D7000 samples

[3systermuser]

right on here , well said , I always believe the same as you said.

look at the hair detail
if you can find any...

this is not about what noise you can see, its about what detail survives NR

--
Riley

any similarity to persons living or dead is coincidental and unintended

--
derek.

 

[3systermuser]

I am sorry to tell you this camera has very heavy NR even at RAW level and you cannot turn it off.

very smeared

or NR gone wild

I'd be interested in working with the raws with as much NR turned off and use some real NR tools on them before any valid comparison could be made

If my PP NR results looked like that, I'd be thinking I'd have to tone it done a LOT.

But I suppose what looks good on a noise graph is what counts these days.
--
John Mason - Lafayette, IN

http://www.fototime.com/inv/407B931C53A9D9D

--
derek.

 

[msusic]

Lenses aside, you can't say E5's output is worse than D7k, and with all those nice Oly lenses and guaranteed weather sealing + flippy LCD, why would anyone jump ship?
--
Cheers,
Marin

 

[Triumph Steve]

Why are we talking about Brand X here in the superior Oly forum? Then why not Leica or the new Fuji X100?
--
Steve in Chapel Hill, NC
Hebrews 11:1
Personal photo web site can be found at http://triumph.smugmug.com/

 

[3systermuser]

The problem is that we're comparing Oly's flagship camera with Nikon's consumer-grade offering.

Not really consumer grade at US$1200.

1400US not 1200.

Sure would be nice if Oly had a consumer-grade 4/3 camera that stacked up this well!

It seems fairly likely that Olympus will use the "weak AA filter and data manipulation" trickery in their new micro bodies. The native lens quality may cap what can be achieved there, though.

I would like to see an upgraded standard 4/3 body, but Olympus don't seem to believe one is necessary.

--
derek.

 

[olyflyer]

18-200 (both VR and VRII versions) are made of plastic, so my no means they can be classified as 'professional'.

Of course, like the 50-200SWD...

Based on your conclusion it is not a professional lens.

Althogh, please note, I am not saying the 18-200 is a professional lens at all. As I said, it's comparable with the 18-180 or the 14-42/40-150 combo but better than any of those.
--
Never forget that only dead fish swim with the stream.
(Malcolm Muggeridge)

 

[olyflyer]

I have seen E5 samples that wowed me. I have yet to see that out of D7000. I'm not just talking about the images posted in this thread. I also never said that was the best the D7000 could produce, but RAW would have to be a gigantic improvement over what's been shown so far out of the D7000 jpeg engine to come close to what the E5 is producing with its jpegs.

One thing is obvious, the messed up E5 shots look much, much better than the messed up D7000 shots.

Well, I haven't seen any wow in the E-5 images but I agree, the D7000 images in this thread are worse but IMHO explainable why.

Anyway, all I am saying is wait for a proper review.
--
Never forget that only dead fish swim with the stream.
(Malcolm Muggeridge)

 

[John King]

you are still on my ignore list ...

Huh??????????????????

You have him on your ignore list but bring him up in discussions whenever you fell like to flame him? How mature...

So are you ...

So am I what? Am I also on your ignore list?

Yes.

Considering I am also on your ignore list you are awfully busy answering both Sergey and me. Anyway, as I said, "how mature"...

Perhaps you misinterpreted the aim of "Ignore list". It's your list of people you want to ignore, not the other way round. I can't see that happening. Personally I don't mind to discuss with people I disagree with, it makes life richer and more interesting.

Anyway, the 18-200 images in this thread aren't really representative for that lens, so no point in discussing the abilities of that lens. As for the price of it, well, I also think it is overpriced but then again, I don't have that lens, but if I wanted a single lens DSLR I'd surly not hesitate to buy it. As for the price, in my territory it is cheaper than in yours, definitely below the 12-60 last time I looked. In any case, you can't compare with the 12-60 since the 12-60 does not have the same reach. Compared with the 14-42 and the 40-150 is more fair and the price for the 18-200 is about the same as those two. Even the Oly 18-180 is almost the same price as the 18-200 here...

Josef, you appear to think that all people should use the ignore feature exactly the same way you do. I do not think like that.

You also appear to think that all people should use and assess cameras in exactly the same way you do. I do not think like that.

ALL you seem to be capable of talking about is the cost difference between the 12~60 and the 18~200. BTW these two items are very similar in price here (not the same ).The 18~180 here is about half the price of the 12~60 ... However they are not even vaguely comparable in performance , which is the point I was making ....

You failed to comment on a single material thing in my post to you.

Now I ask: How mature is any of your behaviour?

