D90 to D7000 my findings

Barry Fitzgerald said:

Member said:

Member said:

Member said:

The metering made a choice. Appropriateness is based on intent, and only the hands on the camera can decide what the intent should be.

Click to expand...

The intent is the AF point which is in most cases not the point of interest.

Click to expand...

There's a big clue here that may well explain why you think that you have metering problems. Do you know what I'm talking about or do you need more clues?

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Member said:

I've made some decent points, I've not said the matrix sucks..but I've said it's over biased to the AF point.

Click to expand...

Well congratulations. The clue was enough to jog your memory, but there's likely more going on here than just overbiasing based on what's under the AF point. Do you need another clue? Oops. If you read carefully you'll see (but may not recognize) the second clue.

Billx08 said:

Of course. A much better understanding than you, apparently.

Click to expand...

Yet seemingly unable to demonstrate that in the real world..surprise surprise.

Billx08 said:

That's a colossally ignorant, totally incorrect assumption, seeing as how I bought my first camera when I decided to go for the Nikon F instead of the Nikon SP.

Click to expand...

Anyone foolish enough to post on a forum suggesting "a better photographer" deserves to be firmly slapped down. You might try to consider how you make points, rather than being a complete newbie who has clearly very little experience..trying to lecture people who have a better understanding than you do.

And BTW I'm not "an old dog"..maybe you use acne cream, I can't say but your juvenile posting seems to suggest that you're really out of your league here..big time.

antoineb said:

On the AF point, I'd say two things:

• first, the D7000 has significantly more resolution.

Click to expand...

Wrong..12mp to 16mp is not a big jump at all, quite a lot less than going from 6mp to 10mp.

I have no idea where this paper tiger argument came from either. If your 10mp SLR is out focus wise it's pretty obvious, it's also very obvious on a 12/16mp one

Another silly argument put forward by a few folks including Thom who really should know better.

antoineb said:

• second, as you probably know there are manufacturing tolerances on both the bodies, and the lenses.

Click to expand...

True bit if all your lenses are out we know where the finger points don't we? Nikon

as soon as people use insults like "idiot", it shows that they're running out of rational steam I'm afraid

you are of course entitled to any opinion - but calling others' opinions "wrong" or "idiotic", all the while without providing a single rational argument, doesn't speak in your favour.

we are left to guess, or at least hope, that your photographic knowledge is better than your manners ;-)

antoineb said:

as soon as people use insults like "idiot", it shows that they're running out of rational steam I'm afraid

you are of course entitled to any opinion - but calling others' opinions "wrong" or "idiotic", all the while without providing a single rational argument, doesn't speak in your favour.

we are left to guess, or at least hope, that your photographic knowledge is better than your manners ;-)

Click to expand...

If you attack an argument you're not attacking a poster. But as Kim and Bill are well known for throwing around silly phrases it's no shock then get a few back too.

Until someone can put up a decent argument, then it's merely a waste of time. The 16mp suddenly creates AF problems..ranks very high on the usual list of feeble excuses, including the user, settings, the lenses, focus shift, and just about everything else bar what it usually is..simply lousy QC at Nikon's factory.

If folks think it's acceptable to have to send in a brand new body for AF calibration..well that speaks volumes on it's own. Clearly it is not.

Thom can write some nice articles at times, but he's in complete denial about the D7k (and late D90) AF problems. Nikon's AF out of the box is pretty bad based on my 4 purchases, which is a shame because the cameras are pretty damn good.

So let's not go down this denial path..the D7k AF issues extend beyond a few iffy batches early in production.

Never understood this one. OK so the D7000 (my copy) tends to underexpose slightly and needs a tweak in the WB department but with a basic understanding of photography and how light behaves there really should be no reason to fail.

Barry Fitzgerald said:

Billx08 said:

Of course. A much better understanding than you, apparently.

Click to expand...

Yet seemingly unable to demonstrate that in the real world..surprise surprise.

Member said:

That's a colossally ignorant, totally incorrect assumption, seeing as how I bought my first camera when I decided to go for the Nikon F instead of the Nikon SP.

Click to expand...

