chanjyj
New Member
A0/A1 size? Wrong cameras for the job.
But in theory how they fair? If at base ISO, it will be D7000 then the other 2.
If ISO 800 and up it will be D700 then D7000 then D300. Below that, I see no major difference.
Nikon Users Kopi Session - 29 OCt 2010 The One U R waiting for "D-evil 7K"
- Thread starter chngpe01
- Start date
A0/A1 size? Wrong cameras for the job.
But in theory how they fair? If at base ISO, it will be D7000 then the other 2.
If ISO 800 and up it will be D700 then D7000 then D300. Below that, I see no major difference.
gnohz
Senior Member
I don't know about the other 2, but I developed some at A1 size photos taken by D300s and even cameras with <12mp but they look perfectly fine to me
I tend to think that there will not be much visible differences at low ISO.
chanjyj
New Member
I don't know about the other 2, but I developed some at A1 size photos taken by D300s and even cameras with <12mp but they look perfectly fine to me
I tend to think that there will not be much visible differences at low ISO.
Depends if he wants to nitpick - or not.
Regards to low ISO and no visible difference, I say the D7000 is a better bet because of the higher mp count. Not because of ISO performance.
coolthought
Senior Member
I don't know about the other 2, but I developed some at A1 size photos taken by D300s and even cameras with <12mp but they look perfectly fine to me
I tend to think that there will not be much visible differences at low ISO.
I have seen the photos taken by a bridal studio. At some distance prolly at least 3 meters and further, it looks really fine or perhaps even great. When I get a closer look, it started to look less crisp and sharp and really up close I can see the graininess. it is taken by a D90 with 12mp.
The reason why I started asking this is that. Will increasing resolution for a smaller sensor camera be able to match a larger sensor camera with much less resolution when the photos are printed at that kind of size?
chanjyj
New Member
The answer is long and complicated.
What do you mean by "much less resolution"? If you are referring to 16mp and 12mp, negligible.
With digital backs however, yes, the difference can be seen due to the bit depth differences, which is another topic altogether.
It is not just a matter of printing the images on large prints to compare the different model.
It is the process of getting the image that differentiate the cameras. Eg the AF speed, tracking ability in low lights, the ability to have bigger buffer, the iso etc. And each camera is built different to fullfill a different function or a series of more specialised function.
Example, long ago I felt that my Fuji S2pro was just as good as the D1x, as you cannot really see the differences with the images produced. It was only when I was shooting nature (bird) with a friend who was using a D1x that I realised the world of difference between the 2 cameras(both using the AFS 500mm f4) when I tried out the D1x. I could capture the certain fast action of the bird, which I couldn't using the S2pro. The focusing was fast, the buffer was able to sustain more shots. All these translate to able to capture the moments which one cannot or have to tried very hard before.
Try using the D7000 for fast action bird photography or sports vs the D3S or even the D700 vs the D3 for fast sequence shoot. One will feel the difference. If one is to take landscape, than the difference between the D700, D3, D3s or D90 and D7000 would be significantly less visible.
Last edited:
chanjyj
New Member
It is not just a matter of printing the images on large prints to compare the different model.
It is the process of getting the image that differentiate the cameras. Eg the AF speed, tracking ability in low lights, the ability to have bigger buffer, the iso etc. And each camera is built different to fullfill a different function or a series of more specialised function.
Example, long ago I felt that my Fuji S2pro was just as good as the D1x, as you cannot really see the differences with the images produced. It was only when I was shooting nature (bird) with a friend who was using a D1x that I realised the world of difference between the 2 cameras(both using the AFS 500mm f4) when I tried out the D1x. I could capture the certain fast action of the bird, which I couldn't using the S2pro. The focusing was fast, the buffer was able to sustain more shots. All these translate to able to capture the moments which one cannot or have to tried very hard before.
Try using the D7000 for fast action bird photography or sports vs the D3S or even the D700 vs the D3 for fast sequence shoot. One will feel the difference. If one is to take landscape, than the difference between the D700, D3, D3s or D90 and D7000 would be significantly less visible.
chngpe01 gave a very good round up, summarising many important aspects that most people will overlook, or at least, seem minor.
In my other post here, I've spoken about ISO comparison with the current crop of cameras, and why ISO is not the only point to look at when focusing on a DX vs FX debate. I've also wrote about international repair, but that I think is not of concern to many people.
