Nikon D7200 and incredibly high ISO photos: 51,200 and 102,400

One feature that intrigued me about the D7200 over older models was the two black & white high ISO modes.

The difficult part of photographing sports is getting enough light to capture the action.  Anyone who has attempted to photograph night games, such as American football, knows that it is extremely difficult, even with a Nikon D4.

Photographing in Florida in early spring outdoors was even difficult.  I was photographing a lacrosse game from 5:00 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. and it went from bright and warm enough (75 degrees F) to dark and cold by the end.  Having had frostbite, I had another obstacle in working the controls as my fingers seemed less flexible.  In 2006, I had a choice of using ISO 400 sensitivity and a GN50 flash.

This March, I was photographing a competition at an indoor skate park, which meant ISO 3200 and some hope.  Since I was taking still photos and video, it wasn't possible to use artificial light and make it work.  The image quality was sufficient.

The Nikon D7200 is supposed to be so much more in low light and HI1 (ISO 51,200) and HI2 (ISO 102,400).  These black and white modes could give someone an edge in getting clear sports photos.  The Nikon D4 featured ISO sensitivity up to 102,400.  That is a huge deal.  Since the D7200 has an Expeed 4-class processor, it should be able to increase the image quality over the D7100.

ISO 102,400

ISO 51,200

ISO 25,600

ISO 51,200

ISO 25,600

There is a great deal of banding in the ISO 51,200 and 102,400 photos.  It can't be seen so well with these 25% sized photos.  These were taken July 31, 2015 around the time of the blue moon.

Still, if it means getting the shot over not getting the shot, should there be a question?

Update 2015.08.03:  The D7200 seems to be easily provoked into using ISO 25,600, more than the Panasonic GH4 or Olympus E-M1 that I use regularly.  I know that the ISO sensitivity numbers seem off for the GH4 and E-M1 but from ISO 3200 on those to 25,600 on the D7200?  I hope that there will be a number of firmware fixes because the image quality does not seem superior from this new Nikon body and the Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 lens.

Will Olympus announce their new PRO series lenses in a few weeks?

Supposedly, there is an Olympus announcement coming around the end of August.

Maybe, obviously, the PEN E-PL7 will be announced for immediate sale.  The replacement for the OM-D E-M5 should be announced, as well.  However, I'm more interested to see the final realization of the 40-150mm f/2.8 lens, plus whether they've got the 7-14mm f/2.8 ready.

The ultra wide angle lens is important to me, especially since I've been photographing at skate parks lately.  I don't really care for fish eye lenses and Olympus still sells theirs--and a certain BMX rider has been on me to buy it, for that exaggerated perspective.  However, f/2.8 vs. f/3.5 makes for the difference between getting the shot and not.  (My first thought about this lens was that it would be great for the real estate market, but they're generally fine with point and shoot cameras.)

Of course, is it as important as it was even five years ago?  Putting an LED array on the hot shoe will provide sufficient lighting that the BMX rider will be blinded temporarily while moving close.  Plenty of people have mentioned flash, which amounts to the same problem.  Studio lights with massive battery power?  No, thanks.

The Nikon D810 might provide a better low light experience with the right weather-sealed ultra wide angle lens.  It had better at the weight, the size, and at the price.  Remember that the sensor itself mimics the size of 135 Format film--roughly 24x36mm and that is not huge or heavy.

Of course, the slippery Nikon Df has the sensor from the D4 with extra low light sensitivity, but it will probably be a handful to use for sports.

In any case, the Olympus E-M1 and Panasonic GH4 will work well for me, and hopefully, the new lenses will be everything I need.  I'm especially looking forward to replacing Panasonic's dismal 35-100mm f/2.8 lens with the 40-150mm f/2.8.  (It's amazing how different their 12-35mm and 35-100mm are.  I never ever hear negative remarks about the 12-35mm f/2.8 lens.)

