D7000 sharpness vs D300

software are you using to process your D7000 NEF files? I have not been able to get the quality I like from LR3, but using Nikon's Capture NX2 it is very simple and quick with stellar results.I have found LR3 has been a huge disappointment for the D7000 NEF files. I hope Adobe can fix this.

jonikon said:

Best regards,
Jon

Click to expand...

Jon is right. Nikon software and DXO are outstanding.

Good question. I'm not a bird shooter (studio and landscape) and I haven't shot that much with my longest lens (a 200/2) at wide apertures with the D7000 to see how it does there - the D7000 is not my primary camera (a D700 is).

In my initial tests, I did see that the 9 pt dynamic often helped things, but there also seems to be a lot of "play", or lack of tolerance, with fast lenses like the 35 and 24 F/1.4 lenses, and even the 200/2 at F/2 with targets that aren't lit tremendously well - like even when everything is static and not moving, you take 10 shots in a row with a defocus in between and a large number of them are out of focus slightly when you think they shouldn't be. My personal conclusion is that while the AF system of the D7000 is a step better than that of the D90 class of body in terms of overall functionality and tracking, that it's accuracy/precision is nowhere near that of the module in the D700. The fact that the D7000 is ending up being a backup camera to a lot of very serious shooters who own fast pro glass and shoots that glass wide open isn't always going to be a good matchup either.

I expect that the eventual D300 replacement will hopefully offer more precision in terms of the AF system as the D7000, while being a very nice body, does have some flaws, IMO, in this department, and it's quite likely you have run into one of them.

But again, I'm not a bird shooter, so I'm a bit out of my area of expertise on this one...

-m

Thank you for a confirmation that others are experiencing similar inconsistancies. I suspect that the D7000 isn't the best camera for bird shooters unfortunately. I've been looking at used D300 bodies lately....
Regards,
Jolene

--



My galleries-- http://www.zenfolio.com/jolieo

so is it true to say that the problem of getting sharp pictures from d7k has more to do with its lesser focusing system (eg vs d700) than the 'demanding nature' of nikon's 16m 1.5x crop sensor? i often suspected the latter been exaggerated otherwise what would it be to have the 18m 1.6x crop sensor for canon users?

Actually, it's BOTH the slight imprecision of the AF system (when discussing wide open apertures) AND the demanding nature of that much pixel density...

Note carefully that I've had no problems with the AF at the regular and usual apertures - studio work, outdoor work, no problems. But when I've run tests with my fast lenses (24/1.4, 35/1.4, 200/2), at wide open on on each of them, in moderate light, focus precision / consistency has not been as good as with the D700. Again - note I said "wide open". Put the 35/1.4 down to F/2 or F/2.8, and there are no problems. Put the 200/2 down to F/2.8, not a lot of problems, and so forth. For some reason I think the tolerance of what the AF system in that body determines as perfect focus is a bit "loose" and thus when you shoot with a lens that has terribly thin DOF, you'll have some OOF frames.

I don't think this is what is causing most of the issues I read about:

I think what most posters are experiencing when they have OOF issues are a few things:

a) the focus area "seen" by the AF sensors is slightly wider than what the little square in the viewfinder shows

b) people focusing on things where there is, from the cameras point of view, a "better contrast scenario" within the area seen by said AF sensor (which is wider than the square in the viewfinder) and thus the camera latches onto that "better" scenario since it doesn't really know what the user wants.

c) because the sensor has a lot of pixel density and people blow everything up on screen to 100%, it's more obvious when something is out of focus - thus, if you aren't focusing correctly, or are moving when you take the shot, don't have sufficient shutter speed, etc, you'll notice it more.

Great camera, but one that demands more precision than a lot of people are giving it.

So it's two different things - wide open focus in-precision (is that a word?), but that's different and I don't think what causes most people pain. The A/B/C I gave above is what is causing most people pain, I think.

-m

thanks mike, excellent and logical explanation. i care much on this because i'm also considering a d7k as a backup for my d700. for convenience, a d300/s will pair up better with a d700 sharing the same battery and mbd10. but the d7k is so much newer tech with higher res and better noise control etc. so are you happy with it or would you advice waiting as much as possible for the 'd400'?

Im not the one complaining that the D7000 is not "as sharp" as a D300.
My suggestion was meant for that guy.
Im perfectly happy with the sharpness of my D7000.

I think what Wlad was getting at is more resolution on the same sized sensor means smaller pixels, which means the image doesn't look as sharp as a camera with bigger pixels, ie a 12mp on a crop sensor. Look at the Canon 7D, and Pentax K5 for other examples of high mp crop cameras with threads about lack of sharpness. Heck, Canon put up a technical page about soft images on high mp cameras.

Brandon birder said:

But why would you want to scale it down?

The beauty of the D7000 is that I can crop further and still have the same detail as I got with my D90 (iq==d300s). This is brilliant for a bird photographer and I get less and more manageable noise and more detail and much better shadow (underparts) definition.

If your unsure whether the D7000 is sharp enough have a look at my flickr site. You will see D7000 and many D90 examples. Even when reduced down for web display the differences are still clear to me.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/brandon_birder/with/4879854151/

Cheers, BB

Click to expand...

Jolene, don't give up on the D7000 just yet. I mainly take bird photographs and shoot with a friend who uses a D300s. Until recently I used a D90 and we reckon that the two cameras IQ were matched. We both agree that the D7000 is producing better bird photographs even though I've only been using it for just over a week.

Have a look at my fickr images. I have put a link into a set taken with the D7000. Hope this helps.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/brandon_birder/5522751553/

Cheers, BB

Thanks but in my experience with my D7000 I have found that the images are just as sharp as the D90 and when cropped further remain sharp. I use net's and jpegs and set the jpeg sharpness to 7.