In these 2 posts here and here, I've spoken about inter-camera compatibility, within the DX format. Again, if you are using only 1 camera, this may not affect you. But take note that if you go on an upgrade path, and have spare batteries it may affect you unless NIkon changes everything to the new battery.
Lumiere speaks about image, professional image (not images coming out of the camera!) here.
Basically I would caution against going into a "buy buy buy, upgrade upgrade upgrade" frenzy and dissing all other options.
High ISO is starting to become the hype that megapixels used to be a few years ago.
Carefully consider what you want, and perhaps need and then re-evaluate your purchase options.
One thing I'd like to add to chngpe01's post about focusing speed - the single digit D series cameras have a faster motor in them, if you are using traditional AF lenses (lenses without SWM).
No matter how fast your focus on a double digit or triple digit camera, you will notice an difference on a single digit professional camera if you use AF-D lenses.
Even on a D700 and D3 which have similar processing power, I can detect a performance increase on a AF-D 80-200mm f/2.8. (D300 has CAM3500 also, but slower processor).
Last edited:
..... Below photo taken from my p&s camera, but also pretty decent.
Read my last post. Not sure what is your purpose of posting a picture here on a subject that is way out of topic of the main purpose of this thread. ie Nikon Kopi Session not LX outing etc.
........ If one is to take landscape, than the difference between the D700, D3, D3s or D90 and D7000 would be significantly less visible.
So keep to the topic please as I have given enough leeway for OT already.
coolthought
Senior Member
It is not just a matter of printing the images on large prints to compare the different model.
It is the process of getting the image that differentiate the cameras. Eg the AF speed, tracking ability in low lights, the ability to have bigger buffer, the iso etc. And each camera is built different to fullfill a different function or a series of more specialised function.
Example, long ago I felt that my Fuji S2pro was just as good as the D1x, as you cannot really see the differences with the images produced. It was only when I was shooting nature (bird) with a friend who was using a D1x that I realised the world of difference between the 2 cameras(both using the AFS 500mm f4) when I tried out the D1x. I could capture the certain fast action of the bird, which I couldn't using the S2pro. The focusing was fast, the buffer was able to sustain more shots. All these translate to able to capture the moments which one cannot or have to tried very hard before.
Try using the D7000 for fast action bird photography or sports vs the D3S or even the D700 vs the D3 for fast sequence shoot. One will feel the difference. If one is to take landscape, than the difference between the D700, D3, D3s or D90 and D7000 would be significantly less visible.
thank you guys for your patient and detail answer.
Is there a significant reason for us to upgrade with this new D7000? Some probably yes, some like me maybe not. It depends on the demand of the genre.
Reading reviews probably will only give a partial idea, but for the veterans who has been using so many different systems for so long will probably give the best advice....provided you ask the right question.
PS. buy buy buy.... :devil:
just came back.
Thanks to Nikon, Chngpe and the other Mods for helping out and organizing this Nikon User outing
ps. The 35 1.4 is amazing can't wait to touch down in store
posted some test shots here with kind mod Francis in the pichttp://www.flickr.com/photos/8828851@N07/
There was a 35mm f1.4 there? :bigeyes:
Argh, I should have attended this outing
How was the 35mm btw?
ZeroDivine
Senior Member
I didn't expect to see 35 1.4 there too as it wasn't in the list though I did request for it (early page 1, or 2 maybe).
NIce lens, sharpness and contrast is already v good wide open @ 1.4
Though there are quite a bit of purple fringing, but none of the other fast 35 1.4 lenses so far escape this. Not even the Zeiss Distagon 35 1.4 ZF (I saw in Flickr)
But need to test the bokeh again cos the background at the SAM and lighting not ideal.
Today I went down to NSC to clean my sensor but didn't see the 35 around yet.. haaha
NIce lens, sharpness and contrast is already v good wide open @ 1.4
Though there are quite a bit of purple fringing, but none of the other fast 35 1.4 lenses so far escape this. Not even the Zeiss Distagon 35 1.4 ZF (I saw in Flickr)
But need to test the bokeh again cos the background at the SAM and lighting not ideal.
Today I went down to NSC to clean my sensor but didn't see the 35 around yet.. haaha
Similar threads