Anyone foolish enough to post on a forum suggesting "a better photographer" deserves to be firmly slapped down. You might try to consider how you make points, rather than being a complete newbie who has clearly very little experience..trying to lecture people who have a better understanding than you do.

And BTW I'm not "an old dog"..maybe you use acne cream, I can't say but your juvenile posting seems to suggest that you're really out of your league here..big time.

Click to expand...

I wish they'd shut this troll up already.

We get it. Your AF doesn't work on your d7000. Go buy a Canon and leave us alone. Please...

GMart said:

Never understood this one. OK so the D7000 (my copy) tends to underexpose slightly and needs a tweak in the WB department but with a basic understanding of photography and how light behaves there really should be no reason to fail.

Click to expand...

Why make it simple when you can argue instead?

The idea that the d7000 matrix meter is affected by AF point should be easy enough to test for, yet no pictures have featured in the last two pages! You just focus on different points of a mixed scene. And anyway, if we expect the camera to make all the decisions for us we are abandoning our skills as photographers. I never bought an SLR for it to do everything for me. If I wanted default camera settings I could have stayed with 110 film.

Even the old D70 was said to show at least 6 stops of a scene. There is plenty to play with.

Barry Fitzgerald said:

Until either of you can put something up to show some understanding of photography I'm simply talking to 2 bar stool preachers..
Sorry but that's the way you come across..and so does the other poster.

Click to expand...

Well, I'd rather be seen as a bar stool preacher and have the ability to make cogent technical arguments than the alternative ...

--
http://kimletkeman.blogspot.com

Billx08 said:

That's a colossally ignorant, totally incorrect assumption, seeing as how I bought my first camera when I decided to go for the Nikon F instead of the Nikon SP.

Click to expand...

Interesting ... I bought my first camera at 16 with the proceeds of a summer job in a foundry ... that camera was the glorious Asahi Pentax Spotmatic II ... I rue the day that I sold it. What a wonderful machine ...

Before that, I had been given the Olympus Trip35, a compact camera with a terrific pancake 40mm 2.8 lens.

So with film I was always a Pentax and Olympus guy ... with digital, a Nikon and Fuji guy with a dabble here and there in Panny and Canon ... and with digital mirrorless ... so far m4/3 is threatening to move in ... so Olympus and Panny get the nod

--
http://kimletkeman.blogspot.com

paulski66 said:

I wish they'd shut this troll up already.

Click to expand...

Can't be done, actually.

paulski66 said:

We get it. Your AF doesn't work on your d7000. Go buy a Canon and leave us alone. Please...

Click to expand...

You'll have to put him on ignore. I had him on for a long, long time ... but lately the misleading rhetoric has been demanding a response. Of course, it is a huge waste of time, as is quite obvious. So maybe that's the best solution ...

--
http://kimletkeman.blogspot.com

Barry Fitzgerald said:

Member said:

we are left to guess, or at least hope, that your photographic knowledge is better than your manners ;-)

Click to expand...

If you attack an argument you're not attacking a poster. But as Kim and Bill are well known for throwing around silly phrases it's no shock then get a few back too.

Click to expand...

But you're doing exactly that, "attacking a poster" when we show that your arguments are not only weak, but silly, as here :

Member said:

Member said:

Member said:

Member said:

More likely than not a better photographer wouldn't suffer the same metering problems. This is probably a case of a stubborn old dog not bothering to learn new tricks.

Click to expand...

The problem is when someone comes along and says "a better photographer" it makes me think one simple thing.

The person suggesting that isn't very good themselves. I stand to be corrected, but really who the hell do you think you are talking to?

Do you actually have any understanding of photography at all? Because if you did there wouldn't be a debate. Some angry 19 year old behind a pc does not a photographer make.

Click to expand...

That's a colossally ignorant, totally incorrect assumption, seeing as how I bought my first camera when I decided to go for the Nikon F instead of the Nikon SP.

Click to expand...

Anyone foolish enough to post on a forum suggesting "a better photographer" deserves to be firmly slapped down. You might try to consider how you make points, rather than being a complete newbie who has clearly very little experience..trying to lecture people who have a better understanding than you do.

And BTW I'm not "an old dog"..maybe you use acne cream, I can't say but your juvenile posting seems to suggest that you're really out of your league here..big time.

