D500 Noise

[photogramps]

My D500 went back to Nikon today, mainly for the poor battery capacity but also because I am generally unhappy with the noise over around ISO 640 ... someone called it the 'coal dust effect', which describes it quite well. I have no idea whether the two problems are connected due maybe to some internal fault but hopefully with Nikon taking it in for repair one, if not both, of these problems can be resolved.
Noise in my D500 stands in stark contrast to the D7200 I had and which I have been regretting selling, except for the AF.

 

[Tim Robinson]

I've seen clean 6400 shots but I've been burned on 1600 shots so I avoid it
At the size posted your shots look clean but the black BG is helping a lot

Agreed on the background, and this type of shooting a certain amount of noise is tolerable. Plus I do try and skim that fine edge in post of removing as much noise as I can without detracting too much from the image. That helps some.

 

[Nancy Elwood]

I have been happy with the D500 up to about iso 3200. This rufous-tailed hummingbird was taken in Costa Rica with the Nikon D500 and Nikon 70-200 f/4, G, VR lens with the Nikon 1.4E III TC at iso 3200. But, every once an awhile I have to push it because of time and the moment. The Barred Owl pair was shot at iso 5000, D500 with the Nikon 500 f/4E, FL, VR lens. I would have normally gone for my D810 for the shot presented itself and no time to get it. I always shoot with exposing to the right with the histogram, always. I would rather bring down the brightness in post then trying to bring up the shadows, which will always bring out the noise. This is what I teach to all my clients. I use Nik Define with the background if needed.

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

 

[photogramps]

I have been happy with the D500 up to about iso 3200. This rufous-tailed hummingbird was taken in Costa Rica with the Nikon D500 and Nikon 70-200 f/4, G, VR lens with the Nikon 1.4E III TC at iso 3200. But, every once an awhile I have to push it because of time and the moment. The Barred Owl pair was shot at iso 5000, D500 with the Nikon 500 f/4E, FL, VR lens. I would have normally gone for my D810 for the shot presented itself and no time to get it. I always shoot with exposing to the right with the histogram, always. I would rather bring down the brightness in post then trying to bring up the shadows, which will always bring out the noise. This is what I teach to all my clients. I use Nik Define with the background if needed.
View attachment 1583533 View attachment 1583534

Two fine shots there.
I do get some good shots without the excess noise but not with the regularity that I had with the D7200 and some days I just can't get anything that I am happy with, that never happened with the D7200. I hope it can at least partly be explained by the power problem with my D500 and that Nikon can resolve.

 

[dgwhitham]

Friday night, I shot at the darkest field I ever had the displeasure of shooting at. Since I bought the D500 about a month ago, this is the first time I ever really pushed the ISO

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

ISO 25600 | ƒ/2.8 | 1/800 with the 70-200 VRII

 

[photogramps]

Friday night, I shot at the darkest field I ever had the displeasure of shooting at. Since I bought the D500 about a month ago, this is the first time I ever really pushed the ISO

View attachment 1585420

ISO 25600 | ƒ/2.8 | 1/800 with the 70-200 VRII

Great high ISO example but leaves me in a quandary as I can't get anything as clean as that at anything approaching that ISO on my D500 ... at least up to the time of sending it to the Nikon Service shelf weeks ago.

 

[Palouse]

Friday night, I shot at the darkest field I ever had the displeasure of shooting at. Since I bought the D500 about a month ago, this is the first time I ever really pushed the ISO

View attachment 1585420

ISO 25600 | ƒ/2.8 | 1/800 with the 70-200 VRII

Dave, what processing did you use? Any noise reduction?

