Camera for low light

[Telscossie]

Hi I am looking for a secondhand Nikon DSLR for low light wildlife photograph I currently use D500 with my 500mm pf but obviously with low light I have to bump the ISO up which results in grainy shots so any recommendations would be helpful , I was thinking of the D4s or D850 or Anything similar . Thanks

 

[DRwyoming]

I was thinking of the D4s or D850 or Anything similar

Both good choices and I'd add a D5/D6 to that list if it's in the budget.

Just know that the low light performance of any of these full frame bodies hinges on being able to fill the FX frame. Once you start heavy cropping to get back to the kind of subject size in frame you get with your D500 the low light advantage of full frame bodies evaporates. But if you can achieve the kind of subject size you're after on the larger FX sensor then any of the cameras listed will be good low light performers and give you a substantial edge over your D500.

FWIW, I currently shoot with a D5, D850 and D500. The D5 is my go-to for low light shooting. The D850 is great when light is somewhat low and I'm not sure if I'll have to crop but when light levels really drop I reach for the D5 every time. The D4/D4s would also be a good choice for low light shooting but the same caveat applies in terms of avoiding heavy crops if you want to get the most out of it in terms of low light performance.

 

[Calson]

Cropping is the concern with the D5 that in DX mode is a 8.9MP camera. The D850 sacrifices the least at 19MP in DX mode or when a full frame image is cropped to this extent. Having owned a number of cameras with ISO problems, like the D2x trhat was usable only up to ISO 640, I had become overly cautious about using ISO settings greater than 3200 with subsequent cameras. With the D1x and D2x I had to become expert at using noise reduction applications and even then with chroma noise the results often still would end up in the trash can.

When I did a test of the D3 camera I found that I could recover and get a higher quality image with a +1 EV overexposure than I could with a -1 EV underexposure. With the new generation of sensors and processors it is usually the opposite and one can increase the EV in post with likely success. Even if one needs to use a NR application that should not be a concern. Periodically I will download trial versions of NR apps and install them and use them to process an image that will show any degradation in tonal range and degradation or loss of details. To download, install, and use 4 apps on an image file takes me less than an hour to accomplish. I evaluate how well each app does in Auto mode and also which one produces the best image with manual operation of the sliders. I put far more emphasis on how well the app preserves tonal range and avoids compression which turns a Raw file into one that may as well been captured as a JPG file.

In terms of minimal noise with low light capture the D780 should not be overlooked. With its 24MP sensor it produces very little noise at very high ISO settings and no need to invest in EN-EL18 batteries and XQD cards. The D780 has a sensor that makes use of the BSI sensor design first employed with the D850 and provides greater dynamic range as a result. The D780 can also be controlled remotely with a smartphone with no additional hardware needed. And you can buy 3 of these cameras for the cost of a single D6.

 

[ruley74]

I'm considering a better low light camera also. When you fill the frame on the D850 it's reasonable but as soon as you crop it's not really any better than the D500.

I'm curious how the Z6 compares to others in low light, if the Z6II is any good i think that's where i'll head... then i'll have a camera for the 200-600 Z mount when id comes

 

[Capturingtheunseen.com]

My friends who own the D850 tell me it is definitely not a low-light camera. I own a D4 as well as a D500, and any of the pro models are much better in low light conditions.

 

[DRwyoming]

I'm curious how the Z6 compares to others in low light,

The Z6 is a very good low light camera.

Here's how it compares to the D850 and Z7 in terms of 18% SINR and Dynamic Range according to DXOMark:

Basically it's a bit better in terms of 18% SINR across its ISO range and noticeably better above ISO 400 in Dynamic Range terms than a couple of good low light cameras.

Here's how the Z6 compares to the D5 which is an excellent low light camera:

Basically a bit better in terms of 18% SINR and noticeably better at low ISOs than the D5 yet pretty much identical at high ISOs in terms of DR.

Bottom line, the Z6's sensor is a pretty good choice for low light shooting.

 

[Woodpecker]

Hi I am looking for a secondhand Nikon DSLR for low light wildlife photograph I currently use D500 with my 500mm pf but obviously with low light I have to bump the ISO up which results in grainy shots so any recommendations would be helpful , I was thinking of the D4s or D850 or Anything similar . Thanks

Interesting that you put the D850 and the D4S side by side here. Some people might consider this as being offensive .

There are a couple of threads here in the meamtime that dealt with your question - directly or indirectly, e.g.

D4 yes/no
D4 to D5, Back to D4
D850 vs. D5

Taking a look will tell, that the D4S can definitely be a good idea, if you look at low light capability, but only if you can live with other drawbacks like resolution or modern features like focus stacking or enhanced video capability.

All I can say I just sold one of my D750 and replaced it with a D4S as my prime camera sitting on the long lens for wildlife because of burst rate, buffer and low light tolerance.
But I am in the lucky position to be able to choose the camera depending on what I want to do. If you look for working with one camera - or one type of camera - the decision cn be more demanding as you might have to make a compromise - or two.

Just a few things relating to the threads mentioned above.

