Z9 & HIGHEST USABLE ISO

[Lance B]

I meant to include this shot of a Scaly-breasted Lorikeet. Click on image to see full size.

Z9 + 500 f5.6 PF + 1.4x TCIII, 1/500s f/8.0 at 700.0mm iso7200

Capture One 22 and Topaz Denoise.

 

[PAUL50]

I meant to include this shot of a Scaly-breasted Lorikeet. Click on image to see full size.

Z9 + 500 f5.6 PF + 1.4x TCIII, 1/500s f/8.0 at 700.0mm iso7200

Capture One 22 and Topaz Denoise.

Great shot. I'm convinced!

 

[Lance B]

Great shot. I'm convinced!

Thank you very much, Paul!

 

[Pam Jensen]

Has anyone tested the Nikon Z9 to determine their highest usable ISO for printable photos in FX and DX modes? I’m assuming reasonable crops just to frame the subject and proper exposure (not under exposing to protect highlights) and taking into consideration use of programs like Topaz Denoise. I’ve been using a maximum ISO of 6500. My experience has been that I can get a reasonable image at ISO 6500 but definitely lose detail. I’m wondering what others are using for their maximum ISO.

I shoot sports for newspaper- I go to 25600. No additional post processing and I do crop.

 

[Pam Jensen]

I shoot sports for newspaper(print and online galleries). I’ll push ISO to 25600 w/ a 70-200, no additional post processing (no time). I’ll crop in camera and or in post if need be. Not ideal but it’s necessary given the situation at the time.

 

[PAUL50]

I shoot sports for newspaper- I go to 25600. No additional post processing and I do crop.

Thanks for the information. Based on similar comments from others, I’ve reset the auto ISO to 25,600 and I’m experimenting with that and varying shutter speeds.

 

[Calson]

As was mentioned the level of noise that is present and is tolerable depends entirely on the subject. A bird has no areas of graduated tones as one finds with a sea lion or a person's facee. Reds and Purples show chroma noise to the greatest extent so a photo of a red cardinal or a hyacinth macaw are likely to exhibit more chroma noise then photos of a green or yellow feathered bird shot at the same ISO and with the same color temp light source.

When I was photographing people I would test my cameras using dark skinned individuals wearing red or purple clothing and using fluorescent light for illumination. This was my acid test for max ISO. With my D2x the max ISO was 640 and with the D3 it jumped to ISO 3200. Even the D7200 produced usable images up to ISAO 6400 which impressed me a great deal.

With NR applications I periodically download the top 3 and then take a image of a face and crop the image to be 4x5 inches at 240 dpi. I use each of the NR apps on this image and for the fourth image I would use Photoshop and process it manually. It take me an hour to download the 3 NR applications and install them and to process the image with each of them. I then put each on a separate layer of an 8x10 inch image so one 4x5 image occupies one quadrant. This makes it easy to see which NR app preserves tonal variation in the skin and details in the eyes and eyelashes. Photoshop manual NR is as good as the other apps but when processing hundreds of images I want the next best NR using Auto to process the noise in the files. The last time I did this I decided to switch from DFine to DeNoise.

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

 

[O]

Has anyone tested the Nikon Z9 to determine their highest usable ISO for printable photos in FX and DX modes? I’m assuming reasonable crops just to frame the subject and proper exposure (not under exposing to protect highlights) and taking into consideration use of programs like Topaz Denoise. I’ve been using a maximum ISO of 6500. My experience has been that I can get a reasonable image at ISO 6500 but definitely lose detail. I’m wondering what others are using for their maximum ISO.

I find the D850 Z9 both are very usable to 12800, ideally 6400 if your cropping is still very good.
I feel iso performance varies largely on the application and the lens your using.
I feel up sampling or down sampling a 16mp image to say a 45mp is irrelevant its what you see that matters.

