Nikon D7000 high ISO samples *updated*

Some high ISO samples from the D7000 (read the flickr description for ISO information) - they are so good that I even question the authenticity of those images:

D7000 pictures at different ISO are also available on Picasa. More samples here and here:

Nikon D7000 review (Google translated). And another new D7000 review (I updated this post multiple times as more info came in).

This entry was posted in Nikon D7000. Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.
  • D7000

    so sweet!

    • Nissehult

      If the d7000 is this good, how will the D400 preform?

      • D(l)eight

        Depends on what sensor it will have…..stock sony, sony but reworked by nikon, nikon’s own design/fabbing.

      • Foobar

        and also the D800/900!?

      • martin

        What tells you that there even will be a d400?

  • D7000

    Thanks very much Peter! You are the best…now take a rest, it’s past midnight:-)

    • this is too much fun – cannot sleep now 🙂

      • lightsaver

        Those shots are unbelievably noise free.

        • Joe r.

          I’m choosing not to believe it. I don’t want to be let down.

          If it’s really like that, it will fundamentally change the quality of about 25% of my shooting.

          • jonnyapple

            I believe them. Workodactyl was up with us on the NR forum on the night of the release waiting to preorder.

          • f/2.8

            I don’t blame you. I think these were taken by an alcoholic.

            • Nau

              Alcoholics dont have stashes like that with booz lol it goes too fast : )

            • Haha, exactly, if you notice the bottles are filled 😉 Unless I’m replacing them super fast!

              I did enjoy this observation though haha.

  • PhotoGradStudent

    I’m so glad I got my D7K today. I was for sure I was going to wait on that D700 replacement, and I’m so glad I didn’t. I’ll get it when it gets announced in July… or should I say if it gets announced in July lol.

    • studio460

      I was really torn on that same issue! I am totally planning on getting a D800 or D4, whichever comes first, for stills. But I just couldn’t wait! After coming home from work tonight and seeing the posts of new D7000 owners, I immediately ran out to Best Buy and got one too! I thought I would have to wait until late November!

      Now, the wait for a new FX body will be less painful. At least now I can finally make movies with manual control.

      • PhotoGradStudent

        Exactly! That’s the way I saw it. I was like… well this will keep me from going “should I get it?” for the next 8 months or so. And this will always be a great backup.

        • This is exactly what I’m doing! 🙂 Ordered d7000 to calm myself down while waiting for d800 :))

          • twoomy

            TO ALL: And that’s exactly what Nikon wants us to think! ‘You waiting on a D800/D900? Buy this one first, then the next one.’

            It seems that there are many of us buying the D7000 as an interim solution. 🙂

            • Discontinued

              This is exactly what bothers me too.

              Still I have a good mind to buy this D7000 thingy.

            • Rob

              Life is a compromise.

            • human tripod

              … and a box of chocolates

    • hah

      why in the right min would you think waiting for the D700 mk II is the same as this D7000?. If these iso samples blow you away wait for the next line of FX sensors 🙂

      • PhotoGradStudent

        We’re not. We just got the D7000 to hold us over till the D700 replacement comes out. You never know when that will be. (watch it gets announced next month lol)

      • enesunkie

        Not to be a pessimist, but some of us could die before Nikon comes out with a D800/D900!

  • Fenst


    better, than my D80 in many times

    • lolcatmaster FTW

      As an ex owner of D80 I can only say: Amen to that!

    • even D90 is better than D80 in different aspects
      D7000 is better than D90 in different aspects too

  • Better than D700 *-*

    • Kenny Son

      OT question. Should I get a D700 now or wait for its replacement?

      • Robert photo

        Wait for the replacement. If this is how good DX will be, watch fx beat it by two. If you need a camera now, then get this

        • FX

          “watch fx beat it by two” – did you mean twice the price?

          • Texasjoe

            The next FX will be more than twice for sure. The D700 is still more than $2000 even though most places say it’s discontinued.

        • lolcatmaster FTW

          Shoot with what´s available today, there´s no point on waiting for a camera and not shoot anything at all. As it is the D700 is an excellent camera.

      • Rafael R

        Full Frame in my opinion is way better still.. (not taking about high ISO performance)

        • exFX

          I agree, it is bigger & heavier.

          • Kenny Son

            thanks for the input. i want my fx now !!

          • hah

            and has better DR, and shallower DOF. You take the new 1.4 primes on FX and be prepare to be blown away buy the beautiful DOF you simply cannot get in DX because of laws of optics 🙂

            FX FTW

            • human tripod

              “…the beautiful DOF you simply cannot get in DX because of laws of optics :)”

              Sorry, but that’s absolutely bulls**t.

            • PHB

              The laws of optics?

              The laws of optics state that an optical system is scale invariant. Scale up every element of a system by a constant factor and the results will be identical.

