D700 vs D800 Image noise

[Goatch]

Is it just me or what but I reckon my D700 beats my new D800 in the ISO stakes hands down , shooting raw I have taken photos in caves using ISO's of 1600 and have had to use minimal Noise reduction in post processing with the D700 but I am finding with the D800 noise in RAW shots as low as 400 require more NR than I would have expected , is this what other D800 users experience or do I have a problem (apart from the obvious LOL)
I've attached a crop to show what I'm talking about , or am I pixel peeping ..... Shot with a 70-200VR11 at 70mm 1/640th F3.2 ISO 400 tn__DSC0193.jpg

[Glenda]

Can't answer your question but I know after reading rave reviews about the D7000 and low noise I've often been disappointed by the amount of noise in my images at relatively low ISO. Maybe we just got duds.

[Lance B]

I think it is you. My D800/E Beats my D700 by about 1 stop at high ISO, ie the D700 at ISO3200 is about the same as the D800E at ISO6400.

[mongo]

Mongo unfortunately has to agree with you in part, at least.

Mongo has not tried a D700 so cannot say. However, Mongo has been a constant critic of the D800 since he purchased it new - not just for focus issues. Mongo has constantly expressed his disappointment at the D800's alleged good high ISO performance. Mongo says RUBBISH ! it has very very average to mediocre and certainly lacklustre and overstated performance by Nikon's advertising propaganda.

Mongo only purchased the D800 to try and get some decent shutter speed with much lower noise than his old D200 could manage. The D200 was very poor and Mongo would never use it above 400ISO and it still needed noise reduction at that most of the time. However, the D800 was no great improvement in the area of noise. The D800 has about the same noise at 800ISO as the D200 has at 400ISO - no great improvement at all. For this reason , Mongo rarely uses the D800 over 800 ISO unless the subject is in really very good to strong light and even then, only to 1600 ISO.

In fairness, the conditions you are shooting in have a lot to do with it. Mongo has said before, virtually any camera can shoot at reasonably low noise in great light situations ( no big deal), it is the cameras that can shoot in low to shadowy areas at high ISO with low noise that are the ones worth taking any note of. Having said that, Goath, if you have compared both cameras in exactly the same light conditions, ISO , lens , subject etc and there was a very noticeable difference in noise, then, it would be fair to say that maybe , yes, the D700 may well have lower noise that the d800. That would not surprise Mongo at all. One other thing to keep in mind, is that while the D700 was better for noise in that light, it may not be if you compared the two cameras in different light conditions. Its like saying you have a very fast winning horse over a mile distance race but it gets beaten every time in a 2 mile race.

[zollo]

36 megapixels! That's a fair few on a relatively small sensor, its gonna have noise in anything less than perfect lighting, and its likely a trade off nikon expects purchasers to understand. It could be one of the reasons the 800 is considered a bit of a beast needing optimum techniques to be used.

[Lance B]

Sorry, you're all wrong and it is proved by many reputable on line test sites and also anecdotal evidence by posters who have had and used both, like I have, the D800 has better high ISO ability than the D700. Here is one such comparison from DXO Mark:

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cam...rand2%29/Nikon

As for there being 36Mp on a small sensor and therefore will show noise more than a less Mp'ed sensored camera has been shown to be completely false and and old myth. The crop of new high Mp'ed sensored cameras show lower noise at all ISO's than most of their lower Mp'ed counterparts of the past.

Having used both of these cameras extensively, 14,000 actuations on the D700 and 14,000 on my now sold D800 and a further 5,000+ from my D800E and I can assure you that the noise from the D800/E is better at all ISO's than the D700.

[zollo]

Sorry, you're all wrong and it is proved by many reputable on line test sites and also anecdotal evidence by posters who have had and used both, like I have, the D800 has better high ISO ability than the D700. Here is one such comparison from DXO Mark:

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cam...rand2%29/Nikon

As for there being 36Mp on a small sensor and therefore will show noise more than a less Mp'ed sensored camera has been shown to be completely false and and old myth. The crop of new high Mp'ed sensored cameras show lower noise at all ISO's than most of their lower Mp'ed counterparts of the past.

Having used both of these cameras extensively, 14,000 actuations on the D700 and 14,000 on my now sold D800 and a further 5,000+ from my D800E and I can assure you that the noise from the D800/E is better at all ISO's than the D700.