 

[Mike Irish]

Friday night, I shot at the darkest field I ever had the displeasure of shooting at. Since I bought the D500 about a month ago, this is the first time I ever really pushed the ISO

View attachment 1585420

ISO 25600 | ƒ/2.8 | 1/800 with the 70-200 VRII

Hi Dave. This looks very good and much better than what I have ever achieved with my D500. I don't like to push my D500 above ISO 1600. I look at the images at 100% and I don't like what I see! hoe are you processing the images/ LR /PS? What are your images taken at ISO 25600 like when enlarged to 100%!! It's very hard to make any judgment on the quality of images posted at lest than full size?
Cheers.
Mike

 

[dgwhitham]

I have been struggling with noise reduction, because the type of noise generated by the D500 is different than anything I had experienced before. After a bunch of searching, I applied noise reduction in Photoshop CC Camera Raw, and used the following settings:

Luminance:67
Luminance Detail: 50
Luminance Contrast: 25
Color: 25
Color Detail: 50
Color Smoothness: 25

This was an extreme example, because the lighting on this field was the worst that I ever experienced. I'm going to be shooting a volleyball game tonight in a different venue that I think I can get away with ISO 10000, and I'll see what I can come up with then. I'm still very new to this camera, and I hope I can get better results in the future.

 

[Mike Irish]

I have been struggling with noise reduction, because the type of noise generated by the D500 is different than anything I had experienced before. After a bunch of searching, I applied noise reduction in Photoshop CC Camera Raw, and used the following settings:

Luminance:67
Luminance Detail: 50
Luminance Contrast: 25
Color: 25
Color Detail: 50
Color Smoothness: 25

This was an extreme example, because the lighting on this field was the worst that I ever experienced. I'm going to be shooting a volleyball game tonight in a different venue that I think I can get away with ISO 10000, and I'll see what I can come up with then. I'm still very new to this camera, and I hope I can get better results in the future.

Thank you Dave for sharing you experience with this camera. I will give your settings a try and see if they can improve the noise issues that I am experiencing with the D500. Its a wonderful camera with very fast focusing but I find it hard to except the level of noise I get when shooting at of above 1600 ISO? I am hoping that I see a massive improvement with the New D850 in this regard?
Cheers.
Mike

 

[Palouse]

Thanks Dave.

 

[Ann_JS]

Under-exposure is the primary cause of unpleasant and obtrusive Noise.
Always shooting RAW, and customising the exposure meters themselves, has proved to be the best way that I know to avoid under-exposure in Nikon.

I dislike the smearing of Detail which Luminance Noise Reduction produces so I mostly leave it set at zero until I am shooting at 25,600 ISO or higher. And I don't like the halos from USM sharpening either.

At the 50% position in the Details slider you are getting an equal share of USM and Deconvolution Sharpening: think of that Slider as a Mixer-faucet.
Slide to the left for a greater proportion of USM; and to the right for the other kind.

I always set mine above the mid-point and frequently around the 85% mark for detailed subjects although I will reduce the Amount and increase the Radius for smooth subjects like female portraits or metallic objects..

I also question why anyone worries about the level of Luminance Noise which is visible at 100% magnification.
Are you actually planning to print at the full 100% image size? And what will then be the viewing distance if you did?
And if you are publishing on the Web, you will probably be down-sizing the image to less than 20% of its original size!

 

[ButlerKid]

Under-exposure is the primary cause of unpleasant and obtrusive Noise.
Always shooting RAW, and customising the exposure meters themselves, has proved to be the best way that I know to avoid under-exposure in Nikon.

I dislike the smearing of Detail which Luminance Noise Reduction produces so I mostly leave it set at zero until I am shooting at 25,600 ISO or higher. And I don't like the halos from USM sharpening either.

At the 50% position in the Details slider you are getting an equal share of USM and Deconvolution Sharpening: think of that Slider as a Mixer-faucet.
Slide to the left for a greater proportion of USM; and to the right for the other kind.

I always set mine above the mid-point and frequently around the 85% mark for detailed subjects although I will reduce the Amount and increase the Radius for smooth subjects like female portraits or metallic objects..

I also question why anyone worries about the level of Luminance Noise which is visible at 100% magnification.
Are you actually planning to print at the full 100% image size? And what will then be the viewing distance if you did?
And if you are publishing on the Web, you will probably be down-sizing the image to less than 20% of its original size!

Ann, I agree with you regarding the D5. However, this discussion is about the D500 and it is a different beast altogether. I recently shot the D500 in so-so light with images slightly over-exposed. No cropping. The noise is TERRIBLE! I suggest you try shooting the D500 at ISO's higher than 1,600 and then let us know what you think. LOL!

 

[Ann_JS]

I have no way of getting my hands on the D500 at the moment but perhaps I can shoot a few frames with with yours in Costa Rica to test what may be possible with that camera ?

