High ISO hability, myth?

[KmH]

His links work fine

Yes, after they were fixed.

 

[MTVision]

Sorry, since you used Hi 2, noise reduction and some other image processing was indeed done by the camera, without asking you.

Once you go outside the base range of ISO into the ISO Lo or the ISO Hi settings software is used instead of the amplifiers on the image sensor the base ISO range uses.

I wasn't aware that the in camera noise reduction did anything to the RAW image. Oh well I guess....

 

[KmH]

It may not be prudent to assume there is only 1 noise reduction function in the camera.

There are several noise reduction functions I am aware of in Nikon DSLR cameras, and there may be more of them I'm not aware of.

One of the processes performed by the Raw conversion demosaicing algorithm of most Raw converters is a form of noise reduction.

 

[cgipson1]

Both images can be seen at 100%. And I agree that there has been improvement in high iso, that is higher settings. I am talking about the QUALITY at 1600iso.

actually... I was looking at the medium image.. but even the largest image it will show is only 1600x1066 for the 300 (max is 3072 x 2048 ).. and 800x1200 for the 550 ( max is 5184x3456 pixels.. NOT 800x1200)... which is not full size 100%. Also if you are going to compare images.. they really do need to be similar, and these arent. My main point was that you need to look at totally uncompressed full size images to accurately assess something like the difference in IQ at the same ISO...

 

[jake337]

Not a big Ken Rockwell fan but his high iso comparison is decent. It is old and does not include the nikon d3s which is the current king of high ISOhttp://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/iso-comparisons/2007-11/index.htm

 

[MTVision]

It may not be prudent to assume there is only 1 noise reduction function in the camera.

There are several noise reduction functions I am aware of in Nikon DSLR cameras, and there may be more of them I'm not aware of.

One of the processes performed by the Raw conversion demosaicing algorithm of most Raw converters is a form of noise reduction.

I wasn't disagreeing with you I honestly didn't know that any of the in camera functions affected the Raw image. I also wasn't aware that there was numerous noise reduction functions. It makes sense though. I learned something new today!

 

[Steve01]

People are saying that technology has advance so fast that you can see a big improvement in high iso hability. The only difference I see is that iso SETTINGS keep getting higher, but quality stays the same.

No, the improvement is significant IMHO.

 

[zcar21]

cgipso1, bellow the picture it says sizes available: small, medium, large, original. click the original version to see it 100%.
jake, that's a good comparison but it shows two different brands and one of them is a full frame. What I get from that comparison is that even if you have 6400iso doesn't mean you should to use it. (unless you have a ff or you don't mind the lower quality). picture quality suffers a lot, either from noise or noise reduction. Kinda like shutter speed hand held, you can shoot at a speed lower than the focal length, doesn't mean it's to be done. (specially without IS). More than likely picture quality would suffer.

 

[molested_cow]

IMO ISO capability like the D700 is the only reason why DSLR should ever exist muhahahahahahahaha!!!!!

Seriously though, it's amazing what you can get at ISO 2400.

Put it this way, it's really not about the tiny detail of the image quality. It's when you suddenly find yourself able to take decent quality photos in situations that you previously couldn't, and that's a feeling of power.

 

[jake337]

cgipso1, bellow the picture it says sizes available: small, medium, large, original. click the original version to see it 100%.
jake, that's a good comparison but it shows two different brands and one of them is a full frame. What I get from that comparison is that even if you have 6400iso doesn't mean you should to use it. (unless you have a ff or you don't mind the lower quality). picture quality suffers a lot, either from noise or noise reduction. Kinda like shutter speed hand held, you can shoot at a speed lower than the focal length, doesn't mean it's to be done. (specially without IS). More than likely picture quality would suffer.

You just answered your own question. You missed the point. In the past, yes, one would not want to use iso 6400. The D3S is plenty usable at iso6400 or higher, proving that image qaulity at higher iso settings is improving each and every time new models are announced. Here is a better comparison between the d700/d3 and d3s.
Same brand, two models, introduced within two years of each other. Check out the iso 25,600 section. Also check the d700 @ iso320 vs the d3s @ iso12,800.

Now if you want to compare old to new pro models showing you the advancement in iso capabilities, compare a d1 vs d3. The d1 iso stopped at iso800 before it went into "boosted" or "hi" mode at 1600 and 3200. Where as the d3s goes to 25,600 before you can use it's "boosted" mode at iso51,200 and 102,400.

There being two different brands is irrelevant.

What ISO one can use for an acceptable image is also based on ones post production techniques. Those with experience can make a photo that you, or I, would toss an acceptable image in post production.

 

[Village Idiot]

check out the d700, it is shocking what I get from that in very low light and high ISO

Not a fair comparison to an APS-C camera and since that's Nikon's first generation FF DSLR, there's nothing else in their lineup to compare it to.

a 5D MKII to a 5D would be a good comparison as far as ISO improvements. And actual ISO improvements between the two is only about one stop, but you have a sensor that's 9MP or so more with smaller pixels contributing to what should be a negative result in ISO.

 

[Overread36]

I've read* some interesting arguments that the actual noise performance hasn't improved so much at the hardware end so much as at the software end and that a large degree of the improvements we are seeing with noise performance is down to better noise reduction and sharpening in both the camera (even for RAWs) and also in the RAW processing software that we use on the computers.



*mostly I recall seeing them on the Canon group on flickr.

 

[prakhardeep]

This is because Nikon sensors have improved more in ISO ability than Canon.

 

[Village Idiot]

This is because Nikon sensors have improved more in ISO ability than Canon.

Sony sensors?

 

[molested_cow]

Does Sony use the same set of sensors in their DSLRs as the ones they supply Nikon with? If so, why is it that there's so much praise for Nikon D3 and D700 yet nothing much about Sony cameras?