Reading mode: Light Dark

D7000 disappointment

Go to last post
Thanks for looking and commenting Hulamike.

My Dad gave me far more than the plastic box of course - a lifelong interest in making images - so I have quite a few from that era. I remember 'upgrading' to a plastic twin lens reflex, which, wonder of wonders, had 3 aperture settings - that was sometime in the early sixties I think.

All those cameras used roll film so the negatives were quite large. I looked after the negatives pretty well, still have them all and have scanned them all with a decent scanner.

David
Hulamike said:
There is just something wonderful about images from the 50s that's almost impossible to recreate today. It's more than style or fashion, there's an innocence there that was captured. And it was enhanced by the, dare I say, less than razor sharp image quality of a cheap, little film camera.

Nice pic. Wish I still had some of mine.
Click to expand...
 
...although they do some to be getting more sophisticated. No more flash post on the first day of signing up, some of them are taking the trouble of creating a 'backstory' to their profiles before beginning hostilities.

--
http://1000wordpics.blogspot.com
 
countrybutterfly said:
Frank C. said:
David Grabowski said:
I'm starting to think I maybe should have looked for a lightly used D700 instead for any number of different reasons not relevant to this thread.

David G.
Click to expand...
David that's exactly what I did... recently sold my D7000 and bought a lightly used D700 and omg what an eye opener that was (!). The arrival of D800 is the greatest that could ever happen to us DX folk dying to get into FX, snatch up one of those used D700s you won't regret it one bit, completely diffferent league. The D7000 may be great, but the D700 is wowowowwow! IQ is phenomenal!
Click to expand...
It's also a wowowowow price difference. It's double the price. Your not getting double the camera.
Click to expand...
I, and many others, think it's more than double the camera.

You ever shot FX with nice pro lenses ?
Obviously not.

Paying twice the price of a D7000 to get a D700 is a no brainer, if you have the money, and value the differences.
 
Patco said:
spbStan said:
Why do you say that?

I moved here to Russia from California 8 years ago and love it.
Click to expand...
The Beatles - Back In The USSR
I'm back in the USSR
You don't know how lucky you are, boy
Back in the USSR, yeah
Member said:
I have 175 English pubs
Click to expand...
Sounds like a great place ;-)
Member said:
a couple hundred dance clubs filled with smart, fit, well educated and stylish young women
Click to expand...
Well the Ukraine girls really knock me out
They leave the west behind
And Moscow girls make me sing and shout
That Georgia's always on my my my my my my my my my mind
Click to expand...
Wow Patco... never knew you had such a great voice.
 
spbStan said:
Why do you say that?

I have 175 English pubs, 330 drama theaters, 254 museums, 6 ballet theaters, a couple hundred dance clubs filled with smart, fit, well educated and stylish young women, and 54 concert halls all within walking distance of my apartment.
Click to expand...
Sounds like a very cramped city.

But I'm curious... how can you tell how smart & educated (I guess there's a difference?) a woman is by watching her dance ?!
 
countrybutterfly said:
I haven't noticed any focus problem either but I can't say im happy with indoor > exposure when theres fluorescent lights or bulbs sometimes it makes the skin tones > kinda orange/smeary. I didn't get enough time to try alot of different white balance > settings im thinking it has something to do with the white balance. Do you have any > suggestions, 99% of the time my D7000 does what I want it to. But have you ran into > that at all??
Click to expand...
Yes, the other night I was shooting a group photo in a gym and had to upload my jpegs from the shoot.

I was not satisfified with the Standard (as shot) setting for reasons you stated above.

I went to the in-camera Nef processing and reprocessed the image as Landscape with one notch less saturation. It was much better and it was the one I sent to my paper.

Next assignmenns I will shot as Landscape, one notch less saturation, and I always increrase sharpness.
 
True, yesterday I stated that I think the OP was a hit and run. Meanwhile we've had our own private party in this thread !
David G.
stuntmonkey said:
...although they do some to be getting more sophisticated. No more flash post on the first day of signing up, some of them are taking the trouble of creating a 'backstory' to their profiles before beginning hostilities.

--
http://1000wordpics.blogspot.com
Click to expand...
 
Kinda posted this out of order.

Nikon reviewed a set of pictures similar to those here, but using the 85 1.4.

The reply I received was nothing short of a form letter. Do a two button reset, make sure your battery is fully charged, etc.

I really don't think they really looked at the images uploaded or the attached text.

I don't expect much from them on the third try either, so I'm curious how your conversation will go with them.

Thanks
Steve
--
ssjackson
 
n/t.

Clicking faster than the computer is responding. Seems I have a virus scan going on and it's slowing the system.
 
You know, even today with our little computerized marvels, you really don't need more than 3 apertures if shooting aperture priority. Wide open, something midrange, one stopped down for depth of field. Let advanced metering figure out the rest.
 
TFergus said:
countrybutterfly said:
Frank C. said:
David Grabowski said:
I'm starting to think I maybe should have looked for a lightly used D700 instead for any number of different reasons not relevant to this thread.

David G.
Click to expand...
David that's exactly what I did... recently sold my D7000 and bought a lightly used D700 and omg what an eye opener that was (!). The arrival of D800 is the greatest that could ever happen to us DX folk dying to get into FX, snatch up one of those used D700s you won't regret it one bit, completely diffferent league. The D7000 may be great, but the D700 is wowowowwow! IQ is phenomenal!
Click to expand...
It's also a wowowowow price difference. It's double the price. Your not getting double the camera.
Click to expand...
I, and many others, think it's more than double the camera.

You ever shot FX with nice pro lenses ?
Obviously not.

Paying twice the price of a D7000 to get a D700 is a no brainer, if you have the money, and value the differences.
Click to expand...
Picture quality alone the D700 doesn't look twice as good. Ken Rockwell and other people that have reviewd the D7000 that also own a d700 said as far as picture quality there isn't much of a difference. I have seen users post a couple photos with their D700 and D7000 and tell people to try to guess which was shot with which and most of the time people can't tell. I'm not saying the D700 doesn't have better DR or shadow detail but overall picture quality is no where near double. I realize theres other differences like one being full frame, better focus system, etc. But as far as the sensor and picture quality it's no where near twice as good.

Having said that if money wasn't a concern I would go for the D700. One thing that did surprise me about the D7000 is how much noise is in the photos at lower iso's. Sometimes it's kinda hard to see it because the grain is so fine. But it's there. Heres another thread with some comparison shots.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=39566215
 
digitalman4242 said:
One thing that did surprise me about the D7000 is how much noise is in the photos at lower iso's. Sometimes it's kinda hard to see it because the grain is so fine. But it's there. Heres another thread with some comparison shots.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=39566215
Click to expand...
Noise = detail

That very fine noise, will never show up in prints... and 99% at the time, you can only even see that when you view the image at 100% magnification. I, for one prefer a bit of noise rather than a super clean image. Makes it look alot more real, and less digital.
 
Sorry, but to me that sounds Nikon-apologetic. Each of us has his own taste of course but I don't share that one. Even in film days I would often use rather slow film on a medium format camera to avoid grain. À chacun son goût.

David
peterjaena said:
Noise = detail

That very fine noise, will never show up in prints... and 99% at the time, you can only even see that when you view the image at 100% magnification. I, for one prefer a bit of noise rather than a super clean image. Makes it look alot more real, and less digital.
Click to expand...
 
David Lal said:
Sorry, but to me that sounds Nikon-apologetic. Each of us has his own taste of course but I don't share that one. Even in film days I would often use rather slow film on a medium format camera to avoid grain. À chacun son goût.

David
Click to expand...
I'm not being Nikon apologetic David..... show me a disturbing type of noise on lower ISO on the D7000 and I'll apologize to you. And I'll show you the same kind of noise present on a Canon 5D MkII or a Nikon D700 if you want. My point is that too much pixel peeping is not a measure of a camera's performance. Those "noise" people see on low ISO are shadow detail noise... w/c is present on ALL digital SLRs. The only reason why it's not so obvious on others is that it's been taken away by the noise reduction algorithms. Again please show me those so called low ISO noise w/c bothers some people here.

When my D800 arrives I'll make a comparison... and I'm quite sure I won't see a $2000 noise difference in low ISO.
 
I'm also one who doesn't mind a touch of noise, if it's fine grain looking. It adds to detail and realism IMO. And I agree that most likely if you magnify enough with the D800 file you will find some noise, it has a tightly packed sensor in terms of density.

As to me, I just don't believe I need a 36MP camera to do what I do. Course when user photos start showing up I might think differently !

David G.
peterjaena said:
David Lal wrote:

When my D800 arrives I'll make a comparison... and I'm quite sure I won't see a $2000 noise difference in low ISO.
Click to expand...
 
If this guy is a Troll which seems likely, I don't know why anyone would care since his knowledge of gear is nonexistent.
 
David Lal said:
Sorry, but to me that sounds Nikon-apologetic. Each of us has his own taste of course but I don't share that one. Even in film days I would often use rather slow film on a medium format camera to avoid grain. À chacun son goût.

David
peterjaena said:
Noise = detail

That very fine noise, will never show up in prints... and 99% at the time, you can only even see that when you view the image at 100% magnification. I, for one prefer a bit of noise rather than a super clean image. Makes it look alot more real, and less digital.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
I agree david. If I want noise in my photos it should be a option or to add in PP. But having said that I love my D7000 even with the touch of fine grain. For the money it is a amazing camera. As far as the op's complaint. Theres nothing wrong with the sharpness of AF on this camera. People just need to realize it's a little conservative and usually needs a touch of sharpness added in PP for JPG's. Either that or they probably have to slow of a shutter speed.
 
digitalman4242 said:
Picture quality alone the D700 doesn't look twice as good. Ken Rockwell and other people that have reviewd the D7000 that also own a d700 said as far as picture quality there isn't much of a difference. I have seen users post a couple photos with their D700 and D7000 and tell people to try to guess which was shot with which and most of the time people can't tell. I'm not saying the D700 doesn't have better DR or shadow detail but overall picture quality is no where near double. I realize theres other differences like one being full frame, better focus system, etc. But as far as the sensor and picture quality it's no where near twice as good.
Click to expand...
Sure, that is opinion. Do you have one or are you just reading Rockwell?

Besides the comment was "twice the camera". There is a whole lot more to a camera than a sensor. But since you're stuck on sensor let's see you take identical photos, identical settings and enlarge both to wall size prints. Then try that comparison again. Then try some low light shots and see which one blows the other away. While you're at it see which one has the subjects in focus in the first place.

Regardless of what Ken Rockwell comments you feel like quoting, the D7000 is nowhere near the camera. The D5100 is the identical camera as the D7000, according to your criteria.

Btw, aren't you the idiot that said you did my mom in a recent post ?
digitalman4242 said:
TFergus said:
digitalman4242 said:
Not as much as I love your mom. :-)
Click to expand...
She said to tell you she hates you...
Click to expand...
Really, and she said I wasn't as rough on her as you were.
Click to expand...
Oh well... there goes all your credibility... you childish moron.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top