MadMikeOne Loc: So. NJ Shore - a bit west of Atlantic City

Hi all,

A friend & I are trying to make an informed decision and I would love to hear from some of my "trusted Hogs" to assist.

OK - here goes, we both currently own/use/love our Nikon D500's (crop sensor), and are considering adding a FF NIKON with the intention of improving low light performance at higher ISO's over our D500's. The ONLY models under consideration are the D850, D5, D6 , and Z9. The main reason for wanting to add a new camera is for better performance in low light. Our main subjects are birds, BIF, and wildlife. I'm fully aware of the limitations of mirrorless when it comes to what I shoot, as well as the specs on the cameras under consideration. The ONLY thing I'm asking about is low light performance. All our lenses are FX.

1) Which of the above cameras gives the best performance in low light at higher ISO's, and why? D5 & D6 (both FF) are significantly lower MP than the FF D850 and the Z9. Feel free to get technical!
2) If I were to use the D850 or the Z9 (both much higher MP than the D500, D5, and D6) in one of the crop modes, wouldn't the pixel DENSITY remain the same vs. the FX mode on that camera thus making NO difference in low light performance? If my understanding of pixel size/pixel density is correct, I would think that the low light performance of the D850 or the Z9 would remain the same FX mode vs Crop Mode in each camera.
3) Given my understanding, noted in 2) above, wouldn't the low light performance of the D5, D6 be better than that of the D850 or Z9 using one of the available crop modes? (I know that the D500 is a crop sensor, and therefore has higher pixel density than either the D5 or D6 that have about the same MP count as the D500, and therefore the D500 would NOT be as good in low light as the D5 or D6.)

I realize that the processors in the cameras under consideration differ, and that those differences may come into play when it comes to low light performance. Feel free to mention those differences if they make a difference. I'm not technically savvy enough to know the differences between processors.

After reading through this, it seems that my question has come down to the crop sensor D5 & D6 vs the FF D850 vs Z9.

Please feel free to correct any of my misunderstanding(s) of this subject.
Thanks in advance!

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

Before we discuss pixel pitch and low light performance, let me suggest you go to this site: (https://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm ) and choose each of the cameras of interest in the right hand column, and the graph of the DR will appear (you can select multiple bodies). Then go to the chart below the graph and look up the low light/high ISO performance of each, and that will answer your questions as to which body had the best DR and low light/high ISO performance. Then Google the pixel pitch of each body and you’ll have all the information to get a good start on the answers to your questions. BTW, if the FF camera has a DX mode, that’s often shown separately.

cjc2 Loc: Hellertown PA

All the numbers and opinions can be helpful to me but I really appreciate actual experience and also the advice of local pros who shoot what I do. I either own, or have owned, all of the bodies you mentioned and I would add one more, the D4s, which I felt had wonderful low light performance. How do I judge? I take a hard look at my night time football shots, under the lights, shot at 12,800 to 25,600. I did not care for the D850 for low light or sports, but I liked the D4s, D5 and D6. Which was the best? I never did any scientific comparisons. How about the Z9? Too soon for me to tell. Hope my ramblings help you. Best of luck.

MadMikeOne Loc: So. NJ Shore - a bit west of Atlantic City

Thanks, but I've already looked at charts/comparisons, but have specific questions. That's why I took the time to post my question here.

MadMikeOne Loc: So. NJ Shore - a bit west of Atlantic City

Fortunately, we have lots of experience available here on UHH. I'm not asking about charts, long-winded scientific comparisons and the like. Hence my post here on the Hog. As I stated in my OP, the ONLY models under consideration were the 4 I mentioned. The D4 had been ruled out.
Thanks, anyway, though.

kpmac Loc: Ragley, La

I can only compare my D850 to my crop D7200. The D850 is much better in low light. I know that doesn't help much.

R.G. Loc: Scotland

If you have a look at DXOmark and select "Nikon, Any Date" for a search you'll find the relevant data (by scrolling down). The value of most interest to you is in the "Sports" column since it indicates the low light, high ISO performance. The Z9 is too recent to be included but I believe its performance wasn't much different from the D850. The camera giving the best Sports figures is the Z6II (it is slightly better than the Z6 but they are both good). As you can see, the FF options are waaaay better than the D500.

I saw a recent video (can't remember who by) where they made the observation that if you compared contemporary sensors from the same camera manufacturer and compared hi-res sensors to the "standard" sensors (~20-24MP), the ISO noise was slightly worse with the hi-res sensor but it was also smaller due to the higher pixel count, and as a result it was less noticeable than the noise you got from lower res sensors. The video included side-by-side comparisons that were quite convincing. The worse noise of the hi-res sensor was noticeable only if you cropped or zoomed in on it, but with no crop or zooming the noise in the lower res image looked worse because it was bigger and therefore more noticeable, despite the fact that it was less pronounced when comparing pixel-to-pixel.

