DxOMark tests the Nikon D7000

DxOMark released their test results of the Nikon D7000. The overall score of the D7000 is 80, which puts it on second place in the APS-C category after the Pentax K-5 with 82 scores:

From all measured sensors (full frame, medium format), the D7000 is currently ranked #10.

Pentax K-5 is $400 more expensive than the D7000.

FYI, scores from other cameras:

  • Nikon D300s: 70
  • Nikon D90: 73
  • Nikon D700: 80
  • Nikon D3x: 88
  • Nikon D3s: 82
  • Canon EOS 7D: 66
  • Sony Alpha 55: 73
  • Highest rated sensor: Phase One P65 with a score of 89.
This entry was posted in Nikon D7000. Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.
  • ob1ne

    guess I’ll wait for the d400



    • PeterZheng

      We noticed a droll score between K5 and 645d came from dxomark website, you are unexpectedly seeing both sides have been put a same score “82″. This score “82″ is lacking values.

      under the dxomark Overview window, there is some knowable (usable) data, like ‘Low-Light ISO’, ‘Dynamic range’ (needs to notice a related ISO), Color depth, but their ‘Overall Score’ lacks the value.

      DxO and dxomark are from France, over there is just the Brandy better.

      Read More :
      Which are helpful data from dxomark?

      • GlobalGuy

        It seems to me that ISO is not weighted heavily enough. That’s why its ridiculous that the D700 and D7000 have the same score — since D700 ISO at 2000 in terms of raw performance is as good as D7000 at 1000. When ISO can be doubled, there should be more weight.

        Then again, in JPEG, the similarity is much closer. Nikon does a lot of a processing magic. Processing magic therefore is completely absent from the score, which is too bad, because its quite good these days and has serious improvement effects.

        Additionally there is no consideration for MP standard size conversion. This doesn’t make sense because it affects perceivable ISO. No doubt many Canons suffer in their scores from this.

        • Jim

          Wait, so when you printed your 10MP canon at 4″, and bought your new 18MP canon, you started printing at 7″?

        • STRB

          dxomark does take into account MPix in calculating the “normalized” ISO (for a standard resolution). They even present a “paper” where the math for that is explained. Some sites (dpreview) don’t aggree with that an keep using a 100% crop for comparing ISO.

          It’s true they only use RAW, but who cares about JPEG, anyways 😀

        • Erik

          So your saying 2 more stops in dynamic range is not important? that is a huge step IMHO. now we actually need more than 12bit files?

          • Worminator

            Diminishing returns.

    • Global

      Looks like Nikon actually under-priced for once….. =P

  • 1st?
    Great job D7000!

    • ob1ne

      no it’s 2nd..
      pentax is first…

      • You were 1st, I was 2nd 🙂

        • Patrick

          No: Who’s on 1st, I’m on 2nd, I don’t know who’s on 3rd 🙂

          • SZRimaging

            Whats on second, Whos on first, I don’t know is on third and Tomorrow is pitching. Yesterday is catching, I believe.

            • 2cents

              I don’t give a darn.

              Oh, wait, he’s the shortstop!

            • hrlekjnwe

              Can we keep the 5 year olds off the forum.

            • SZRimaging

              I doubt a 5 year old would know this sketch….

            • 2cents

              what about the humorless old guys?

            • Ant

              I’m happy for kids to comment, as long as they know how to use a question mark.

          • Seismo

            Come on guys, let’s be serious here. No levity please. This is important work we’re doing here.

            • CE

              Oh yeah, very important work: measurebating over equipment. I’m sure no one considers this procrastination.

            • SZRimaging

              CE, pretty sure he was joking around.

  • SZRimaging

    Although second in APS-C, I doubt that a difference of 2 is even noticeable in the real world.

    • jose

      Other important things, Nikon have better lenses than pentax and have another features that pentax doesn´t have

      • Dalen

        I guess you’ve never used the Pentax primes….

        • Bob

          yeah, except that Pentax has NO fast primes, unless you consider f3.4 “fast”.

          • Vlad

            You should recheck your info.

          • nonono

            yeah, except you consider 1.4/1.8 is no fast at all. wait a minute, then nikon has no fast prime too… don’t pretend you know Pentax if you never used one.

            • SZRimaging

              Nikon has a 50mm 1.2 😉

            • jk

              SZR you didn’t read the responses accurately

          • Just A Thought

            Super Wide Angle SMCP-DA 14mm f/2.8 ED (IF)

            smc PENTAX FA 31mm F1.8

            55mm f/1.4 DA* SDM

            SMCP-FA 77mm f/1.8

            SMCP-DA* 200mm f/2.8 ED (IF) SDM

            PENTAX A* 300mm f/2.8 ED IF – one sold recently on eBay auction #330477409725 for $3K.

