Nikon D750 – high-ISO noise performance
The two things everyone is most curious about with the Nikon D750 (B&H / Amazon), is the auto-focus performance and the high-ISO noise performance. Here’s a quick preview of what the D750 does at higher ISO settings. Specifically, 3200 ISO and 6400 ISO. (A more complete comparison has since been posted here: review: high-ISO performance – Nikon D750 vs Nikon D4S / D4 / D810 / D610)
To put the Nikon D750 (affiliate) through its paces for the (upcoming) review of this camera, I met up with NYC model, Glass Olive for a photo session. In a restaurant we visited, I used the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 DG (for Nikon) (affiliate) at f/1.4 and then tried sequences of images at 3200 ISO and 6400 ISO. Here are two more images, and a 100% crop of each so you can see what the noise pattern looks like.
A few things to keep in mind when looking at the two images:
- the RAW converters haven’t been updated yet for this brand-new camera, so we are looking at the embedded JPG (at full resolution) that I extracted from the RAW file. So this is the straight-out-of-camera JPG with a slight detour. These could very well be improved upon when adjusting the RAW file.
- I kept the JPG settings to the defaults, but these were shot in Vivid picture mode. So it looks quite punchy directly out of camera.
In Vivid picture mode, the Sharpening is set to the middle value: 4.00
The Clarity was set to +1.00
(The WB was set to Auto 1)
- looking at 100% crops give you an idea of the high-ISO noise, which helps with comparison. But, it is not how the image will print. We are looking at a 24 megapixel image. It’s huge. By the time you print it to smaller sizes, the noise is much less pronounced.
Using the Nikon D750 at 3200 ISO
camera settings: 1/60 @ f/1.4 @ 3200 ISO
Here is the 100% crop of the area to the left of our model.
Using the Nikon D750 at 6400 ISO
camera settings: 1/80 @ f/1.4 @ 6400 ISO
Here is the 100% crop of the area to the right of our model.
Summary
With these very first test shots with the camera, I am quite impressed. Actually, very impressed. The noise is very well controlled for such extreme ISO settings.
More to come in a follow-up review.
Equipment used
Related articles
- review: high-ISO performance – Nikon D750 vs Nikon D4S / D4 / D810 / D610
- Nikon D750 – camera settings & custom settings
- review: High-ISO performance – Nikon D4S vs. D4 / D3s / D610 / D700
- ISO comparison – various Canon and Nikon cameras
- model: Glass Olive – Model Mayhem page
Hello Neil, I just received the D750 yesterday and I’m very impressed with the ISO performance of this camera. First thing I did was to take several test shots at 6400 ISO and wow! Leaves my old D700’s in the dust. I will be purchasing a second one soon.
Thanks for the post.
Another photographer emailed me the following suggestion:
To optimize noise reduction with D750, try:
Open D750 RAW [lossless compressed; 14-bit] in Capture NX-D 1.0.2 [released 16 Sept ’14 in US; http://bit.ly/YqpolP ]
Picture Control: Standard
Sharpening: 4 or higher
Clarity: 0 [using +1 or higher results in some ‘interesting results’ for portraits]
Noise Reduction:
Method: Better Quality 2013
Intensity: +5 or higher; slide to suit
Sharpness: 5; slide to suit
Convert
File Type: JPEG
Quality: Excellent
Output settings: check box marked ‘Resolution’; keep 300 dpi
Suggest you try; compare to in-camera/straight-out-of-camera *.jpeg file
6400 isnt really high iso any longer. Really love to see how it compares with other CURRENT models rather than 5 yr old models. ie….the DF and D4s sensors, that have been out for 1yr plus already. SOOC standard jpegs are fine for this sort of comparo or commentary. If you could elaborate on how the 750 compared to those..it’d be much more useful.
Thanks
Brad
I’m with Brad on this! I was hoping to see ISO examples at 12,000 or so in this post. I already comfortably shoot at 6400/8000 with my d3s at weddings! Slightly overexposing then bringing back down in post makes ISO 8,000 pretty usable even with a D3s.
And here I can barely go above ISO800 on my Canon 50D, 1600 is useable but not desirable and 3200 should have been left in the lab and not even put in there, very bad. By the time I can afford a good ISO performer there will be a Canon 5D Mark 17 out.
“quick preview”
“first test shots”
“More to come in a follow-up review.”
I don’t think I could’ve stated the scope of this article any better than this.
gotta love these shots and her intense expression!
Yup, I have a new favorite model.
Looks like very clean shots, compared to the D800. Though I’d like to see how they compare in a print once the raw converters are updated.
First of all It’s unfair without the Raw converter updated. At ISO 3200 the photos are not that good. You should have waited. My Canon 5D3 at 12,500 ISO is a lot better.
Then I believe you are the one who should’ve waited with your comment, not so?
To “Marvin Litman” you said: “At ISO 3200 the photos are not that good.”
Sure looks good to me!
P.S. Please test out your Canon 5D mark III against any of the more recent Nikon full frame cameras. If the tests I saw on YouTube where honest &/or not a fluke, Canon’s high ISO is not the same as Nikon’s. This test had a D800 and a 5D mark III both filming side by side, and with the same ISO set on both. The Nikon was much brighter than the Canon. Meaning the Nikon should have its ISO turned down (lower) to match the same brightness of the Canon. This is to say that Canon 6400 ISO was equivalent to 3200 ISO (or less) on the Nikon; same light and subject. This test suggested that Canon 5D mark III showed higher ISO numbers than was the actual real ISO it was working at (compared to the Nikon’s more light sensitivity at the same ISO, and therefore less high ISO needed).
