I tried ISO extensively with Nikon D300, then D700, then with D700. I have not though tried ISOs over 1600 as I rarely need them in outdoor available light photography. The ISO 800 photos were just about the same as ISO 200. I set my Nikon DSLR cameras now on ISO 800 and shoot most of the time. For wildlife I would suggest 800 or 1000. If you decide to use ISO 200 on wildlife you must be shooting something very different than I am. When I am doing copy work with a micro (macro) Nikkor I often switch to ISO 640 but lower than that I would never try again. Don't see any reason to. Above ISO I just usually don't need so I don't go there. This new D7000 when I buy it I will set on ISO 800 standard and will bet I would not be able to see any difference from say ISO 200. I base the above on a series of big prints I did at ABC Photo and Imaging in Virginia which I believe is the best lab I ever used. I did not base this on my own printing.
Nikon D7000 Officially Official!
(224 posts) (48 voices)-
Posted 2 years ago #
-
Geez... people depends on what kind of photography you do. Some commercial types don't require for the picture to be free of noise. Moreover, if you have seen Jarvis' photos and the post processing he does on them you would know why it might be usable in commercial photography from his point of view.
If you do landscapes or cityscapes, and you can't have any noise or wherever than obviously you won't use this camera.
I mean it ain't that noisy! Ur acting liking its a d200! But I would say its a stop better than thr d90, combined with the fact its also gained 4mpx...almost a feat like the d3s
Posted 2 years ago # -
DaveyJ said:
I tried ISO extensively with Nikon D300, then D700, then with D700. I have not though tried ISOs over 1600 as I rarely need them in outdoor available light photography. The ISO 800 photos were just about the same as ISO 200. I set my Nikon DSLR cameras now on ISO 800 and shoot most of the time. For wildlife I would suggest 800 or 1000. If you decide to use ISO 200 on wildlife you must be shooting something very different than I am. When I am doing copy work with a micro (macro) Nikkor I often switch to ISO 640 but lower than that I would never try again. Don't see any reason to. Above ISO I just usually don't need so I don't go there. This new D7000 when I buy it I will set on ISO 800 standard and will bet I would not be able to see any difference from say ISO 200. I base the above on a series of big prints I did at ABC Photo and Imaging in Virginia which I believe is the best lab I ever used. I did not base this on my own printing.Great post and I agree with most of it. I do have a few shots at ISO 200 and I do wildlife but these are rare. I usually don't go lower than 400. I actually can use 400 a lot but 800 to 1600 is a common range for us wildlife shooters.
Posted 2 years ago # -
shivaswrath said:
I mean it ain't that noisy! Ur acting liking its a d200! But I would say its a stop better than thr d90, combined with the fact its also gained 4mpx...almost a feat like the d3sI wasn't directing the post towards you.
And no, I am not comparing it with D200. My point was that different fields of commercial photography will warrant different ISO sensitivities. So while a picture with ISO 1600 is usable commercially for one field it won't be usable for another area of commercial photography.
And my post was directed to foofiebeast btw. So simmer down cowboy.
Posted 2 years ago # -
IMo its all depends on what kind of photography you do and what lenses you have got .
if one has faster lens he can definitely live with lower iso in darker environment .
only place where I've used ISO1000 and above was my visit to kingdom of dreams .There I've even used ISO2000 on few occasions ,and I was quite happy with the results ,I got with D90 :).I would have been using lower iso, if I had faster lenses .So ,it all comes down to type of photography one does and money he/she is ready to spend .
Posted 2 years ago # -
One thing that hasn't been discussed about the D7000 is another feature that it picks up from the D300s: the electronic rangefinder in manual focus. Has anyone who has a D300s had any experience with how reliable it is?
If I understand right, the exposure display in the viewfinder is replaced by a rangefinder display, which lets you adjust focus until it's centered in the rangefinder.
Time to look for some cheap AI-S lenses?
Posted 2 years ago # -
jonnyapple said:
One thing that hasn't been discussed about the D7000 is another feature that it picks up from the D300s: the electronic rangefinder in manual focus. Has anyone who has a D300s had any experience with how reliable it is?If I understand right, the exposure display in the viewfinder is replaced by a rangefinder display, which lets you adjust focus until it's centered in the rangefinder.
Time to look for some cheap AI-S lenses?
Wait, what?
Posted 2 years ago # -
It just keeps getting better, doesn't it, poster? I think that feature might have been introduced with the D60 or something. It kind of softened the blow of not having the AF motor so that it was easier to use AF-D lenses in manual focus.
I kept thinking they might add it to the D90 in a firmware update, but no dice. I'm excited to have it on the D7000.
edit: I found a description of the rangefinder feature from the D60 at dpreview (halfway down the page):
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond60/page5.aspPosted 2 years ago # -
That's some cool stuff! Never knew that D60 had that feature.
I bet this will come in handy in film making, at least for casual use.
What Ai-s lens you guys are recommending to use for film making, or just having because they are stellar?
Posted 2 years ago # -
Well, it won't work unless the mirror is down, so it's a stills-only feature unless you're talking about marking focus before shooting a scene and then pulling focus during the scene based on what you've gotten from the rangefinder before filming.
PS D7000 is #1 in Amazon's current bestseller list for DSLRs.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Ohh right, I forgot that the mirror has to be up. Well, duh.
BTW
What Ai-s lens you guys are recommending to use for film making, or just having because they are stellar?