            Then there is the whole world of lenses with Pentax M42 mount which meter and focus to infinity on Pentax DSLR by adding a Pentax made adapter.

            presently avialable on ePay 135mm low light f/1.8 in M42 mount.

            • Sloaah

              waaay slower than Nikon….

              24mm f/1.4
              35mm f/1.4
              50mm f/1.4 (f/1.2 coming out in 2011)
              85mm f/1.4
              105mm f/2
              135mm f/2
              200m f/2

              and then the legendary zooms, which are best in class (14-24mm, 24-70mm, 70-200mm, 200-400mm) have to say, the Nikon primes are probably the best around, except Leica and Zeiss for a few lenses. Whether you can afford the above is another matter.

              And the AF and metering are probably better than the D7000. Just saying….

            • jose

              You must check the reviews in dp review, meantime pentax lenses was rated such as recomended lenses, that means means pentax lenses are good no body can not ague that, some of the nikon lenses have rated such as very recommended lenses or gold aware, especially prime lenses

      • Vlad

        Yes, like in-body IS.

      • Rene

        Feature: Like HDR, which Pentax does have and Nikon doesn’t …
        Oh wait, you meant the other way round? 😉

      • Ant

        Dude, you best not say anything negative about Pentax, or their users will have a ring-around and jump on you.

    • STJ

      And how much does DxO Mark actually say about real life shooting? Lets see some candle light comparisons with D300s and D700….

      • Just A Thought

        Tread carefully about low light shooting. Even the low end Pentax -K-x and it’s replacement K-r in low light is a clean as the D300s – it is rumored that K-x uses the same sensor – K-r has newest variant. The K-r is even better at low light than the K-x which means it could better the D300. The K5 is better still at low light. The D700 will likely be a stop better, but then you are comparing DX and FX.

        Rumor is Pentax got divorce with Samsung and is now able to use Sony sensors. Competition is good for everyone. Next year, the even numbered Nikons like D4 and D400 and D800 should have even better capabilities.

  • Wow the score of D7000 is the same as the D700. I wonder how they conduct the test 😮

    • Catastrophile

      like all famous review sites, they start with honest and useful info then …… (self-censored). the moment a new review sites becomes famous, the countdown starts.

  • Scott

    Oh god this is going to get messy on DPR. I’m afraid to even begin poking around for the K5/D7000 flamewar that will be raging, if not now, very shortly. They already had several people claim the K5 was better than the D700…

    • Banned

      As long as the K5 is not full frame is will never ever be better than D700. You just can’t beat full frame not matter what. Full frame FTW.

      • Banned

        As you can see it’s Monday and I have not regained my writing abilities yet.

      • you can beat 35 full frame with 645 full frame 🙂

        • SZRimaging

          So, if someone makes a 4×5 full frame, does that win? 8×10? When will it ever end?!

          Yes, I am joking around.

      • Zouk

        You can beat full frame with the original full frame, ie film.

        • Dover

          No you can’t. Digital passed film at 10mp. I am not talking about mathematically, I am talking about real life. I have dealt with both extensively, and process them at very high magnification. You can spot a film shot a mile away. Film has been dead for several years.

          • Anonymous


    • Michael

      I can see the future: D700 owners will go for K5 hahahahahaha

    • iamlucky13

      Whoop-dee-doo! Even if the K-5 does measure better than the D700, does the D700 suddenly stop being a useful camera? Does it sense its demise and start producing noisier and less colorful pictures. Does its sturdy body start to develop cracks and its great external controls somehow retract inside to become confusing menus like a (I can’t resist a dig here) Sony?

      Likewise, when Nikon comes out with a camera that clearly outperforms the K-5, are people going to looking aghast at the horrible results the K-5 outputs?

      Or does none of that matter because we can just make up for not having great photos in our portfolios to brag about by bragging about our equipment instead?

      Seriously – having two offerings both as excellent as the K-5 and the D7000 is fantastic. You can’t lose regardless which you buy! Only the manufacturers can lose, which is why they’ll each work hard to do even better in their next models.

      • Michael

        K5 ISO1600 against D700 ISO1600 – i’d like to see it:]

        and we will see who is the winner:]

        • Just A Thought

          Does it really matter?