              The only difference between the systems imposed by physics is the one imposed by quantum mechanics. More photons entering the front element of the lens means more photons hitting the sensor. More photons means more electrons in the signal and the noise performance of the camera is determined by the signal:noise ratio.

              An FX camera has roughly twice the area of a DX camera. So if you have a DX body and FX body side by side, with f/1.4 lenses and equivalent focal lengths (50mm vs 75mm say) and identical optical designs the noise performance of the FX camera is going to be better because the sensor will get twice the signal and the noise does not increase to the same extent.

              The cost of that improvement is a lens that costs rather more than twice as much. Each lens element in the 75mm lens has to be twice as big.

              There are different considerations for wide angle lenses because the flange to sensor distance does not scale and the mirror sweep constraints are the same for DX and FX lenses so you can put DX lenses on FX bodies.

              Nikon did not invent the reflex camera, they were the first company that managed to design optics that could perform despite the constraints of the design. Leica does not have better optical designers, they just design for a format that is less heavily constrained. That is the reason that the EVIL design is so important.

              The bottom line is that if you are buying $1500 plus lenses, you can get better results from FX. But the DX line with the f/2.8 lenses should give almost identical performance to a FX body with one of the f/4 zooms.

              If you are buying $1500 plus lenses you probably don’t mind so much about the extra cost of FX and you will see advantages. If your plan is to buy only the 28-300 then upgrading from DX is probably a waste of time.

              DX is doomed in the long run. But the cause is EVIL, not FX. It will take four or five years for the small format EVIL lens ranges to be competitive with the DSLR ranges but the performance at wide angle will be much better as will the reach at telephoto. People who want compact or want to take landscapes will go for the small format EVIL design. The small format EVIL will be far better for video as well. A DSLR is simply the wrong size and weight to shoot video without a grip that costs more than the camera.

              By that time the cost of making FX sensors will no longer be prohibitive and the electronic viewfinder technology will have advantages over the reflex design. At that point I expect we will see the F-mount finally pensioned off with Nikon introducing an FX EVIL camera with a new mount and a new set of wide lenses that can use the older F-mount lenses using an adapter.

            • R R

              I agree 100% with Hah, I remember when I had two mamiyas the 645 and the RZ 67 .. both with normal lenses, one could appreciate a lot better separation in between the planes with the 67 , the bigger the negative this was the effect, I have a D300 with the 35mm f1.8G and a D700 with the 50f1.4G , and you can see the same effect shooting both at f2.8 , less depth of field , and beautiful separation between background and foreground on the D700.. no question, maybe is not a law of physics , but certainly is a fact.

            • human tripod

              “…the beautiful DOF you simply cannot get in DX because of laws of optics 🙂 ”

              This is the comment I was referring to, and it’s still BS. Good grief.

            • Joe D

              With the same framing and same lens, the FX should have a shallower DOF and deeper drop off. DOF is a function of FL, distance to subject and fstop. If a subject takes up a certain amoutn of space in your frame, on a FF you have to get closer to keep that amount relatively similar.

              Hence smaller DOF,

            • human tripod

              FF gets you a more shallow DOF with all others things being equal. The “laws of optics” do not prevent a “beautiful DOF” with DX. Hence, BS.

            • dave

              And one can compensate by altering any one of those variables. The easiest is to just open up the aperture by a stop when using the DX camera. If you want to maintain the same relative size of the subject AND the same field of view, the you have to use a longer lens on the FX body. If you simply get closer this changes the aspect ratio and the images are not identical. You may have shallower DOF with the FX body, but by getting closer, you will have more distortion.

              And it is not the amount of light that hits the entire sensor, but rather the amount of light that hits each individual photosite. when comparing a 12MP FX to a 12MP DX sensor using the same technology, this is true. But when comparing a 12MP DX sensor and a 24MP FX sensor of the same technology, one might expect the SNR to be about that same, as is true when comparing the D90 to the D3x. Canon’s first affordable FX senor in the 5D Mk I has about the same SNR as the D90 as well and yet it’s photosites are almost as big as the D700’s. How could that be? FX-sized sensors are better. Reality isn’t supposed to be contrary to common knowledge!!! waaaaaaaaaah.

              There are many more variables than just sensor size that affect noise. Just think of how good the high ISO images of the D7000 would be if Nikon kept it at 12MP. Then it would blow the D700 completely out of the water and probably rival the D3s.

            • PHB

              @Joe D.

              What you are saying is true for a given lens. You can get closer to the subject and that will decrease your DoF

              If you are comparing two lenses with the same equivalent focal length, the DoF of the DX lens at 10ft will be identical to the DoF of the FX lens at 15ft.

              So for example, if you take a zoom lens like the 28-70 f/2.8 and frame the subject identically on Dx and Fx (eg, 40mm and 60mm) then the result should be almost identical. If you compare on a variable aperture lens the difference is even slighter.

