Home · Register · Search · View Winners · Software · Hosting · Software · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username   Password

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Nikon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1
       2       end
  

Archive 2013 · D700 @ ISO 12800
  
 
Jason_Brook
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · D700 @ ISO 12800


I've seen quite a few claims about the new firmware for the D700; from battery life, AF speed, FPS, white balance, etc. I'm either losing my mind, or found another; cleaner high ISO. I've shot at 12800 before and usually instantly chuck the results. I was tooling around with the 300mm last night in the house and ramped the ISO. When I looked at the screen I did a double take and quickly checked my ISO, yup, still 12800. Brought them into lightroom and was shocked.

I have no recollection of high ISO being this clean. So, am I losing it?

Link to full res: http://www.flickr.com/photos/wagon_wheel/9163027208/

SOOC RAW brought into lightroom and converted to JPEG; zero noise reduction, zero color noise reduction, zero sharpening.







Jun 28, 2013 at 10:58 PM
snapsy
Online
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · D700 @ ISO 12800


Looks about expected for a high-key exposure.


Jun 28, 2013 at 11:06 PM
tobicus
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · D700 @ ISO 12800


Doesn't look different to me. We've delivered several wedding shots at 12,800, including some on our blog. Here's one from our most recent blogged wedding at 10,000.

Jun 29, 2013 at 12:19 AM
CGrindahl
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · D700 @ ISO 12800


That last shot is not a great advertisement for D700 low light shooting.

I think the shot looks awfully good Jason. I don't have experience shooting with my D700 beyond ISO 6400 so I can't comment on whether this is typical or not. But I'd be very happy with performance like that. Whether its attributable to the recent firmware change I've no idea. Maybe the D700 has always been that good and i didn't realize it. I'll have to do a bit of experimenting on my own. Thanks for sharing your experience with us.



Jun 29, 2013 at 02:33 AM
NathanHamler
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · D700 @ ISO 12800


Yeah, i'll agree.....that pantry shot looks to be in good light, so 12,800 isn't really a stretch....the reception shot below is another story....in terrible light, you can see the difference clearly....the color fidelity doesn't hold up at all...... :-( .....i just picked up my D700 (with latest firmware) and shot some 12,800 stuff, in decent light, yeah it looks decent, but i know in bad light, it's gonna end up black and white for sure....

now, it's still WAY better than my m4/3 Panasonic GF2...which, at 1600 is prob comparable to 12,800 on the d700....



Jun 29, 2013 at 04:14 AM
tobicus
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · D700 @ ISO 12800


Yeah, it's not the cleanest file, but one thing I've learned over time is that clients are far less picky than photographers when it comes to noise. Here's another from another wedding at 10,000. I think I applied some noise reduction in post, if I remember correctly.




Jun 29, 2013 at 05:42 AM
hjanssen
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · D700 @ ISO 12800


10.000 iso 1/80 5.3 210mm with a Tamron 70-300 VC USD

Michael O'Connor@Burritoville
Here ws only 1 Tifany lamp on the ceiling in use.

12.800 1/80 6.3 400 with a Nikkor 80-400

Jim Byrnes@het Zwijnshoofd



Jun 29, 2013 at 08:12 AM
ilnonno
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #8 · p.1 #8 · D700 @ ISO 12800


Clients may be less picky (lots of them are used to mobile phone photography, after all), but this image shows all the limits of the D3/D700 sensor...
Banding is clearly visible, and if you know how to look for it, you'd be surprised to see it in unpushed images already at iso3200... that sensor really fares bad in bad light when light sources are present. It's just the way it was designed, unfortunately.

Grain is not the issue with those cameras, but the inordinate amount of banding they can put out is unfortunately a deal breaker. That is the very one thing the D3s solved. Of course it also has better management of grain at higher isos, higher color retention, but that is almost secondary compared to the fact that I have yet to see a single instance of this image-wasting blooming (that's should be the technical term for this sort of banding) on it.

If one shoots only in good light on D3/D700, then iso6400 is acceptable, if washed out.

Lory



Jun 29, 2013 at 08:27 AM
mholdef
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #9 · p.1 #9 · D700 @ ISO 12800


Looks clean, but you'd see more noise in images with more shadows


Jun 29, 2013 at 08:46 AM
rjk55425
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #10 · p.1 #10 · D700 @ ISO 12800


True but would you expect a client to buy that shot?


Jul 01, 2013 at 02:14 PM
 

Search in Used Dept. 



j.liam
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #11 · p.1 #11 · D700 @ ISO 12800


It is what it is, cutting edge circa 2008 and considering what preceded it, that sensor was revolutionary.
Knowing the limitations of your gear, one acts accordingly. The wedding series doesn't specify the lens used but the concert shots using the latest VR zoom look saturated and lovely. Buy/rent a few super-fast primes in these instances to avoid these crazy ISOs altogether.