Lance please go ahead and compare the noise from a 1 hour Nikon 800 exposure versus a 1 hour PhaseOne medium format digital back and then report back on your findings, regarding sensor size/ mp/heat-noise ratio. Ta


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[arthurking83]

I think the difference in noise levels between the two cameras depends on the pixel ratio you are viewing the noise affected images at.

I think if you view images from both cameras at 100% pixel view, the D700 will look better in terms of absolute noise levels.

BUT!! when you view images made in the same way(ie. same light conditions and ISO level) and the images are viewed at the same output size, the D800 is supposedly the better performer.

ie. the downsampling of the 36Mp image of the D800 to the same size as the 12Mp D700 image is where the advantage lies for the D800 ... not the absolute noise levels at 100% pixel view.

- - - Updated - - -

Had a quick look at the sample images at Imaging resource.

Downloaded the two relevant images(still life images) for both the D700 and the D800.(both ISO6400 images)

Firstly the D700 exposed the scene 1/3Ev brighter than the D800. (note that a slightly brighter exposure has the ability, or effect, of slightly masking noise too).
At the same output size for each image, the D800 does indeed look slightly less noisy than the D700. Noise is visible in both, but the grain effect, both colour noise and graininess, is smaller and hence less noticeable on the D800 image.
I used CaptureNX2 to view both images, and something else to note, is that on the NEF, even tho noise reduction is set to off on the camera(I downloaded the 'NR0' images), the camera still applies some NR to the NEF.
Whether you see this in a third party raw converter is not known tho ... in CaptureNX2, there is a noise reduction setting for the raw file.
From the camera the D700 has a slightly higher level of in camera noise reduction than the D800 has .. remembering that NR is supposed to be set to OFF!

In CNX2, the D700 image is viewed at 100%(pixel peeping) whereas the D800 image is set to 57% zoom level, to effect an image output of a similar size.
If the D800 image is viewed at 100% as the D700 image is, then you clearly see 'more noise' ..... simply because you've zoomed in more .. larger pixel view).

Also, the D800 image is ever so slightly sharper too, even tho the images are viewed at the same output size, not zoomed in to 100%.
Again in CNX2, you can see how much sharpening is used in the standard Picture Control as set on the camera(on the Standard setting, this is equal to 3 on both cameras).
Nullifying this as well, and setting the Picture Control to 0 sharpening shows even more detail in the D800 image again.

The point with image sharpness(or detail level) is that if you apply more NR to eliminate noise, you lose less detail in the process .. so in effect the D800 has more scope for a cleaner ISO6400 image in the final output.

This is not to say the D700 has inferior IQ at higher ISO's, even at pixel peeping levels, the very minimal noise is still amazingly low!

One day in the not too distant future, a D700 will make it into my camera bag too, even after all these years .. unless some better, cheaper option(or some unknown model) comes my way.

[arthurking83]

Lance please go ahead and compare the noise from a 1 hour Nikon 800 exposure versus a 1 hour PhaseOne medium format digital back and then report back on your findings, regarding sensor size/ mp/heat-noise ratio. Ta


.....

All well and good, but I fail to see how this is relevant in a discussion about the differences between a D700 and D800 regarding noise and pixel pitch???

[zollo]

i was comparing the pixel pitch of a much larger sensor with that of a smaller sensor, and the effect it has on noise. just the same as pixel pitch in d800 is 1/3rd that of d700. how is that not relevant
someone was saying that sensor size to pixel ratios dont matter anymore, my opinion differs.

[arthurking83]

Sorry but your reference is still irrelevant!

You're comparing apples to 27Lt V12 tank engines!

What Lance said was:

...... The crop of new high Mp'ed sensored cameras show lower noise at all ISO's than most of their lower Mp'ed counterparts of the past.

......

Note the use of the term counterparts!!

that is, I took his comment that a 135 format sensor now with a much finer pixel pitch still shows overall better high ISO noise characteristics than a lower pixel pitch sensor of the same size.

Lance also used the term "counterparts of the past" .. hence referring to similar sized sensors of previous generations .. and he's about spot on with that aspect.


But introducing another variable, such as actual sensor size, doesn't really figure as an argument to counter what Lance commented on.

Like I said, all well and good(that is your assertion that the MF camera image is going to produce lower noise characteristics) .. but the point is still not relevant with respect to Lance's comment.