I think nxview2 gets a liitle more from the net files but acr now I have worked out the best settings is very close and a lot less hassle.

Cheers, BB

You may want to look at some of the reviews of the D7000 on Amazon.

Good question again...

I'm happy with the D7000 as a backup because for what I do, I don't need the ultimate in focus performance tracking - the body is just a backup for studio work, I shoot mostly B&W in the studio, so it's slightly lackluster color performance relative to the D700 isn't an issue, and for landscape I don't need any fantastic AF performance either - so the smaller size yet very good image quality fits my needs perfectly.

However, I tend to think that the eventual D300 replacement, which obviously might be seriously delayed given the very unfortunate situation in Japan, will be a more thought through body, particularly in the AF system. So for someone who does not immediately need a backup OR who needs a better AF system than what the D7000 currently provides, it's probably worth the wait. My d300 started dying on me so I had to make a move to a backup pretty quick and thus the D7000 was my choice, and after evaluating it for a while, I decided it would suit the task. It's not a perfect camera, nor is it as forgiving as the D700, but as a backup, I think it's pretty awesome. It's rare to get that type of file cleanliness in the shadows and DR in a DX body, at least until that body came out, and that right there makes me prefer it to the D300 quite easily.

-m

I traded in a D300 for a D7000 I'm am happier overall with the D7000. I reviewed some of my pics from both cameras and compared them. Maybe it is me but they are very close in sharpness. However I just finishing a series of photos portraits of kids. Normally I keep my ISO at 100 on the D7k but had shot a sun set and was playing around with 25,000 ISO setting. Forgot to change the ISO from 25,000 when doing the portraits and when I opened at first I didn't notice what I did and when I did a sinking feeling came in. But then WOW I was doing the printing at 4x6 anyway for the project and to my surprise they were really good to print at a 4x6 size. My wife who has a super critical eye did not notice the backroung grains. i would'nt recommend that setting except in only a needed situation but to me it made the camera more closer to fool proof. Tamron 18-270 PZD and a Sb800 flash. I know the flash saved me to a point but I still was blown away at the 25,000 results.

I have not shot the 300s, but my 7000 is plenty sharp as far as I am concerned. I shot this on a 300/4 AF last weekend. A large part of this is the shutter speed, IMHO. For this lens, I try to keep things above 1/1000s when handholding. (This probably just says that my hand holding technique is lacking, but until I get better I am going to either use a monopod or keep the shutter speed up. Also note that I needed a bit of AF fine tune for this lens to get ultimate sharpness.

D7000, 300/4 @ f/4, ISO 400, 1/3000s



100% crop:



Cheers
--
--Wyatt
http://photos.digitalcave.ca
All images (c) unless otherwise specified, please ask me before editing.

Those photos are just lovely. Since I also like to shoot little birds, they give me some hope although I've been at this since November with inconsistant results. It's not that I don't ever get a good shot because I do, and I am very impressed at the crop-ability and detail, when I can hit the focus adequately to satisfy my own standards.

Lately I have been trying to shoot with AF On and that's causing me to mess up a lot just because I am not used to it .

What autofocus settings are you using for sitting birds, btw?
Regards,
Jolene
--



My galleries-- http://www.zenfolio.com/jolieo

I'm too traded my D300 into a D7000.
Perfect DX camera and focus system IMO.

The fast lenses issue with low light (like my 24mm f1.4) is a G f1.4 lens design issue and happens with any Nikon body (check on Nikongear forum). But we are talking about one in ten pics at f1.4: nitpicking discussion IMO.

Regards

--
Ray Soares

See my pictures at http://www.pbase.com/raysoares

Unless you are printing the same subject at the same size ..., ..., ...
You are giving the smaller file [from the D300] a grosely unfair advantage.

Try this: have a 8X12" or a 10X15" photo printed of the same subject, exposure, ... taken by both cameras and compare them.

On Screen comparisons will most likely favor 1 camera over the other because of interpretational differences with the computers graphics cards [i.e. different guess work at varing magnifications due to different file sizes].

sorry if this is clear as mud, perhaps someone else can clarify it if needed.

--
Ray
RJNedimyer

In summary this all about a learning curve with a new piece of high tech equipment. For those whose only camera is a D7K, and who do not own multiple DSLR's for comaprison, well they will have it much easier instead of back - comparing to the other cameras that they have learned and 'gotten use to'.

I am sure that the learning curve for new D90/D300/D700 owners was there in the beginning also.

--
http://camerafocustest.blogspot.com/

Aristoc said:

In summary this all about a learning curve with a new piece of high tech equipment. For those whose only camera is a D7K, and who do not own multiple DSLR's for comaprison, well they will have it much easier instead of back - comparing to the other cameras that they have learned and 'gotten use to'.

Click to expand...

It can work the other way also, I was very Happy with my D70 purchased in 2004. It was very user friendly and took great photos. Now that I have a D7K, I realize that my D70 was actually poorly designed, was worthless at any ISO setting higher than 400, and simply acceptable at 8x 10. I don't understand how Nikon could have fooled me for so long.

jonikon said:

pilot175 said:

Thanks ;-) I shoot raw (14bit) plus jpg. My experience with the D7000 is that it takes a lot of processing to approach the jpgs of the D300 out of the camera. I only process RAW files for images that will be printed (a smidge larger than 6x4).

Click to expand...

What software are you using to process your D7000 NEF files? I have not been able to get the quality I like from LR3, but using Nikon's Capture NX2 it is very simple and quick with stellar results.I have found LR3 has been a huge disappointment for the D7000 NEF files. I hope Adobe can fix this.

Best regards,
Jon

Click to expand...

Many believe differently but in my esperience Nikon Capture gives me the best results with nef files and apart from CS5 I've tried them all.