              Yes there are differences, but not yet a $1250 difference unless you have some really serious lenses to take advantage. Folk who want an FX body to go with their 15 year old film era lenses are probably wasting their money at this point.

            • Jabs

              Actually you are right and it is very simple to explain.
              WHEN you use the exact same lens on a DX body and an FX body, the crop factor of the DX body magnifies the image and thus the FOCAL length increases thereby resulting in a SHALLOWER depth of field. (I am NOT talking about specific DX ONLY lenses here ???)
              A 50mm FX lens becomes a 50 X by the crop factor or if Nikon’s crop factor is say 1.5, then the new focal length is 50mm X 1.5 = 75mm. That is a huge difference in focal length and hence the new longer focal length will NOT have the same depth of field as in FX but it will be SHALLOWER on a DX camera due to this increase in FOCAL length.

              On the differences between FX (full frame) and DX (cropped sensor) – it is a KNOWN fact of digital sensors that the larger sensors USUALLY have better dynamic range and noise performance, BUT Nikon just rewrote that in the D7000. We will have to see tests by DX0 Labs for a confirmation of the SENSOR performance of this new DX7000 camera as the FX sensor D3X beats many larger Medium format sensors in dynamic range, color purity and noise.
              Things are NOT some formula, as Nikon in particular is rewriting the rules and disproving much. I want a D7000 now and will be going to Best Buy in my town in America to look at one this weekend.

            • PHB

              The reason that the D3x beats so many medium format sensors is that they are made in very low volume and cannot afford to use the latest technology.

              So if you look at Hassleblad, their H3dii-31 offers essentially the same performance as the D3x, slightly higher resolution (31MP) but only ISO 1600. That is for $14,000 with a 80mm lens. Or a little less than twice the current price of a D3x.

              There are advantages to the ‘blad. But they are not in depth of field, they are a slight reduction in Moire fringe effects. Or more precisely the Moire effect happens at a different frequency.

              Nikon didn’t go down this path for a very good reason. Take a look at the prices of medium format lenses and you will see the problem. $7,200 will buy you the complete magic trio of zooms with change left over for an 85 f/1.4.

              If you really, really have to have 50MP, there is simply no choice. But that camera only achieves ISO800 and the price is $30K, want 60MP, you will have to pay $40K.

              There are some photographers for whom the ‘blad makes sense. Mostly fashion photographers and people who take product shots for indoor display advertising. But they are using the CCD technology that Nikon has just abandoned for its entire current product line as obsolete.

              One of the lessons of the VLSI market is that volume always wins. For years people have talked about using substrates other than silicon for making CPUs. They have talked about optical and germanium and all sorts of exotic stuff. But despite the intrinsic advantages of the other technologies, silicon always manages to be a couple of generations ahead and that is enough to outperform for almost every application and none of the alternatives has ever broken out of niche markets.

              The same principle applies here. Nikon knows that any time they design a new sensor, they can hope to amortize that cost over a million or so mass market DSLRs in the future. Hasselblad know that they will be lucky to sell a few thousand.

            • Jabs

              Actually you are WRONG.
              You are comparing apples to orange.
              The D3X is so superb because of ONE thing – GREAT electronics inside it and nothing else.
              How they process the SIGNAL electronically after it leaves the sensor is what makes it so superb and thus the PRICE. The D3X has the cleanest BLACKS of almost ANY camera on the market – Medium format or otherwise – FACT! There is NO Moire’ on the D3X – for example.
              It has nothing to do with the megapixels, ISO speed or a lack of this.
              SOME photographers like the ones targeted by BOTH the D3X and Medium format shooters are NOT looking for HIGH ISO!
              They shoot ONLY at a range of 50 to 200 ISO, as they come from the FILM world and like me and they NEVER shoot above 100 ISO unless they are in a bind.
              They use multiple STUDIO flashes with very high outputs, so the EV ‘values’ are easily met with a combination of SHUTTER SPEED, and LOW ISO – that is the way they shoot in a STUDIO in America as every aspect of the photograph is CONTROLLED plus they shoot with huge STURDY tripods mostly.

