# what camera is good for ISO and has the low pass filter removed?



## Mashburn (Jan 17, 2016)

I grew up on the d7000. and about a year ago I went to the 7200 and loved it because of how sharp it is with the low pass filter removed. but I want a camera that can handle the ISO better. so that means going into full frame. and going into full frame will benefit me in many other areas as well. 

I would love to get the D3S. but I do not like how low the MP is I want the ability to print large if I need to, and I want it to be sharp when I do so. I know I can print large, but it loses sharpness when you go bigger then recommended..... Also I do not like that it has the low pass filter. and I know there is people out there that will remove it, but honestly I'm sketchy with having someone do it without a 100% guarantee. 

so that leaves me looking into the 750 and 810 models. but because of how large the MP is on the 810, it makes the ISO crap. so by chance is there a way to lower the MP? has anyone lowered it to where it handles a 20 MP and seen how good it does on ISO? 

or is there something else out there? and don't mention the d5. that is going to be to much for me right now. I'm looking at spending 1500-3000.


----------



## Trever1t (Jan 17, 2016)

Nikon D810. Obviously you have no hands on experience with it. I can shoot 6400 and you would never know it unless you are pixel peeping.


----------



## goodguy (Jan 17, 2016)

I believe you are caught up way too much on the low pass filter.
I had the D7100 which is a great camera with no AA filter and I also own the D3300 which doesn't have AA filter.
I own the D750 and I promise you when I nail focus on my cameras in low ISO and use my good lenses you will NOT be able to see any sharpness difference.
The sharpness difference is really for lab test and people who obsessively try to pixel peep, in real life the 2 most important factor is your skills and lenses you use.
I even had a Nikon D60 and on 100ISO and good lenses pictures came out wonderfully sharp!!!

Get the D750, its better in high ISO then the D810 and you are left with a lot of money in your hand to get good lenses.


----------



## jsecordphoto (Jan 17, 2016)

D810 crap at high ISO....huh? The d750 is slightly better but the d810 is certainly no slouch. And certainly better than the d3s which is a few years old now. Downscale the d810 to 24mp like the 750 and you wouldn't notice any difference.


----------



## PaulWog (Jan 17, 2016)

Get a D750 and spend the rest on glass. The low pass filter is not an issue at all. It sounds like the change from D7200 to a full frame camera will require quite a bit of lens purchases.

If you're printing *HUGE*, then maybe get the D810.


----------



## IronMaskDuval (Jan 17, 2016)

Without trying to be too rude, I suggest that you spend more time shooting than time worried about gear. If it's one thing tpf and life have taught me, it's the warm thing behind the camera that gets the shot, not the camera. My a7 is sharper than my d7100, both with top tier lenses. Well, my a7 lenses are older than I am.


----------



## Dave442 (Jan 17, 2016)

Compared to the D810, the D750 is laid out much more similar to the D7000 and D7200 that you liked so much.  So just based on that the D750 would be a natural upgrade path. I guess you already have f/2.8 FF lenses.


----------



## Solarflare (Jan 18, 2016)

It is the error of the photography beginner to think sharpness is uber important.

Thats because all the magazines keep talking about it endlessly. But really photography magazines are nothing but thinly veiled plattforms for advertisement for photography equipment. Otherwise they trash talk a lot. The reason they chat about sharpness so much is simply because thats easy, since sharpness is so easily measured.

Well, the D750 still has a weak low pass filter, which helps especially with avoiding moire problems during video, but frankly even the AA-less D810 isnt perfectly sharp at 100% (without artificial sharpening applied), because its still a Bayer color filter sensor. All cameras have such filters, except really exotic ones (Sigma Foveon X3, rare monochrome/achromatic digital cameras), and film.

I would like to point out though that we're talking purely about resolution here. Resolution isnt really something we lack. Even the D750 already has 24 Megapixels, more than sufficient for large prints. Old small format film cameras had approximately 6 Megapixels, and even they had sufficient resolution for large prints.