I respectfully suggest that an understanding that others may think differently from oneself is just one sign of that maturity that you brought up ...

--
Regards, john from Melbourne, Australia.
(see profile for current gear)
Please do not embed images from my web site without prior permission
I consider this to be a breach of my copyright.
-- -- --

The Camera doth not make the Man (or Woman) ...
Perhaps being kind to cats, dogs & children does ...

Gallery: http://canopuscomputing.com.au/gallery2/main.php



Bird Control Officers on active service.

Member of UK (and abroad) Photo Safari Group

 

[rapick]

18-200 (both VR and VRII versions) are made of plastic, so my no means they can be classified as 'professional'.

Of course, like the 50-200SWD...

Based on your conclusion it is not a professional lens.

I was just trying to explain what is considered "professional" in the Nikkor lens lineup. This comes from the Nikon DSLR users consensum rather than from any official statement / classification by Nikon Imaging Corp.

The 'professional' features there are more about materials, construction and glass finish (like the recently introduced N -coating) than about expected IQ. E.g. the recently introduced 50/1.4 AF-S G is not 'professional', whereas the 35/1.4 AF-S G is. Well, it is mostly the price to tell you which 'grade' a Nikkor lens is...

Althogh, please note, I am not saying the 18-200 is a professional lens at all. As I said, it's comparable with the 18-180 or the 14-42/40-150 combo but better than any of those.

Not a 'professional' lens, but first introduced as the kit lens offered with the D200 'professional' camera. So...a step above all the other 18-xx/xxx offered by Nikon. And the huge selling figures, despite a relatively high price, tell more about the lens 'quality' as perceived by real world users, than the snobistish bashing by a few members of the DPR Nikon Forums community.
--
Rapick
Jalbum supporter
http://www.pbase.com/rapick
http://rapick.jalbum.net/

 

[pandalee]

silly fanboy , always trolling here and there , why Nikon fanboys are so nosy?

the D7000 has strong NR at raw and this Nikon strong NR even in RAW started with the D3.

suggest you guys to read Gabor's posts on this very issue somewhere else.

You're trying to be rational ...
--
Renato.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rhlpedrosa/
OnExposure member
http://www.onexposure.net/

Good shooting and good luck
(after Ed Murrow)

 

[pandalee]

seriously you Nikon patials should stay in Nikon D xxx forum.

you guys are really boring.

http://picasaweb.google.com/116430900595580966906/Photokina2010#5519809571091261458

 

[boggis the cat]

Not really consumer grade at US$1200.

1400US not 1200.

No, it is US$1200 body only. (Check e.g. B&H: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/735002-REG/Nikon_25468_D7000_DSLR_Camera_Body_.html )

Hardly a "consumer grade" price, regardless.

 

[John King]

Here in Oz, price comparisons all at the same (reputable) supplier:

Nikon 18~200 VRII, Oz $1,109 (~ 80% of 12~60 price ... )
http://www.digitalcamerawarehouse.com.au/prod6290.htm

Olympus 18~180, Oz $739 (~ 52% of 12~60 price ... )
http://www.digitalcamerawarehouse.com.au/prod4262.htm

Olympus 14~54 MkII, Oz $859 (~ 62% of 12~60 price ... )
http://www.digitalcamerawarehouse.com.au/prod5613.htm

Olympus 12~60, Oz $1,395
http://www.digitalcamerawarehouse.com.au/prod1306.htm

The relative IQ can be seen at all the usual reputable review sites ...

I know which I prefer, and own ...

--
Regards, john from Melbourne, Australia.
(see profile for current gear)
Please do not embed images from my web site without prior permission
I consider this to be a breach of my copyright.
-- -- --

The Camera doth not make the Man (or Woman) ...
Perhaps being kind to cats, dogs & children does ...

Gallery: http://canopuscomputing.com.au/gallery2/main.php



Bird Control Officers on active service.

Member of UK (and abroad) Photo Safari Group

 

[Sergey_Green]

Here in Oz, price comparisons all at the same (reputable) supplier:

Nikon 18~200 VRII, Oz $1,109 (~ 80% of 12~60 price ... )
http://www.digitalcamerawarehouse.com.au/prod6290.htm

Olympus 18~180, Oz $739 (~ 52% of 12~60 price ... )
http://www.digitalcamerawarehouse.com.au/prod4262.htm

Olympus 14~54 MkII, Oz $859 (~ 62% of 12~60 price ... )
http://www.digitalcamerawarehouse.com.au/prod5613.htm

Olympus 12~60, Oz $1,395
http://www.digitalcamerawarehouse.com.au/prod1306.htm

The relative IQ can be seen at all the usual reputable review sites ...

