P7700 ISO 400 Test sample

Okay, so I've continued to experiment with the P7700 higher ISO settings and it re-enforces my view that this camera does VERY well at ISO 80, but falls apart quickly at ISO 400. This is especially easy to see when shooting people.

Here's an ISO shot in rather poor light:










You can make a good 5X7 from this, perhaps even an 8X10, but cropping is not going to go far as noise is very easy to see and destroys details....













Now due to a slow shutter we get a bit of blur, but the noise is really quite bad for ISO 400. No amount of careful tuning can recover the details.

Now let's have a look at the P7700 shooting at base ISO....










Even though this image has been processed it's quite clean and detailed! The crop bears this out...













So at base ISO the P7700 really delivers an exceptional image, on par or better than most other cameras of this type. Basically at base ISO this THE compact camera to buy for taking portraits. But available light shooting is not an area where it steams ahead of the pack and you need to remember that before buying.

As I would typically use the SB400 or SB800 flash indoors this is not a huge issue for my, but some will be unhappy with the ISO range.

Just remember, if you plan to take available light shots looking for shallow DOF and high ISO, this camera is not ready. It has improved and we'll likely see amazing strides in future models.

For now the P7700 can't manage this....a clean shot at ISO 4000 from my DSLR.




5500 bucks worth of camera and lens should not be compared to a 400 dollar P&S....or should it?!






Now I know the P7700 is NOT A DSLR, but do find the sensor and also-ran for the class. Soon we'll see a compact cam like P7700 break the ISO barrier like Nikon did with the D3 or D300 and I'm really looking forward to it!

For now...I'm very much enjoying shooting with the P7700 as it allows me to leave the big stuff home and still carry a reasonably good camera in my coat pocket!




Cheers,







Robert

If you post the originals, we could judge for ourselves. As it is we have no idea what's been done to these images, in addition to cropping/resizing.

walkaround said:

walkaround wrote:

If you post the originals, we could judge for ourselves. As it is we have no idea what's been done to these images, in addition to cropping/resizing.

Click to expand...

The ISO 400 has had nothing done beyond a wee bit of shadow lift and sharpening. The noise is the point and this is consistant with what we've read everywhere else.

I had hoped that the reviewers were wrong (as they were with the AF and a few other things!), but when it comes to the ISO range, it is rather mediocre.




Robert

Shotcents said:

Shotcents wrote:

The ISO 400 has had nothing done beyond a wee bit of shadow lift and sharpening.

Click to expand...

Exactly. Please post the originals, otherwise this is a pointless thread.

walkaround said:

walkaround wrote:

walkaround said:

Shotcents wrote:

The ISO 400 has had nothing done beyond a wee bit of shadow lift and sharpening.

Click to expand...

Exactly. Please post the originals, otherwise this is a pointless thread.

Click to expand...

(sigh) Care to explain that, Sir?

Can you explain what effect my tweaking the shadows and sharpening would have on the missing details on ISO 400.

Noise structure at a given ISO is a constant. Some photos show it more or less, but it's there.

Don't you own this camera? If you do then you know what ISO 400 looks like. If you don't own it I can e-mail you RAW files to mess with.




Robert

I took the liberty to do some NR on your 100% ISO 400 crop:

Nikonworks said:

Nikonworks wrote:

I took the liberty to do some NR on your 100% ISO 400 crop:

Click to expand...

Yikes! No more pore texture. Why do so many find the lifeless look of a wax museum figure so appealing?

Jared Huntr said:

Jared Huntr wrote:

Jared Huntr said:

Nikonworks wrote:

I took the liberty to do some NR on your 100% ISO 400 crop:

Click to expand...

Yikes! No more pore texture. Why do so many find the lifeless look of a wax museum figure so appealing?

Click to expand...

Hi Jared, I posted only to show what some NR can do.Personally I prefer Nikon's approach to noise vs detail, meaning the original is the best, especially as a print.

Nikonworks said:

Nikonworks wrote:

Nikonworks said:

Jared Huntr wrote:

Nikonworks said:

Nikonworks wrote:

I took the liberty to do some NR on your 100% ISO 400 crop:

Click to expand...

Yikes! No more pore texture. Why do so many find the lifeless look of a wax museum figure so appealing?

Click to expand...

Hi Jared, I posted only to show what some NR can do.Personally I prefer Nikon's approach to noise vs detail, meaning the original is the best, especially as a print.

Click to expand...

Obviously I could have worked the file as I did with the later shots, but that's not what you wanted, right?

The point here is that there is appreciable noise at ISO 400, which is no longer deemed "high ISO" these days. This is not class leading performance and I'd hesitate to use ISO 400 unless I had no choice or the noise was something I was looking for.




