d3s vs mk IV for noise.

[scott benson]

hi all this might be of interest to some.
http://www.moss-foto.com/nctest/cnjpg.htm

[Ooievaar]

Page not available.....

[scott benson]

sorry about that.

[James Jerome]

Scott, is this the link you meant to post? http://www.moss-foto.com/nctest/a%20cniso.htm

It appears to be RAW files at various ISOs for the Canon 1dMkIV and Nikon D3s.

[Axel Hildebrandt]

Scott, is this the link you meant to post? http://www.moss-foto.com/nctest/a%20cniso.htm

It appears to be RAW files at various ISOs for the Canon 1dMkIV and Nikon D3s.

Welcome to BPN, Jerome! The link is correct but the jpgs are not on the page anymore.

[David Billingsley]

I looked at the samples when this thread was first posted and the images were there. If the samples were legit and camera NR setting equal - starting at ISO 25,600 and higher the D3S was clearly better with a huge difference at 102,400.

I am waiting on delivery of a 1D4 but not concerned over these comparisons - even if they are a true representation of ISO capabilities. :confused: I will not be using those high ISOs. Been watching this thread hoping someone more knowledgeable of 1D4 and D3S settings would respond. Don't know when the pictures went away.

[Axel Hildebrandt]

I looked at the samples when this thread was first posted and the images were there. If the samples were legit and camera NR setting equal - starting at ISO 25,600 and higher the D3S was clearly better with a huge difference at 102,400.

I am waiting on delivery of a 1D4 but not concerned over these comparisons - even if they are a true representation of ISO capabilities. :confused: I will not be using those high ISOs. Been watching this thread hoping someone more knowledgeable of 1D4 and D3S settings would respond. Don't know when the pictures went away.

The D3S does apply NR at high ISOs in RAW even if it is disabled by the user. This might contribute to the appearance of less noise. At this point I doubt it that ISO values above 3200 or 6400 are very significant for bird photography.

[arash_hazeghi]

The D3S does apply NR at high ISOs in RAW even if it is disabled by the user. This might contribute to the appearance of less noise. At this point I doubt it that ISO values above 3200 or 6400 are very significant for bird photography.

Nikon does not apply high ISO NR when you turn it OFF for RAW files, in fact no Nikon camera that I know does that, you can easily set NR to zero in NX2 and see how it affects visible noise, the in-camera JPEGs for both Canon and Nikon will have some degree of NR/processing even when NR is off. There is no question that Nikon has better noise per pixel level, both cameras belong to the same generation of sensor technology with Nikon pixels being twice as large so the difference is obvious. I agree that for bird photography very high ISO is not necessary and resolution is more important. The target market of these cameras are a bit different, you have to keep that in mind when comparing. Canon seems to be more optimized for wildlife photography while Nikon is targeted at nighttime sports, events and PJ in dark situations.

[Desmond Chan]

At this point I doubt it that ISO values above 3200 or 6400 are very significant for bird photography.

Unless you're the kind of photographers who only photograph at a certain time during the day, in a certain season during the year, ISO 3200 or may be 6400 can be useful. Been there done that. Or perhaps it's because I am not a professional, and I would like to be able to photograph anytime I want, especially where I am it rains a lot.

[Axel Hildebrandt]

Nikon does not apply high ISO NR when you turn it OFF for RAW files, in fact no Nikon camera that I know does that, you can easily set NR to zero in NX2 and see how it affects visible noise, the in-camera JPEGs for both Canon and Nikon will have some degree of NR/processing even when NR is off. There is no question that Nikon has better noise per pixel level, both cameras belong to the same generation of sensor technology with Nikon pixels being twice as large so the difference is obvious. I agree that for bird photography very high ISO is not necessary and resolution is more important. The target market of these cameras are a bit different, you have to keep that in mind when comparing. Canon seems to be more optimized for wildlife photography while Nikon is targeted at nighttime sports, events and PJ in dark situations.

Arash, check out this thread. Scott consulted the manual, which states that the D3S does apply NR to high ISO images even with RAW files: http://www.birdphotographers.net/for...ad.php?t=54839

[arash_hazeghi]

Arash, check out this thread. Scott consulted the manual, which states that the D3S does apply NR to high ISO images even with RAW files: http://www.birdphotographers.net/for...ad.php?t=54839

Axel, I think this is misunderstood, first RAW file is just RAW data you can't really apply noise reduction to a RAW file, you first have to demosaic the RAW data and turn it into an image in order to apply NR. I have a Nikon D700 and I can assure you can certainly set NR to zero. What the manual means is that for ISOs higher than 2500 (in the case of D700) it automatically turns High ISO NR ON even if the menu item is OFF. This only applies to JPEG files, you can turn it off in post in Capture NX2 and if you are using ACR it wouldn't read camera settings any way. Corrupt RAW data is no longer RAW.