              Outdoors you are on your own – in the Studio – you have Lighting Designers, Set Designers, Background lights, foreground lights, Key lights (both High and Low Key), Rim lights and all types of lights that GIVE them the equivalent of DAYLIGHT as in SUNLIGHT in their Studio – so they do NOT need high ISO, as you constantly say here.
              YOU are wrong – get over it.
              Studio shooting in the Fashion/Magazine Industry in America is mainly LOW ISO with extremely bright either fixed lights, High powered flashes or a combination of them, hence NO NEED for High ISO, as they have BRIGHT LIGHTS.
              Lastly – cost has NOTHING to do with it, as this is the REAL world and not Wikipedia.
              It is about GETTING a job done in a controlled ENVIRONMENT and in that environment, the D3X has NO PEERS. People use the D3X because they KNOW how to shoot properly, as it WILL expose YOUR shortcomings in both technique, lighting and subject movement – and your SKILLS as a photographer, as it is NOT a toy nor a tool for sybarites (those obsessed with luxury items or who love to have things that they can show off on others to make others feel jealous or even ‘inferior’ because it is EXPENSIVE) who love Leica’s and other such expensive things. In OTHER words, the D3X is NOT targeted at ‘Leicaphiles’ or the ‘touchy-feely’ crowd BUT at REAL Professionals who make in ONE day more MONEY than what a Leica system costs.
              The D3X is a STUDIO camera!
              It is a Production TOOL of the highest caliber in 35mm digital and thus most are clueless about it.

              LEARN that, please!
              Here is a WAKE-UP call for YOU:

              The average Studio Shoot in America costs or PAYS a professional with the right SKILLS maybe $150,000 US dollars per DAY and the amount paid to the models is EVEN higher !!!

            • Jabs

              I have ONE question for you?
              Are you an Electrical Engineer and DID you study Electrical Engineering?
              You make so many blatant mistakes, that it is NOT funny to me – so I keep quiet lest you post at ME.

              Hint 1:
              Transistors are NOT made of silicon (in answer to your baloney about germanium).
              Hint 2.
              Computer chips are made from WAFERS of various SIZES on various Manufacturing Process NODES (32nm, 45nm, 65nm, 90nm – for example) and this has NOTHING to do with the MAKE-UP of the component whether Computer CHIP or electronic COMPONENT.
              Hint 3:
              I know of no other current Commercial Process to make Computer chips other than involving Silicon in SOME way, but I know of various ways to MAKE the PROCESS of Producing a Silicon WAFER plus DESIGNING a computer chip and the associated INTER-CONNECTS, for example.
              Hint 4:
              STOP reading and quoting Wiki’s.

              Engineer HERE – not some damn web site reader!

              Nikon obviously MADE certain of the D3X parts in LOW VOLUME and NOT shared by any other camera in its’ ENTIRE lineup, because of ONE THING – they are custom FABRICATED ‘short run’ (as in VERY expensive to FABRICATE or Manufacturing costs are outrageous) parts ENGINEERED to blow everyone away and NOT for any reason that you tried to make, as what you stated was gibberish at BEST!
              Nikon MANUFACTURES custom parts as a PART of its’ OWN Business and has been doing this for DECADES and is well known for doing this CUSTOM work for others, hence they are SPECIALISTS in that field.

              Nikon probably made the custom D3X parts, themselves – for a CLUE!

            • Jabs

              Last Response to YOU.
              The D3X is NOT behind in Technology, but is SO FAR ahead of anything on the Market technically, that it is NOT funny to me.
              Hence, what you wrote is nonsense or you culling crap from the Internet and trying to make people here believe that you know what you are talking about.

              The D3X reminds me of Nikon custom fabricating some early RESEARCH components from say a D4 or D5 and then manufacturing it themselves to KEEP it secret and then releasing it in a flagship camera as a way to say to the WORLD – Nikon is the BEST at what they do.

              That is what is LOST on web site readers without a proper Education or Training in a particular field.
              The D3X is about Engineering PROWESS and nothing else.
              It is designed to SHUT UP other Manufacturers – all lost on many!

      • Rob

        Buy second hand D700 now! (that’s a note to myself as well)

        • Steve

          germanium and transistors wow thats old school. that’s history my boy very old history. yes they are made from Si and other materials depending on the process used to do the job.

    • hah

      no way better than the D700/D3. But it is about 75% there. It may be comparable in low ISOs but try shooting the top 2 non boosted and boosted ISO settings and you’ll see the FX sensor that is 3 years old smoke this state of the art DX sensor. yup, it’s that good.

      • PHB

        Thats about what I would expect.

        ISO performance is only measured in full stops. The D3 seems to have only just made the cut for 6400, the D3x should only be one stop slower due to doubling the resolution but is misses that point and is only rated at 1600. The D3s is a whole stop better than the D3.

        So it looks to me as if the D7000 has the D3s technology. It does not quite manage to deliver a full ISO stop advantage over the D90 because it also has 33% more pixels.

        So no big surprise there, the D7000 has the same technology as the D3s but does not make the same ISO number because it has much smaller sensor cells.

        This does not really tell us anything about the likely performance of the D4 that we did not know from the D3s. Incremental improvement should allow them to carry a 24MP sensor rated at ISO 6400.

        The fact that the D3100 and D7000 both have brand new sensors suggests that Nikon is less concerned to reuse sensors than in previous generations. We might well see the refresh of the D700 with a new sensor (18-21MP?) in the near future and the D3s sensor appearing in a D9000 consumer body sometime after the D4 launches.

