D300 vs D700 high-ISO performance?

[ricktas]

It seems that some have forgotten that the original use of the letter S by both Canon and Nikon was to represent S(tudio). Therefore a D3s has a different purpose (from the manufacturers point of view) to a D3. And Studio work at a Pro level needs lots of pixels and less need for high ISO.

Comparing an S designated body against its non S equivalent, for both Canon and Nikon is rather an exercise in futility. The fact that people are using the D3s for sports/landscapes etc is a testament to its quality, but it is primarily a studio camera, and therefore high ISO is not an important factor for the manufacturer.

[kiwi]

To me the d3s is not supposed to be a studio camera at all, that's what the d3x is. The d3s has been heavily pushed by nikon to the pj and sport market. High iso fir higher shutter and increased buffer with the odd bit of video for news grabs

[bradhk]

I don't think so, Not in Nikon's digital Age anyway. The addition of an S to a Nikon Model number means a slightly updated refresh of an existing model. examples in D70s, D300s and D3s, while they are all capable in the studio, none them are heavy hitting studio cameras.

D3 and D3s are both targeted to the sports/photojournalist market. 9 -11 frames per second and high ISO capability. D3X falls into that studio category.

It seems that some have forgotten that the original use of the letter S by both Canon and Nikon was to represent S(tudio). Therefore a D3s has a different purpose (from the manufacturers point of view) to a D3. And Studio work at a Pro level needs lots of pixels and less need for high ISO.

Comparing an S designated body against its non S equivalent, for both Canon and Nikon is rather an exercise in futility. The fact that people are using the D3s for sports/landscapes etc is a testament to its quality, but it is primarily a studio camera, and therefore high ISO is not an important factor for the manufacturer.

[petercee]

FWIW, I've heard nothing but awe at the mention of ISO performance with D3 and D3s.

The next rung down in terms of high ISO performers - D3x, D700 & D700s (?) - probably leaves the D300, D300s and the Canon range far behind as well.

[kiwi]

FWIW, I've heard nothing but awe at the mention of ISO performance with D3 and D3s.

The next rung down in terms of high ISO performers - D3x, D700 & D700s (?) - probably leaves the D300, D300s and the Canon range far behind as well.

Not really

D3s extra stop of iso performance of D3
D3 = D700
D3 2 extra stops of iso performance of D300 and D300s

Canon, well, I not care, lol

[Gregg Bell]

With respect Greg its not all about what you need but many others. The D3s not only goes VERY high in ISO( probably almost useless) but it does deliver a much more usable result at lower values such as 6500-12400IsO values that I use quite a bit
Cheers jim

Indeed, and while what i was complaining about, the solution is an "x" body, Just remember its not just what I'd like, but also every other studio photographer. The Canon 5D Mark I and II have the least amount of noise from 50 - 800 then the D3, and all its updates.

To me the d3s is not supposed to be a studio camera at all, that's what the d3x is. The d3s has been heavily pushed by nikon to the pj and sport market. High iso fir higher shutter and increased buffer with the odd bit of video for news grabs

Yeah this pretty much sums it up, but even ISO 105 million or whatever is pretty crazy, and why have it when theres chroma, and crap everywhere...

[kiwi]

Err, I'm not sure about that statement, the d3 at iso 800 and below is effectively noiseless, although I have not personally compared to the canons I'd find it hard to agree that they have superior noise handling anywhere in the range if 200 to 800

I do agree that iso100 is a canon speciality

[bradhk]

Err, I'm not sure about that statement, the d3 at iso 800 and below is effectively noiseless, although I have not personally compared to the canons I'd find it hard to agree that they have superior noise handling anywhere in the range if 200 to 800

I do agree that iso100 is a canon speciality

Noise benefits you get from D3 at low iso is if you ever need to lift the shadows in post. The lifted shadow areas still remain relatively noise free

[Gregg Bell]

Err, I'm not sure about that statement, the d3 at iso 800 and below is effectively noiseless, although I have not personally compared to the canons I'd find it hard to agree that they have superior noise handling anywhere in the range if 200 to 800

I do agree that iso100 is a canon speciality

D3 models are very good at handling noise, the Canon 5D mark I and II statistically do it better though. the difference is very little, but it does perform better. The D3's advantage though is that it offers 1 1/2 more stops of dynamic range, and more color depth.

[beedee]

Can anyone speak about D300s, around the same topic of high ISO performance? Would you compare with D700? Thanks..

[ricktas]

Can anyone speak about D300s, around the same topic of high ISO performance? Would you compare with D700? Thanks..

You are comparing as full frame sensor of the D700 with 12.1 MP and a D300s which is a cropped sensor with 12.3 MP. Just plain science (physics of light) tells you that the D700 is going to be better at higher ISO's. The bigger sensor of the D700 means each pixel can be bigger and therefore allow more light in and be less prone to pixel density issues at higher ISO's

[dsaini]

You are comparing as full frame sensor of the D700 with 12.1 MP and a D300s which is a cropped sensor with 12.3 MP. Just plain science (physics of light) tells you that the D700 is going to be better at higher ISO's. The bigger sensor of the D700 means each pixel can be bigger and therefore allow more light in and be less prone to pixel density issues at higher ISO's

+1

D700 is better than D300 in low light.

[chamellieon]

I have both a D300s and a D700.
The D700 still wins hands down in terms of ISO performance.
Ive shot the same thing, in the same place, for the same amount of time, same settings etc- (not the same lens though) and the D300s has - even with noise reduction, got a fair bit of noise, where the D700 is flawless.

I attribute this to the DX vs FX sensor

[Sar NOP]

I attribute this to the DX vs FX sensor

I would say : big pixel vs small pixel.

In DX range, the modern 12mpx cameras still cannot beat the 4.1mpx D2Hs at high ISO, for example.

[inmotion]

Nikon all models High ISO?? it seems this is what this thread has come to.I have owned and used the D300--D300s--D700--D3--D3s
in extreeme low light conditions for action sports photography.So forget the graphs or my mate has comments
attached images shot with the D3s an Nikon 200-400 VR Indoors at werribee in Vic
One with a quick sharpen and noise redution and the other "off camera"
Testimont to the Nikon to allow iso settings for use of this lens.My D3 topped out at 5000iso to give a good result the D3s is ok to 12500
these at 8000iso--you be the judge

cheers jim

[kiwi]

sar, you are the king mate, my trusty d2hs i hated over 800, d2hs maybe to 1600

anyhow, D3 i'll shoot footy at 10800, no real dramas if the light's even.

[Sar NOP]

sar, you are the king mate, my trusty d2hs i hated over 800, d2hs maybe to 1600

anyhow, D3 i'll shoot footy at 10800, no real dramas if the light's even.

Kiwi, at its extreme high ISO, the D2hs requires very accurate exposure to get rid of noise without applying any NR.

The picture below was shot at low light and 6400 ISO :

Full size image here
D2Hs, 200-400 VR, 1/160", f/5.6, @6400 ISO, handheld.



And if I want a 12mpx file for printing on A1 or A0 size, I'll just need to upsize my D2Hs' file from 4.1mpx to 12mpx.
Here's the result of the same image, but at 12mpx ! :
http://images3.photomania.com/297972/1/radC6B67.jpg



For comparison, I will be interested to see a full size image @6400 ISO (shot at low light) from a D300 or D90...


Cheers,
Sar