FWIW: D4's lower pixel pitch compared to the D800 still shows cleaner ISO12800 images from the D4 than the D800 does at ISO6400, so there is an advantage of having lower pixel pitch on the same size sensor with the same level of technology.

I don't particularly follow the DxO site for this sort of comparison, as I don't use their software to edit my images. My preference is to download sample images taken at the same or very similar exposure points and comparing in my preferred software .. in this comparison the D4 wins.
But up to a point of output size only. The D4's output size is going to be more restricted than that of the D800, and once that threshold is reached, the D800 images will look cleaner at higher ISO levels.

But the D700 is technology from about 5 or more years back and sensor technology has improved much in the time between D700 and D800.


To the OP.
The reason I made the comment about the 1/3rd Ev higher exposure of the D700, was to possibly highlight a small but possibly significant point.

If you rely heavily on the metering of the camera, there is a possibility that the D800 is exposing slightly darker than the D700.
There's no point comparing images captured in different conditions and then making judgement based from that .. the comparison must be made from images taken in the same way.

That is, even tho for you the situation seems to be that the D700 requires less noise correction at ISO1600, it's also easily proved to work in the the opposite way, where the D800's ISO1600 images could just as easily be much cleaner than the D700 .. or D4 if you like!

the trick to cleaner high ISO images is to expose 'more properly'(if that makes sense) .. that is more exposure at the time of capture masks the obviousness of noise in the image .. you can easily achieve the same trick using just the D800 to see the effect. .. and also to view comparable images at the same output size too.

[Lance B]

Lance please go ahead and compare the noise from a 1 hour Nikon 800 exposure versus a 1 hour PhaseOne medium format digital back and then report back on your findings, regarding sensor size/ mp/heat-noise ratio. Ta


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

That's a silly comparison as the Phase One Digital back are not supposed to be good at high ISO. Completely different camera and sensor for completely different reasons.

Just for reference, the Phase One Digital Back thron into the mix:
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cam...rand3%29/Nikon

Click on "Measurements" and then loook at SNR - 18%.

[Sar NOP]

I still have the 2000+ RAW files from a D700, mostly at high ISO.
My D800 has now more than 55,000 actuations.
When I compare the noise level of the two cameras, the D800 is always ahead of the D700 (1 to 1.5 stop better).

[ricktas]

basics physics say the D700 will beat it (bar some huge advance in sensor tech). Both have sensors that are the same size but the D700 fits 12 million photosites on its sensor and the D800 fits 38 million photosites on its sensor. Therefore to do this each photosite on the D800 sensor has to be just over 3 times smaller than the D700's. However, the D800 does have some tech advances and testing under controlled conditions show it holds its own.

Science and physics tell us that the smaller something is, the less it can hold. Like a margarine container and a bucket left in the rain, the margarine container will get full first. Each sensor site on the D800 is going to be able to capture a much smaller amount of light. This is great for ensuring we get huge photos at 36MP, but as a sensor site gets smaller, the physics of light particles come into play and with cameras one of the side effects of that is noise.

I think Nikon have done a damn good job with the high ISO on the D800 when you compare the size of the photosites on the sensor. Even if in real worlds use a person thinks the D700 outperforms the D800 at higher ISO's, as a landscaper, I know which of the two cameras I want to grab of a 12mp D3 and a 36mp D800. I grab my D800 as my primary camera, every time.

The D200 is mentioned in this thread, we have to remember that when the D200 came out, it was praised for its high ISO capabilities at the time. Technology progresses and what we thought was great and amazing last year, is surpassed this year, and we lament how bad something is, when it was praised for the same reasons previously.

The D800 broke new ground in many aspects of its features, but like anything, it cannot be perfect and it too will be obsolete in about 18 months time and then people will be saying their new D900 with 54mp is so much better than the D800.

Go and take photos, enjoy taking them and work within the limitations of the ability of your gear. No camera is perfect. A dislike of your gear is only going to limit your creativity and drive to get out and use that gear.

[Goatch]

Thanks everyone for the input on this , I do understand the relationship between properly exposing an image and how this affects the noise , I think maybe I was confusing the 2 types , Luminance and chrominance , I am starting to believe that I may have to invest in a 3rd party noise program like Noise Ninja and stop relying on CNX2 noise reduction
I agree in hindsight that I am probably comparing apples to oranges in that the diff in resolution between the 2 cameras does cause a difference in how you view them and the
image size and res means I am more likely to push the boundaries .
I thought I had a pretty good handle on the D700 but have realised the 800 is a whole new ball game .

