D3 compared to the D850 and D5 in low light: I just read that the D3 works better in low light than either the D5 or the D850. I know it has huge pixels on the sensor compared to the...

Drbobcameraguy Loc: Eaton Ohio

I just read that the D3 works better in low light than either the D5 or the D850. I know it has huge pixels on the sensor compared to the others. Am I missing something? The dynamic range and of course mp are lower but I'm just looking for the very best low light Nikon I can afford. Think bargain for f glass without adapters. I have a lot more research to do. Was just asking for others knowledge of the subject. I'm not interested in spending over 1000 or 1200 bucks basically.

Quixdraw Loc: x

Drbobcameraguy wrote:

I just read that the D3 works better in low light than either the D5 or the D850. I know it has huge pixels on the sensor compared to the others. Am I missing something? The dynamic range and of course mp are lower but I'm just looking for the very best low light Nikon I can afford. Think bargain for f glass without adapters. I have a lot more research to do. Was just asking for others knowledge of the subject. I'm not interested in spending over 1000 or 1200 bucks basically.

Have not got the other two cameras, but the D3 is just all around amazing. Have posted a bunch of sunsets and other available low light landscapes. A full out Pro camera that can be had quite inexpensively. I have posted lots of photos from it - the only genre it hasn't worked on is Wildlife, and that may be me, not the camera.

Drbobcameraguy Loc: Eaton Ohio

quixdraw wrote:

Have not got the other two cameras, but the D3 is just all around amazing. Have posted a bunch of sunsets and other available low light landscapes. A full out Pro camera that can be had quite inexpensively. I have posted lots of photos from it - the only genre it hasn't worked on is Wildlife, and that may be me, not the camera.

I have a d500 for wildlife but it's low light abilities are lacking. I saw a D3 for 500bucks on FM and was seriously thinking about it. I have been looking at D750 but all I'm really looking for is low light as best as I can get within budget. Thanks for your knowledge!!!!!!

Quixdraw Loc: x

Drbobcameraguy wrote:

I have a d500 for wildlife but it's low light abilities are lacking. I saw a D3 for 500bucks on FM and was seriously thinking about it. I have been looking at D750 but all I'm really looking for is low light as best as I can get within budget. Thanks for your knowledge!!!!!!

Have the D750, it is also excellent for low light. Did a bunch of urban night shots with it over the years. Can't tell you what it is about the D3, but with several digital Nikons on my desk, the last few months I've been reaching for it a lot. $500 sounds like a good price if shutter activations are reasonable, the batteries are good, and it comes with a charger. I paid $600 and change for mine.

Drbobcameraguy Loc: Eaton Ohio

quixdraw wrote:

Have the D750, it is also excellent for low light. Did a bunch of urban night shots with it over the years. Can't tell you what it is about the D3, but with several digital Nikons on my desk, the last few months I've been reaching for it a lot. $500 sounds like a good price if shutter activations are reasonable, the batteries are good, and it comes with a charger. I paid $600 and change for mine.

So would you choose the D3 as best for low light instead of the D750?

btbg

Drbobcameraguy wrote:

I just read that the D3 works better in low light than either the D5 or the D850. I know it has huge pixels on the sensor compared to the others. Am I missing something? The dynamic range and of course mp are lower but I'm just looking for the very best low light Nikon I can afford. Think bargain for f glass without adapters. I have a lot more research to do. Was just asking for others knowledge of the subject. I'm not interested in spending over 1000 or 1200 bucks basically.

It just depends on what you are trying to do with your low light photos.

If you are trying to shoot action in low light then the D5 is the camera for you. 8 or 10,000 ISO is still suitable for newspaper photography, and it can be pushed even higher, so it is better in low light if what you are trying to do is take photos at high shutter speeds, such as night football at poorly lit fields.

On the other hand if you are talking about low ISO, slow shutter speeds then the D3 has less noise than the D5 and is an excellent choice for far less money.