Click to expand...

So here we see that it's you who is the one throwing around "silly phrases", which is what you are known for, not just here but in many forums. When caught saying something silly, such as that all English speakers/writers should know what you mean when you write using local idioms such as "week Monday", you say that English was born where you're from, presumably Gibraltar. Then when it's shown that Gibraltar's population speaks a melange of languages, English making up only a fraction, you neither affirm nor deny. You bluster your way through by refusing to comment and you're off to other attacks and insults that you think you can better support.

Member said:

If folks think it's acceptable to have to send in a brand new body for AF calibration..well that speaks volumes on it's own. Clearly it is not.

Click to expand...

And this again shows how mistaken you are. If you had said that it's not acceptable for most or all new bodies to have to be sent back for calibration, you'd be correct, but that's not the case at all. A small percentage of cameras of all brands could benefit from recalibration, and some of them would only dissatisfy the most critical shooters. But to imply as you did that no new body, not even one should ever need AF calibration only shows your ignorance. It might be possible to approach that exalted standard, but you wouldn't want to pay the price that it would require, and I recall from several of your recent comments how price conscious you are.

Member said:

Thom can write some nice articles at times, but he's in complete denial about the D7k (and late D90) AF problems. Nikon's AF out of the box is pretty bad based on my 4 purchases, which is a shame because the cameras are pretty damn good.

Click to expand...

Thom's opinions are based on a far greater sampling that your four purchases, and he clearly knows how to test and evaluate cameras and lenses. Despite your ego that has you as the omniscient photographer, we know very little about your talent and based on what you post, your knowledge falls far short of Thom's, who also collects and tabulates date from Nikon owners, many of them D7000 owners. If the D7000 was a bad as you claim, his in-box would be flooded with complaints about the D7000's AF problems. To the contrary, he finds them to be about what you'd expect from most new cameras.

I invite you to read some of Roger Cicala's "ramblings". DPReview has published several of them that deal with lens problems (his company is Lens Rentals) and the reasons people might assume incorrectly that their lenses or cameras might be at fault. Here are a couple of short quotes from his articles.

Member said:

Finally, people have started to accept that copy-to-copy variation occurs in both bodies and lenses, to understand that manufacturing tolerances are just that: a range of acceptable values, not an exact point. In other words, what is specified as a 1/4 inch diameter screw may be anything between 0.247 inches and 0.253 inches in diameter (1, 2 ). The machines that make them can’t be more accurate than that. Additionally, the screw diameter will vary slightly with temperature, etc. Nothing can be made exact at reasonable cost.

Click to expand...

Member said:

Ah, but there’s no free lunch. If the camera calibration was adjusted as part of the fix, I might find that another lens in my kit that used to be great, now backfocuses a bit. In the past, many full time pros who were aware of these issues, would send their entire collection of cameras and lenses to the manufacturer to be calibrated together. This was one of the original reasons Canon and Nikon formed their Professional Services groups. Most of the rest of us just made do, or sent copy after copy of a given lens back until we got one that was sharp ON OUR CAMERA.

The bad thing is many, many people who did this then hopped on their online camera forum and made blanket statements like “I had to try 3 copies before I found one that was calibrated right”. In reality what they should have said was “I had to try 3 copies before I found one that was calibrated right FOR MY CAMERA”. Those other two copies might well have been fine on someone else’s camera.

Click to expand...

And so it goes . . .

Kim Letkeman said:

Billx08 said:

That's a colossally ignorant, totally incorrect assumption, seeing as how I bought my first camera when I decided to go for the Nikon F instead of the Nikon SP.

Click to expand...

Interesting ... I bought my first camera at 16 with the proceeds of a summer job in a foundry ... that camera was the glorious Asahi Pentax Spotmatic II ... I rue the day that I sold it. What a wonderful machine ...

Click to expand...

I liked it too, at least until I tried it. Then I found that for whatever reason, the Asahi Pentax's microprism focusing wasn't for me. I may have been too used to the Nikon's split image rangefinder, having been used to that similar type of focusing with rangefinder film cameras. I still remember the F's viewfinder (with an f/1.4 lens) being incredibly bright. Today's DSLRs, even the FF models don't measure up. And when the lens was wide open, the out of focus backgrounds were really out of focus, as if magic was involved.

