D500 ISO question

Joined
Feb 18, 2015
Messages
1,104
Location
New York State
To take matters to the extreme:
ISO 3,276,800 (but after some cleaning!)
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

For Surveillance photography probably but I find it fairly astonishing that one can get any image at all?!
 
Joined
Feb 18, 2015
Messages
1,104
Location
New York State
>>>> A 45MP image can be absolute garbage if one intends to print large>>>>

Natural Ink-spread (especially on matte paper) and normal viewing distance help; but up-rezzing to printer-resolution (using the new Ps "Preserve Details 2") makes a considerable difference as well.

You can get a better idea of what the printed output will look like by viewing at "Print Size" instead of at 100% on the screen.
 
Joined
May 5, 2005
Messages
21,659
Location
SW Virginia
The only sensor testing I've seen related to "sample variation" was actually done with eight D500 bodies. The variation in noise performance was found to be within 1/6 stop ISO equivalence. So you would have to have a truly defective body for it to be noticeable. However, if one is shooting a D500 and D5 side by side I suspect it looks pretty bad ;)
This ^^^^
 
Joined
Oct 9, 2005
Messages
23,850
Location
Moscow, Idaho
How we use our images makes a huge difference.
Amen (y)

For Surveillance photography probably but I find it fairly astonishing that one can get any image at all?!
That's been an impressive series and informative. And that ISO boost will come in handy the next (?) time I see Bigfoot :ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO: -- of course I'll have to throw in some motion blur and camera shake to make it look authentic! :rolleyes:
 

Butlerkid

Cafe Ambassador
Moderator
Joined
Apr 8, 2008
Messages
20,980
Location
Rutledge, Tennessee
Real Name
Karen
Test results by Photons for Photos indicates that the ISO setting on Nikon bodies is about 1/3 stop lower than indicated. So that is one small bit of conservatism. And my own experience is similar to yours in that shooting metered values always seems to underexpose. I've never attempted to quantify it because I don't rely much on the meter anyway.

Much depends on how one defines "pushed". For example what is the ultimate output for the images? A 45MP image can be absolute garbage if one intends to print large but with heavy NR and downsampling the same image posted at 720p resolution on the web might look fantastic. I've sold quite a few 8x10 prints shot indoors with a D4 at ISO12,800 and clients were thrilled with them. Looking at the same images on the computer I think they look horrible. I think this is one of the things that contributes to a lot of disagreement in forum discussions about IQ. How we use our images makes a huge difference.

The only sensor testing I've seen related to "sample variation" was actually done with eight D500 bodies. The variation in noise performance was found to be within 1/6 stop ISO equivalence. So you would have to have a truly defective body for it to be noticeable. However, if one is shooting a D500 and D5 side by side I suspect it looks pretty bad ;) Interestingly according to the "measurebator" charts noise performance of the D5 starts to pull away from the D500 between ISO1600 and 3200.
Thanks, Dan. I didn't have a D5 when I had the D500. My second body was a D810. I just don't want to get flamed by D500 fans for commenting on my experience with the D500. LOL! If they are happy with the D500, that's fine with me.
 
Joined
May 11, 2006
Messages
42,076
Location
CHARLOTTE
Real Name
Randy
Test results by Photons for Photos indicates that the ISO setting on Nikon bodies is about 1/3 stop lower than indicated. So that is one small bit of conservatism. And my own experience is similar to yours in that shooting metered values always seems to underexpose. I've never attempted to quantify it because I don't rely much on the meter anyway.

Much depends on how one defines "pushed". For example what is the ultimate output for the images? A 45MP image can be absolute garbage if one intends to print large but with heavy NR and downsampling the same image posted at 720p resolution on the web might look fantastic. I've sold quite a few 8x10 prints shot indoors with a D4 at ISO12,800 and clients were thrilled with them. Looking at the same images on the computer I think they look horrible. I think this is one of the things that contributes to a lot of disagreement in forum discussions about IQ. How we use our images makes a huge difference.