[Lance B]

Getting a good 3rd party noise reduction software like Noiseware Professional, which is the one I use, is a good place to start. Also, turn off the high ISO noise reduction in camera as this seems to make matters worse. I have used Noiseware Professional with both my D700 and now my D800/E and it is brilliant.

Here are a few samples just to show you how well it can work.

As you can see from this shot with the D800 + 300mm f2.8 VRII, it is very low light @ 1/80sec, f4 and ISO6400 which is the equivalent to a light value of about EV4!



Here is a shot using the D800 + 500mm f4 VR handheld, reasonably low light, @ 1/320sec, f5.6, ISO6400 and an EV value of about EV7.



Here is a DX crop of the same



As you can see the EV value of these shots is much lower than your original post of 1/640th F3.2 ISO 400 which is about EV11. However, it looks like it was underexposed on the face and background left and could be a few stops lower than this level. Combined with the cropping, it would seem as though you have higher noise than would be expected at ISO400.

[Sar NOP]

Thanks everyone for the input on this , I do understand the relationship between properly exposing an image and how this affects the noise , I think maybe I was confusing the 2 types , Luminance and chrominance , I am starting to believe that I may have to invest in a 3rd party noise program like Noise Ninja and stop relying on CNX2 noise reduction
I agree in hindsight that I am probably comparing apples to oranges in that the diff in resolution between the 2 cameras does cause a difference in how you view them and the
image size and res means I am more likely to push the boundaries .
I thought I had a pretty good handle on the D700 but have realised the 800 is a whole new ball game .

In my experience, Nikon NX2 works best for me for noise reduction.

Example :

D800, 200-400/4, @8 000 ISO.




Crop

[arthurking83]

.....I think maybe I was confusing the 2 types , Luminance and chrominance , I am starting to believe that I may have to invest in a 3rd party noise program like Noise Ninja and stop relying on CNX2 noise reduction
.......

This is always a good idea, and one that I was praying for with Nik's noise reduction software(Dfine) as a plugin for CNX2.

But, if you don't know of all the options for NR in CNX2 yet I'll try to write up a simple how to over the coming weekend(if not before).

Which version of CNX2 do you have?
Not that long ago, Nikon added an extra NR capability in the Camera Settings tab, under Noise Reduction. Originally they only had Faster and Better Quality, but then they introduced Better Quality 2012 .. so that now makes it 3 options.
This basically came unannounced in the update that first saw it, and the difference between Faster and Better Quality seemed hardly worth the effort. But the new setting is a lot better .. so much so that I don't know why they still kept the Better Quality setting at all?

FWIW: I haven't found any need to use Noise Ninja for many years now, and haven't bothered to reinstall it when I updated my PC about 3-4years back now. I if get stuck with an intricate noise reduction routine, I try this selective NR method first .. and it usually works better Nikon's global routine.

I'll try to do this how to with noise reduction in CNX2 over the weekend .. too busy with work to do it earlier.
It may be something that you could try before you buy.

- - - Updated - - -

....... Also, turn off the high ISO noise reduction in camera as this seems to make matters worse. .......

See my comment above Lance.

Part of the problem with Nikon cameras(I suspect they all do this to a degree), is that even with NR set to OFF(ie. NR0) .. you still have some noise reduction going on in camera at high ISO settings.

I vaguely remember ISO1600 on the D3 is where it starts(but this is a very vague guess).

When using CaptureNX2, you can see the actual camera settings for noise reduction in the Camera Settings tool, under Noise reduction.
I've listed the different strengths used by Nikon, on their raw files.

So at least we know you can 'turn those settings off' (well at least my interpretations of this notion .. because who really knows whats' going on in the NEF!!
But the question is, and I don't think there's any doubt that the raw file is obviously affected in some manner with NR .. but how do other raw file converters handle the in camera noise reduction when it's supposedly set to OFF?

[arthurking83]

Goatch: I had the time today(off work :th3) to do a quick tute on how to use noise reduction in CNX2

hope this helps

[mongo]

It seems that one of the lessons from all of this is, if you can't avoid high noise,then, defeat it later using good noise reduction software ( which is what Mongo has had to do).