Nikon Z9 High ISO Performance and Dynamic Range

The Nikon Z9 has one of Nikon’s most advanced camera sensors ever: a 45 megapixel stacked CMOS sensor capable of ultra-fast shooting and high speed data transfer. But how does it perform in terms of things like ISO performance and dynamic range? Has Nikon traded image quality for speed? I wanted to put that to the test myself!

Nikon Z9 Noise Tests

Based on my tests, the Nikon Z9 has similar high ISO performance to the other 45-megapixel Nikon sensors. Here’s a complete list of 100% crops (a 640 x 960 pixel excerpt of the image) from the Z9 starting at base ISO 64, then at every full stop from ISO 100 to 102,800. You’ll need to click the images to see the full 640 x 960 crop.

Keep in mind that these are extreme crops. With this performance, I’d be happiest at ISO 6400 and under, but I’d have no problems bumping it to ISO 12,800 from time to time. In a pinch, somewhere between ISO 25,600 and 51,200 remains usable, albeit not at large print sizes.

However, without the context of other cameras, it might be tricky to tell if this is good or bad high ISO performance. So, here’s a comparison against the same-resolution Nikon Z7 (identical in performance to the Z7 II). In all these images, the Nikon Z7 is on the top, and the Nikon Z9 is on the bottom. I’ll start at ISO 1600:

ISO 3200:

ISO 6400:

ISO 12,800:

ISO 25,600:

ISO 51,200:

ISO 102,400:

This is as close to identical performance as two cameras with different sensor designs are likely to be. From ISO 1600 through 12,800, I see no reason to prefer one over the other. At ISO 25,600 specifically, I might be able to fool myself into thinking that the Z9 resolves some details a bit better. At 51,200 and 102,400, they’re both equally mushy.

Both the Nikon Z7 and Nikon Z9 are slightly – and I will emphasize slightly – worse in performance than the Nikon D850’s sensor in this regard. You can see that comparison in our Nikon Z7 vs Nikon D850 article. But the differences are minimal enough that I really wouldn’t worry about them either way.

Frankly, to get any improvements in high ISO performance, your best option is to use a lower resolution sensor, like 24 megapixels rather than 45. Here’s the Nikon Z6 (same ISO performance as the Z6 II) against the Z9, starting at ISO 1600. In this case, to make a fairer comparison, I downsampled the Z9 images upon export to be the same dimensions as those from the Z6, 468 x 702 pixels each. The Z6 is on the top, and the Z9 is on the bottom. Starting with ISO 1600:

ISO 3200:

ISO 6400:

ISO 12,800:

ISO 25,600:

ISO 51,200:

ISO 102,400:

In this case, the Nikon Z6 has less noise and better high ISO performance overall. However, at ISO 6400 and below, I prefer the Nikon Z9 because of its better detail – detail that’s visible even though its images have been downsampled to 24 megapixels. (If you don’t downsample the Z9’s photos, there’s a valid case for preferring the Z9’s file up to about ISO 25,600.)

Overall, while the Nikon Z9 may fall a bit short in low light compared to 24-megapixel sensors at ultra-high ISOs, it has very good noise performance overall. I have no issues recommending this camera to sports, wildlife, and event photographers who shoot in dark conditions.

Nikon Z9 ISO Invariance

Many cameras today are close to ISO invariant, which – boiled down – means that increasing ISO in-camera provides a similar level of image quality as brightening the photo in post-processing. On ISO invariant cameras, you maximize your dynamic range in low light situations by being exceedingly cautious about blowing out highlights at high ISO values. For instance, instead of a properly exposed photo at ISO 6400 that has a chance of blowing out highlights, it’s preferable to take a dark photo at ISO 800 or 1600 and brighten it in post-processing, to ensure that highlight detail is retained.

It’s not a beginner topic, but then again, the Nikon Z9 is not a beginner camera. I had seen reports online that the Nikon Z9 has a dual-gain sensor, meaning that there are only two “real” ISO values, and the other ISO values can be replicated very closely by brightening the image in post-processing. Specifically, ISO 500 is reported to be the dual gain point on the Nikon Z9.

To put that to the test, I took a photo at ISO 500 on the Nikon Z9, deliberately underexposed by four stops. I then brightened it in Lightroom to compare head-to-head against a photo at ISO 8000. Here are those results, with a brightened ISO 500 on the top and ISO 8000 on the bottom:

Since the results are nearly interchangeable, it’s clear that ISO 500 and 8000 are invariant. To see if ISO 500 is really the dual gain point, I made a similar test at ISO 400 compared to ISO 6400:

In this case, the results definitely are not interchangeable – which means the internet is telling the truth! The Nikon Z9 is not a fully ISO-invariant camera.

I’ll spare you the the pictures, but I performed the same test at all ISO values and found everything from ISO 64 through 400 could be accurately simulated by brightening ISO 64, and everything from ISO 500 onward could be accurately simulated by brightening ISO 500. As such, the Nikon Z9 has a dual gain sensor that switches at ISO 500.

Note, however, that most post-processing software does not do a good job with extreme brightening. Even on a totally ISO invariant camera, it’s still best practice to limit yourself to about three stops of exposure recovery in post.