The only sensor testing I've seen related to "sample variation" was actually done with eight D500 bodies. The variation in noise performance was found to be within 1/6 stop ISO equivalence. So you would have to have a truly defective body for it to be noticeable. However, if one is shooting a D500 and D5 side by side I suspect it looks pretty bad ;) Interestingly according to the "measurebator" charts noise performance of the D5 starts to pull away from the D500 between ISO1600 and 3200.
in the real world it starts to pull away a lot sooner than 1600
 

Butlerkid

Cafe Ambassador
Moderator
Joined
Apr 8, 2008
Messages
20,980
Location
Rutledge, Tennessee
Real Name
Karen
Oh. So you had the D500 when you were trying to decide on the D5? :D
......
LOL! I found a used D500 within a year of them coming out. I even took it to Kenya. Just didn't bond with it. The noise was so coarse my go-to NR software couldn't tame it. And yeah, I'd lusted for the D5....but $$$$$ kept me away. Best thing I ever did was sell the D500 and get the D5! Paired with the D850, I'm in heaven - photography gear wise. Now I just need something to shoot!
 
Joined
May 11, 2006
Messages
42,076
Location
CHARLOTTE
Real Name
Randy
LOL! I found a used D500 within a year of them coming out. I even took it to Kenya. Just didn't bond with it. The noise was so coarse my go-to NR software couldn't tame it. And yeah, I'd lusted for the D5....but $$$$$ kept me away. Best thing I ever did was sell the D500 and get the D5! Paired with the D850, I'm in heaven - photography gear wise. Now I just need something to shoot!
there's one thing the D500 is perfect at
paired with the 500pf in Florida it's such a delight to shoot BIF, and with Group AF it seems to never miss

the key is Florida and ISOs near 100
 
Joined
May 5, 2005
Messages
21,659
Location
SW Virginia
Yeah well the charts also say that the D500 is cleaner than the D4 up to ISO6400. Guess which one I left home when I went to Katmai NP for 10 days ;)
Au contraire...

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
 
Joined
May 5, 2005
Messages
21,659
Location
SW Virginia
Charts and electronically measurable things do not always align with actual results.
I haven't owned a huge range of cameras, but my experience has always been quite consistent with Bill Claff's measurements.

Added in edit: the chart I posted above shows a 1-stop advantage for the D4.
 
Joined
Feb 17, 2008
Messages
2,572
Location
Virginia Beach, Virginia USA
Real Name
Bill Mellen
Bill Claff’s charts are precise.

Years ago. I did a lot of radiation dosimetery with film. Densitometers against step wedge images revealed that it was possible to see differences not measured by the instruments. Yet the results were consistent.

What the machine reads is not always what we are looking at. Of course the machine readings are the only ones that are reasonably repeatable.

The D4 images have less noise than the D500 at the same ISO to my eye. :)
 
Joined
Jan 2, 2009
Messages
4,750
Location
Alaska
I haven't owned a huge range of cameras, but my experience has always been quite consistent with Bill Claff's measurements.

Added in edit: the chart I posted above shows a 1-stop advantage for the D4.
The chart you posted is for dynamic range(DR). I thought the discussion was about noise. Well at least that's what I mean when I talk about one being "cleaner" than the other. The relevant charts are Read Noise expressed in DN(not DR).

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
 
Joined
Feb 17, 2008
Messages
2,572
Location
Virginia Beach, Virginia USA
Real Name
Bill Mellen
Yes, they look close on the chart. But when processed using Capture NX-D, LightRoom or DxO optics pro, they do not seem that close to my eye.

Also if you look at the bottom of the page you will see Bill Claff’s table listing the low light ISO value for the D4 at 4494 and the D500 at 2557. The D4 is about 2/3 of a stop better from that table.
 
Last edited:
Joined
May 5, 2005
Messages
21,659
Location
SW Virginia
The chart you posted is for dynamic range(DR). I thought the discussion was about noise. Well at least that's what I mean when I talk about one being "cleaner" than the other. The relevant charts are Read Noise expressed in DN(not DR).

View attachment 1632070
Dynamic range is determined by the signal to noise ratio, which I think is more relevant to what we perceive in our images.
 
Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Nikon Cafe is a fan site and not associated with Nikon Corporation.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Copyright © 2005-2019 Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom