# D750 vs D610 vs D810 low light performance.



## W.Y.Photo (Mar 4, 2015)

Which one has the best low light performance? which is second best? I don't only mean ISO-noise capability but auto-focus and anything else that factors in to low light shooting.

If you can't pick one over the other then how do they differ in terms of low light performance?

I've seen the specs, I just can't seem to find many reviews on actual in-the-feild performance.


----------



## KmH (Mar 4, 2015)

Since they are all Nikon cameras, you might want to look through TPF's Nikon camera forum.


----------



## W.Y.Photo (Mar 4, 2015)

Oh, my bad, I thought I was there 

KmH, Any chance you could move this thread or delete it? I don't want to double post.


----------



## goooner (Mar 4, 2015)

mmmh interesting. My gut tells me that the d610 and d750 will be very close when it comes to low light performance. Their pixels should be larger (less pixels on the same area). The D810  would have smaller pixels and should be slightly worse in low light. The d750 being the newest of the bunch I would imagine has the best focusing. This is just a gut feeling through extrapolating my 'knowledge' on a hypothetical 'problem'. I would imagine that the real world difference between the 3 would be negligible...


----------



## Solarflare (Mar 4, 2015)

W.Y.Photo said:


> [...] I don't only mean ISO-noise capability but auto-focus and anything else that factors in to low light shooting. [...]


 Well thats easy, with AF its D750 > D810 > D610. The D750 has the newest version of the best AF, the D810 the previous version, and the D610 got an AF thats usually used for DX. So yeah.

In respect to ISO ... meh. They all have recent Sony sensors. D750 and D810 support native ISO 12k, while D610 stops at 6400, thats about all the differences there are.


----------



## ruifo (Mar 4, 2015)

AF system: D750 > D810 (both very close) > D610 (a bit after the first two, with less AF points)
ISO: D610 > D750 (both very close) > D810 (but not too far way)

Below is a link to my sample high ISO shots, so you can see for yourself what the D810 can do between ISO 6400-12800. The D610 and D750 will do even a bit better.

High ISO 6400 - an album on Flickr

Do you need ultra high performance at low light conditions? No way to go wrong: D4s, of course (at a high cost), or alternativelly the *Nikon Df*, with the same D4s sensor, but less AF points. Try the Df:

Nikon Df D-SLR Camera Classic Nikon SLR Styling Modern Digital SLR Features Inside


----------



## shadowlands (Mar 4, 2015)

I'm sure they're pretty darn close... all great cameras....


----------



## W.Y.Photo (Mar 4, 2015)

Thanks guys. I suspected it was the 750..



ruifo said:


> AF system: D750 > D810 (both very close) > D610 (a bit after the first two, with less AF points)
> ISO: D610 > D750 (both very close) > D810 (but not too far way)
> 
> Below is a link to my sample high ISO shots, so you can see for yourself what the D810 can do between ISO 6400-12800. The D610 and D750 will do even a bit better.
> ...



I've actually had the chance to play with the Df. It's an amazing camera, but not what I'm looking for. I need a camera that I can use in a studio one moment, on location the next, and in unexpected lighting conditions without using lights. (And I need to make huge prints) 

Did you use noise reduction on those pictures at all or is that SOOC?


----------



## ruifo (Mar 4, 2015)

shadowlands said:


> I'm sure they're pretty darn close... all great cameras....




Agreed. Depends more on the photographer technique than the difference among these camera options...


----------



## Braineack (Mar 4, 2015)

Solarflare said:


> and the D610 got an AF thats usually used for DX. So yeah..



what's the difference between 3500DX and 3500FX?  nothing?  So yeah...The D810 also got an AF that's also used in DX.


----------



## ruifo (Mar 4, 2015)

W.Y.Photo said:


> Did you use noise reduction on those pictures at all or is that SOOC?



Yes, you always need to use it to some degree, in any of these cameras, but not as much as in older models at all. They're evolving fast.


----------



## Braineack (Mar 4, 2015)

really? i never use NR.  I hate it.


----------



## ruifo (Mar 4, 2015)

Braineack said:


> really? i never use NR.  I hate it.



Works great here when needed 
I never fear using it if needed.


----------



## Braineack (Mar 4, 2015)

I dont fear it, I just dont like the results.


----------



## ruifo (Mar 4, 2015)

Braineack said:


> I dont fear it, I just dont like the results.



I understand. I like my results so far, really well.


----------



## W.Y.Photo (Mar 4, 2015)

Well, In camera and in post are two different things. I use the in camera Long-exposure NR all the time but I rarely use it in post. Which are you referring to Ruifo?


----------



## ruifo (Mar 4, 2015)

W.Y.Photo said:


> Well, In camera and in post are two different things. I use the in camera Long-exposure NR all the time but I rarely use it in post. Which are you referring to Ruifo?



True. Mainly in camera, occasionally in post (if/when I do the correct expure to allow for NR in post - ETTR or similar). Always RAW.


----------



## goodguy (Mar 4, 2015)

The low light performance of all three is excellent and differences are small at best.
Still the D750 has a small advanntage, up to 6400ISO its about par with the D610 but at 12800ISO is leads due to the fact its shooting at its native ISO while the D610 is at its Hi1
As mentioned the D810 has smaller pixels thus is slightly less effective in high ISO.

AF on D750/D810 is almost same, its a newer version on the D750 but I am pretty sure in most cases it will not make much different.
The AF on the D610 is one level bellow due to less AF points and older design but it is still a very good and effective AF system.

So in a small margin the D750 is the better low light performer and has a slightly better AF system.