When I give my pictures to others over the internet, I usually downsize my D750 pictures at 6016x4016 (24 Megapixel) to 4512x3012 (13.5 Megapixel) or 3008x2008 (6 Megapixel) JPEG without any sharpening so I get about the sharpness the camera actually produces (these sizes are carefully chosen to make this shrinking near lossless) since I see no point in wasting memory space for data that wasnt there in the first place.

Look at the D5. The flagship camera for the professional has "only" 20 Megapixels. It also has an AA filter. So apparently the professionals dont care as much about resolution ?


----------



## goodguy (Jan 18, 2016)

jsecordphoto said:


> D810 crap at high ISO....huh? The d750 is slightly better but the d810 is certainly no slouch. And certainly better than the d3s which is a few years old now. Downscale the d810 to 24mp like the 750 and you wouldn't notice any difference.


If anyone thinks the D810 is crap at high ISO then he is of course very wrong, but the D810 is a camera that is more designed for studio and landscape while the D750 is a general use camera. Main thing is price, you can get a great extra lens or two for the price difference between these 2 cameras.


----------



## JTPhotography (Jan 18, 2016)

A used or refurbished d800e is about the same price as a new d750. No brainer.


----------



## shadowlands (Jan 18, 2016)

D800e
I played with files from a D800 and D800e and I couldn't notice a difference, at least not with the naked eye.
My little Coolpix A has the low pass filter removed (they come that way) and it's awesome, but I couldn't tell it apart from a D7000 image if you paid me.


----------



## jsecordphoto (Jan 18, 2016)

the 750 is quite a bit better with shadow recovery and high ISO than the d800e. I sent my buddy some RAW files when I first grabbed a 750 and he sold his d800e the next day haha.


----------



## Mashburn (Jan 18, 2016)

goodguy said:


> I believe you are caught up way too much on the low pass filter.
> I had the D7100 which is a great camera with no AA filter and I also own the D3300 which doesn't have AA filter.
> I own the D750 and I promise you when I nail focus on my cameras in low ISO and use my good lenses you will NOT be able to see any sharpness difference.
> The sharpness difference is really for lab test and people who obsessively try to pixel peep, in real life the 2 most important factor is your skills and lenses you use.
> ...


I do have a friend who has the d750. so I will put me d7200 up against it the best possible way. but I do know my 7000 vs 7200 is a big difference in sharpness


----------



## jsecordphoto (Jan 18, 2016)

Mashburn said:


> I do have a friend who has the d750. so I will put me d7200 up against it the best possible way. but I do know my 7000 vs 7200 is a big difference in sharpness



Well, I owned both, and have since sold the d7200. The d7200 images were a touch sharper OOC in good light, but after sharpening in post you couldn't really tell the difference.


----------



## Mashburn (Jan 18, 2016)

thanks everyone for mentioning the d750. but it is not for me. I like the removal of the low pass filter from my 7000 to 7200. BUT I will try my friends 750 and see how it is in comparrison to my 7200 in terms of sharpness.


jsecordphoto said:


> Mashburn said:
> 
> 
> > I do have a friend who has the d750. so I will put me d7200 up against it the best possible way. but I do know my 7000 vs 7200 is a big difference in sharpness
> ...


but sharpen the 7200 in post as much as you did the 750, and you will still see a difference


----------



## Mashburn (Jan 18, 2016)

has anyone shot with the 810 for astrophotography? at what ISO could you go to without wanting to flip a lid because of to much noise?


----------



## jsecordphoto (Jan 18, 2016)

Mashburn said:


> thanks everyone for mentioning the d750. but it is not for me. I like the removal of the low pass filter from my 7000 to 7200. BUT I will try my friends 750 and see how it is in comparrison to my 7200 in terms of sharpness.
> 
> 
> jsecordphoto said:
> ...