Robert

Shotcents said:

Shotcents wrote:

Shotcents said:

Nikonworks wrote:

Shotcents said:

Jared Huntr wrote:

Shotcents said:

Nikonworks wrote:

I took the liberty to do some NR on your 100% ISO 400 crop:

Click to expand...

Yikes! No more pore texture. Why do so many find the lifeless look of a wax museum figure so appealing?

Click to expand...

Hi Jared, I posted only to show what some NR can do.Personally I prefer Nikon's approach to noise vs detail, meaning the original is the best, especially as a print.

Click to expand...

Obviously I could have worked the file as I did with the later shots, but that's not what you wanted, right?

The point here is that there is appreciable noise at ISO 400, which is no longer deemed "high ISO" these days. This is not class leading performance and I'd hesitate to use ISO 400 unless I had no choice or the noise was something I was looking for.

Robert

Click to expand...

Why would you look for 'class leading performance' (in regards to ISO) in a compact camera?

The entire group is limited due to the laws of physics and unattained (so far) innovation.

The noise in your 400 shot is completely acceptable in a print and would not be noticed by most people. Nikon runs their business on this premise of being acceptable by the Public in general.

Nikonworks said:

Why would you look for 'class leading performance' (in regards to ISO) in a compact camera?>>>

Click to expand...

CLASS leading performance. I'm not looking for D700 performance, just better than this, which is fairly poor. This has been pointed out by virtually every review, so there's little point in debating it.

Nikonworks said:

The entire group is limited due to the laws of physics and unattained (so far) innovation.

Click to expand...

Laws of physics? I don't think you understand that a larger sensor can be engineered into the current body. The only innovation would be in creating a "whole package" compact cam. For many, the G12 was that camera. IMHO the P7700 pulls even with it overall, but not ahead. I'd like to see Nikon show the same aggression that they've shown in the past, especially given the Coolpix history of being pretty weak systems.

Nikonworks said:

The noise in your 400 shot is completely acceptable in a print and would not be noticed by most people. Nikon runs their business on this premise of being acceptable by the Public in general.

Click to expand...

That level of noise at ISO 400 is bad. I posted comments from a bunch of sites. Some don't agree on how "bad" it is, but MUCH more is possible right NOW. Why Nikon chose to stop their engineering at "weak" ISO performance and SLOW processing is a mystery. They really had this camera close to ideal, then fell short.

Thankfully, the reviews, which ARE read by Nikon, take issue as I do with these failings and we're likely to see improvements even if less critical shooters can make do with the P7700 as-is.




Robert

I don't have time at the moment to do my own comparisons, but maybe tonight.

But until then, it needs to be said that your statements run contrary to every review I read before buying the camera, and all the posted examples I looked at. Online comparisons to other cameras in this class like the G15 clearly show that Nikon favored detail over noise reduction in their jpeg output. This is a valid approach, and if you look at test shots between the two cameras, the G15 shots will look slightly "cleaner" but more smeared at a given ISO. Obviously you don't prefer that approach, whereas I do. But in no way did any of the comparison shots I saw show the P7700 as "poor" next to other compact enthusiast cameras. In fact, the entire field of current 1/1.7 sensor cameras produce very similar, excellent quality photos.

You present an argument without any verifiable facts. You didn't post original images, and you didn't state whether these were camera jpegs or processed Raw files. You also imply that the 100% crops, which if printed would be poster sized, should be "clean" in some absolute sense. Who says? Show us the same crop from your G12, or a G15, etc.

walkaround said:

walkaround wrote:

I don't have time at the moment to do my own comparisons, but maybe tonight.

But until then, it needs to be said that your statements run contrary to every review I read before buying the camera, and all the posted examples I looked at. Online comparisons to other cameras in this class like the G15 clearly show that Nikon favored detail over noise reduction in their jpeg output. This is a valid approach, and if you look at test shots between the two cameras, the G15 shots will look slightly "cleaner" but more smeared at a given ISO. Obviously you don't prefer that approach, whereas I do. But in no way did any of the comparison shots I saw show the P7700 as "poor" next to other compact enthusiast cameras. In fact, the entire field of current 1/1.7 sensor cameras produce very similar, excellent quality photos.

You present an argument without any verifiable facts. You didn't post original images, and you didn't state whether these were camera jpegs or processed Raw files. You also imply that the 100% crops, which if printed would be poster sized, should be "clean" in some absolute sense. Who says? Show us the same crop from your G12, or a G15, etc.

Click to expand...

Tell you what! We'll ignore what the websites say and I'll post unaltered RAW files for you to examine shortly.



Robert

Shotcents said:

Shotcents wrote:

Tell you what! We'll ignore what the websites say and I'll post unaltered RAW files for you to examine shortly.