Of course, the 40-150mm f/2.8 can't really replace my 50-200mm f/2.8-3.5 because of the lack of reach.  Having the 135 Format equivalent of 400mm is awesome, especially when it's sharp.  (Panasonic's 45-200mm f/4.0-5.6 doesn't seem to be sharp anywhere, but it's small and light with a 52mm filter size that covers a lot of plastic vs 67mm with a large front element.  Can't expect much.)

If the 40-150mm is as sharp as my Olympus 35-100mm f/2.0, I'd be thrilled and amazed.  I don't expect that.  I expect it to be somewhere in-between the 50-200mm and the 35-100mm f/2.0 in all aspects, with the price, also.  This is the case with the 12-40mm f/2.8 and the 14-54mm f/2.8-3.5 and 14-35mm f/2.0.

The 7-14mm f/2.8 really signals an end of Four-Thirds for me.  I looked at the Four-Thirds 7-14mm f/4.0, which is an amazing lens, but couldn't get past the f/4.0.  I would be using it on micro Four-Thirds equipment but it would negate any advantage the newer sensors have.  Using it on the E-1 and E-5 would be practically perfect though.  However, these are not really landscape tools and the way I would want to use it would not be practical, even if I spend a lot of time in bright sunlight.  I shoot at night also.  (This is also a sticking point with the 8mm f/3.5 fish eye lens.)

The price of the 7-14mm f/2.8 is going to be high.  I'm guessing that it will be around US$1999.99 and the 40-150mm f/2.8 should be around US$1499.99.

Update 2014.08.17: The E-M1 is rumored to get 4K recording?  It doesn't even do well with the recording abilities it has.  It would be great to see a huge upgrade to 1080p, complete with high bit rates, but I can't imagine that happening either.  It was a bit amusing to see someone submitted Olympus' high end testing cameras as evidence that Olympus can do video.  If you're in the market to record and test vehicle crashes, I'm sure they're just fine.  I only want to record 1080p and 4K at the moment.

Update 2014.09.25: The 40-150mm f/2.8 will be released in November for US$1499.99.  The micro Four-Thirds 1.4x teleconverter will be US$349.99, which is about $90 cheaper than the Four-Thirds version.

The E-M1 version 2.0 firmware included many little updates but no 4K video.  Supposedly, there is still some hope for that, and some individual is working on firmware hacks, but what will Olympus do?  They couldn't even save the majority of my settings.

I have yet to be invited to a pre-release even for the 40-150mm f/2.8 lens.  I'd certainly like to make sure it's worth the money.  I continue to hope that micro Four-Thirds will work for me, whether Panasonic or Olympus.  However, the Nikon D750 looks a great product.

I've considered a trade-in of my Panasonic 35-100mm f/2.8 lens for the 40-150mm f/2.8 lens.  If I end up with a GH4, as well as the E-M1, I'll probably need the 35-100mm lens.

Update 2014.12.18: Now that the 40-150mm f/2.8 lens and matching teleconverter are available, I'm looking forward to the 7-14mm f/2.8 and I'm sure others will be looking for the 300mm f/4.0.  I'm wondering if the 300mm lens will be a made-to-order item, as is the Four-Thirds 300mm f/2.8 lens.

The Four-Thirds 300mm f/2.8 lens is US$6499.99, a bit more expensive than the 90-250mm f/2.8 lens that has been US5499.99 but is now $4899.99 at Adorama.  I don't expect that the micro Four-Thirds version will be close but would US$1999.99 - $2499.99 be unexpected?  If it's more than that, there will likely be resistance from people who would actually buy it.  It's a valid point.  There are plenty of people who complain about the price of every higher-priced lens, fairly priced or not, especially when they're not going to buy one.  Should lens makers sell the wares for less than it costs to research, design, and manufacture them?

Nikon, I'm confused about your direction

Recently, we've seen the D3300 and the D5300 consumer dSLRs.  The D600 was revised and it became the D610.  The D4 has become the D4s with useful enhancements, also.

