Nikon D810 vs Nikon Z6ii for low light (Page 2): Some folks learn quickly, others not so fast.

Winslowe

grandpaw wrote:

I thought these forums were here so members could draw on the experiences of others and that is the reason for me asking what I did. Asking others that have the same interests sometimes give ideas or information that you may not have thought of. I have been into photography for a little over fifty years but I am always interested in getting input from others.

Some folks learn quickly, others not so fast.

yssirk123 Loc: New Jersey

My oldest daughter moved to the Z6ii for her wedding photography and loves it. Low light performance (amongst other things) was very important to her.

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

User ID wrote:

If real, thaz nice. I would use it even if it were 2/3 stop worse. The functionality of the Z is more significant than minor noise differences in modern cameras.

Such difference does NOT mean shooting at 2/3 stop lower ISO. It just means that shooting at whatever ISO is necessary, the noise difference between the cameras is small enough to ignore ... although big enough to measure under careful testing.

While I wouldn’t describe 2/3 of a stop as earth shattering, it isn’t trivial either. For those that (like me) shoot moving subjects in indoor light with wide open fast lenses, 2/3 of a stop increase in SS can be the difference between a shutter speed that freezes the motion or one that produces some blur or loss of sharpness.

As far as those results being “real”, you can always take that up with Bill Claff, who is a UHH member (bclaff) and both runs the site and wrote most of the published and available white papers on the methodology.

fantom Loc: Colorado

"Shooting higher ISO with good results" is a relative judgement. What is acceptable for one person may not be considered good by a different person. Define "good results" and you will get many opinions and find that it also depends on the circumstances, content and intent of the shot.

fantom Loc: Colorado

Leitz wrote:

The Z might focus better with a faster lens than your 28-300.

Yes, that is true, but I am talking about the same lens on a different camera and the different focus times for each camera. You have to talk about apples to apples and compare results from the same lens on separate cameras.

fantom Loc: Colorado

SuperflyTNT wrote:

Actually the Z7II is more comparable to the D850 and the Z6II is better than the Z7II in low light.

Which Z camera do you own?

Nicholas J DeSciose

Z6 works better in the light by a lot. Practice and experiment over and over again

stan0301 Loc: Colorado

What you need to include is Topaz's program to clean up high ISO shots - it makes quite a difference, and new cameras are far better in lower light than in the old days

IDguy Loc: Idaho

SuperflyTNT wrote:

When talk about the Z6 being better in low light what we mean is you can shoot at a higher ISO with good results.

That, plus the sensor and processing system are better in low light not requiring as high an ISO.

SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA

fantom wrote:

Which Z camera do you own?

Z7, which does very well in low light but the Z6 is better.

lautenk2

grandpaw wrote:

I have both cameras and I am still getting use to them both. Which one would be better in your opinion for taking low light concert pictures? I also have the D500.

I have the s24-70mm F4 for the z6ii
I have the Tamron 2.8 for the D810
I also have the Nikon 70-200f2.8 f mount that will work on either camera with my ZTF adapter

Is your Tamron 2.8 the G2 model? I understand the first generation Tamron 24-70 f2.8 doesn't work with the FTZ adapter, but after I did a firmware update on my 24-70 G2 it works great on a Z7 w/FTZ. Should work for you.

Drbobcameraguy Loc: Eaton Ohio

My d3s is still very capable of shooting at 12800 and hi3 with results worth keeping after noise reduction. I believe dxomark has the numbers. I bought it because I shoot in the woods a lot and my D5oo just couldn't perform at those ranges as far as decent pics after noise reduction. I wish the D3s had more pixels. Lmao

User ID

TriX wrote:

While I wouldn’t describe 2/3 of a stop as earth shattering, it isn’t trivial either. For those that (like me) shoot moving subjects in indoor light with wide open fast lenses, 2/3 of a stop increase in SS can be the difference between a shutter speed that freezes the motion or one that produces some blur or loss of sharpness.

You missed the point. You don’t slow the shutter nor reduce the ISO. You just accept that one camera is slightly noisier.

The other, slightly better, camera does not set any noise standard that one must never go beyond. There’s always yet another camera with less noise than the “better” one. And likewise the “even more better” camera is not setting any standard.

•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

There is no metric for noise. 2/3 stop is a subjective comparison of resulting images at various ISO levels. Or of various exposures at base ISO that are then rescued from under exposure by processing the raw files, then comparing noise in the rescued images.

Find subjectively “equal” rescued images and check the data. The data showed 2/3 stops difference ? OK then one camera is 2/3 stop noisier.

Shoot both cameras at the ISO and EV needed for the job. Do not tell the client which camera is better. Verrry simple.

A less noisy camera doesn’t buy you any shutter speed. It’s just a less noisy camera. No one sees smalls differences real world pix ... only in A-B testing.

TriX wrote:

As far as those results being “real”, you can always take that up with Bill Claff, who is a UHH member (bclaff) and both runs the site and wrote most of the published and available white papers on the methodology.

Real ?!?!? I shall accept that he has some methods to minimize subjectivity. I nevvvvvuh read that kinda stuffy stuff cuz I have no need of test data. If two of my cameras do very well in low light, it means nothing to test and find that one is 1.3 stops “better”.

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

User ID wrote:

Real ?!?!? I shall accept that he has some methods to minimize subjectivity. I nevvvvvuh read that kinda stuffy stuff cuz I have no need of test data. If two of my cameras do very well in low light, it means nothing to test and find that one is 1.3 stops “better”.

I think you have missed the point which is simply for an acceptable amount of noise (to the viewer), the camera that is better at high ISOs allows you to use a higher SS or a smaller aperture for equal noise. Now that can’t be too hard to understand, is it? I’m pretty sure the majority of readers can understand that simple concept.

Regarding your last paragraph, if you haven’t read the white papers I referenced on the measurement methodology, then you don’t really understand the metric and are unqualified to comment on it.

grandpaw

I thought my Tamron 24-70 f2.8 was a G1 and would not work with the Z6ii, but I tried it and it works just fine with the FTZ adapter so I know which set I will take. Nikon Z6ii & FTZ adapter with the Tamron 24-70 F2.8 and the Nikon 70-200 F2.8 and that should cover everything I need. I will also have my D810 in my bag just in case.
Thanks everyone for your input. I haven't mastered the D810 and the Z6ii yet but I am on my way. What I need to photograph is not until September so I will have plenty of time to play with both cameras. I always like to hear what others have to say and any input that I might receive. The D810 is not really much different from what I am use to but the Z6ii does have a bit of a learning curve. I have been shooting for over fifty years and have taught several photography classes but I hope I never get to the point that I can't ask for others input or suggestions. I hope to never stop learning!