Remember the days when we eagerly awaited each new camera generation to see how noisy its high ISO photos would be? Not so long ago, ISO 6400 was the absolute limit of real usability. Anything above that was, at best, suitable for special events like UFOs, Loch Ness monsters, or alien landings. Not so any more. Today, I’m going to back the Nikon Z9 into a corner and show you how well it performs at extreme ISOs. How high can you go?
My Process
Before you object to the choice of camera for this article, you should know that I only chose the Nikon Z9 because it’s my main camera. Many cameras of today’s generation have similar high ISO performance. In fact, they may even perform better if they have a little less resolution. After all, Nikon’s previous flagship, the D6, had “only” 20.8 megapixels but is a low-light hammer. Can a modern 45 megapixel camera compare?
With the help of a few illustrative photos, I’ll try to shed some light on this question. Cameras have come a long way in the last 10 years or so. But also, post-processing software has made a huge leap at high ISOs. Hardware and software work hand in hand. Today, I’ll show you photos that I’ve edited in my usual way. This will give you a realistic idea of the results you can expect from the Z9.
To edit my RAW files, I use a pair of programs that complement each other nicely. First, I run my files through my favorite de-noise software, DxO PureRaw. Then, I fine-tune the DNG “intermediate product” in Capture One. I try to edit with a rather light hand on the sliders in Capture One, especially at higher ISOs. Mostly I just adjust levels, saturation, and – where necessary – highlights and shadows. The less aggressive you are with sliders, generally the less noise you will reveal.
Example Photos
The first pair of photos shows a female and a male White-booted Racket-tailed Hummingbird. Although it was not exactly dark in the Ecuadorian cloud forest, it was necessary to set the ISO quite high. Hummingbirds are small in general, but this species is one of the really tiny ones. As a rule, the smaller the hummingbird, the faster it beats its wings. In this species, the frequency can be around 70 beats per second! So, if you don’t want to capture a wingless hovering torso, you need to set a very quick shutter speed (at least 1/1000th second). Under these conditions, the exposure triangle starts to be merciless. Still, ISO 5600 and 6400 are not numbers that make your head spin.
In my opinion, neither sharpness nor color suffered in this pair of photos. There is a bit of noise, but careful noise reduction lowers it near the point of irrelevance. If you look at the photos magnified, they are quite clean. I would probably believe someone who told me that these are taken at ISO 560 and 640, rather than 5600 and 6400.
Let’s look at another pair of photos. It was very early in the morning, just before sunrise, when I photographed this Black-streaked Puffbird at the slopes of the Sumaco volcano in Ecuador. Its Czech name, Lenivka, as well as its German name, Faulvogel, suggest much about its behavior. Both names could be translated as “Lazy Bird.” Thanks to the bird’s stationary nature, and my stable tripod, I could shoot as low as 1/10th second without motion blur.
This opened up room for a comparison. I took one photo at 1/10th of a second and ISO 800, and another at 1/60th of a second and ISO 5000. It’s a pretty significant difference in the EXIF data. What about in real life?
To avoid hiding any differences in post-production, I applied the same settings in Capture One to both photos. And the result? I can’t help but think that the differences are below my eye’s resolving power. Noise, color, sharpness, and shadow detail all seem similar to me. But judge for yourself. (And if you click one of the images, you can switch between them quickly at a high resolution.)
Quite an impressive result for the high ISO photo!
But what’s this? You’re thinking that the difference between ISO 800 and ISO 5000 isn’t drastic enough? I have to admit, I was wondering the same thing. An early morning photoshoot of kingfishers gave me some great material for a more extreme comparison.
In the first photo, a male kingfisher waited patiently with little movement, allowing me to go as low as 1/30th second at ISO 720. After taking that safe shot, I switched to 1/1000th second – and the ISO jumped to 16,000 – while I waited for the bird to take off. But with this comparison in mind, I decided to take a shot before the bird began to fly. Here is how those two photos compare:
The difference here is finally noticeable in the photo, even to my eye. In particular, at 100% magnification, the photo taken at the lower ISO has more details in the feathers. You may also notice smoother color transitions outside of the depth of field. It seems as if the background in the photo taken at ISO 16000 has more contrast. This makes the bokeh look more distracting than in the first photo. Still, I find the result very usable.