  • Neurotox

    Yeah! I’m not the only one with a D80 😉

    Really low noise… I need a D7000 !

    • d200

      d7000’s ISO 3200 is far better than my 640… JEEZUS!

    • Now, you may need to use add-noise instead of de-noise.

      • GlobalGuy

        Haha, Photoshop has a function for that, you know… Finally DX users feel the way we FX users have felt for the last 3 years. Guys — welcome to ISO 6400 that is great.

        • Dreuben

          Thank you!, finally a non bashing comment from a FX user. We feel welcome indeed, we’ve been waiting for this ever since the D700 came out.

        • dave

          +1 Dreuben… glad to see an FX owner that isn’t a DX basher.

    • Jx

      I have d80 too, but saving money for this 🙂

      • fork()

        Joinin’ the D80 club, too. But I’d rather not be in it. 😉

      • sporty883


        or better —


        • Jordan

          Dead shutter D80 user here . . . desperate for the arrival of my pre-ordered D7000!

      • aetas

        D80 owner, three fx lenses. was going d700 might wait and see whats next for fx.

    • Benjamin

      Beat this: D70 WITHOUT s
      But I will probably get a new D7000 also.

      • Hah! Got you all beat! I am still rolling with a D50!

        • Dood

          I’m on a D40. Can’t beat that! =p

          • lorn

            My D100 feels so…. last year?

            NOISY !

            • Benjamin

              Hui… That is really old. And that is really your main camera till now?

              But all those D50’s and D40’s… they’re all so … new 😉

  • Visible

    Better than D300S!

  • Cache


    • Rob


  • R R

    I just wish this sensor was on a D300 body .. I hate that little D7000 body , that you need to access lots of things via menu instead of a direct button, like pro Nikons..

    I am going to wait till the D300s gets this sensor.. still the D7000 a very nice camera , but I hate the D90 body resemblance

    • Eric Duminil

      To me, User modes and Easy ISO beat the “pro buttons”.

    • kithic

      I like the size of the d7000 body. Not everyone has huge hands. The d300 body is just too big for my hands.. 🙁 Even the d7000 will be pushing it.

    • Ronald


  • Green^

    I’m awake too, this is obscene but fun!
    Admin: you’ll have to move this site to 🙂
    And we may all qualify for group discounts on rehab and mental health services 😉
    Nite Nite!

  • Jim

    I managed to snag one from Best Buy (ironically, they went well out of their way to get me one…), and from what little I’ve played with so far, they’re real. I haven’t gone into Photoshop to mess with stuff yet, but on the computer screen, shooting at 6400 looks like shooting at 200 with my old D70. The image quality out of this thing is truly insane.

  • I managed to snag one, and even went back to use the 12% coupon later today. These shots are representative of the ISO quality, namely because there is a built-in noise reduction feature on by default. Still, it is impressive.

    I might also add – the video is phenomenal in low light.

    • If you’re going to put up some samples, could you do some of videos first? There’s some good ISO examples out there now, but we need some video examples too! Thanks!

  • Tron777

    Why we are surpised?

    All that ohter s cameras having smaller sensors then DX have been very improved in noise reduction. DX (APS-C) related sensors too were not at the end of possibilites here
    Bad news for D700 buyers????

    • Bad news for D700 buyers????
      I yearn for one a lot less now.

    • hah

      thankfully these improvements will be passed to the FX cameras and extend the limits of what is possible on DX cameras….that is after all the purpose of FX.

  • Unbelievable, incredible, stupendous. Forget reviews, this is more than convincing. Where is my noise @6400? Goodbye speedlite upgrade.

    • hah

      you must be very naive then. reviewers have their reputation at hand. these shots from some random person cannot be verified. For all we know he applied NR and touched the exif data to fake the ISO level.

      I sure hope they are the real thing for it is going to blow the 60D out of the market but never ever trust some random guy in flickr.

      • NR on or not does not matter to me… the final thing looks good on screen. Assuming they were taken at the stated ISOs.

    • Speedlite is for another function, low light capabilities won’t replace the use of speedlite.

  • dd
    • Kenny Son

      camera phone?

      • dd

        that’s the d7000 that everyone praises.

        • BornOptimist

          The point is how good it can be, not how bad you can get it.
          You can make a crappy picture at ISO200 also if you go for it.

        • human tripod

          You’re choosing which pics are credible. Convenient.

        • Was it cropped? I wonder. Was NR on? Were the other settings manually lowered more then necessary? Was it the final build of the camera? That D7000 that everyone praises also took those photos on top, I’ll believe them more over this one.

          • Ant

            That was cropped from one of the images posted on a French website taken at Photokina.

