D3 Noise comparison (BIG post)

[nfoto]

Well, having a series of noisy high-ISO shots seems to be compulsory these days. So I have to comply. Test series is of a Moth Orchid (Phalaenopsis). D3 with the AFS 105/2.8 VR (yes, I have it, and I still dn't like it, but it was the easiest accessible lens at the time of the test series), and the SB-800 for lighting the subject (bounce mode).

Here is the entire frame




And the mandatory 100% crops. NB: cropped from UNSHARPENED jpgs lifted straight off the camera. This is what you get.


The 100 ISO (L 1) was shot at f/8 because the f/11 used elsewhere produced underexposed frames




200 ISO (base ISO setting)




400 ISO




800 ISO




1600 ISO





3200 ISO





6400 ISO





Hi 1 (12800 ISO equivalent)




Hi 2 (25600 ISO equivalent)




Enjoy.

[Tom]

Thanks Björn! So you can say noise starts to get ugly at/beyond ISO 1600. That is a good fit with the high-ISO-NR kicking in (at standard-settings) at ISO 2000.

[nfoto]

All shots were taken with high-ISO NR set to OFF. With NR active, up to   6400 ISO shots come out clean. This comparison was just to show how the inevitable ISO noise manifests itself.

Provided you do the exposure correct, even the boosted settings (Hi 1, Hi 2)  should do fine with additional noise reduction in the post-processing stage. Of course all of this will depend on suibject lighting and its dynamic range.

[Tom]

Yes, I know you shot with NR off. All I wanted to say is, that now I understand why Nikon decided to let the NR kick in at ISO 2000 at default settings!

[RHLPetrus]

Question Bjorn: I see the ISO 100 crop a little underexposed compared to others, which all look similar. Is that true for the whole pic too?

On my monitor the unfocused petal on top of crop almost disappears, unlike on other crops. Would it be due to lower DR at ISO 100, as some claim should happen, since the optimal DR must be at base ISO, i.e., 200?

Tks for post.

[nfoto]

As stated in the captions to the crops, the 100 ISO (Low 1) tended to be underexposed. Hence it is shot at f/8 instead of f/11 like the rest. That is the explanation to your question.

Remember the "non-calibrated" (Low, High) settings are exactly that: meaning Low 1 ("100 ISO" equivalent) is not guaranteed to be 1 stop less responsive to ISO 200. I was surprised that the boosted Hi-1, Hi-2, appeared to be quite similar to +1 and +2 EV re 6400 ISO, respectively. Low 1  clearly is not -1 EV re 200 ISO, but since it is not calibrated and its "ISO" might vary according to light conditions, assigning it an ISO rating is futile (otherwise, Nikon would have done that for you already).

[NikosR]

What I think I see here is that I could do lots of my kind of photography safely at 6400. That for me would have been unimaginable some time ago.

Equally unimaginable is the possibility that I will be able to spend > Euro 4000 for a new camera in the foreseeable future