Not a bad result for the ISO 16,000 photo! It wasn’t long ago that such an ISO would look like mush…
Finally, the last two photos have one thing in common. I took both of them in very dim, low-quality light. Before, I wouldn’t even take the camera out of my backpack, but since I was traveling with the best 400mm telephoto lens currently available, my courage grew.
I photographed this Andean Cock-of-the-Rock with a 1/100th shutter speed, f/4, and ISO 16,000. A typically dark morning in the tropical mountain forest. But this time of day is also full of life, and it would be a shame not to photograph some of it. So, here is the photo along with a crop:
In the darkness of the forest, this photo pushes the camera’s capabilities to the limit. Not only the lack of light is problematic here, but also the bright orange-red coloration of the bird. A closer look reveals that the feathers are losing their texture and becoming a bit posterized. But by then, I had pushed the Nikon Z9 to the very edge of its high ISO capabilities, and it still gave me a reasonable image.
Conclusion
The combination of a modern, full-frame sensor and today’s powerful editing tools literally brings light into the darkness. The mindset that ISO 6400 is the limit is outdated. Today, we can capture beautiful images full of details, smooth transitions, and vibrant colors even in very low light.
So, what should your personal “ISO limit” be? I think that no two photographers will have the same answer. But for me, it is – whatever is needed to get the photo. If that means pushing my camera to the edge of high ISO, that is acceptable to me.
Another great article Libor, and wonderful photos – thanks for that.
Quite honestly, I haven’t even thought about high ISO since way back when I got my first D850. Today, I leave the cameras on auto ISO and don’t give it a second thought.
Thank you, Craig. I think it’s still good keep ISO in mind, but not to be afraid of setting it as high as necessary when the situation calls for it. Modern cameras have really made great leaps forward in this respect.
Well said. I don’t worry much about ISO as much as I used to since I got the Z9. I also use DXO Pure Raw especially if my ISO is high because of low light. I also use Capture One for many images but I don’t especially like the complications it adds to my processing and saving of files. I catalog with other products so I don’t appreciate their efforts in that aspect of the program. I like humming bird photos and their behaviour. Great photos and a timely article.
The other benefit of the Z9 for me is allowing me to spend less time thinking about the technical parts of the process and devote more to the aesthetics of the image. If I know I can get the detail I want more easily I can select only the images which I really like visually.
That’s accurate, Martin. Cameras like the Z9 free up more of one’s mental capacity to concentrate on the aesthetic side of things, because they take a lot of the technical stuff on their shoulders. The same goes for software.
Great article. Impressive photos. Is there a tutorial on using DXO then bringing DNG into Capture one. Would the DNG you create then not have as much info like a RAW file? Is the Capture one noise filter not good? I have Capture one, wondering if I should get DXO noise program.
DXO is better than Capture One for denoising in my experience, but it’s a cost for a rather specialized task.
It can be useful when you’re pushing the ISO really high, otherwise you can probably manage without it.
Try the demo and see if it’s worth the cost in time and money to your workflow.
As Ircut recommends, the best way to see if DxO PureRaw is the program for you is to download a fully functional demo and try it out on your own photos. Choose images taken at various ISOs from low to really high and take your own picture. Working with the program is actually very simple. In the simplest (and usually sufficient scenario) you basically just set where you want to save the photos after processing. I created a directory for this purpose, from which I import the photos into Capture One. To answer your last question, DxO really is a better denoiser than the Capture One one.
Without the de-noise and post processing, the abilities of the Z8 or Z9 or any other camera of any brand, in handling high ISO would be far less impressive, even from your own examples. So it is the post processing that has come a long way.
The art of photography has become second to the science of software.
Today’s sensors are pretty close to the point of maximum low-light performance for a color CMOS sensor (and most of the noise we capture today is the randomness of photons in the scene, as opposed to read noise from the sensor). Further improvements in low-light performance will have to come from other factors, like improved software corrections and potential “tricks” like image averaging, or a sensor without the traditional Bayer filtration.