However, I do suggest that people who are finding Luminance Noise unacceptable, might wish to re-examine their images at the intended Output size and see if it still bothers them; and might also move away from using USM as well.

 

[8346]

Dave, thanks a lot. I'll try those too.

 

[TonyW]

I own neither D5 or D500 so no horse to back if there is a race. Without comparing images of the same subject in the same lighting conditions comparisons are fraught with the potential for misinterpretation of resulting data. Not suggesting that this is the case here but just food for thought!

I do however find the notion of noise and comparison between the two cameras to be at odds with what I have seen (limited) and believe to be the case with these cameras. Bottom line is that there seems to be a very similar noise signature between the two cameras set apart by only one stop!

Example attached D5 @ ISO 12,800 compared to D500 @ ISO 12,800 and 6,400. The inset represents print size at 300 ppi. This appears to confirm the one stop difference with the D500 at ISO 6400 matching the characteristics of the D5 at 12800. Other ISO seem to be very similar. As already suggested it is possible that underexposure has affected noise and this coupled with the way that raw converters may apply base line offsets to exposure and screen presentation may go some way to explaining why some are seeing bothersome noise

Bear in mind the perception of noise will be changed by your monitor resolution intended output size and medium. Looking at a 100% view in PS or LR on the average resolution monitor will display an image 300% size of a print (most Canon/HP/Fuji printers ). As viewing distance seems to be irrelevant for photographers (get as close as your nose or belly allows - men only of course ) with the suggested 1.5 - 2.0x print diagonal always ignored you must make a print or section to judge the qualities of Noise reduction, Sharpening etc

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

 

[nuclearjock]

Thank you Dave for sharing you experience with this camera. I will give your settings a try and see if they can improve the noise issues that I am experiencing with the D500. Its a wonderful camera with very fast focusing but I find it hard to except the level of noise I get when shooting at of above 1600 ISO? I am hoping that I see a massive improvement with the New D850 in this regard?
Cheers.
Mike

The iso 3200 samples I've seen from the D850 sadly do not look promising. Ill know more when my camera arrives.

 

[Mike Irish]

The iso 3200 samples I've seen from the D850 sadly do not look promising. Ill know more when my camera arrives.

Hi Rick. I don't know if you have the D500! but I am very disappointed in the quality of the images at ISO1600 and above. I am holding off on the D850 until I see real time images form people I know and trust.
Mike

 

[Pa]

I own neither D5 or D500 so no horse to back if there is a race. Without comparing images of the same subject in the same lighting conditions comparisons are fraught with the potential for misinterpretation of resulting data. Not suggesting that this is the case here but just food for thought!

I do however find the notion of noise and comparison between the two cameras to be at odds with what I have seen (limited) and believe to be the case with these cameras. Bottom line is that there seems to be a very similar noise signature between the two cameras set apart by only one stop!

Example attached D5 @ ISO 12,800 compared to D500 @ ISO 12,800 and 6,400. The inset represents print size at 300 ppi. This appears to confirm the one stop difference with the D500 at ISO 6400 matching the characteristics of the D5 at 12800. Other ISO seem to be very similar. As already suggested it is possible that underexposure has affected noise and this coupled with the way that raw converters may apply base line offsets to exposure and screen presentation may go some way to explaining why some are seeing bothersome noise

Bear in mind the perception of noise will be changed by your monitor resolution intended output size and medium. Looking at a 100% view in PS or LR on the average resolution monitor will display an image 300% size of a print (most Canon/HP/Fuji printers ). As viewing distance seems to be irrelevant for photographers (get as close as your nose or belly allows - men only of course ) with the suggested 1.5 - 2.0x print diagonal always ignored you must make a print or section to judge the qualities of Noise reduction, Sharpening etc

View attachment 1585448

Where did you find these comparisons, Tony?

 

[BillM]

If our impression of noise is based on viewing an image at 100% on a ~90 pixels per inch or less monitor then we may easily be convinced that the noise is horrid. However if we view at 218 pixels per inch or more on a higher resolution monitor, then we may very well have a more favorable opinion.

To me, the color fidelity and resolution at ISO values over 1600 is more important than noise that becomes visible when magnified to extremes.