Welcome to the forum!

As an adjunct to the Tangents blog, the intention with this forum is to answer any questions, and allow a diverse discussion of topics related photography. With that, see it as an open invitation to just climb in and start threads and to respond to any threads.

Nikon D810 digital noise

SkipperlangeSkipperlange Member
edited August 2016 in Nikon

Hi: I got a new Nikon D810. Took some test photos with some friends. Seems pretty noisy to me. Not sure I like it. What do you all here think? Hope you can tell with these reduced-size images. These were shot at iso 320 & 500. Will get some tomorrow at 200 and made 1000-ish. Thanks for looking. I also have an 800 and that does not seem noisy. Maybe I'm being hyper-critical and it's fine. Not sure.  


  • TrevTrev Moderator
    edited August 2016

    Nope, what you are seeing is clarity/sharpness to the images, and no noise to me, however the images you attached are small, but even then if you go up to 100% on a full res, you probably will 'see something' but images just don't print like that, you are looking at them on a 'pixel level' on a screen, printing them is another thing, but those look great to me. Beautifully sharp.

    At those ISO settings they are perfect.

    Send me a RAW (the one with couple inside house maybe) and I will have a look.

    The one of the couple on the pier, why so high an ISO is my question, and it's an 'odd' ISO (320), Normally I stick to full stop ISO's: 100, 200, 400 800, 1600.


  • Neil vNNeil vN Administrator
    I don't see noise either on these small-sized images. 
    Send me an 800 ISO and a1600 ISO files as well, please.
  • Thanks Trev. Yes, I'll send you that RAW file. Thanks for asking to see it. 

    Not sure why I chose 320 for the outdoor shot. I think I was just ratcheting it back from the 500 I had inside. I probably did not go to 200 or so because I wanted a fairly mid to high aperture since they probably weren't going to be on same plane exactly, plus the dog. And wanted decent shutter speed. Is there a value in full stop ISOs rather than others? Say 400 and 200 better than 320? 

    Yes, I am blowing these up to 100 percent when I view them, large files, both jpegs and RAWs, and looking at noise in foreground (subject) and background. Just seemed noisier than recent pix with the D800. Thanks for your review. 

  • Neil, will do. Thank you very much.  
  • This is a 100 percent magnification crop section of a bowl of tomatoes. @1600 iso.  
  • rs_eosrs_eos Member
    edited September 2016
    Regarding ISO in full stops vs 1/3 stops, it varies so best to conduct an experiement.   During the days of researching camera models, I found some sites stating that one should only ever use full stops.  While that may make sense for some makes/models, it's not an absolute.

    In my case, with a Canon EOS 6D, I found that the in-between settings between full stops worked as-expected (i.e. had less noise than the next higher full stop).  I thus keep my ISO settings to move in 1/3 stop increments.  That gives me fine-grain control.  Sometimes I need to keep the aperture and shutter as-is and just need 1/3 or 2/3 stops.  For that, a small adjustment to ISO is my go-to choice.
  • Neil vNNeil vN Administrator
    edited September 2016
    Just as feedback - neither Trev or I could see noise, except with the shadow areas at 1600 ISO .. then slight amounts of noise creeped in. But nothing that would concern me. The D810 files at 1600 ISO look great.
  • TrevTrev Moderator
    Yes, sorry, since the last email with Skip as Neil said re noise.

    Re ISO 1/3 or full stops, what Rick said, it used to be a concern and probably is on some models today, just that I've always treated ISO like film, full stops, but once I hit 1600 and needed more it would be 2000/2500 and not just jump up as quick.

    Neil showed me a Raw from his D5 at 12,500 and it was brilliant no doubt about that, certainly something I would have no hesitation in going to with that model.
  • Thank you re-eos. That's interesting. I have a quick question about your sentence here:  (i.e. had less noise that the next higher full stop). 

    When you used the word 'that' did you mean to say 'than'? I think so. I don't think you meant to say 'at'?

    Yes, Neil and Trev gave the camera their seal of approval, at least on the noise. Thanks again Neil and Trev for taking the time to look at the photos. 
  • Skipper, yes, meant to say 'than'.  Post edited; thanks!
Sign In or Register to comment.