I agree with the first paragraph completely, but not so much with the second. The software this article is about is only for pushing the technical limits of cameras and in no way makes a bad photo good. At best, it will turn a bad, noisy photo into a bad, de-noised photo.
I agree with your point.
However, in the second paragraph I was stating that the post will be an improvement whether the captured image was good or bad to begin with. A de-noised bad photo is still better than a noisy bad original.
That is true Libor, but doesn’t negate the second paragraph written by Fouad. You are absolutely right that this software won’t make a bad photo good, but only a small percentage of photographers like yourself will be concerned with this type of usage. A larger number of people become entrenched in the world of emphasizing gear and software over the art of photography for various reasons, and that in general creates an ecosystem where software and gear become the dominant points of interest within the collection of those who are interested in photography.
So, while you are right to imply that this software is simply just a tool to push the technical limits for those who use it that way, it additionally can also act as a drop in the larger bucket of technological improvements that does indeed shift the emphasis away from the art of photography to the science of software, as a general phenomenon.
That doesn’t remove the importance of the “art of photography” in any sense, but it does reduce the impact the art has because we are subsequently overloaded with a glut of technique that is naturally distracting (for the majority) and subsequently makes it harder to put forth what is truly most important.
I think people pixel peep amd complain WAY too much these days. I shoot Z8. I just delivered a full set of pics to a client with the average ISO at 16,000. Some pics shot at 25,600 (dark music studio). Literally not a single person in that shoot noticed at all. No DXO. Just lightroom denoise at its default setting.
Agreed. Most clients’ experience with photos these days comes from a mobile phone. So the Z9’s IQ isn’t competing against a D6, but it is against a smart phone. And in totally obliterates smart phone image quality, especially at high ISO. The Z8/9 is a light hungry sensor so I have, via the menu system, permanently set my exposure at +0.3. And LR’s denoise function is perfectly adequate.
I do think that the DxO Software does a good job, but I also think that it’s perfectly possible to get pretty good results without it as well. Same as you, I just use traditional NR, and lower shutter speeds when possible. Of course, at ISO 16,000 I could not get results as clean as the examples that Libor has, but I’m okay with that.
I will take sharpness derived from enough shutter speed to minimize motion blur over some noise any day, so I have been using ISO north of 6400 since the D3s era. Thanks for the article.
I feel the same way. Noise is easy to deal with, sharpening badly shot blured photos is a bit over the edge for me.
Great article Yep for me to whatever it takes to get the shot. But question
In DxO pureraw at those really high ISO do you keep the sliders at default or do you adjust them?
Thank you
Chris
Thank you, Chris. In the previous version of DxO PureRaw, I left all the values at their default settings more than 95% of the time. With the current version, I often set the lens sharpness optimization to ‘strong’ (+150).
Thank you Libor for this essay, since the D5 I am gravitating in even higher ISO ranges. Therefore I am missing a Z9h, a low MP tuned version for extreme low light, to surpass the possibilities of the D5/D6 in terms of usable ISO range, colour retention and AF, but silently. The lack of such a Z9h has blocked me in DSLRs, albeit many comparative tests.
In my test at the advent of the Z8 at ISO204800 (yes, crazy 204k ISO), the order of choice was clearly D6, D5, Z9/Z8, D850; the Z9 was not able to pick the focusing, and the file was simple mush that no de-noising tool can adjust (see at the end of forum.nikonrumors.com/discu…mirrorless). The Z6iii has magenta/purple colour banding on blacks at 204k ISO, the D6 is still perfect.
I ended acquiring a second hand D6, because in my use cases of shy & distant mammals in urbanised areas it is very common to shoot instead in the ISO range 20k-204k, also with bright primes; for bright light the high MP bodies are enough for me. Sure D5/D6 are not silent, but still extraordinary tools in their realm and they permitted me to acquire pictures of running wild boars under nearly moonlight, badgers and roe deer.
Therefore, the choice of the best compromise might depend on the real usage. My hope is of an extreme low light oriented Z9h/Z1 camera, 24-30MP, with usable ISO 100-102400 range, expandable to Hi3=819200, to assure strong focusing and colour retention up to Hi1/Hi2. After that it is so dark that it is time to pack back home :-) Fast fps footage might be a bonus.