Posted 2 years ago # -
poster said:
Geez... people depends on what kind of photography you do. Some commercial types don't require for the picture to be free of noise. Moreover, if you have seen Jarvis' photos and the post processing he does on them you would know why it might be usable in commercial photography from his point of view.If you do landscapes or cityscapes, and you can't have any noise or wherever than obviously you won't use this camera.
huh? In what kind of commercial photography is noise acceptable? This is an honest question (not trying to sound rude), I can't think of any where noise would be acceptable. Is your point about Jarvis that it is acceptable in that after you post process a lot it'll look fine? If that's the case then I absolutely agree, I just don't know if I would call that a useable ISO, if it requires you to buy noise reduction software and the like in order to get the pictures to look nice. I guess usable is a relative term though.
Posted 2 years ago # -
foofiebeast said:
huh? In what kind of commercial photography is noise acceptable? This is an honest question (not trying to sound rude), I can't think of any where noise would be acceptable. Is your point about Jarvis that it is acceptable in that after you post process a lot it'll look fine? If that's the case then I absolutely agree, I just don't know if I would call that a useable ISO, if it requires you to buy noise reduction software and the like in order to get the pictures to look nice. I guess usable is a relative term though.Yes, since he made the video, and thus concluded that it's usable at that ISO. One can easily infer that for HIM it would be usable at that sensitivity.
Yes, it's not usable for you but for others it might be. That's the point it's totally subjective, that's why arguing about it is pointless as my post indicated.
Posted 2 years ago # -
poster said:
Yes, since he made the video, and thus concluded that it's usable at that ISO. One can easily infer that for HIM it would be usable at that sensitivity.Yes, it's not usable for you but for others it might be. That's the point it's totally subjective, that's why arguing about it is pointless as my post indicated.
You are then assuming that some of the video was shot at 3200, which we don't know. The only thing we know for a fact was shot at 3200 is that picture.
I understand it's subjective, but the term "commercially usable" implies a certain level of standards that would be acceptable in a business transaction. I certainly wouldn't feel comfortable with those levels of noise if I was doing a project for someone. Like I said though I'm waiting till we see some more pictures. From what I've seen of the d3100 iso shots, I'd guess that this shot is a fluke as the 3100 shot looked better than this so far. So sounds like good news!
Posted 2 years ago # -
foofiebeast said:
You are then assuming that some of the video was shot at 3200, which we don't know. The only thing we know for a fact was shot at 3200 is that picture.I understand it's subjective, but the term "commercially usable" implies a certain level of standards that would be acceptable in a business transaction. I certainly wouldn't feel comfortable with those levels of noise if I was doing a project for someone. Like I said though I'm waiting till we see some more pictures. From what I've seen of the d3100 iso shots, I'd guess that this shot is a fluke as the 3100 shot looked better than this so far. So sounds like good news!
Actually I was talking about the picture by itself. What I meant when I said that the video was shot by him, was that he was speaking from his point of view. And like I pointed out he does a lot of post processing so it's still good for him.
I agree with you, I wouldn't use that either. "Commercially usable" is only with regard to his shooting style. So for his standards it's fine as he indicated. But it might not be for somebody else in a different field of photography.
Now we are just talking semantics here. This will be the last thing I say regarding this, I don't want to drag this talk for a whole page.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Well I was waiting for somebody to post this for the past few days. Really didn't want to register just to post this but since I don't think anyone else did...
ISO 12800 examples from a D7000...also...scroll down to the comments to see a 100% crop with no post processing that the original uploader provided....
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rob-1/4993528427/
Theres also a lot of other shots on his Flickr taken with the D7000, but be careful, some are taken with a D300S...
Posted 2 years ago # -
^
Welcome to the Forum , TickleMyElmo.Thanks for showing that. it looks very promising to me at least. I would definitely use that ISO for my BW images.
And no I won't tickle your Elmo. I am not an easy guy like that. First you have to take me out to a dinner. ;p
Posted 2 years ago # -
poster said:
^
Welcome to the Forum , TickleMyElmo.Thanks for showing that. it looks very promising to me at least. I would definitely use that ISO for my BW images.
And no I won't tickle your Elmo. I am not an easy guy like that. First you have to take me out to a dinner. ;p
Whoah whoah whoah, I'm happily married to Mrs. Potato Head, thank you very much....lol
Anyways, I'm currently using a D40 and I cant wait to get my hands on a D7000...should be quite the upgrade I assume lol...
Posted 2 years ago # -
Okay, so other than Elmo and JA, who else is getting the D7000?
You know by default now, you guys will be reviewing it for our forum now right? :D
Posted 2 years ago # -
I'm still going back and forth between the 7000 and the 90... a matter of economics. :P
Posted 2 years ago # -
I am getting one!
Posted 2 years ago # -
NSXType-R said:
You know by default now, you guys will be reviewing it for our forum now right? :DI'd love to. I won't have my D90 to do side-by-side comparisons because I already sold it, but I'll post a review for what it's worth. I'll bet someone will beat me to it because I try to open my mouth only if I know what I'm talking about (and sometimes still fail).
ASD, I know the feeling.
Posted 2 years ago # -
aslightdelay said:
I'm still going back and forth between the 7000 and the 90... a matter of economics. :PIf price isn't a factor, I can see how that might be an issue.
poster said:
I am getting one!Nice, I want one too, but I can't afford it.
jonnyapple said:
I'd love to. I won't have my D90 to do side-by-side comparisons because I already sold it, but I'll post a review for what it's worth. I'll bet someone will beat me to it because I try to open my mouth only if I know what I'm talking about (and sometimes still fail).ASD, I know the feeling.
I'm sure you can still compare it, you've had the D90 and the D300 both for a good amount of time.
So what do you shoot with now while you're waiting for this?
Posted 2 years ago # -
NEX-5, but if I'm honest I haven't had lots of time for photography lately.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Topic Closed
This topic has been closed to new replies.