Mako2011 said:

One note: AF-Area mode "single" can actually be more prone to "picking the wrong contrast" vs "9pt" as "9pt" has more info to work with. Strange but true ...I know why now but don't want to write too much.

Click to expand...

I would like to hear your finding(s).

Barry Fitzgerald said:

Wrong..12mp to 16mp is not a big jump at all, quite a lot less than going from 6mp to 10mp.

Click to expand...

Let's do the math ...

16-12 = 4
10-6 = 4

You say that 4 "is quite a lot less than" 4 ...

Thank you, professor ...

Member said:

I have no idea where this paper tiger argument came from either. If your 10mp SLR is out focus wise it's pretty obvious, it's also very obvious on a 12/16mp one

Click to expand...

Ah ... but there is that hidden issue ... it gets easier for slight movements to cause a 1 or 2 pixel blur as resolution is increased on the same sensor ... thus the myriad warnings to improve your technique as you buy upwards.

This has been a palpable change as I went from 6 to 4 to 12 to 16 in resolution ...

Member said:

Another silly argument put forward by a few folks including Thom who really should know better.

Click to expand...

You continue to call people names and drip with derision, yet you do not offer anything but that. This is trolling at its finest. But you know this already ...

Member said:

True bit if all your lenses are out we know where the finger points don't we? Nikon

Click to expand...

If they are all out by the same amount, then you adjust the default AF fine tune. If they are out by different amounts, then you adjust AF fine tune for each lens.

That is why it is designed that way.

You might not remember all those articles showing how to bend certain parts to fix backfocus in the D70s ... but this has always been a problem with phase detect auto focus. There are tolerances in cameras and lenses and they do not often cancel out completely.

That said, you can get a camera set back to center and it makes a nice difference. The photographer always has that choice. And is forced to do that on low end models.

--
http://kimletkeman.blogspot.com

Barry Fitzgerald said:

If you attack an argument you're not attacking a poster. But as Kim and Bill are well known for throwing around silly phrases it's no shock then get a few back too.

Click to expand...

Don't try to push your rotten behaviour onto other people. We have been telling you why your assertions have better answers. You have been insulting us.

And so it goes with you ...

--
http://kimletkeman.blogspot.com

I think it is time to put someone with whom logic has no effect onto ignore ...
--
http://kimletkeman.blogspot.com

rbakerjr said:

I've been using my D90 for nearly 4 years but kept eyeing the D7000 since its release. I couldn't justify the price to upgrade, but when the price dropped to $1000 I pulled the trigger. I kept it one day and sent it back...Now I'm wondering if I got a bad camera or if I was too hasty. Let me tell you my 3 issues and see what your opinions are:

1. Out of 125 pictures, almost all were SLIGHTLY out of focus. I used the kit 18-105 from my D90. I know you can fine tune the autofocus adjustment but I was surprised that would even be necessary on the same lens that typically comes as a kit with the D7000. I also used my 35 1.8. I didn't print any focus test charts, just my normal around the house stuff. I'm really not sure if it was front focusing or back focusing, just not tack sharp. This could probably have been fixed, but my next two issues were larger and made me not want to take the time or effort. I have read several forums saying that you need to "get used" to the autofocus. I don't really understand that. I used center point only so that the camera wouldn't surprise me by picking a target I didn't intend.

Click to expand...

Since you did not post a photo, I can't say for sure, but you probably had some front focus going on, which is almost always a problem with the lens, and not the body. Due to the imperfect nature of the PDAF focusing design, focus issues with DSLR is a fact of life. Anyone who thinks otherwise is kidding themselves. I have AF fine tuned (nothing greater than 5), all of my lenses for the D7000 to get the sharpest focus possible. This is normal to account for manufacturing tolerances. In my opinion, AF fine tune is a necessary feature for any DSLR to get maximum focus accuracy, especially so when using large aperture lenses.

rbakerjr said:

2. Overall pinkish / orangish skin tones,

Click to expand...

Typically caused by overexposure with flash at high ISOs which is clipping some ot the color channels. Avoid ISOs > 800 when using flash and turn ADL to Extra High. This should solve this issue for you.

rbakerjr said:

weird white balance.