• Providing the camera is not too old from the in-camera computing technology the the pixel size is still the prime criteria for low light tolerance. It is just physics.
  The effects might be partly coverable by more advance in-camera software, but it can't be completely compensated unless you can take use of a totally new sensor technology.
• High resolution gives magnificant potential for capturing detail - and for cropping in case you can't fill the frame (sorry @Steve). But it requires decreasing pixel size and this again works against low light tolerance. Also with higher resolution your entire system becomes more sensitive to motion blur in the sense of making it visible. @Steve has provided an excellent explanation in one of his ebooks which proved itself to be true for me right when comparing the behaviour of my cameras (16,6 MP FX vs. 24,3 MP FX, 24 MP DX)
• I forgot about that one in the past as well, but buffer and burst rate can save your a... and since I am able to shoot with 11 fps if needed I know what @Steve meant when he said something like having the choice to get the perfect moment.
• The follow-up investments should not be forgotten. There are many people out there whose computer, storage and backup system will start to wave the white flag when it comes to storing and processing considerable amounts of 45 MPixel raw files.

I might be a good idea to work your way back, finding out kind of resolution you really need for what you want to do and then look from there for the camera that suits your other needs most like low light tolerance. Assuming that you want to spend as little time as possible with post processing the first step is always to avoid creating noise in your images in the first place.

Currently I am on the move from one processing software to another and from the tests I was doing it is not only the amount of noise that varies from camera to camera, it is also the kind of noise, where one is easier to get rid off as the other.

 

[Ken Miracle]

Interesting that you put the D850 and the D4S side by side here. Some people might consider this as being offensive .

There are a couple of threads here in the meamtime that dealt with your question - directly or indirectly, e.g.

D4 yes/no
D4 to D5, Back to D4
D850 vs. D5

Taking a look will tell, that the D4S can definitely be a good idea, if you look at low light capability, but only if you can live with other drawbacks like resolution or modern features like focus stacking or enhanced video capability.

All I can say I just sold one of my D750 and replaced it with a D4S as my prime camera sitting on the long lens for wildlife because of burst rate, buffer and low light tolerance.
But I am in the lucky position to be able to choose the camera depending on what I want to do. If you look for working with one camera - or one type of camera - the decision cn be more demanding as you might have to make a compromise - or two.

Just a few things relating to the threads mentioned above.

• Providing the camera is not too old from the in-camera computing technology the the pixel size is still the prime criteria for low light tolerance. It is just physics.
  The effects might be partly coverable by more advance in-camera software, but it can't be completely compensated unless you can take use of a totally new sensor technology.
• High resolution gives magnificant potential for capturing detail - and for cropping in case you can't fill the frame (sorry @Steve). But it requires decreasing pixel size and this again works against low light tolerance. Also with higher resolution your entire system becomes more sensitive to motion blur in the sense of making it visible. @Steve has provided an excellent explanation in one of his ebooks which proved itself to be true for me right when comparing the behaviour of my cameras (16,6 MP FX vs. 24,3 MP FX, 24 MP DX)
• I forgot about that one in the past as well, but buffer and burst rate can save your a... and since I am able to shoot with 11 fps if needed I know what @Steve meant when he said something like having the choice to get the perfect moment.
• The follow-up investments should not be forgotten. There are many people out there whose computer, storage and backup system will start to wave the white flag when it comes to storing and processing considerable amounts of 45 MPixel raw files.

I might be a good idea to work your way back, finding out kind of resolution you really need for what you want to do and then look from there for the camera that suits your other needs most like low light tolerance. Assuming that you want to spend as little time as possible with post processing the first step is always to avoid creating noise in your images in the first place.

Currently I am on the move from one processing software to another and from the tests I was doing it is not only the amount of noise that varies from camera to camera, it is also the kind of noise, where one is easier to get rid off as the other.

I resemble several of your comments. I had a D4s and a D500 and in a compulsive moment chasing the dynamic range of the D850 I sold the D4s and bought a D850 a great camera but a real storage hog. When I look back at the ISO levels that my old D4s performed at very admirably in low light I am still very impressed. The D850 comes close but still not as good. Bottom line I would love to have my D4s back I am going to take a hard look at the Z6 II but my well hold out and see what the rumored Z9 is like next year. In the meantime the D500 and D850 still works great.

 

[Woodpecker]

I resemble several of your comments. I had a D4s and a D500 and in a compulsive moment chasing the dynamic range of the D850 I sold the D4s and bought a D850 a great camera but a real storage hog. When I look back at the ISO levels that my old D4s performed at very admirably in low light I am still very impressed. The D850 comes close but still not as good. Bottom line I would love to have my D4s back I am going to take a hard look at the Z6 II but my well hold out and see what the rumored Z9 is like next year. In the meantime the D500 and D850 still works great.

That's really interesting to hear - sorry, read - and considering that from sensor perspective there are 5 years between the D850 and the D4S (the camera itself was introduced 2014 but the D4 that has the same sensor was introduced 2012). IMHO this shows again how much you can do with pixel size in terms of Hi ISO tolerance. And at the same time it is impressive to see that they are able to create a 45,x MPixel sensor getting near to the low light performance of a 16,x MPixel sensor with its huge pixels.
It would be a nice experiment to mix both and run the D4s sensor with todays processors and software behind it.

On the other hand with the old workhorse you have to live with very small headroom for cropping.

Of course it would be nice to have some of the features of the D850, but as you say it's a storage hog and most of my processing system and storage would just start to wave white flags when coming along with heaps of 40MB+ shots . Because I am not a pro requiring this level of resolution there is no point for me to get one. But you confirmed to me what I thought anyway: Whatever I have to sell to get the money for the next camera, it will definitely not be the D4s . It is relatively old and it is loud - just as a Shelby Mustang -, but it is still bloody fast and makes me happy - just as a Shelby Mustang ... would, because for the budget f a new D6 you probably wouldn't even be able to buy half the engine .