Jul 01, 2013 at 02:35 PM
jasoncallen
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #12 · p.1 #12 · D700 @ ISO 12800


Tobicus, this shot tells me that you need to use speedlights more. I would never show a wedding client a shot that blurry unless it was the ONLY capture of a specific person that they HAD to include in their album. At ISO 3200, your flash (even an SB600 or SB700) will recycle fast enough to keep up with the action. If you're forced to shoot in such dark locations, bring your own light!

tobicus wrote:
Yeah, it's not the cleanest file, but one thing I've learned over time is that clients are far less picky than photographers when it comes to noise. Here's another from another wedding at 10,000. I think I applied some noise reduction in post, if I remember correctly.

http://img521.imageshack.us/img521/4629/mikeandfridaphotographyp.jpg






Jul 01, 2013 at 03:11 PM
turnert
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #13 · p.1 #13 · D700 @ ISO 12800


jasoncallen wrote:
Tobicus, this shot tells me that you need to use speedlights more. I would never show a wedding client a shot that blurry unless it was the ONLY capture of a specific person that they HAD to include in their album. At ISO 3200, your flash (even an SB600 or SB700) will recycle fast enough to keep up with the action. If you're forced to shoot in such dark locations, bring your own light!



+10

~Ted



Jul 01, 2013 at 03:38 PM
edl415
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #14 · p.1 #14 · D700 @ ISO 12800


Jason_Brook wrote:
I've seen quite a few claims about the new firmware for the D700; from battery life, AF speed, FPS, white balance, etc. I'm either losing my mind, or found another; cleaner high ISO.


Interesting result - I'll have to experiment tonight. Like you, I'd chuck any 12,800 ISO file from the D700 by default, as I don't even like what it puts out at 6,400. Fortunately I don't use those settings much at all.

But for sure the new firmware has some magic sauce, as I got over 2,400 clicks on one battery at a cycling event a few weeks ago. When I shot the same event last year (on older firmware) I was getting between 900-1000 clicks per battery. In any case, the firmware update was a nice treat for us legacy D700 users



Jul 01, 2013 at 05:32 PM
Jason_Brook
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #15 · p.1 #15 · D700 @ ISO 12800


edl415 wrote:
Interesting result - I'll have to experiment tonight. Like you, I'd chuck any 12,800 ISO file from the D700 by default, as I don't even like what it puts out at 6,400. Fortunately I don't use those settings much at all.

But for sure the new firmware has some magic sauce, as I got over 2,400 clicks on one battery at a cycling event a few weeks ago. When I shot the same event last year (on older firmware) I was getting between 900-1000 clicks per battery. In any case, the firmware update was a nice treat for us legacy
...Show more

I noticed better battery life this weekend, as well as the totally new behavior of WB. Haven't noticed any AF difference, but I also had no complaints about it to begin with. Gave it a hard test drive this weekend.























Jul 01, 2013 at 06:05 PM
MRM4
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #16 · p.1 #16 · D700 @ ISO 12800


I haven't cared for the shots I've had at 12,8000 either. I may update the firmware and see if there's much difference.

On these high ISO shots, how much difference would there be in noise (in same lighting) going with a f/4 lens versus a f/2.8 lens? A buddy and I were having that debate a couple of weeks ago. I want to see what some of you have to say on that.



Jul 01, 2013 at 08:00 PM
NathanHamler
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #17 · p.1 #17 · D700 @ ISO 12800


MRM4 wrote:
I haven't cared for the shots I've had at 12,8000 either. I may update the firmware and see if there's much difference.

On these high ISO shots, how much difference would there be in noise (in same lighting) going with a f/4 lens versus a f/2.8 lens? A buddy and I were having that debate a couple of weeks ago. I want to see what some of you have to say on that.


Well assumin you drop your shuttee speed 1 stop to account for slower glass, then they should look identical...



Jul 01, 2013 at 09:21 PM
Jason_Brook
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #18 · p.1 #18 · D700 @ ISO 12800


MRM4 wrote:
I haven't cared for the shots I've had at 12,8000 either. I may update the firmware and see if there's much difference.

On these high ISO shots, how much difference would there be in noise (in same lighting) going with a f/4 lens versus a f/2.8 lens? A buddy and I were having that debate a couple of weeks ago. I want to see what some of you have to say on that.


Out of focus areas generally show more noise, so the f/4 should appear cleaner than the f/2.8 since more is in focus.



Jul 01, 2013 at 11:01 PM
tobicus
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #19 · p.1 #19 · D700 @ ISO 12800


jasoncallen wrote:
Tobicus, this shot tells me that you need to use speedlights more. I would never show a wedding client a shot that blurry unless it was the ONLY capture of a specific person that they HAD to include in their album. At ISO 3200, your flash (even an SB600 or SB700) will recycle fast enough to keep up with the action. If you're forced to shoot in such dark locations, bring your own light!



Ha, we've got lights, but I chose to deliver that shot because of the motion and expression in it, and would do so again. We generally don't bring out the lights unless it gets really dark (as in too dark to focus). We don't like noise, but we're not afraid of it.



Jul 02, 2013 at 12:20 AM
rhyder
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #20 · p.1 #20 · D700 @ ISO 12800


snapsy wrote:
Looks about expected for a high-key exposure.


High Key??

This is NOT a High Key image....see this link..... .http://www.diyphotography.net/lighting-high-key-and-low-key



Jul 05, 2013 at 11:25 AM
1
       2       end




FM Forums | Nikon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1
       2       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username   Password    Reset password