DSLR and other system camera discussionThe place on DPNow.com for discussing Digital Single Lens Reflex camera issues and up and coming mirrorless or SLT system cameras.
Got the camera ok, Ive registered it with nikon although it did warn me its not been distributed by nikon uk everything seems to work fine so Ill just hope nothing ever goes wrong, even though camerbox promises a 5 year warrenty I would'nt fancy sending it back to them for repair as it took em a week to be bothered to post it out!
cheers
Ash
Ohh well chuffed with camera itself, its like a mini d700, very fast and iso performance awsome
ill post some shots at the weekend.
Impressive result, though I'd probably have been tempted to correct the WB. I don't think I've tried my 5DII over 3200, but it gives me a good result and I know that the NR in LR3 is at hand to sort out any luminance or colour noise.
Morning Ash! I can't resist commenting on your bottle shot at ISO 25600
First of all although you, personally, haven't processed the RAW file, your RAW conversion software certainly has, so it's actually misleading to say that it's unprocessed. The RAW software will have applied default processes, including noise management, according to a profile based on the camera settings, including the ISO set. The image will certainly have had plenty of noise reduction applied to it by default. But that's not to say that the result isn't impressive, of course it is.
Another slight niggle in my mind is that the brightness of the scene is quite adequate. If you reduced the ISO to 800 you would still have a usable shutter speed of 1/30th hand held. A real test of high ISO performance is in lower light with large areas of relative darkness (where chroma noise tends to appear) and fine detail (which can be lost through chroma noise management). Finally, your image has little saturated colour in it and this is another key test as a basic strategy option to deal with chroma noise is to desaturate the image.
I note that Stephen commented on the white balance (the lens cap shot is certainly on the warm side) but on the beer bottle shot the lens cap is magenta, not because of white balance issues, but because the camera is unable to create a true grey any more, and this is typical of extreme ISO results. Much of the rest of the image areas have correct white balance.
Morning Ash! I can't resist commenting on your bottle shot at ISO 25600
First of all although you, personally, haven't processed the RAW file, your RAW conversion software certainly has, so it's actually misleading to say that it's unprocessed. The RAW software will have applied default processes, including noise management, according to a profile based on the camera settings, including the ISO set. The image will certainly have had plenty of noise reduction applied to it by default. But that's not to say that the result isn't impressive, of course it is.
Another slight niggle in my mind is that the brightness of the scene is quite adequate. If you reduced the ISO to 800 you would still have a usable shutter speed of 1/30th hand held. A real test of high ISO performance is in lower light with large areas of relative darkness (where chroma noise tends to appear) and fine detail (which can be lost through chroma noise management). Finally, your image has little saturated colour in it and this is another key test as a basic strategy option to deal with chroma noise is to desaturate the image.
I note that Stephen commented on the white balance (the lens cap shot is certainly on the warm side) but on the beer bottle shot the lens cap is magenta, not because of white balance issues, but because the camera is unable to create a true grey any more, and this is typical of extreme ISO results. Much of the rest of the image areas have correct white balance.
Ian
I think to the average joe shmo they are unprocessed/un tinkered with.
The picture has a good range of light and dark area's imo!
I no the scene has plenty of light but I wanted to use the highest possible iso!
Let me no how I can more acurately and purely post the picture and show the noise levels and I will gladly re post the image.
cheers
Ash.
I think to the average joe shmo they are unprocessed/un tinkered with.
The picture has a good range of light and dark area's imo!
I no the scene has plenty of light but I wanted to use the highest possible iso!
Let me no how I can more acurately and purely post the picture and show the noise levels and I will gladly re post the image.
cheers
Ash.
I would recommend a scene that would be impossible to photograph hand held at ISO 800. 1/30th or even 1/15th, with some care, are certainly viable hand held, especially with image stabilisation, so I would suggest a picture where at ISO 800 the suggested shutter speed would be slower than, say, 1/15th and you were using a reasonable aperture of around f/5.6 or even f/8. Then yank up the ISO to see how it looks
I would recommend a scene that would be impossible to photograph hand held at ISO 800. 1/30th or even 1/15th, with some care, are certainly viable hand held, especially with image stabilisation, so I would suggest a picture where at ISO 800 the suggested shutter speed would be slower than, say, 1/15th and you were using a reasonable aperture of around f/5.6 or even f/8. Then yank up the ISO to see how it looks
Ian
Yes under normal circumstances I would only crank up the iso when needed, my original shot of the beer bottle was only to see what it looked like, I was not stating any scientific boundaries by posting it, true the camera does do an amount of processing just by making the image into a file for you to view but does this not apply to all digital camera's and as such should be a par for the coarse default process that should be disregarded when doing these sort of real world testing.
This one is Emily and even though ive had to convert it to jpg and resize for posting all the presets and sliders in lr3 were either at zero or default, so is this not a pretty accurate representation of what my raw file looks like?
Deleted some spam off this thread earlier this morning. The spammer was blathering on about how he'd used the D7000 for 'several years' (it's only been available for a few months).
Reminded me of a young lad who tried to sell me a Canon AE-1 Program when I was working in a camera shop (a very long time ago!) - he explained that his mum had bought it a couple of years back and no longer needed it. The camera was launched about three months previously.
I told the lad to get lost and should really have called the police.
The manager at one of the group's other shops eventually bought the camera off the same lad - and for a song.
Nikon D7000 is very simple, if you are a Nikon shooter looking for a new camera then stop reading and buy this camera. It's that good.This camera is brilliant to hold and use. Nikon has done it again and has made the user interface more usable and streamlined.I notice a difference between the pictures from the Nikon D7000and any of my 12mp cameras. It makes really nice pictures.
The other major benefit is the D7000's truer color rendering. This saves a lot of time in post processing. The D7000 is also whisper quiet. Of course, the build quality is much better on the D300 and for me, the ergonomics are better.
It has 16.2 MP image sensor and AMAZING ISO range (100-6400) and lack of noise in low light also twin SD card slots.
This camera's performance is incredible! It's worth the price.
Last edited by Ian; 16-03-11 at 10:01 AM.
Reason: Spam link removed
I'm pleased you like the D7000 Ash, it seems to turn in some impressive results. i was going to buy one as a back up until I held it. Too small for my hands, so it is a D300s for me or wait until the D400 comes out.
everything seems to work fine so Ill just hope nothing ever goes wrong, even though camerbox promises a 5 year warrenty I would'nt fancy sending it back to them for repair as it took em a week to be bothered to post it out!
Linear Mode