That said there is no substitute for large pixels, its mathematics, however given that the newer sensors are vastly more sensitive to light and processing has improved significantly, the results out of a 45 mp camera today is quite impressive but gee whiz.....despite this the 12 mp, 16mp 20mp really pulls in the light.......

I notice with my silver DF while its only 16mp full frame with the D4 sensor in a D600 caucus with a retro top, the brown Italian hand made leather half case and strap that looks brilliant the case also makes the pictures look better as well LOL, .............but gee it delivers in low light with a 50 mm 1.4 D, or even better with a 50mm 1.4 Ziess especially wide open its tack sharp which Ziess glass is known for..als very low noise by comparison.

Iso performance is better than the Z9 or D850 visual image wise. Colour retention at very high iso is slightly better on the Z9 D850

ISO is a greatly variable thing at times and again depends on what and where your shooting, one minute you have stunning images at 12,800 iso next in another application its not quite so good.

Overall, between 6400 and 12800 is very usable in most applications.

 

[Marion Anstis]

There are many variables to consider and one of those is what you consider acceptable.

I've been very happy with the high ISO results from the Z9, certainly no worse then the D850 or Z7II. Run through with Topaz, the results are very acceptable, IMO.

Z9 + 500 f5.6 PF + 1.4x TCIII, 1/500s f/8.0 at 700.0mm iso11400

Z9 + 500 f5.6 PF + 1.4x TCIII, 1/320s f/8.0 at 700.0mm iso9000

Z9 + 500 f5.6 PF, 1/125s f/5.6 at 500.0mm iso7200

Lovely detail in these Lance!

 

[PAUL50]

I find the D850 Z9 both are very usable to 12800, ideally 6400 if your cropping is still very good.
I feel iso performance varies largely on the application and the lens your using.
I feel up sampling or down sampling a 16mp image to say a 45mp is irrelevant its what you see that matters.

That said there is no substitute for large pixels, its mathematics, however given that the newer sensors are vastly more sensitive to light and processing has improved significantly, the results out of a 45 mp camera today is quite impressive but gee whiz.....despite this the 12 mp, 16mp 20mp really pulls in the light.......

I notice with my silver DF while its only 16mp full frame with the D4 sensor in a D600 caucus with a retro top, the brown Italian hand made leather half case and strap that looks brilliant the case also makes the pictures look better as well LOL, .............but gee it delivers in low light with a 50 mm 1.4 D, or even better with a 50mm 1.4 Ziess especially wide open its tack sharp which Ziess glass is known for..als very low noise by comparison.

Iso performance is better than the Z9 or D850 visual image wise. Colour retention at very high iso is slightly better on the Z9 D850

ISO is a greatly variable thing at times and again depends on what and where your shooting, one minute you have stunning images at 12,800 iso next in another application its not quite so good.

Overall, between 6400 and 12800 is very usable in most applications.

Thanks for the information, much appreciated.

 

[PAUL50]

As was mentioned the level of noise that is present and is tolerable depends entirely on the subject. A bird has no areas of graduated tones as one finds with a sea lion or a person's facee. Reds and Purples show chroma noise to the greatest extent so a photo of a red cardinal or a hyacinth macaw are likely to exhibit more chroma noise then photos of a green or yellow feathered bird shot at the same ISO and with the same color temp light source.

When I was photographing people I would test my cameras using dark skinned individuals wearing red or purple clothing and using fluorescent light for illumination. This was my acid test for max ISO. With my D2x the max ISO was 640 and with the D3 it jumped to ISO 3200. Even the D7200 produced usable images up to ISAO 6400 which impressed me a great deal.

With NR applications I periodically download the top 3 and then take a image of a face and crop the image to be 4x5 inches at 240 dpi. I use each of the NR apps on this image and for the fourth image I would use Photoshop and process it manually. It take me an hour to download the 3 NR applications and install them and to process the image with each of them. I then put each on a separate layer of an 8x10 inch image so one 4x5 image occupies one quadrant. This makes it easy to see which NR app preserves tonal variation in the skin and details in the eyes and eyelashes. Photoshop manual NR is as good as the other apps but when processing hundreds of images I want the next best NR using Auto to process the noise in the files. The last time I did this I decided to switch from DFine to DeNoise.