Click to expand...

I don't know what you mean by "weird". WB is easily adjustable to taste in camera or on the PC for RAW.

rbakerjr said:

I know we all see things differently, but again, I compare to the D90 that gave me pleasing colors right out of the box. (I almost always use Auto WB except indoors without flash I'll typically use manual.)

Click to expand...

It might be that you are just familiar with the look of the D90 images and not that they are more correct than the D7000. I use AWB as well when shooting RAW and it gets me very close to what I like. Here is a shot using AWB without correction. Does it look OK to you?

rbakerjr said:

3. Flash photos indoors when using auto ISO camera chooses high ISO (800-1600). D90 always used 200-400. I understand the concept of using the higher ISO to brighten the background, but again, the D90 just did a better job for me here.

Click to expand...

Simple solution. Don't use Auto ISO with flash unless it is for fill light because that is how Nikon now sets up their flash protocol (and I prefer it that way). I have U2 set up for flash photography with Easy ISO so I can change the ISO manually on the fly if I am relying primarily on the flash for light.

rbakerjr said:

The D7000 flash photos just seemed unpredictable to me.

Click to expand...

This statement is too vague to comment on.

rbakerjr said:

Also, for whatever reason, I seemed to have more red-eye than I've ever gotten with my D90.

Click to expand...

The D7000 has a more powerful flash unit than the D90 and that could be the reason. Try turning your on-board flash down a bit or use an speed light with bounce flash..

I came from a Sony a700 and Nikon D40 before acquiring the D7000 and I have found it is much easier to get the results I want from the D7000 than either one of these other cameras because I take advantage of the D7000's customization, capabilities, and features. What I don't do is throw up my hands and bemoan the fact it is not like my other previous cameras.

The mistake some purchasers of the D7000 make is treating it like a super Point and Shoot camera. It is not. Due to the high degree of customization possible and the advanced features the D7000 is aimed at the true advanced amateur photographers who are served very well by it, IMO.

The truth is that some who buy the D7000 never had the patience to learn the craft of digital photography with their previous cameras, so they find themselves way over their heads with the D7000's customization and capabilities. There is nothing wrong with the D7000, just the wrong choice for some.

• Jon

Kim Letkeman said:

Let's do the math ...

16-12 = 4
10-6 = 4

You say that 4 "is quite a lot less than" 4 ...

Click to expand...

Kim,

I think Barry meant this:

Going from 6 MP to 10 MP is approximately 66% increase in resolution.
Going from 12 MP to 16 MP is approximately 33% increase in resolution.

66% > 33%

Juergen said:

Mako2011 said:

One note: AF-Area mode "single" can actually be more prone to "picking the wrong contrast" vs "9pt" as "9pt" has more info to work with. Strange but true ...I know why now but don't want to write too much.

Click to expand...

I would like to hear your finding(s).

Click to expand...

Using the Central AF point as an example...The actual focus array is both narrower and much larger than the depiction of Focus Boxes in the Viewfinder would have you think. Here is a mapping of the arrays vs the boxes of my camera (arrays in purple... Focus boxes in Red)





If you have AF-Area mode "single" selected then the FOV of the AF Array of the central point may extend almost to the adjacent Focus Box. If the Array covers different contrast edges at different distances....then it may select a contrast edge that is outside the plane of focus you are after. You have the box pointed at an eye but the array also sees the contrast edge of the ear to the background as well as the other eye if the subject is far enough back. In a tight DOF setup with a angled face, this may mean it focuses on the ear and the nose falls outside the DOF....or even the Eye (intended target) falls outside the DOF as intended. By switching to AF-Area mode "9pt" the information the system uses to determine the best contrast edge to focus on is increased. The central focus array would still be primary but the additional info causes the ear contrast to be ignored and the contrast of the eye to face to become what is used. Like looking through a straw at a complicated target with multiple contrast edges at different distances....you may make a different assumption of what is the critical contrast edge vs looking at the same target through a much wider straw. And then there are times when too much info hurts the process...like a bird in a bush....I find "9pt" always screws that up I'm not saying the system is a genius ...just that through experimentation and experience I note that the dumb machine can appear to act smarter in many situations.