If this is the best the D800 can do...

[GL]

http://www.fotosidan.se/forum/showpost.php?p=1792662&postcount=1457

I don't understand the language, but I'm assuming D800 samples reduced to 1600px. If this is the best this camera can do at ISO 1600+, the 5D MkII has nothing to fear let alone the Mk III!

 

[olemartin]

Is 5d mkII better than this?

It is so much better than my old 40D, so I am easily impressed

Translated:
Some ISO-steps. No noisereduction used, except at ISO25600 that is available without noisereduction as well. All the photos is at 1:1, 100% resolution.
The photos are shot with shuttertime halfed for every double ISO, so the ISOs should be correct.

 

[tt]

http://www.fotosidan.se/forum/showpost.php?p=1792662&postcount=1457

I don't understand the language, but I'm assuming D800 samples reduced to 1600px. If this is the best this camera can do at ISO 1600+, the 5D MkII has nothing to fear let alone the Mk III!

" Developed without noise reduction, except the last ISO25600-image that are in your own noise reduction as well. All images except the overview is a 1:1 scale, ie 100% pixel scale."

Doesn't help that the angle of taking the shots is changing shot for shot, and also seemingly the focus/depth of field
eg 3200 vs 6400 the focus shifts further into the shot, 12800 it again changes.
Pretty unfair, as presumably it looking more in focus affects how the non-NR noise looks.

 

[psolberg]

http://www.fotosidan.se/forum/showpost.php?p=1792662&postcount=1457

I don't understand the language, but I'm assuming D800 samples reduced to 1600px. If this is the best this camera can do at ISO 1600+, the 5D MkII has nothing to fear let alone the Mk III!

not sure about what those samples are but the D800 has similar performance to the D7000 at 100% crop. and massively better performance to the model it replaces when scaled down
http://nikonrumors.com/2012/02/22/nikon-d800-vs-nikon-d700-high-iso-comparison.aspx/

although we all know this is not a low light camera but rather a landscape/portrait/studio camera with an enphasis on detail, not low light. So I don't think the 5DIII is going to have trouble being better in this regard since it is purposed for low resolution high ISO whereas the D800 is high resolution low ISO. totally different thngs.

 

[RedEye]

There is a smoothness to the high MP photo, they're beautiful.

 

[JavaBean]

I am not sure this is a fair comparison. I have seen better high ISO samples and I think most wedding photographers would have no trouble shooting at 3200. Especially considering that most will scale the image down. No one in the portrait world would hand over files to the customer that large, and prints will be mostly 8X10 or smaller. Now landscapers on the other hand will love the big files. but they mostly shoot lower ISOs sooo....

I still think that with the improvement in sensor design, and the advent of the Digic 5 processor, there should be no reason that the 5D3 will not have stellar high ISO performance.

 

[nesarajah]

I'm happy if this is the best Nikon can do .

 

[EYEONE]

Not the best test shot in the world but I think 1600 looks fine. They all look a little soft so maybe there was a lot of NR going on. I think the shots a good and usable all the way to 6400. Possibly maybe iffy usable at 12800.

But, as much as I'd love to rip on these because it's Nikon I don't think these shots are anything Nikon should be embarrassed about.

 

[K-amps]

Very impressed with the D800 vs D700 shots, the detailed resolved is remarkable.

I am very excited... I denied myself instant gratification and lived with the 5Dc till now.... I can't wait to see what can be done with the 5diii.... I hope Canon makes them available for us mortals by early April... just in time for Spring Break ( I know I am getting carried away )

 

[RedEye]

Bingo, I absolutely need to complet my purchase by May 10th.

 

[traveller]

It's difficult to judge from down-ressed files, but I'd have to say that there's little difference in these images between ISO400 & ISO800; ISO1600 looks pretty clean as well. ISO3200 is starting to show higher levels of noise, but it's mostly luminance and not chroma. At ISO 6400, I see considerably more noise with chroma noise creeping in; additionally, the noise has an ugly pattern to it -it appears to have lost some of the randomness that gives the ISO3200 noise a 'film grain' appearance. Things only get worse from there.

Personally, from what I see here (which isn't fully representative) I think that I'd be happy shooting this camera up to ISO3200. For a 36MP camera that looks set to deliver medium format quality, this is an outstanding achievement. Well done Nikon.

 

[yunusoglu]

The strength of the D800 is obviously its resolving power. Since it will mostly be favored by studio and landscape photographers, I don't see how its high-ISO performance is any important...