I'm just not sure why the D300s was not replaced or why the D7100 comes up short.  Truth be told, the Canon 7D is still hanging in there, and the 70D, while revised, isn't much of a divergence from the 60D.

Without the D400 to replace the D300s, there seems to be a hole in the line that isn't filled by the D610.  A few people might have gone up to the D800 or to the older D700, regardless of resolution.  I've looked at the D700 and D300s several times but don't see a solution.  The Ricoh/Pentax K-3 seems the true successor to the D300/D300s, slight weirdness and all.

I really don't understand where Nikon is going between US$1000 and $2000, or if they're not interested at all.  It almost seems as though we should be seeing the D7100 replaced, along with the D800/D800E pair but it doesn't seem that the company is in any hurry.

Is anyone excited about the D4s?

That huge, top ISO sensitivity number from the D4 has been doubled.  The new Expeed 4 processor is much faster and you can shoot 11 frames per second vs. 10, without being locked into auto focus or auto exposure settings.  After seeing 12 frames per second in burst mode from the Panasonic GH4, it doesn't seem a huge deal, but I'm certain everything is locked down to get 12, versus the 7.2 fps from tracking mode on the GH4.

So, will the D4s be so much better at getting night time football game photos?  I won't know because I don't watch NFL or the other pro ball games, and I won't be buying a D4s, but the possibilities certainly get my imagination started.

Digital photo noise--subjective, not objective

I happened to see the latest Popular Photography issue at the store today.  I've never given much thought to the magazine since the first time I look at it during the days of film and laughed at their conclusions.

In the current issue, they were reviewing the Panasonic DMC-GH3, a camera body I recently bought.  They had a bar graph for noise at each ISO sensitivity setting.  First, they had ISO 100, which isn't a setting in the GH3.  I guess they couldn't be bothered to put the actual number in their graph, although in the same area of the review, they had ISO 125.

Concerning noise, they had ISO 1600 and up as unacceptable.  I'm not sure how they can tell what is acceptable or not.  When I worked with film, ASA(ISO for digital) 400 film was usually acceptable, especially with the later formulations, and it is horribly worse than most digital sensors of the past few years.  Whether it's the grain of black and white, incorrect pigment of color, or digital noise, who can say definitively what is acceptable?

Other reviews have said that at ISO 800 on the GH3 (and I believe, the Olympus E-M5), noise is creeping into the photos.  That makes sense since that number was where the problem really started with the E-1.  My own experience tells me that the images I'm getting at ISO 1600 are very clean and the images at ISO 3200 are reasonable, but not beautiful.  After that, don't expect much of anything positive.  Yes, I've seen people claim to get really good photos at 12,800 but I don't believe it's likely unless they're working with a Nikon D4.

Still, for someone to put a wall up saying "unacceptable" seems unacceptable in itself.  It's difficult to quantify and impossible to generalize that all photos fit into one category.  I would agree that a photo is likely to be more noisy at a certain ISO sensitivity but to be unacceptably noisy?  It's like comparing different technologies and using numbers that don't mean the same thing.  I've been reading that camera makers have implemented film-like noise somehow.  This is certainly better than the banding we've seen in certain situations but it's the chroma (color) noise that makes the biggest problems.

I've printed indoor E-1 (using flash) photos on 13x19 paper and found them to be quite acceptable, as are the outdoor photos.  Are they exquisite and flawless?  No.  The noise is not really visible and I can only guess that the combination of photo processing and printing evened out the noise so that it isn't noticeable.  For that matter, how would a 14 MP point-and-shoot compact have good 8x10 or bigger output?  The TV shopping channels almost always have huge prints from so-so point-and-shoot cameras, so something has to be happening.

I believe that there is a point where the noise will be so visible that it's unacceptable to everyone.  In certain industries, almost any photo noise is too much, which is why fashion uses medium format and studio lighting.  I've even seen shoots where they use lighting during daylight.  Even the E-5 has amazing image quality with studio lighting.  I'm sure Popular Photography would disagree.