----------



## jaomul (Mar 4, 2015)

ruifo said:


> AF system: D750 > D810 (both very close) > D610 (a bit after the first two, with less AF points)
> ISO: D610 > D750 (both very close) > D810 (but not too far way)
> 
> Below is a link to my sample high ISO shots, so you can see for yourself what the D810 can do between ISO 6400-12800. The D610 and D750 will do even a bit better.
> ...


Seems your d810 is certainly not afraid to push the iso a little


----------



## jaomul (Mar 4, 2015)

Braineack said:


> really? i never use NR.  I hate it.



No doubt if you can get away with it photos have more detail,do you shoot raw or jpeg?

Sometimes very subtle noise reduction in raw has a more positive effect than the slight detail you lose in my opinion, each to their own though


----------



## ruifo (Mar 4, 2015)

jaomul said:


> Seems your d810 is certainly not afraid to push the iso a little




Not at all, Jaomul. When I know the situation requires ISO 3200+, I tend to do ETTR as much as possible (avoiding to blow up the highlights, of course), in order to be able to get more flexibility in post, if some NR in post is needed. Good results so far. Up to ISO 3200, NR in post is almost never needed anyhow, unless I messed up really bad with the exposure settings.


----------



## W.Y.Photo (Mar 4, 2015)

ruifo said:


> jaomul said:
> 
> 
> > Seems your d810 is certainly not afraid to push the iso a little
> ...



Somethings been nagging me for a while and I've never known the better option.  Say you need a shutter speed of 1/125 to capture motion and you need as little noise as humanly possible.. To get a correct exposure at 3200 ISO your lens would be wide open. To get the highest quality image do you: A) shoot at 3200 with the correct exposure, B) shoot at 1600 ETTL and post process up, or C) Shoot at 6400 ETTR and post process down

For the sake of the question lets say the camera isn't one of these higher end models that's made to reduce noise at these high ISOs and that the lighting is such that there wont be blowouts or black spots if you over or under expose.


----------



## Braineack (Mar 4, 2015)

jaomul said:


> Braineack said:
> 
> 
> > really? i never use NR.  I hate it.
> ...


I shoot raw and have a D600. 

But even with my D5100, noise doesn't bother me.  But NR does.




125 v 2000 ISO by The Braineack, on Flickr

It just makes it appear grainy/pointlized. NR always looks mushy/blurry to me and removes fine details that are still retained in noisey images.

Personally preference I suppose.


----------



## ruifo (Mar 4, 2015)

W.Y.Photo said:


> Somethings been nagging me for a while and I've never known the better option.  Say you need a shutter speed of 1/125 to capture motion and you need as little noise as humanly possible.. To get a correct exposure at 3200 ISO your lens would be wide open. To get the highest quality image do you: A) shoot at 3200 with the correct exposure, B) shoot at 1600 ETTL and post process up, or C) Shoot at 6400 ETTR and post process down
> 
> For the sake of the question lets say the camera isn't one of these higher end models that's made to reduce noise at these high ISOs and that the lighting is such that there wont be blowouts or black spots if you over or under expose.




I'd say depends on the camera, and how it handles ISO vs. dynamic range. I assume this situation would be handheld (shutter speed of 1/125). If you're not sure how your camera will behave, you can always try three shots: ETTL, normal exposure, and ETTR. And see what works better later, in post. Doing this kind of test is important for you to know your camera better.

You can also try braketing, HDR, or simply reducing the suther speed to collect more light (if on a VR lens, or on  tripod, which is not the spirit of you question, if I understand it well).


----------



## ruifo (Mar 4, 2015)

Braineack said:


> Personally preference I suppose.



Yeah, got it. Sometimes I feel the same too, depending on the image. On B&W shots, I like grainy/noise photos, and I tend to push the ISO just to make it happen sometimes, even if I don't need the high ISO. I did a large print for my home of a very grainy monochrome image the other day. Looks great to my eyes.


----------



## Vtec44 (Mar 4, 2015)

Braineack said:


> what's the difference between 3500DX and 3500FX?



On top of my head, probably light sensitivity on some of those focus points.

From some technical documentation for the 4800DX vs FX, so I'd assume the same for 3500DX vs FX.



> Specifically the D7000 uses the Nikon Multi-CAM 4800DX autofocus module with TTL phase detection, fine-tuning, 39 focus points (including 9 cross-type sensors) whilst the D600 uses the Nikon Multi-CAM 4800 autofocus sensor module with TTL phase detection, fine-tuning, 39 focus points (including 9 cross-type sensors; the center 33 points are available at apertures faster than or including f/5.6, while the center 7 focus points are available at f/8).



On another note, beyond ISO noise the ability to be able to focus in the dark is important to some people.  I shoot the D800 and D600 side by side.  The D600 has much better noise at 6400ISO, but cannot focus in the dark as well as my D800 on moving subjects.  So, I always use my D800 in low light situations.  D600 and 610 are basically the same, with the newer one having slightly higher FPS.


----------



## goodguy (Mar 4, 2015)

Vtec44 said:


> On another note, beyond ISO noise the ability to be able to focus in the dark is important to some people.  I shoot the D800 and D600 side by side.  The D600 has much better noise at 6400ISO, but cannot focus in the dark as well as my D800 on moving subjects.  So, I always use my D800 in low light situations.  D600 and 610 are basically the same, with the newer one having slightly higher FPS.


Good point I didnt think of, the D810 has -2EV while the D750 has -3EV thus AF works in even darker conditions then both the D600/D610 and the D800/D810


----------

