yes, it's from my own experience (I've played with all of the Nikon bodies for long enough to have my own personal opinion), if I write about sth I googled I put a reference, if not it's from my own experience.
sorry that I wasn't clear enough, but english is not my mother tongue
anyway, have fun with d700 it's amazing camera
I wasn't questioning your background, I was just wondering if the data was anecdotal, or performed under any sort of standardized procedure, i.e., identical light quantities, side-by-side body comparisons, etc. Also, I didn't mean to deride your ESL status--my apologies.
Thanks for the TIF. Frankly, I think the photo looks pretty good. Personally, I see mostly luminance noise in the crop. I would go and try out a D700 and see if you find much of a difference at that ISO. I performed a little test at my local camera shop between a D700, D90 and Canon 5D Mark II and found. I didn't see much difference at ISO 1600.
Certainly. I should have posted that crop initially. Thanks for your comments, but I'm sure on a large print, that noise would be pretty objectionable to just about anyone.
Well, again, thanks for everyone's comments. I'm not too familiar with the DxO data acquisition/testing methodology, and I'm much more comfortable with real-world image tests. Also, my images tend to have lots of chroma, so generic tests are rarely comparable to what I'll actually be doing with the camera.
I just heard from my other photographer friend who just came from another gallery opening:
1. Everything was printed to 32" x 40," Type-C, chromogenic prints.
2. Everything was shot with a Hasselblad, using a digital back.
While it's certainly worth a weekend rental to see what Nikon's highest-end FX body can do at that print size, it looks like I may have to at least consider going with a medium-format, digital back, which of course would be a rental, and/or a Mamiya 6 x 7 system and drum scans for this project.