In regards to sharpening, you really could barely tell the difference between the two cameras after they were sharpened in post. Comparing the d7000 to the d7200 and saying the 7200 was way sharper simply because of no low pass filter is neglecting other sensor developments over the course of nearly six years. I think you're getting way too caught up on something that isn't going to make a significant difference for you. How big are you even printing? Do you have knowledge of sharpening for print (and not "export from LR with the sharpening presets")

We shot the 750 and 810 side by side at night before my buddy got sent the d810a to try out, and the 750 was cleaner at high ISO by about a stop, but with knowledge of noise reduction techniques and processing it seriously won't make a huge difference. Many of the top astrophotographers (landscape astrophotography that is) in the world are using the d810 and getting amazing images. With good technique in post you can get nice images at iso10k no problem


----------



## shadowlands (Jan 18, 2016)

D750 is nice, but I don't like the build, size, grip, etc... spoiled by the D300, D700, D800 types. I will not touch a D3 or D4 because I would fall in love.


----------



## IronMaskDuval (Jan 18, 2016)

Looking at your Flickr, it seems that you have a problem nailing focus more so than your camera being sharp. The shots that you do nail focus, the photos are plenty sharp for the lens that you are using, but there are few of those. If I were you, I would invest money in better lenses and perhaps join a photography group to improve yourself as a photographer. I see that you shot the Falcons (they need to be shot, literally). If you are in Atlanta, there is a group called the Meet and Shoot that is filled with talented photographers that can show you the ropes. Additionally, we have Aperturent and KEH here, both of which can rent or sell you gear for you to try out. I promise you, better gear only makes taking photos easier, but it won't make you a better photographer. I'm not posting this to negatively criticize you. I think you are a bit more concerned about gear than you should be. If you are in Atlanta, I'm always looking for people to go out and do street photography with if you ever need an opportunity to shoot. I love learning from this forum, and its members have made me a better photographer.

Toodles!

Oh, and this is one of the sharpest photos that I have ever taken. It was taken with a D7100 and a Nikkor 60mm. You can download the full size and zoom 100% into her eyes. It'll cut ya. My Sony A7 can do just as good, and it has an AA filter.

Andy and Steph


----------



## goodguy (Jan 18, 2016)

I too checked your Flickr, it seems you are using a very old lens, its not a bad lens but this is first thing I saw as a problem, lens will be SIGNIFICANTLY more important then D810 or D750
Using on one of these cameras this lens and expect to get same results!
Its not a bad lens but its not 70-200mm 2.8 VRII

Another issue of the D7000 is AF which is less efficient then the one on the D7200/D750/D810
Another potential issue is that the D7000 are known to have back focusing issues, I bought a D7000 new years ago and it always had back focusing issues and many of my pictures came out soft, I tried every trick in the book, at the end I got rid of it and got the D7100, the improvement was instantaneous!! and I mean in a BIG way!!! 
It was not the the sensor or lack of AA filter on the D7100 but the back focusing problem on my old D7000

You are mentally stuck on this AA filter like its the cause of all bad in sharpness but it aint, its effect is negligible!!!
If you want to get the D810 then thats fine, its an AMAZING camera but be sure to get it for the right reasons!
D810 with a cheap lens vs D750 with good lens and the D810 will produce inferior results, both cameras with good lenses the D810 might have sharper images but this will be negligible!!!


----------



## Trever1t (Jan 18, 2016)

the D750 is a consumer camera and lacks the shutter speed (it's limited to 1/4000) and other options a Professional body like the D800/810 has. 

Also, as mentioned, do not compare apples to oranges. Normalize the D810 file size to 24MP and YOU tell me which has better iso response....has there been a dxo test for that?


----------



## Solarflare (Jan 19, 2016)

Dude, DxOMark (of course) already does that. They downsize everyone to 8 Megapixel before they rate their ISO. They are not THAT incompetent.

The ISO ratings of DxOMark arent that helpful anyway. They just state the camera has to archieve 3 measurements. They dont rate if the camera develops banding, what type of noise the camera has in low light, etc.



And about old lenses - what the frak ? Using an old lens just means you dont get the newest features. It doesnt mean the lens is any bad.