[Axel Hildebrandt]

Axel, I think it is misunderstood, first RAW file is just RAW data you can't really apply noise reduction to a RAW file, you first have to demosaic the RAW data and turn it into an image in order to apply NR. I have a Nikon D700 and I can assure you can certainly set NR to zero. What the manual means is that for ISOs higher than 2500 (in the case of D700) it automatically turns High ISO NR ON even if the menu item is OFF. This only applies to JPEG files, you can turn it off in post in Capture NX2 and if you are using ACR it wouldn't read camera settings any way. If corrupt RAW data is no longer RAW.

Of course I don't know for sure since I don't use this camera but if you are right then the manual is not phrased well.

[Doug Brown]

I would be very interested to see a high ISO bird photograph comparison between the Mark IV and the D3s. I suspect that with both cameras, once you get above ISO 3200 or maybe 6400 (in low light) you won't find many keepers. Feather detail falls apart much faster than human face detail IMO.

[arash_hazeghi]

Of course I don't know for sure since I don't use this camera but if you are right then the manual is not phrased well.

I checked the D700 manual again it never states that "noise reduction is applied to RAW files". All of these settings are for in-camera JPEG, now if you use NX2 these settings will be read and applied to the NEF files, but you can certainly override them.


Remember that manuals are always written for in-camera JPEG in mind, RAW is always optional and it depends on the RAW converter etc. NR in manual always refers to the NR that camera's processor applies to the generated JPEG files.

[Doug Brown]

Not sure about Nikon high ISO NR, but I can tell you that Canon does apply long exposure NR to the RAW file itself.

[arash_hazeghi]

Not sure about Nikon high ISO NR, but I can tell you that Canon does apply long exposure NR to the RAW file itself.

Doug,

Long-exposure NR is very different from high-ISO NR. Long exposure NR is dark frame subtraction which means the camera takes a secondary shot with shutter closed with the same exposure length and then subtract this data from the original data and generates a new RAW file. This will subtract any hot pixels or mild fixed pattern noise as a result of long exposure. High ISO noise is random so you can not subtract it using this method. You can also turn long exposure NR off if you wish to.

[scott benson]

i originaly thought there was nothing done to raw photos hence its raw data, but i do agree with alex that the book is not clear as it should state for jpeg.

[Roman Kurywczak]

birds....birds ....birds....what I am interested in the the Mark 3 versus the mark 4......with all the above functions turned off! My night gallery is all ISO 6400 with the Mark 3......hope to see a few comparisons in the next few weeks.

[LouBuonomo]

Roman,

I looked at some of my MKIII images from FL and some of the stuff I shot last weekend in NJ with the MK4 both shot at ISO800 and the MK4 is better, ISO1600 is where I see a bigger difference. But I have not shot with it enough to really give empirical data

Lou

[Mike Vanecek]

I have been researching the D3s because of its advertised low light noise capability. I am an amateur who does wildlife. The camera has a small pixel density which I guess helps with the S/N. However, it does not have the number of pixels available as found on some other cameras. That leads me to several questions for those that have used a D3s extensively.

How well does the camera perform in photographing birds in flight (raw format) in very low light situations (e.g. at 1/3200 sec & ISO 3200)? How much in-camera NR and sharpening would be needed?

If one needed to do a large crop (say 80%) would enough resolution be left to create a sharp 13x19 print?
If one uses the 1.2 in-camera crop (which drops down to 8MP) how much resolution is available for post processing cropping and printing?

Does anyone know where I might be able to download an unprocessed raw image taken at ISO 3200 with high shutter speed that I could examine in photoshop?

I am thinking about a switch from Canon, hence; a big financial impact. I too would like info on D3s versus 1DMk4.

Thanks

Mike

[Desmond Chan]

How well does the camera perform in photographing birds in flight (raw format) in very low light situations (e.g. at 1/3200 sec & ISO 3200)?

Errr...what bird do you need 1/3200s to freeze? Hope it's not the hummers because even 1/8000s doesn't do well on that, if my experiences mean anything.

I am thinking about a switch from Canon

I think Chris Van Rooyen just posted his thoughts on Mk IV on the main critique board.

If you're happy with Canon, I don't think you need to switch. Many here also use Canon. And some here actually have switched from Nikon back to Canon. So, you're in good company. :)

[Mike Vanecek]

Thank you for the reply. I was photographing eagles as they were diving down to catch fish. Unfortunately I was at a 90 degree angle so they were moving rather fast.

I will go read the MK4 comments.

Mike