit personally.



Wild Boars (Sus scrofa) by Kris Bell, on Flickr


----------



## scyrene (Mar 27, 2016)

krisbell said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, that perfectionism clearly shows in the many photos you've posted.
> ...



That's a lovely shot  I should point out, I try to ETTR usually, so even if I shot at 6400, I'd pull the exposure down to keep shadow noise under control. And it's still in extremis - 12800 in heavy shade (under a full summer woodland canopy say), 4000-8000 for birds in flight in shade. Most standard bird shots aren't higher than 3200-4000.


----------



## YuengLinger (Mar 27, 2016)

dilbert said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



So you are always in good light, have a tripod, and shoot subjects that don't move. We all approach photography in our own way.


----------



## IglooEater (Mar 27, 2016)

Not sure why they bothered with the iso's 162K and beyond? Even seen only 1 1/2 inches wide on my phone, the noise is rather apparent. 3M just made me laugh when it was announced, though I honestly didn't expect it to be that bad. Mind you, I'm not one to know, I don't even have a FF camera...


----------



## brianftpc (Mar 28, 2016)

So dilbert only takes pictures in good sunlight or with a flash.....you dont need a D5 for that.


----------



## Aglet (Mar 29, 2016)

There's an interesting comparison shot from I-R of the D5 vs the (old) 1DX so you can see, at base ISO, how the Canon image has processed all the subtle detail out of the painted wall background cuz, well, you know.... 

http://www.imaging-resource.com/news/2016/03/28/high-iso-into-the-stratosphere-nikon-d5-first-shots-are-here-including-iso


----------