View attachment 37669

Thanks, appreciate the information.

 

[Roy]

Has anyone tested the Nikon Z9 to determine their highest usable ISO for printable photos in FX and DX modes? I’m assuming reasonable crops just to frame the subject and proper exposure (not under exposing to protect highlights) and taking into consideration use of programs like Topaz Denoise. I’ve been using a maximum ISO of 6500. My experience has been that I can get a reasonable image at ISO 6500 but definitely lose detail. I’m wondering what others are using for their maximum ISO.

The Z9 has surprisingly seems to have very good high iso/low noise for a fairly large megapixel camera...

 

[Lance B]

Lovely detail in these Lance!

Thank you very much, Marion!

 

[O]

I meant to include this shot of a Scaly-breasted Lorikeet. Click on image to see full size.

Z9 + 500 f5.6 PF + 1.4x TCIII, 1/500s f/8.0 at 700.0mm iso7200

Capture One 22 and Topaz Denoise.

Nice

 

[Lance B]

Nice

Thank you very much!

 

[O]

Thank you very much!

Had a look at your Fliker gallery, some really top shots, love the video of the Koala eating gum leaves, amazing as its chewing the crown of its head is moving, amazing.
The D810 on the 400 2.8 is spectacular.
Out of all the glass you used 400 2.8, 500 pf 100-400 which is the absolute keeper for you if you had to choose one lens only.

 

[Lance B]

Had a look at your Fliker gallery, some really top shots, love the video of the Koala eating gum leaves, amazing as its chewing the crown of its head is moving, amazing.
The D810 on the 400 2.8 is spectacular.
Out of all the glass you used 400 2.8, 500 pf 100-400 which is the absolute keeper for you if you had to choose one lens only.

Thank you very much for looking at my gallery and taking the time to come back with your very kind and generous comments. Much appreciated!

It is a very difficult task to say which lens would be the absolute keeper as I would keep them all.

There is no doubt the 400 f2.8E FL VR is just plain stupidly sharp with ridiculously great image quality but it is big and heavy which limits where I can take it as well as the will to take it! It is very versatile in that it accepts all the TC's and the results are all excellent and I can shoot with 400 f2.8 bare, 560mm f4, 680mm f5 and 800mm f5.6. With the Z9, the TC's seem to have a new lease of life as the AF speed is less affected than with my D850 and resolution drop seems to be less also as there are no AF fine tune "issues" even as slight as they were on the D850/D500. I must admit, I am rediscovering how great this lens is on the Z9.

The 500 PF is just simply so light and small which means I can take travel with it. Add the 1.4x TCIII and I have a 700mm f8 and on the Z9 works like a treat. It is an amazing lens considering how small and light it is and the Image Quality is exemplary. A true modern classic for Nikon.

The 100-400 f4.5-5.6 VR S is a brilliant lens, but it is a little short for my birding and the other two lenses do have the very slight edge for sharpness.

So, I would have to say that the 500 PF is the one lens I would choose as it is a more rounded package as I can take it on my travels whereas I cannot with the 400 f2.8 due to it's size and weight. The 100-400 is too short for birding and even though I can add the 1.4x TC it cannot go to 700mm like the 500 PF can unless I use the 2x TC and then it is too slow at f11. As I have the 70-200 f2.8 VR S, then I can use it as a substitute over the 100-400 at the shorter focal lengths and add the 1.4x TC and 2x TC.

 

[O]

Thank you very much for looking at my gallery and taking the time to come back with your very kind and generous comments. Much appreciated!

It is a very difficult task to say which lens would be the absolute keeper as I would keep them all.