Heck Nikon still has current production AI lenses. Like Galen Rowells famous AI 24mm f2.8. Yes, that one is still current production ! Street prices are bit lower, and used prices are a LOT lower (just check eBay etc). Lens design hasnt improved much in recent decades.


----------



## goodguy (Jan 19, 2016)

Solarflare said:


> Dude, DxOMark (of course) already does that. They downsize everyone to 8 Megapixel before they rate their ISO. They are not THAT incompetent.
> 
> The ISO ratings of DxOMark arent that helpful anyway. They just state the camera has to archieve 3 measurements. They dont rate if the camera develops banding, what type of noise the camera has in low light, etc.
> 
> ...


Agree with everything you say.

As for old lenses, some of Nikon's old lenses are still very good, some are good but not as good and sharp as modern lenses, its a lens by lens case.


----------



## astroNikon (Jan 19, 2016)

you use the old Nikon 80-200 f/4.5-5.6 AF-D ?
I tried that one once
I use the 80-200/2.8 AF-D
The two lenses are not comparable at all IMHO.
And I don't recommend the 80-200/2.8 for anyone with a crop 24mp sensor or >24mp FF sensor.
It seems to not be able to resolve well for those densities.
I would think your lens has the same issue for detail.

I used to have a 75-300 lens.  It was really sharp on my d7000.  On the d600 . ouch .. I sold it.  It just wasn't a good match it was like everything had a slight haze to it.


----------



## IronMaskDuval (Jan 19, 2016)

goodguy said:


> Solarflare said:
> 
> 
> > Dude, DxOMark (of course) already does that. They downsize everyone to 8 Megapixel before they rate their ISO. They are not THAT incompetent.
> ...




Old or modern, the same applies. Some lenses are great. Some lenses are terrible. Additionally, the great lenses are not all created equal, as you can get a great copy of a great lens, but you can also get a not so great copy of a great lens. Modern additions only help you in "getting the shot." However, if you weren't able to get the shot in the first place, no modern equipment is going to help you. I shoot with an A7, and a C/Y Carl Zeiss 50 1.4 Planar as my everyday lens now. The A7 does not have IBIS. The Zeiss does not have AF or OIS. I can capture pictures that are just as sharp coming out of a camera that doesn't have an AA filter or IBIS/OIS under the right conditions. Not sure why the AA filter is such a big deal.


----------



## goodguy (Jan 19, 2016)

IronMaskDuval said:


> Old or modern, the same applies. Some lenses are great. Some lenses are terrible. Additionally, the great lenses are not all created equal, as you can get a great copy of a great lens, but you can also get a not so great copy of a great lens. Modern additions only help you in "getting the shot." However, if you weren't able to get the shot in the first place, no modern equipment is going to help you. I shoot with an A7, and a C/Y Carl Zeiss 50 1.4 Planar as my everyday lens now. The A7 does not have IBIS. The Zeiss does not have AF or OIS. I can capture pictures that are just as sharp coming out of a camera that doesn't have an AA filter or IBIS/OIS under the right conditions. Not sure why the AA filter is such a big deal.


Yep, exactly what I am saying, lenses should be judges on a case by case, some old ones are good and some bad and so does new lenses but in general I think new lenses is using new technology thus in many cases will be superior to older versions.
And the AA really is not a big deal!!!


----------



## goodguy (Jan 19, 2016)

phototechblog said:


> *this camera is very good for ISO))
> Nikon D5 with ISO 3280000*​


Oh boy another TROL!


----------



## ruifo (Jan 20, 2016)

Mashburn said:


> has anyone shot with the 810 for astrophotography? at what ISO could you go to without wanting to flip a lid because of to much noise?



ISO 6400, easily. Several samples of mine in here: Astrophotography


----------



## astroNikon (Jan 20, 2016)

Even my d600 I go to 6400 ISO with no real issues.

I think people get obsessed with thinking crop cameras are getting better and better all the time without realizing that FullFrame is also getting better and better all the time too.  Matter of fact the new technology usually comes out in the top end bodies first, then trickles down to the rest of the systems.


