Nikon D4 samples with 100% ISO 12800 crops

http://www.alinpopescu​.eu …sare-nikon-d4-in-romania/

Looks pretty good. Can't wait for some side by side comparisons once it is released.

Seems to be that same as a d3s in noise handling... not too impressed now.

Getting the same noise performance of the d3S at the pixel level with improved detail with the increase in resolution is still pretty good. probably wouldn't compel me to upgrade from a d3s but canon doesn't have anything released that can match it yet. Have to wait for some 1dx samples. I hear the improvement in noise with the 1dx isn't raw, but with in camera jpg. I wonder how many stops of noise improvement is with raw.

Apparently the D4 is approximately 1 stop better in terms of ISO quality. than the D3s

Please define that for me. Sounds like marketing speak.

You'd have to listen to the Fro knows photo guy (if you can bare it as he personally drives me nut's)

http://www.youtube.com …U&feature=playe​r_embedded

jase1125 wrote in post #13659808
Please define that for me. Sounds like marketing speak.

Well it kinda is marketing speak until some current/former D3S owners try out the D4 like Jarid Polion (as an example) and do comparison shots (I'm sure there is some kind of NDA given to certain photographers who are itching to give their reviews about the new toys they got to play with).

Its kinda like when they announced the 70-200 IS 2.8 MK II and they made claims about the image stabilizer being new and improved. Or when the 5D mk II was announced and it's low light capabilities were mentioned. Until people finally got to take them out on a real world test and show samples.

I'm kinda excited to see what comes in the next few weeks for all Camera manufacturers.

12800, flat colours and nasty.

jase1125 wrote in post #13659808
Please define that for me. Sounds like marketing speak.

It means that 6400 in the new camera is like 3200 in the old one. Pretty simple actually.

elrey2375 wrote in post #13671734
It means that 6400 in the new camera is like 3200 in the old one. Pretty simple actually.

That is not the typical wording used when a manufacturer improves high ISO performance by one stop. Hence, my question on what Nikon is really stating.

High ISO noise isn't simply noise alone though. For starters you have luminance noise and color noise. Color noise is much nicer to work with / get rid off (even manually, with little or no effort in LAB mode). Luminance noise can ruin your shot or make you lose details when treated too aggressively.

Another aspect is how the raw files handle noise reduction.
If I take a shot at ISO 3200 with my 5D, it looks horrible (sooc).
If I take the same shot with my 40D, it also looks horrible, and about equal to the 5D file at first glance.

If I then proceed to do some advanced noise reduction on the 5D file (like noise ninja), it ends up a pretty decent looking file, with virtually no noise and still plenty of details (of course much less than at iso 1600 which is quite good).
If I do the same to my 40D files, they become smudged and ugly compared to the 5D files.

Concluding, some raw files are more susceptible to good noise reduction, in spite of how the files are originally represented. For that same reason I'm not always impressed by noise comparisons in reviews.
I also don't care about their built-in noise reduction algorithms (no matter how good) when shooting jpeg, simply because I never shoot jpeg.

^^^
I have found in my experience so far, that FF camera's remain sharp at high ISO but just have allot of noise obviously, but crop sensors tend to go blurry, I assume even with the NR turned off in the menu, that the camera still uses some NR when processing the raw data.

RhysPhotograph.Me wrote in post #13672584
^^^
I have found in my experience so far, that FF camera's remain sharp at high ISO but just have allot of noise obviously, but crop sensors tend to go blurry, I assume even with the NR turned off in the menu, that the camera still uses some NR when processing the raw data.

The latter could be the case, especially and most obvious with things like long exposure noise reduction (= dark frame substraction), but technically speaking, the camera should not do any processing to the raw file, that's what DPP/lightroom/capture one/bibble etc are for).

I also suspect that the same difference that's so apparent between my 5D and 40D also exists in a certain degree between different full frame bodies. That could mean an older or newer body has more potential for cleaner files.

I personally was not that impressed with the amount of noise in the 12800 shots...

Lets hope the 1dx does better.