There is no doubt the 400 f2.8E FL VR is just plain stupidly sharp with ridiculously great image quality but it is big and heavy which limits where I can take it as well as the will to take it! It is very versatile in that it accepts all the TC's and the results are all excellent and I can shoot with 400 f2.8 bare, 560mm f4, 680mm f5 and 800mm f5.6. With the Z9, the TC's seem to have a new lease of life as the AF speed is less affected than with my D850 and resolution drop seems to be less also as there are no AF fine tune "issues" even as slight as they were on the D850/D500. I must admit, I am rediscovering how great this lens is on the Z9.

The 500 PF is just simply so light and small which means I can take travel with it. Add the 1.4x TCIII and I have a 700mm f8 and on the Z9 works like a treat. It is an amazing lens considering how small and light it is and the Image Quality is exemplary. A true modern classic for Nikon.

The 100-400 f4.5-5.6 VR S is a brilliant lens, but it is a little short for my birding and the other two lenses do have the very slight edge for sharpness.

So, I would have to say that the 500 PF is the one lens I would choose as it is a more rounded package as I can take it on my travels whereas I cannot with the 400 f2.8 due to it's size and weight. The 100-400 is too short for birding and even though I can add the 1.4x TC it cannot go to 700mm like the 500 PF can unless I use the 2x TC and then it is too slow at f11. As I have the 70-200 f2.8 VR S, then I can use it as a substitute over the 100-400 at the shorter focal lengths and add the 1.4x TC and 2x TC.

Thank you for the time to share your experiences, it makes lot of sense.
I have a 300 2.8 VR II and its a great lens, just that bit to heavy to lug around traveling, but like the 400 2.8 i just love the sharpness of the 300 2.8 at 2.8/

Thanks for sharing your experience, your photos speak loud and clear.

 

[PAUL50]

I meant to include this shot of a Scaly-breasted Lorikeet. Click on image to see full size.

Z9 + 500 f5.6 PF + 1.4x TCIII, 1/500s f/8.0 at 700.0mm iso7200

Capture One 22 and Topaz Denoise.

When you exported this great shot into this website, what settings did you use. I frequently find photos that I’ve exported do not appear as sharp as they actually are on my computer. I’d appreciate your advice.

 

[Lance B]

When you exported this great shot into this website, what settings did you use. I frequently find photos that I’ve exported do not appear as sharp as they actually are on my computer. I’d appreciate your advice.

I try to save the jpeg as high as possible with regards to file size without going too large. So, I generally keep the file size at maximum and adjust the file size slider from around 10-12. Depending on the amount of detail in the photo, that could mean anywhere from say 1Mb to even up to 6Mb.

 

[PAUL50]

I try to save the jpeg as high as possible with regards to file size without going too large. So, I generally keep the file size at maximum and adjust the file size slider from around 10-12. Depending on the amount of detail in the photo, that could mean anywhere from say 1Mb to even up to 6Mb.

Thank you.

 

[Lance B]

Thank you for the time to share your experiences, it makes lot of sense.
I have a 300 2.8 VR II and its a great lens, just that bit to heavy to lug around traveling, but like the 400 2.8 i just love the sharpness of the 300 2.8 at 2.8/

Thanks for sharing your experience, your photos speak loud and clear.

I had the 300 f2.8G VRII also and like the 400 f2.8E FL VR, it is a stunnung lens. I had to sell it to help fund the 400 but I would have loved to have kept it. It also worked brilliantly with the TCs.

 

[billklipp]

I often shoot music venues at night on my Z6 at Iso 12,800 (raw) which print u[p very nice. I adjust noise in Lightroom. I would hope the Z9 would as well
Given my Z6 is couple of years old

 

[PAUL50]

I often shoot music venues at night on my Z6 at Iso 12,800 (raw) which print u[p very nice. I adjust noise in Lightroom. I would hope the Z9 would as well
Given my Z6 is couple of years old

Just yesterday I experimented with shots at ISO 12800 and after a trip through Topaz, they came out great, much better than I expected.