Did you by any chance notice the range that each lens covers?

I know which I prefer, and own ...

Is it any wonder.

--
- sergey

 

[John King]

Here in Oz, price comparisons all at the same (reputable) supplier:

Nikon 18~200 VRII, Oz $1,109 (~ 80% of 12~60 price ... )
http://www.digitalcamerawarehouse.com.au/prod6290.htm

Olympus 18~180, Oz $739 (~ 52% of 12~60 price ... )
http://www.digitalcamerawarehouse.com.au/prod4262.htm

Olympus 14~54 MkII, Oz $859 (~ 62% of 12~60 price ... )
http://www.digitalcamerawarehouse.com.au/prod5613.htm

Olympus 12~60, Oz $1,395
http://www.digitalcamerawarehouse.com.au/prod1306.htm

The relative IQ can be seen at all the usual reputable review sites ...

Did you by any chance notice the range that each lens covers?

Yes. Thank you ...

I know which I prefer, and own ...

Is it any wonder.

And what's that supposed to mean? Anything? I thought not ...

Sergey,

If you cannot follow the conversation and its meaning, how about ceasing and desisting from your irrelevant comments?

My post was a follow up to my other post (that's why it appears under it, and indented in the threaded view list ... ... ). I was merely giving the exact values to which I referred previously about the relative prices of the lenses.

You almost certainly missed this in your haste to troll me, as usual ...

AND FYI, I own the 14~54 MkII for reasons that seem good to me. These being in part:

1. I do not own a Nikon camera, so the 18~200 is even more useless to me than it would be to someone who did own a Nikon camera ...
2. I would never buy the Olympus 18~180 because it is just not particularly sharp, albeit with better contrast, colour and predictability than the 18~200 ...
3. I do not like the 'complex distortion' of the 12~60 at 12 mm, or its size, price or weight ...
4. I always intended to buy the 7~14, and have ...
5. I have always liked the 14~54 MkI and MkII. Neither lens has glaring faults, and both are capable of stunning IQ. It is also lighter, cheaper and smaller than the 12~60.

YMMV.

DO TRY to at least keep your replies to some semblance of relevance to the post to which you happen to be responding.

There's a good chap.

-

 

[Raist3d]

They, the link is right there on the page. ".NEF"

I missed that, but I was really hoping to find some higher quality samples anyway. Is there a free program that can work with NEFs?

What part of "Nikon JPEG engine is not as sophisticated as Olympus, and this is known" is so hard to get? I predict that's what's going to happen with the E-5 raws- many would have expected noticeably from the JPEG.

That's Nikon's problem. If you don't have the time or desire to process RAW files, you can expect results like that.

That is true, for sure, if you are a JPEG shooter this is a big advantage of the E_5. But if you shoot RAW, then things are different. Last time I checked there's a lot of RAW shooters here

And there are a lot of RAW + Jpeg shooters too. Ideally, I would only have to touch an image if the in camera processing screwed up or if I want to add some kind of artistic effect.

You would think so but in this forum apparently the majority seem to claim that "raw is the way to go". And that's what I want to see- how many JPEG shooters "show up all of a sudden." You preach to the choir on this one if you advocate JPEG use.

I prefer shooting over processing, and the thought of adjusting 1000 images at one time is disturbing (and if you batch process, the advantages of shooting RAW are thrown out the window).

That's not quite true. If a camera doesn't have a good JPEG engine you can batch process with a "template film" and get better results. I have done this with the LX3 and with the e-300 back then (because the e-300 JPEG engine ate too much detail), for some types of shots.

So basically some people act bad then it's justified to act bad. What kind of logic is that? For the record, I do say the E-5 is a nice camera. That said, the sensor is a known quantity here. Some are expecting some increased DR miracle or something.

I just find it odd that there are more people defending a Nikon DSLR than there are defending an Olympus DSLR in an Olympus DSLR forum.

To me it's not a question of defending- is just giving credit were due. If you look carefully I am not defending or attacking a particular camera but denials attitudes , contradictions and the like. I have already said I think the E-5 is a nice camera at the wrong price.

While I may have gone overboard, the point I was trying to make is maybe the E5 isn't so bad after all.

I don't think I said it's a bad camera. And in fact I have gone on record saying it probably has one of the best JPEG engines, if not the best, around.

People were running around like chickens with there heads cut off because the D7000 had more pixels and faster burst speeds.