What does this mean for actually shooting with the Z9? One approach is to keep the camera at ISO 64 whenever your meter suggests something from ISO 64 to ISO 400; keep it at ISO 500 when the meter suggests anything from ISO 500 to ISO 4000; and use an ISO that’s three stops darker than the meter’s recommendation when anything higher than ISO 4000 is recommended.

Another good way to use the Z9 is just to use it like normal. Expose roughly how the meter says, but make sure to avoid overexposure in the highlights, especially at higher-than-ISO-500 ISOs.

If you don’t blow out any highlights, both approaches will give you the same image quality. I think the second method is the saner of the two, but it’s up to you.

Nikon Z9 Dynamic Range

Nikon’s cameras with base ISO 64 have historically had the best dynamic range on the market, short of medium format cameras. The Nikon Z9 is part of that club, along with cameras like the Nikon D810, D850, Z7, and Z7 II. However, unlike those four cameras, the Z9 has a stacked CMOS sensor design.

The Z9’s stacked sensor is intended to improve the camera’s readout speed, not necessarily improve its image quality. The Z9’s fast frame rate at high resolution (both stills and video) – plus the lack of rolling shutter issues – are features that would have been difficult to achieve with a standard CMOS sensor.

That said, the stacked sensor design could still plausibly have an impact on image quality. In theory, stacked sensors (which are an extension of backside-illuminated sensor technology) can be capable of increased light-gathering capabilities. However, some user reports have indicated the opposite in the past – that stacked CMOS sensors have a very slight penalty in noise and dynamic range compared to traditional sensors.

Luckily, it’s easy to test the accuracy of these claims. I compared the Nikon Z9’s dynamic range against that of my Nikon Z7, a camera which also has base ISO 64 but uses a traditional CMOS sensor design. (I used the Z7 instead of the Z7 II because it’s the camera I own, and it has identical dynamic range performance as the Z7 II, as shown in our tests.)

The Nikon Z7 and Z7 II famously have some of the best dynamic range of any full-frame camera on the market today. How do they compare to the Nikon Z9? These are 100% crops of a photo that was underexposed by five stops at base ISO 64, then recovered in Adobe Lightroom, with no noise reduction to the RAW image. The Z7 is on the top, and the Z9 is on the bottom. Click to see full size:

To my eye, the differences are extremely slight. If I squint, I can see very minor patches of additional noise on the Nikon Z9, particularly in the dark reds, greens, and yellows to the right of the cat figure. That said, it’s no more than 1/3 stop at the most, and it wouldn’t lead me to choose one of these cameras over the other, even as a landscape photographer who cares strongly about shadow recovery and dynamic range.

What about overexposure? Here are crops from the same subject exposed three stops over the meter’s recommendation, then recovered in Lightroom:

Amusingly, this time, it’s the opposite: The Z9 is ahead if you know where to look (tonal separation between the white patches near the top), but by no more than 1/3 stop. Given these two results, I’m comfortable saying that the Nikon Z9 is at the same level as the Nikon Z7 – and therefore the Z7 II – in dynamic range performance. However, the Z7 sensor gets a bit more out of the shadows, and the Z9 gets a bit more out of the highlights.

Some photographers may be interested in the cameras’ shadow recovery capabilities at higher ISO values. Here are crops of images that have been underexposed by four stops, then recovered in Lightroom with the same parameters, at every ISO stop from 100 to 6400. (Above that point, recovering a 4-stop underexposed image just gets you a mess of noise.) As before, the Z7 is on the top, and the Z9 is on the bottom. Starting with ISO 100:

ISO 200:

ISO 400:

ISO 800:

ISO 1600:

ISO 3200:

ISO 6400:

At most of the ISO values, the Nikon Z9’s performance ranges from 1/3-stop worse than the Z7, to effectively identical. The only exception is at ISO 400 (right before the Z9’s dual gain sensor kicks in), where I’d say the Z9 is closer to a full stop worse than the Z7 at shadow recovery.

Overall, the Nikon Z9 has excellent dynamic range, just as we’ve come to expect from Nikon’s cameras with base ISO 64. Even though the stacked CMOS sensor worried some dynamic-range die-hards when it was announced, the reality isn’t an issue at all. These results – as with the Nikon D850, Z7, and Z7 II – are better than anything we’ve tested on a camera with base ISO 100 (albeit by no more than 1/2 stop most of the time).

Just to demonstrate how much shadow recovery this is in practice, here’s a real-world example photo from the Z9 at base ISO:

And this is how it looks with +5.0 exposure recovery and +40 shadow recovery in Lightroom (no sharpening or noise reduction applied):

Forget the fact that the fireworks no longer look like fireworks with that much brightening! Instead, consider the level of noise in the shadows. Personally, I find the noise pretty reasonable at this resolution, although you’ll definitely want to use noise reduction if you plan to make a large print.

Only once I further boost shadow recovery to +100 do I notice some obtrusive line-pattern noise in the deep shadows:

As a sanity check, remember that most of this photo was pitch black originally. If you find yourself doing this much shadow recovery, you’ve made a mistake somewhere along the way, and it wasn’t in your choice of camera :)