          • dd

            those nice images you’ve seen are all resized. if you want resized image , might as well don’t upgrade to 16mp and stay 12mp.

        • taotejared

          Image compression: 85% – for posting to the web. That is camera noise and Software noise. It also did not have any NR applied.

    • Arthur

      That’s something totally different in noise! :S

  • Tron777

    The interesting is :
    we are all more afraid of noise than in taking bad, boring pictures
    what happened here ???

  • Nikon

    Yepp. “D80” Forever! 🙂

    (noise performance above ISO 800 becomes beautiful art)

    • dave

      I prefer to think of ISO 1600 on the D80 as a mosaic filter

      • davd

        Dude.. nice one!
        Got a D80.. can’t afford no stinkin D700.. but can afford the d7000 whats a poor guy to do

  • Aaron Jensen

    Some more from my D7000 w/ comparisons to D90 at ISO 3200

    • OMG.. the 25600 is more than incredible.
      And time you get a new mousepad?

    • human tripod

      Forget about the noise for a second. Take a look at the detail in the cat’s ear hair. I can’t see any loss of detail between 6400 and 12,800. That’s very 700-ish and very impressive.

  • Yagi

    Nikon really did it. Completely impressed.

  • Paul

    I’m now trying to talk myself out of buying the D700… that I finally convinced myself I could afford. Damn you, reverse upgrades!

  • pete

    alot of these photos arent real iso tests. shots at f5, 1/100, iso 12800 is not really a great test of low light. particualrly of light coloured subject matter. better than a d700 ? i dont think so. its a bit better than a d90, as you would expect a new sensor to be. great work nikon but some of you are gettign way too carried away here.

    • Aaron Jensen

      Good point… Here’s some shots from a darker room (just monitor glow off to the side).

      These aren’t hand held btw.

      Definitely a lot noisier than the bright shots I posted earlier and others are posting but still pretty good.

      • pete

        aaron dont get me wrong, the camera looks VERY impressive. i think though we need to be objective and what nikon have done is improve the iso peformance by maybe a half a stop over a d300s and at the same time given us more MP and so a more detailed image. lets not forget also that the 7d did the same thing about a year ago. more mp but relatively same noise as a d300.

        • D7000

          so you think it’s a bit better than a d90.

          D700 vs D7000 at ISO 6400

          • pete

            yes thats what i said. a bit better. it will be a stop better at BEST…but i doubt it would even be that much. you can link me to all the comparisons you want by people who want to kid themselves into thinking they bought the best thing since sliced bread but i casn assure you now that when the scientific quantitative analysis is done it will be exactly what i have just described.

            book mark this page and get back to me when dxo mark do their tests.

            anyone who thinks the d7000>d700 is living in lala land.

            • D7000

              What are you smoking? are you in lala land? It was not posted to claim that D7000>D700.

      • hah

        looks good, but it ain’t no D700. what is amazing is that the top notch DX body still can’t match the 2007 FX sensor design.

        But this is a shot across the bow for what’s coming in 2011’s FX models. can you imagine being a canon guy exited about he 7D noise levels?

      • Camping out at BB

        Hi Aaron,

        Can you post a raw NEF file, or maybe a screenshot of one of these pictures in a viewer without any noise reduction?


      • GlobalGuy

        12,800 is NOT going to be pretty. Guys.. I don’t even use ISO 6,400 on D700 because of these issues.

        If 6,400 is iffy at best and if 12,800 is not very attractive at all, then you are still in D700 territory. Don’t worry about it.

        The key points are being able to go up to 6,400 ISO without worrying that the image will be unusable. You don’t want to leave the camera at 6,400 however. It doesn’t look so great on a D700 either. Unless you use the “beauty shots” by people who worked it just right.

        • Heh

          12800 on my D3s is useable. 😉

  • mike

    PRE-ORDERED SEPT 15………….

    • D7000

      You are barking up the wrong tree.

  • Monty

    Those Pictures are all downsized! Of course they look good when downsized!
    Or is there a way to look at them at 100% that I am missing?

    • Tron777

      That’s correct;
      downsized images also reduce Noise

    • sporty883

      But at 2500×1600 px they are still capable of close to A4 print resolution.
      Also according the the EXIF, they were processed using Lightroom.

      But at 35mm/1.8 ISO 25600 – I will not complaint. And I’m definitely wondering how Nikon will boost quality on the pro bodies…

  • Wayne

    Man these D7000 high ISO shots are so clean! If only I could sell my D90 for enough money to upgrade…

  • Maybe some of these samples have in-camera noise reduction applied? 1600 and 3200 looks too good to be true. Well even with NR applied, ISO 1600 still looks better than ISO 800 on the D300s! 😮

  • Camping out at BB

    Can someone post some low-light/high-ISO raw NEF files? I’d love to see a comparison of images without any NR whatsoever.