Click to expand...

Have you seen the comparison tool at Imaging Resource?

http://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM

Feel free to compare the P7700 ISO 400 photos with the G12 or G15. Click the images to get to 100% view. Look at the color checker chips in the studio shot, look at the mannequin's face, look at the wine bottle label.

You could say they are reasonably close and at normal print sizes it wouldn't matter, and some could even draw the conclusion that the P7700 has better noise profile and IQ than both of those Canons, but in NO WAY could any reasonable person conclude that the P7700 falls on its face in these tests.

walkaround said:

walkaround wrote:

walkaround said:

Shotcents wrote:

Tell you what! We'll ignore what the websites say and I'll post unaltered RAW files for you to examine shortly.

Click to expand...

Have you seen the comparison tool at Imaging Resource?

http://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM

Feel free to compare the P7700 ISO 400 photos with the G12 or G15. Click the images to get to 100% view. Look at the color checker chips in the studio shot, look at the mannequin's face, look at the wine bottle label.

You could say they are reasonably close and at normal print sizes it wouldn't matter, and some could even draw the conclusion that the P7700 has better noise profile and IQ than both of those Canons, but in NO WAY could any reasonable person conclude that the P7700 falls on its face in these tests.

Click to expand...

That test is close to useless, as is most of these tests done in good light. It's very hard to use them to see how the noise structure adds up in real shots.

One of the nest ways to see how ISO performance stacks up is by using the human face.

I'll post real world samples shortly.



Robert

And Again....


CNET - That said, JPEGs start to show artifacts even as low as ISO 200, though depending upon subject matter and final size you can still get usable shots as high as ISO 1600.

Camera Labs - At 400 ISO though, there's a very definite hike in the P7700's noise levels. The granularity is now pretty apparent in the walls and the previously crisp, clean and well defined edges are starting to look a little crumbly.

TechRadar - AGAINST- Noisy at high ISOs

Imaging Resource - ISO 400 shows stronger blurring and luminance noise, and chroma noise (color blotches) becomes more noticeable in darker areas, but detail is still very good for its class.

AV Journal - The wider aperture should be a real bonus for working in low and available light, and for isolating subjects from the background, although the small sensor will limit the ability to create a shallow depth of field.



The only thing that remains is YOUR tolerance for ISO noise. I find the D7700 noise becoming objectionable at ISO 400.



Robert

Shotcents said:

Shotcents wrote:

And Again....

CNET - That said, JPEGs start to show artifacts even as low as ISO 200, though depending upon subject matter and final size you can still get usable shots as high as ISO 1600.

Camera Labs - At 400 ISO though, there's a very definite hike in the P7700's noise levels. The granularity is now pretty apparent in the walls and the previously crisp, clean and well defined edges are starting to look a little crumbly.

TechRadar - AGAINST- Noisy at high ISOs

Imaging Resource - ISO 400 shows stronger blurring and luminance noise, and chroma noise (color blotches) becomes more noticeable in darker areas, but detail is still very good for its class.

AV Journal - The wider aperture should be a real bonus for working in low and available light, and for isolating subjects from the background, although the small sensor will limit the ability to create a shallow depth of field.

The only thing that remains is YOUR tolerance for ISO noise. I find the D7700 noise becoming objectionable at ISO 400.

Robert

Click to expand...

We can both cherry pick review comments out of context all day long, but where do any of the above say the P7700 is unusal, or "poor" as you stated, for its class? Can you point that out please, because you implied that this camera is particularly bad compared to its classmates at ISO 400.

If the whole point of this thread of yours is simply that you consider all 1/1.7 sensors "objectionable", then I suggest you sell your P7700 and stop whining here. I don't print walls.

walkaround said:

walkaround wrote:
We can both cherry pick review comments out of context all day long, but where do any of the above say the P7700 is unusal, or "poor" as you stated, for its class? Can you point that out please, because you implied that this camera is particularly bad compared to its classmates at ISO 400.

If the whole point of this thread of yours is simply that you consider all 1/1.7 sensors "objectionable", then I suggest you sell your P7700 and stop whining here. I don't print walls.

Click to expand...

The RX100 I tested was better as was the X10, though not great. But both of those cams let me down in other respects.

The point here is that Nikon missed a chance to pull ahead instead of coming up even. It's a case, not of poor design, but rather missed chances to build something above and beyond (as I described Nikon's DSLR efforts in recent years).

The P7700 must be good or I would have sent mine back. But I find it's weaknesses (its own and for the class) frustrating.

And there's nothing wrong with saying so. My D800 has some weak spots too. I don't care if that's what the rest of the "class" is doing. They're still sour notes and should be pointed out.





Robert