The D850 is somewhere in the middle between the two extremes. All three will do a good job in low light, as will the D750, but if you are shooting non-action photos and are using a tripod, then the D3 is hard to beat, and is absolutely unbeatable for the price.

By the way, the D500 is more than adequate in low light. It can be pushed up to about 8,000 ISO, and is pretty decent in low light if it is placed on a tripod at low ISOs.

Quixdraw Loc: x

Drbobcameraguy wrote:

So would you choose the D3 as best for low light instead of the D750?

Can't answer since I haven't done a side by side. I'm not much into testing, more into feeling out what each camera can do, then grabbing the right camera for the particular task at hand.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

Drbobcameraguy wrote:

I just read that the D3 works better in low light than either the D5 or the D850. I know it has huge pixels on the sensor compared to the others. Am I missing something? The dynamic range and of course mp are lower but I'm just looking for the very best low light Nikon I can afford. Think bargain for f glass without adapters. I have a lot more research to do. Was just asking for others knowledge of the subject. I'm not interested in spending over 1000 or 1200 bucks basically.

My experience only covers a D700, D3, D3S, D800 and D810. The D700 was very good - pretty much the same as the D3. D3S was better - a pretty remarkable camera for low light even by today's standards, bu a little short on dynamic range.

The D800 and D810 were actually pretty much the same as the D3S in low light, but with more dynamic range. Of course, for this comparision, the 36mp images from the D8XX cameras were downsampled to the same 12 mp of the D3S.

Here is the rationale behind my experience - and I totally agree with it. I would expect the D850 to be better still, if compared to the 12 mp D3 or D3S.

https://blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/noise-reduction-and-downsampling/#:~:text=Downsampling%20by%20a%20factor%20of,cameras%20of%20unequal%20pixel%20count.

https://photographylife.com/why-downsampling-an-image-reduces-noise

sandiegosteve Loc: San Diego, CA

Dr. Bob,

What are you thinking of as low light? Also curious about what you will be shooting. There are a few challenges cameras have in low light. Noise, color depth and the ability to focus are just a few. I find the color depth/dynamic range can be a problem in some scenarios and not others. The ability to grab focus in low light can make a big difference in action. Some indoor low light scenarios have flickering lights.

So all that said, maybe your desired style of usage will help drive things.

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

sandiegosteve wrote:

Dr. Bob, br br What are you thinking of as low li... (show quote)

From about ISO 1000 up, the D3s and the D850 plot as equivalent on Photons to Photos. The D3 isn't quite as "good." But if I were photographing the night sky, I'd much rather have the higher resolution of the D850 to better separate and define the stars as point sources. Other applications might go the other way. That's why we are asking what you are wanting to do.

tramsey Loc: Texas

Write all the names of the cameras that you are looking at. Put them in a bowl and stir. Close your eyes and pick one and that is your new camera; congratulations.

Drbobcameraguy Loc: Eaton Ohio

I shoot mostly wildlife and at dusk usually stationary. I have shot my D500 as high as 12800 doesn't look bad if no cropping is involved and the scene is busy after massive noise reduction. Nothing I would normally keep unless a once in a lifetime shot. Anyway just studying a way to get better low light performance on a budget since I normally don't do much low light work. I'm working on a new 600mm f4 so you know broke. Lol

User ID

.

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

Drbobcameraguy wrote:

I shoot mostly wildlife and at dusk usually stationary. I have shot my D500 as high as 12800 doesn't look bad if no cropping is involved and the scene is busy after massive noise reduction. Nothing I would normally keep unless a once in a lifetime shot. Anyway just studying a way to get better low light performance on a budget since I normally don't do much low light work. I'm working on a new 600mm f4 so you know broke. Lol

Understood. I do not have a D3. But I have a D850 and D500. From a dynamic range standpoint, the D500 and the D3 appear to be pretty much the same...with the D850 about a stop better. I think in real life, there may be a little more separation between the D500 and D850, but not much...

User ID

.