No, I think it was because it has what seems a much superior metering system, a superior movie mode, a superior (apparently) AF mode, better expected DR, weather sealed also, much better battery life, small, apparent good ergonomics, better ISO and a few other things at 30% cheaper than the E-5.

If I went on a Nikon forums and said a Nikon camera sucked, I'd expect to get flamed, yet it seems you must criticize Olympus in order to be a member of this forum.

I think many aren't saying the E-5 sucks, just pointing out some issues as they see them. If that discussion which is completely related to 4/3rds particularly for those who have been around with 4/3rds equipment for a bit bothers you so much I suggest you skip those threads and contribute with your own photograph threads or whatever other subject.

Lack of articulating screen pales in comparison to what a 15 MP Foveon can do honestly, however nice it would be it had it.

We'll see what the SD1 can do. I expect a little less noise if I understand the recent patent correctly, but color is supposedly off 6% of the time (true of all Foveon sensors compared to how our eyes see color).

Supposedly? You have experience using it or going by hearsay? Why the benefit of the doubt to an E-5 but not the SD1? That's the kind of double standard thing I am seeing at times here to justify a certain equipment is quite quite fine.

--
Raist3d (Photographer & Tools/Systems/Gui Games Developer)

 

[Sergey_Green]

Here in Oz, price comparisons all at the same (reputable) supplier:

Nikon 18~200 VRII, Oz $1,109 (~ 80% of 12~60 price ... )
http://www.digitalcamerawarehouse.com.au/prod6290.htm

Olympus 18~180, Oz $739 (~ 52% of 12~60 price ... )
http://www.digitalcamerawarehouse.com.au/prod4262.htm

Olympus 14~54 MkII, Oz $859 (~ 62% of 12~60 price ... )
http://www.digitalcamerawarehouse.com.au/prod5613.htm

Olympus 12~60, Oz $1,395
http://www.digitalcamerawarehouse.com.au/prod1306.htm

The relative IQ can be seen at all the usual reputable review sites ...

Did you by any chance notice the range that each lens covers?

Yes. Thank you ...

I know which I prefer, and own ...

Is it any wonder.

And what's that supposed to mean? Anything? I thought not ...

It means that your ignore list is not working,
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=36429905

Or you use it off and on, which allows you to follow (and stalk) people.

Also noted here,
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=36431881

and which was even admitted here,
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=36437950

Josef, you appear to think that all people should use the ignore feature exactly the same way you do. I do not think like that.

--
- sergey

 

[John King]

I watch what certain trolls are saying about me and respond when I am being defamed or misrepresented.

Which, in your case, and that of a number of others, means to about 70~80% of your posts directed at me.

Perhaps if you took my advice regarding your posts being relevant, truthful, honest etc, I would never have to respond to you.

AND for you to accuse me of stalking is laughable in the extreme. You have stalked me on this forum for the last three years (and a number of other people as well). AND we all know that you all move as a "flock" here, and that you target anyone who dares to interfere with your endless trashing of everything to do with Olympus ...

However, the ignore feature means I only have to read the drivel you frequently spout here but once, not endlessly ...

-

 

[krh_57]

http://picasaweb.google.com/116430900595580966906/Photokina2010#5519809571091261458

No EXIF, and no indication of shutter speed or lens used. Could be just a bad photo.
--
Ken

 

[Sergey_Green]

I watch what certain trolls are saying about me and respond when I am being defamed or misrepresented.

Trolls as defined here?
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=35297585

You have to learn to behave like a "real troll" by:

- being totally negative about any (or all other) camera systems;

- belittling anyone who uses them;

- stating categorically that it is impossible to take any sort of image with {substitute brand of choice here} ...

- etc, etc.

That sounds like all yourself than anyone I know of. Could be your little brother or something.

Which, in your case, and that of a number of others, means to about 70~80% of your posts directed at me.

People respond to the nonsense that you post, but they do not necessarily jump in to belittle you, you do it yourself.

Perhaps if you took my advice regarding your posts being relevant, truthful, honest etc, I would never have to respond to you.

So you would have never responded had I been truthful (according to you) and honest? That makes a lot of sense.

AND for you to accuse me of stalking is laughable in the extreme. You have stalked me on this forum for the last three years (and a number of other people as well).

Would this be a good example?
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=36342034

But then how can I expect that of a member of the Schicklgruber family ...

Grow up Green. You are just a WOS and a woos here.

AND we all know that you all move as a "flock" here, and that you target anyone who dares to interfere with your endless trashing of everything to do with Olympus ...

See the bullet points.

However, the ignore feature means I only have to read the drivel you frequently spout here but once, not endlessly ...

And so did it help?

--
- sergey