----------



## goodguy (Jan 20, 2016)

astroNikon said:


> Even my d600 I go to 6400 ISO with no real issues.
> 
> I think people get obsessed with thinking crop cameras are getting better and better all the time without realizing that FullFrame is also getting better and better all the time too.  Matter of fact the new technology usually comes out in the top end bodies first, then trickles down to the rest of the systems.


Actually the D600/610 always had better low light berformance then the D800, I think it still outperforms the D810 in this area though not in a big way.


----------



## tiaphoto (Jan 20, 2016)

My D600 does very well with higher ISO for me. So I would think the D610 would be much better on ISO than the D600, thats only if you are looking for the more affordable Nikon full frames. From what I hear the D750 is amazing all around and its just a few hundred more than the D610.


----------



## goodguy (Jan 20, 2016)

tiaphoto said:


> My D600 does very well with higher ISO for me. So I would think the D610 would be much better on ISO than the D600, thats only if you are looking for the more affordable Nikon full frames. From what I hear the D750 is amazing all around and its just a few hundred more than the D610.


Actually the D600 and D610 are nearly identical cameras with very little differences, their low light performance should be about par, and the D750 is indeed a beast in low light, I now use my D750 as high as 16K ISO if needed with usable results.


----------



## DavisD (Jan 22, 2016)

I own an e-commerce business & have never used camera for shooting photos/images for my products. Mostly, I go for iPhone 6 and believe me it creates best images as it were shoot by a professional photographer. However, sometimes I go for professional product photography firms.


----------



## wezza13 (Jan 23, 2016)

Hi Auslese! Been a while


----------



## coastalconn (Jan 23, 2016)

DavisD said:


> I own an e-commerce business & have never used camera for shooting photos/images for my products. Mostly, I go for iPhone 6 and believe me it creates best images as it were shoot by a professional photographer. However, sometimes I go for professional product photography firms.


How does that IPhone 6 do with sports in low light? Just curious since that is what this thread is about?


----------



## goodguy (Jan 23, 2016)

coastalconn said:


> DavisD said:
> 
> 
> > I own an e-commerce business & have never used camera for shooting photos/images for my products. Mostly, I go for iPhone 6 and believe me it creates best images as it were shoot by a professional photographer. However, sometimes I go for professional product photography firms.
> ...


Product photography and sports photography is identical, every GOOD photographer knows that


----------



## spiralout462 (Jan 23, 2016)

Damn it!  Here I am with all these bulky cameras and I all I need is an iphone 6!


----------



## Mashburn (Jan 24, 2016)

IronMaskDuval said:


> Looking at your Flickr, it seems that you have a problem nailing focus more so than your camera being sharp. The shots that you do nail focus, the photos are plenty sharp for the lens that you are using, but there are few of those. If I were you, I would invest money in better lenses and perhaps join a photography group to improve yourself as a photographer. I see that you shot the Falcons (they need to be shot, literally). If you are in Atlanta, there is a group called the Meet and Shoot that is filled with talented photographers that can show you the ropes. Additionally, we have Aperturent and KEH here, both of which can rent or sell you gear for you to try out. I promise you, better gear only makes taking photos easier, but it won't make you a better photographer. I'm not posting this to negatively criticize you. I think you are a bit more concerned about gear than you should be. If you are in Atlanta, I'm always looking for people to go out and do street photography with if you ever need an opportunity to shoot. I love learning from this forum, and its members have made me a better photographer.
> 
> Toodles!
> 
> ...


seeing how my flickr account is over a year old........ and that is all my d7000.

if you want to see more up to date stuff go to golden-hour.net


----------



## Mashburn (Jan 24, 2016)

astroNikon said:


> Even my d600 I go to 6400 ISO with no real issues.
> 
> I think people get obsessed with thinking crop cameras are getting better and better all the time without realizing that FullFrame is also getting better and better all the time too.  Matter of fact the new technology usually comes out in the top end bodies first, then trickles down to the rest of the systems.


agreed. hence the reason why I like the the d3S the most for ISO.