To be fair, at extreme high ISO the Nikon D800 became too noisy to be usable, while the Canon still produced a usable image. The Nikon peaked at one point and then became unusable. Then Canon 5D mark III continued to have usable images (not great though) as high as you could crank it.
Niel.. I like and respect you for what you have done for photography. I consider you a true unselfish pillar of light
in helping and teaching.
Soooooo maybe we both should have waited.
Let me restate this again:
“quick preview”
“first test shots”
“More to come in a follow-up review.”
I don’t think I could’ve stated the scope of this article any better than this.
Those images don’t look much better then the D700 I used to own Neil, no offense…Nice camera all the same.
12MP vs. 24MP? Downsampled to 12MP you will have more detail + cleaner images. The D700 sensor was great, but it is outdated by now. The bar for high ISO is the D4/D4s sensor with Nikon, A7s with Sony and 6D with Canon.
So if you are correct and the D750 images “don’t look much better” than the D700, but with double the resolution, this is fantastic! To even just look the same at 24mp vs 12mp is a wish come true for many photographers.
If you are only looking at your photos on your computer and never crop, then sure buy a used D700 for a lot less money.
If however (1) you occasionally need ROOM TO CROP, (2) wish to make PRINTS at LARGER SIZES than the modest size the D700 allows. Yes, you can interpolate your D700 to get more pixels to print larger than what is native, but you also can do this with the D750, with double the resolution to start with. (3) If you want to use your camera for VIDEO (which the D700 doesn’t have). (4) If you ever use LIVE VIEW and / or LIVE VIEW FOCUSING. This feature works way better on the newer cameras, for both AF and MF. The live view on the D700 isn’t in the same category. (5) If you have a use for the D750’s FLIP OUT LCD.
Computer gazers can produce decent images with an iPhone. For low light photography without flash, the latest entry level APSc cameras with a f/1.8 (or faster) prime is more than enough for computer monitor viewing.
For photographers who want to print, and / or display their photos and videos on a high resolution large screen TV, the newest full frame cameras should not disappoint!
re the D700 vs the D750 – I’ve posted various RAW files here:
There aren’t any direct comparisons between the D700 and D750 there, but if you look at how the D700 fares against the D4S, and then compare that the D750 and D4S are pretty much on par … then it is easy enough an observation that the D750 outperforms the D700. And it does so at a higher resolution.
Thanks for putting this up Neil, looking forward to the complete review once you have the time to complete it, in between the work you do that people actually pay for ;-)
Can’t wait to see your review on the new Canon 7D Mark II if you can get your hands on one for a few days.
I’m really looking forward to your follow-up review. It might be time for me to upgrade from my trusty old D300…
Thanks for this Neil, they seem much better than what I can achieve with my D3. Surprised at so many negative comments from people who seem to expect so much from a few test shots! Would they prefer nothing? It’s like Statler and Waldorf on comment sections sometimes.
Thanks! Sometimes I wonder if I should offer people a refund for the subscription fee they’ve paid. Maybe that would make them happier.
LOL !!
Nice one Neil.
Bought one last week.
Still haven had a chance to give it a good run !
I’m a bit surprised that i can switch from the D4 to the D750 and back to the D4 without much problems.
Of course i had to match my settings/controls(much as possible).
Really nice “little” Dslr.
Thanks Neil. I always appreciate your insights and experience, and I think it is nice of you to share them. I am also looking forward to reading the new book. I can’t quite fathom some of these responses. It’s like handing someone a free cookie and having them yell at you because it is not their favorite flavor… or it’s too small… or they just had dessert so why didn’t you give it to them 30 minutes ago :o)
I’m now officialy drooling…
how is the live view focusing speed? Is it as good as d810 or 5dm3?
Hi Neil,
i would love if you could make a review of the Nikon 35 1.8 FX or share your thoights on this lens if you already made some experiences with the lens you already recommend it by the way…
I have some doubts if I should choose the 28 or the 35 1.8 FX…..leaning to the 28 somehow…the wider thebetter (could easily crop if more tele is needed due to high resolution bodies nowadays or going closer 28 is still possible for nice portraitures as you have shown within your review of the 28 1.8..uncropping the other way around isnt possible! You justt have to be slightly more careful when shooting people with a 28 than with the 35mm stretching, distortion….still undecided which is optically superior or better???
Keep it up and take care!
Steve
Hi Neil, I just picked up a D750 and love it.. But can you tell how me much better the D4 is as far as high ISO?
I just purchased the d750 and I am not too happy with having to set the ISO higher to get the same results than a much lower ISO with my d600. Same subject same lighting.
mine doesn’t do that.
Mary, with this follow-up review, I used the histogram to check exposure, and the D750 and D610 (and the others) gave exactly the same exposure for the same settings.
review: high-ISO performance – Nikon 750 vs Nikon D4S / D4 / D810 / D610
Thanks for your first sight report! I now have ordered this cam to replace my 7 years old D700. I am very excited now!