Wow and I thought I was using pretty high ISOs! Thanks for your insights from practice. It’s true that the Z9’s autofocus confidence decreases as the light fades. First the auto eye detection stops working and a little later the “unintelligent” focusing with dynamic area af. When the subject is relatively static, I switch from AF-C to AF-S and activate starlight view. But this allows you to shoot a roosting nightjar or owl, certainly not a running boar.
Thank you Libor again for your comments!
Sure, my use case is not the average, I know, but still I enjoy in what I can achieve, even when is not absolutely perfect for a wallpaper: the best thing is that these tools permitted me to stay outside until the darkness to try to catch the shivering moment! With a 46Mp I should pack much earlier, precluding me such an atmosphere and experience. Like last summer in Finland, when I waited the night in the cabin to see the bears coming in the open yard… I stopped only when I was not able to distinguish the bear from the trees… what a lovely experience :-)
When testing the Z9 vs D6, I also noticed weaker responsiveness of Z8/Z9 in portrait orientation in very dim light, compared to landscape one.
For some examples, you can have a look in (www.colorazeta.it/fauna…ola_EN.htm), where high MP are mostly used for environmental shots, whereas low MP & ISO 20k-228k are mostly used for the shy animals. Yes, the group of running wild boars were shot at 228k ISO 1000mm f6.7 1/400s, I was hardly able to distinguish them from the dark grass, but the D5 did the shot possible, not perfect, but feasible, that was enough for me in those prohibitive conditions, as I never saw another so huge group of wild boars running together :-)
That’s why I ask for a Z9H, low light oriented, as a queen of darkness!
Just yesterday I saw nothing but the dark of the night, but my camera ( Z8) saw everything and even could make a sharp autofocus photograph…
and then the denoise-ai of today; it does miracles. However: it depends on the subject. In the cases shown above the subjects are large in clear daylight ; that works well, if you don’t mind the smoohing of the feathers. Same with a single face in the frame. But if I make a photo where details count – an audience in tungsten light with small faces, then AI denoise shows it (wrong) interpretation and the people look like actors in a zombie movie.
Nevertheless – at 256.000 asa i can make an OK A4 print ( 20x30cm) with OK color.
In the analogue days you had the same quality at about 800asa. A 5 stop difference!
Additionally progress is found in AI in many ways : in generative AI images feeded by text assignments AI is told what to do and what to look for; I can imagine in the previous example that you select the audience part en help AI to define the area with the word “faces” ; then AI knows how better how to interpolate the pixels.
An other development is used by Topaz; they say bring your image here to our very fast AI-servers and we bring you the AI generated image … much better and much faster.
Generative AI algorithms are going to improve at a high rate, and for a lot of people and a lot of applications, these will certainly be great tools for achieving their goals. It’s important to me that authenticity and credibility is not lost from my photos during editing. Simply put, I want the software to remove the technical flaws of the equipment and leave my own mistakes.
You’re right that the comparison to the analogue era of 35mm film is fascinating. I remember when I used to expose Ilford PAN 400 film as ISO 1600 or even ISO 3200 and then adjust the development. That wonderful grain! And now we try our best to remove it :-)
The above photos are very much downsized. So this proves nothing. I can take any halfway decent modern camera, take a photo at very high ISO, put it through DXO or Topaz or any other “magic”, downsize it a lot, publish it on social media or a website, and it will look perfectly fine.
Downsizing does hide noise, but if you view this webpage on a desktop and click on any of the cropped images, you’ll see pretty close to a pixel-level excerpt of the original photo.
And on smaller screens (laptop), click, right click, “open image in new tab” will provide a pretty large view too.
And on iPad or iPhone touchscreen:
• touch-and-hold the photo until menu appears
• tap “Open in Background”
• switch to the newly created Safari tab.
You are right Christoph, that downsizing and compression for the web or even worse for social networks can hide a lot of things. But trust me, the images published in this article can withstand being printed to a fairly large format.