Obviously another difference was that the hi-res sensor provided more small detail, which helps image quality.

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

Then you already have partial answers to two of your questions:

1) the D5 is the low light/high ISO king. It’s better than the Z9 and D850 because the pixel density is lower. As to why it’s better than the D6, which has exactly the same pixel density, I don’t have a clue.

2) if you examine the data where it’s available for FX and Dx mode for the same camera, the DX mode has about half (or 1 stop) difference in low light/high ISO performance. Since the pixel pitch and density remain the same, I have a guess, but it’s only that.

If you want a definitive answer, you might shoot a PM to Bill Claff (bclaff), a UHH member who actually runs the site I linked to above and wrote the papers explaining the testing methodology. Hopefully he’ll comment in the thread so we can all see the answer(s).

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

Hi Mike. I shoot both the D500 and D850, and I do quite a bit of low light/high ISO shooting. There are some things that I think need to be clarified and resolved before we can go too far with your discussion. The first is to know just what kind of "low light shooting" you are interested in doing and exactly what levels of sensitivity (ISO) and ranges of exposure times you are interested in using. For instance, the D850 will work beautifully making 30 or 40 second exposures at an ISO of 5,000 or even 6,000. Someone else will need to tell you how it does at an ISO of 25,000 and a shutter speed of 1/2000. That is a different situation altogether, and I don't work there.

Also...have you conquered low-light shooting with your D500? Lots of folks complain about its ability, but in fact, it is (in general terms) only about one stop (or maybe a tiny bit more) short of what the D850 can do. Numerous folks here complain about the D500's capabilities in this area, but my finding is that they just haven't learned all that they need to know and how to apply it.

Finally...are you willing and able to use the functions provided in your camera to optimize performance? This includes High ISO Noise Reduction and Long Exposure Noise Reduction. Using them makes a notable difference, but sometimes they are not feasible (especially Long Exposure Noise Reduction).

I do not have experience with the D5 and D6. My understanding is that they offer some benefits, but it is not clear to me how big these benefits are. And they do come at the expense of resolution. Someone else will need to talk about them. I am sure that other cameras will come up in the discussion, probably the D750 and D780. In my experience, these cameras are good low light choices when looking from the perspective of, say, a D300 (which I also have) but not so much so when viewed from the perspective of a D500 or D850.

I'm not going to address the issue of using different shooting formats in the D850. There's too much wrong "knowledge" here, and trying to do so would just start a pointless argument.

So if you can, please tell us a little bit more of what you have on your mind.

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

Pixel density will remain the same in crop mode on the D850 and Z9 but low-light performance will decrease as a result of the smaller area of the sensor used.
From your question I assume you're thinking that pixel size (pixel density) is the primary factor in determining the camera's low-light performance. It is a factor but of secondary/lesser importance. The size of the sensor (total area) is the prime factor that determines low-light performance.

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

Not sure where this came from....pushed a wrong button somewhere.

BebuLamar

I think the Z9 is best. Better than the D850 by a small amount.

Orphoto Loc: Oregon

Hi Mad Mike. I hate to break it to you, but there will only be a small number uhh readers well positioned to answer your question directly. And no, I can't either.

I do suggest you take a gander at the following link. Brad Hill is a nature photographer based in BC Canada who does extremely intensive field testing of equipment of interest in this area. He primarily shoots large mammals but is sensitive to the needs of the BIF crowd.

http://www.naturalart.ca/voice/blog.html#anchor_Z9_Prelim_ISO

MadMikeOne Loc: So. NJ Shore - a bit west of Atlantic City

Thanks, R.G. The Z6ii has been ruled out due to focusing issues. I purchased one and returned it after testing it out in the field. I'm leaning toward the D850 vs the Z9 for my usual subject matter and shooting conditions. A friend received her Z9 and I tried it out a bit yesterday. I was really surprised at how long it took for the camera to "wake up" when I put my eye to the viewfinder. The birds would have built their nests, mated, laid their eggs, and fledged their chicks before the blasted camera was ready to take the shot. Of course this is a gross exaggeration, but what a disappointment.

I'm continuing my independent research with the help of my able assistant, Mr. Google. Thanks for your input!

MadMikeOne Loc: So. NJ Shore - a bit west of Atlantic City

Thanks, I forgot about him. I think someone on Steve Perry's forum posted something a while back. I may even post my question on Steve's forum when I get a chance.