that count, not the individual pixels. You demonstrated this well, my D90 brother. Pretty cool images to show your point. Thanks.
I'm currently recovering from the disease of pixel peeping-itis. In general, the better the IQ (i.e. the lower ISO value), the better I feel about the image. But I feel worse when I miss something that a higher ISO would help with. One of my first actions as pixel non-peeper is to up the max value of my auto-ISO to Hi1 (6400). I'll do what I can to minimize my ISO in a given situation, but, damn, I want to get those hard to get shots.
I like Greystar's statement (above post):
"That's not what the RAW data shows. The shadow detail is the same. What the D7000 has is a better processing engine. It also has other features that make it well worth the asking price...but better IQ at ISO 800/1600 is not one of them."
If I peep at the pixels, I can see a little difference (more detail) in the D7000 vs D90 images. But when I back off, I see no difference in IQ. I have a suspicion that sensor designers has reached a plateau with the performance they can wrestle from a given piece of silicon real estate with the current technology. They can capture light as well as they are going to. My belief is that D7000, in addition to all of it's cool new features, has advanced it's even higher ISO capabilities through clever firmware and a quicker micro controller.
All these conclusions suggest, however, that if I can't capture stunning images with the D90, then it's the finger on the shutter release that needs upgrading.