 

[awinphoto]

well the sample shots, not to defend nikon, but are a worst case scenario, lots of shadow detail, subject backlit with little foreground lighting... Then again it's a perfect test to show where the sensor isn't perfect, but I thought, for what it is, comparing to the density similar to the 40D, it showed pretty admirably. Now if the 5d3 is "only" 22MP, i'd expect it's ISO 1600 to be as clean if not cleaner than the D800's ISO 800 shot and so on and so forth, but that's my wishful thinking coming back to bite me in the butt.

 

[GL]

No question there's lots of details, and it looks like a great studio/landscape camera. As a wedding photographer, however, it makes me realise just how good the 5D2 is now, and how great I *expect* the Mk III to be.

 

[gummyrabbit]

Nikon will sell a ton of D800 and D800e

with this amazing performance. The $3k price seems low for the capabilities of this camera. I think they'd sell lots of them at $3500+. If Canon is really thinking of charging $3500 for the 5D Mark III, they'll have a lot of work to prevent people from jumping ship.

 

[jrista]

http://www.fotosidan.se/forum/showpost.php?p=1792662&postcount=1457

I don't understand the language, but I'm assuming D800 samples reduced to 1600px. If this is the best this camera can do at ISO 1600+, the 5D MkII has nothing to fear let alone the Mk III!

As far as I can tell, they are all 1200x1800 pixels. At that size, noise certainly looks pretty good, better than I've seen from most Canon cameras at ISO1600+ over the last few years. But...if they are indeed down scaled images and not crops, then we still don't know anything. Nothing really matters until someone posts true full-size, 1:1/100% crops of RAW Nikon D800 images.

 

[bvukich]

ISO800 looks good to me. At 1600 the luminance noise is creeping up, but still usable. 3200 isn't horrible. It starts getting funky at 6400 especially in the shadows though.

Also keep in mind, unless things have changed, there is no such thing as no NR with Nikon, even the RAWs have it cooked in.

 

[moreorless]

The strength of the D800 is obviously its resolving power. Since it will mostly be favored by studio and landscape photographers, I don't see how its high-ISO performance is any important...

Given that theres no sign of Nikon releasing another "budget" FF body in the near future though it seems that this camera is aimed at more than just studio and landscape users.

As a potential buyer for the latter use the one thing that worries me isnt the ISO performance but that all the 100% views I'v seen so far look rather soft, the sensor outresolving the lens?

 

[K-amps]

http://www.fotosidan.se/forum/showpost.php?p=1792662&postcount=1457

I don't understand the language, but I'm assuming D800 samples reduced to 1600px. If this is the best this camera can do at ISO 1600+, the 5D MkII has nothing to fear let alone the Mk III!

I have the 5D2 and I think this is about 1/2 to 2/3 stop better than the 5D2 can do.
Hopefully the 5D3 has improved to at least this level to. I don't really expect it to be better since we are closing up to what is physically possible to do.
(a 100% efficiency FF sensor would probably be about 1 stop better than D800 so there is not much room for improvement)

100% efficiency? Hopefully we are not even close to it.. e.g. Retroreflector designs... nature has so much to offer to engineering.

 

[GL]

http://www.fotosidan.se/forum/showpost.php?p=1792662&postcount=1457

I don't understand the language, but I'm assuming D800 samples reduced to 1600px. If this is the best this camera can do at ISO 1600+, the 5D MkII has nothing to fear let alone the Mk III!

I have the 5D2 and I think this is about 1/2 to 2/3 stop better than the 5D2 can do.
Hopefully the 5D3 has improved to at least this level to. I don't really expect it to be better since we are closing up to what is physically possible to do.
(a 100% efficiency FF sensor would probably be about 1 stop better than D800 so there is not much room for improvement)

Not sure what's wrong with your 5D2 then, because mine is at least 1/2 stop better than this at 1600+. That said the D800 is 36MP, so 1/2 stop worse than 5D2 is still an incredible achievement for Nikon. Just don't expect the D800 to be a low-light superstar, which is what I *AM* expecting the 5D3 to be. That - and video - will be the 5D3's trump cards in my opinion. As a professional wedding filmmaker and photographer, I know for fact my colleagues and I are going to lap up the Mk III if it improves on the Mk II in these aspects. Anything else is gravy. Nikon just can't compete when it comes to pro video on an SLR, and the early reviews of the D800's video capabilities (and quality) seem to pan this out.