    If the D7000 is better than the D90/D300S, we are getting into FF territory as it relates to IQ.

    DxO published the sensor data from the Canon 60D, and it rates almost identically to the T2i and the 7D:

  • Camping out at BB

    I’d also love to see any video tests people have, especially with the continuous autofocus.

    I played around with the D3100 continuous autofocus, and I thought that it was decent–nowhere near what a person when good follow-focus skills could achieve, but definitely way better than the autofocus on any of the Canon cameras.

    • The video was fun. but you can’t change the aperature or ISO in recording I believe or I didn’t figure it out yet. So I stayed in regular light, no big deal.

      The auto-focus is certainly loud. The mic even picks up manual focus which I turned on immediately. Apart from that, the camera does take some clean crisp beautiful videos in 1080. But that’s gonna be something to explore later :). I’ll try to throw up some samples once I feel confident in my video making capabilities haha.

      • Camping out at BB

        I’m curious as to how much of a practical limitation this is. Can you change the aperture or ISO while you are in LiveView, but not recording? If this were a problem, you could always get non-G lenses, I suppose.

        Not so concerned about the autofocus noise because you can just get a cheap external mic.

  • randyravener


    still waiting for D7000 stocks to reach Singapore…

    no news about the price on my side yet…

    waiting and waiting and waiting…

  • Sorry, but D700xD7000 samples posted at DPR by owner of both show D700 still better. With both at same size, it’s les than a stop, but it’s there. And these are all jpegs, let’s wait for converters to handle its files, then we can have better comparisons.

  • JMD

    Well! I’m with Pete all the way!! I too don’t see the little DX mighty-mite sensor out performing Nikon’s FX sensors. I will say that I’m impressed thus far with what I’m seeing so far from the D7K, and I give mad credit to Nikon engineers who finally slayed the noise beast, but the mighty-mite sensor is not an FX sensor slayer. If anything, Nikon’s intent would be for the new DX sensor tech to compliment FX. That said, we have to see this as being in the best of times right and things are only going to get better. However, just think for a second!…would you like to have the D7K sensor in a D2Xs II body? Sorry, I had to ask, but I would.

    • alvix


    • Heh

      Maybe the D400 will be like that! 1Div beater?! LOL

  • With my D3k I wouldn’t shoot higher than 400 -600 ISO, I feel like I can shoot this sucker straight to 6400 with damn problem at all. It really is an outstanding camera with outstanding capabilities.

    The video mode leaves room for improvement. But the camera as a camera, it’s simply amazing for DX. I can only imagine how good the D400/D800/D4’s will be. Nikon has outdone themselves again.

    I must admit, I miss some of the intuitive menu design of the D3k, but I feel like I’ve graduated past that, time to were the big boy pants haha.

    Enjoy fellas! I’ll be heading up to the mountains this weekned. hope to grab some good shots for everyone 🙂

  • alvix

    ..I’m on a D200 and make a lot of low light concerts – shows, dance….theatrical representations etc…you know what I mean..its terrible to go there knowing that you are stuck with the technology performance of your camera…I use 1/60 2,8 iso800 max 1600..and underexpose a lot…then..the colors are not there..sadly 🙁

    • alvix

      so i suppose that this DX camera could do a better job with more res for the 1,5x crowd even in low light..

  • pulu

    i wish someone would post samples that have been properly white balanced. i like noise free high iso images, but i care much more about decent color reproduction and saturation at high iso.

    • You’re right I hadn’t set up the WB yet. It’s on my to-do list but, it was a busy night, I rushed to just take the photos I had, and I’m at work now so shruggles. I’m sure many more will be posted soon.

  • Mike Gunter


  • Akira

    Man, like I wasn’t already anxious enough to get mine…

  • Trebus
  • Catastrophile

    there are also few ones taken more professionally and posted within a review on a Chech site, czeck it:

    • Catastrophile – it’s not a professional test at all! Testing high ISO in daylight, or bright light is no use at all. Test it in darkness to see actual sensor performance.

      • Catastrophile

        yeah i agree testing high ISO noise would be best performed in dark scenes. but you get some idea even from a bright scene.. anyway at least the photo’s @ the Czeck site have a good composition and nice subject to look at regardless of the fitness of the scene to the purpose of the test.

  • Rocking Kenwell

    Cat pictures. Typical!

  • robert

    why can’t I see the pictures? It shows up all black. No matter if I load the screen in FF/IE/opera/Chrome…nothing, zilch..any ideas?

    • Catastrophile

      do you have ad blocking on your PC?

  • Nubberz

    Call me a noob but those of you who are comparing the d7000 to the d700, you have to remember they are two different cameras apples and oranges. One is a pro line FX camera and one is a prosumer line DX camera. Compare the camera to somehing in it’s own class like the 60D(?) or whatever equivalent I don’t know.