----------



## Mashburn (Jan 24, 2016)

I'm sorry but I have to say it..... but did someone let the trolls out? I'm just trying to figure out a lot of the postings here.


----------



## Mashburn (Jan 24, 2016)

goodguy said:


> I too checked your Flickr, it seems you are using a very old lens, its not a bad lens but this is first thing I saw as a problem, lens will be SIGNIFICANTLY more important then D810 or D750
> Using on one of these cameras this lens and expect to get same results!
> Its not a bad lens but its not 70-200mm 2.8 VRII
> 
> ...


yeah sorry I just never updated my stuff here. I rarely come on here. but I have a d7200 and a 70-200 VR 2 f/2.8. 

I'm currently reworking my website. but here are some more up to date shots.

Golden-Hour.net


----------



## jsecordphoto (Jan 24, 2016)

Mashburn said:


> astroNikon said:
> 
> 
> > Even my d600 I go to 6400 ISO with no real issues.
> ...



The d3s is a 7 year old camera...its not that great at high ISO compared to any of the current full frame offerings. I think you have these ideas of how cameras are and what you think you need but your logic doesn't make much sense to me


----------



## StefaninLA (Jan 26, 2016)

Canon 6D. Here is an image I shot at ISO 6400


----------



## StefaninLA (Jan 26, 2016)

Sorry. Didnt realize this was the Nikon section. My bad.


----------



## goodguy (Jan 26, 2016)

StefaninLA said:


> Sorry. Didnt realize this was the Nikon section. My bad.


Cute 
Nice shot.

From personal experience the 6D is a good camera, good at low light but my D750 is noticeably better.


----------



## Malavok (Jan 27, 2016)

goodguy said:


> I believe you are caught up way too much on the low pass filter.
> I had the D7100 which is a great camera with no AA filter and I also own the D3300 which doesn't have AA filter.
> I own the D750 and I promise you when I nail focus on my cameras in low ISO and use my good lenses you will NOT be able to see any sharpness difference.
> The sharpness difference is really for lab test and people who obsessively try to pixel peep, in real life the 2 most important factor is your skills and lenses you use.
> ...



Was just about to write something similar to this. 

People argue way too much over the AA filter. The difference is minimal. Apply a little sharpening and you can't even notice it at 100%. You WILL get sharper images out of the 750 than 7200, despite the AA filter, because the 750 has better detail and less noise (superior sensor); you can easily sharpen the image up at say ISO 1600 from the 750 and it will look superior to 7200 image and with less noise.


----------



## opethian (Jan 28, 2016)

D750 is beautiful 
D610 is another option if u r low on budget
D810 is best thing 36mp n amazing high ISO results
Any of these models will be much better than ur D7200 
But sharpness at any ISO depends on lenses u use
So before u get into camera hunt, invest in lenses
Ur D7200 lenses will not be usable on Nikon full frame 
So lenses ist ... Body is secondary 

Sent from my 0PJA2 using Tapatalk


----------



## opethian (Jan 28, 2016)

Why don't u share which all lenses u have and I'm sure someone will guide u in a much better way
Lenses make a huge impact much more than a body change does n best thing, lenses never get old, they r like Gold standard n only loose value when something bettter is available out there 
Hint Nikon 14-24 f2.8 is still the Legendary lens which Canon is unable to beat or even match (and I'm a Canon 6d owner)
So invest in lenses  yes u will hear me sayng this again n again 

Sent from my 0PJA2 using Tapatalk


----------



## jcdeboever (Jan 28, 2016)

I am a noob and use a D3300. It amazes me when I get a nice sharp shot in a low light sport environment with a less than ideal lens, like a 35mm or 85mm prime. I have to use one of those because that is what I have. I would prefer a professional zoom lens but not in the cards currently. Getting the camera set correctly, using correct focus and metering mode, then getting the focus dot properly located seems to make keepers. So my goal is to get good with what I have and gain a clear understanding of the tools. Until then, upgrading my camera is a waste of hard earned money. 

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk


----------