  • Ok, I just picked up one from my local BestBuy too (and cancel my body only order from Amazon)!! 😀

  • Broxibear

    “they are so good that I question the authenticity of those images”
    Do you think the images are fake, taken by another camera or a different iso than shown in exif [NR] admin ?

    • Broxibear

      P.S. Rumours of a disguised D4 testing at World Championships in Athletics in Daegu, South Korea 27 August – 4 September 2011.

    • I am aways suspicious – remember those D7000 videos on YoutTube? I don’t think they were real, but I could be wrong. I do appreciate all the D7000 photos readers sent me, and they all looked really good – almost too good to be true. It seems that Nikon got a winner camera out and I am just paranoid 🙂

      • Eric

        The thing that might make one thing they’re not real is the EXIF information in Bridge CS5 is inconsistent. For example, The ISO 25,600 image says the distance to the subject was 14125.0 m. While the others varies: 269.9 m, 0.1 m, 0.0 m, 708.0m, etc.

        Could be a firmware glitch I suppose, or some shot with manual focus makes it report inaccurate numbers? Almost alll other EXIF information seems consistent with varying aperture/shutter/iso settings (gain control varies, is that exposure compensation?).

        All shot with the 35mm 1.8. (Could have used some more tweaking on focus.)

        • Jim

          I guessing that could easily be Adobe’s exif decoder that is causing the problem. It’s an incredible pain to write a reliable decoder and interpreter for data like this.

          If nikon changed anything in how they represent data or filed, then could cause erroneous results. This is especially true if adobe’s code makes assumptions about the data or format. Given how many bugs flash and reader have, I’m not too confident in their code.

          It might be interesting to see what a dedicated EXIF tool shows, since it’s more likely it would decode the data properly.

          • eric

            Good point. I would be good to wait for official D7000 support first. I have studied what it takes to create an XLM metadata panel for the Creative Suite and it’s an incredibly complex process. Sure hope Adobe has an update soon for ACR. (And Apple for Aperture.)

  • le_eiji

    D700 is far superior to D7000 in about every category, including high ISO performance. The lesser noise at high ISO can only mean heavy noise reduction for a cropped sensor like D7000. You will lose a lot of details in exchange for noise. Moreover, we normally don’t need high ISO. At normal ISO range, D7000 isn’t quite as good as D90. That’s what we should care about most. We should care about pixel density the most. If the density is less than 5 μm, the picture will collapse. 16MP count for cropped sensor was just too much. No lenses except for a few $$$$ nano-crystal coated gems will outresolve the 16 MP cropped sensor.

    • TBO

      I don’t know, the low ISO images I have seen so far have looked pretty good to me. I think Nikon has a winner with this one… I know I am anxiously awaiting the arrival of my pre-paid kit!

      • TBO

        To clarify: I agree the 700 is better. I was debating your claim that “At normal ISO range, D7000 isn’t quite as good as D90.”

  • lightsaver

    Just walked out of BB with one! Employee last night said the didn’t have em so must have come in overnight. Anyway they had 3; BB guy hadn’t heard of it. 12 % coupon worked! Goog luck all, BB is there for the Nikon users today!

    • Parkus

      So you have to be Premier Silver to use that coupon?

      • Blake E

        I used it and I am a Premier Silver. I have seen many people say they used it and were not Silver. I bet it depends on who is ringing you up.

  • Has anyone else had any issues with sharpness on the D7000? Even when the sharpness was increased in camera?

  • Tony888

    I’m pretty skeptical about these too. From 200 all the way to the highest, the IQ doesn’t seem to change. Either an error on the tester’s part or these are NR tweaked in post.

    • Blake E

      Not sure if you were speaking in general or about a specific set. Just and FYI, the samples that I posted (B double E) were straight off the card taken in JPG Fine mode. I did not do any processing on them at all. NR was actually set to Normal, not High. I hope to get some more up there w/o any NR and some in RAW.

  • Aaron Jensen

    I just updated the latest (really dark) High ISO images w/ comments that have links to the original. Sorry you couldn’t see the original before, Flickr permissions aren’t as fine grained as I’d like.

    • Blake E

      Those examples are great! Thanks for putting that together.

  • Everett

    Long time lurker, first time poster. I just bought a D7000 from BB over the phone. Coupon worked. Now I just need to drive 45 miles to get it. It’ll be a wonderful upgrade from my well used D70.

  • robert

    yea, but only on FF. I also tried loading it with IE and opera and they have no ad blocking.
    Every other link shows issues there. Just this particular one.

    Oh, well. I’d rather see dpreviews samples anyway. I just don’t trust other people’s pictures anyway. Who knows what they did to the photo. I can wait patiently.

  • haojz

    I just got mine at BB too~ canceled amazon order.

  • Back to top