          The consumer wins because competition will force companies to try and produce even better gear. Look at Canon – they were the low noise high ISO king. The 20D upgrade to the 10D was not major. Nor was the upgrade to the 30D from the 20D. Then Nikon finally hit a home run with the D3 and stirred the pot with D200 and then the D300 D700. Canons responded with the 7D – major upgrade from 50D, the 5D mk2 and the 1dMK4. Now Nikon has competition from Pentax, which should inspire it to come out with even better cameras.

          It’s only camera gear and not a religion. Unlike with religion, everyone comes out a winner and with better camera gear everyone will be able to take better pics of the family cat.

      • Dover

        Very well said.

  • Seems like the Nikon D7000 and Pentax K5 are far ahead in APS-C cameras. Btw the High ISO of the D7000 is only 5 points higher. Dynamic range and colour is better in the K5. At ISO 100-200 (the ones I use the most) they are on par. At high ISO they are tweaked differently. Nikon reduced the noise better and Pentax kept the colour and dynamic range better. Maybe that were the choices of the companies. Very interesting.
    Seems like AF and other functions will decide who will be the new APS-C king. Pentax will probably be cheaper soon (in the Netherlands its only €50 more expensive than the D7000). D7000 has dual slot SD and continuous focussing during filming.
    I am a current Pentax owner who wanted to switch to Nikon, but now I have to think again.

    • jose

      Pentax k5 should be in the segment for d300s, the list price is similar than d300s price, think we need to wait d300s succesor to compare against penta k5

    • Zouk

      Clever of Pentax to focus on dynamic range (already since the K7) while Nikon and Canon still seem totally focused on ISO and megapixels…. Good dynamic range is actually much more interesting to me, and since Fuji has not kept up in the DSLR market, it’s a good thing Pentax are putting efforts into this.

      • sirin

        if by “dynamic range” you mean the rainbow body coloring… )))

      • You do realize that DxO’s definition of DR isn’t a photographer’s definition, right? Basically they’re doing an engineering definition, and one which includes a Signal Noise ratio of 1 (e.g. not good).

        • st r

          I think that a photographer’s dynamic range should be seen as more similar to “compression ratio” in engineering. It measures the amount of input variability that can be squeezed in the output representation. Photographers like it when a very bright white in an otherwise darker scene can be compressed down, so as to fit their target medium’s tonal range.

          Can we draw a simile between Ansel Adams’ zone system and dynamics processors based on companding (e.g. Dolby or DBX)? Both of these work well with analog and don’t (directly) translate to digital.

  • Barry Schein

    Nikon vs Pentax? As much as I may respect DxO it seem a little ridiculous to make any comparison. They are in most respects light years apart.

    • SZRimaging

      What respects are those?

  • Denko

    🙁 I was expecting 85 in the low-ball park. 1/2 stop extra in ISO sensitivity… ah well.

  • RO: Please don’t belive in this DxO fluff and think and test yourself first and wait for more reviews. Fullstop.

  • Leaking Starfish

    What does DXO mean? Is it a measure of “general goodness”?

    • Obtusa

      Yes, where God is 100 and Satan is 0.

  • where the F is D800?

    If you study the DXO results for D7000 in detail, the base ISO result is very good – seems like D700 beating performance. as ISO goes up, both color sensitivity and DR goes down dramatically compared to the D700.

    The DXO score of 80 is only dependent upon base ISO results. Aka expect a D7000 to perform like a D700 only when you shoot at ISO100. Otherwise expect everything else to be at least 1-stop worst as you climb the ISO ladder.

    The general score has became very misleading.

    • STJ

      This is the most sane comment I have seen here…

      • or the F-ing d4

        i totally agree

    • Nope totally dont agree! 🙂 at low ISO the D7000 beats the D700 handily go check the detailed tables.

  • Huggs

    The difference in color depth and DR is minimal(.2). Not worth $400 extra, IMO.

    • Uncle John

      Yes, let’s reduce your camera to 1 number, and then divide the price by that number, and then rank which camera is worth buying.

  • iamnomad

    If they had just made the D7000 full-frame, it would be all over.
    But alas, another small sensor for the consumer/wannabe video crowd keeps Nikon a step behind the game.
    Wow, cynical this morning I am…

    • Peter


      “Wannabie”? There’s no such thing in photography. Sorry. It’s not like getting a proper exposure is comparable to discovering the double-helix or something.

      I always find professions that don’t really have any post-secondary accreditation are rife with defensiveness and undeserved snobbery.

      • John Swan

        Oh the irony…

        “I always find professions that don’t really have any post-secondary accreditation are rife with defensiveness and undeserved snobbery.”

        • Peter

          Meh…I don’t see the irony.

          Masters course in photography are rare and people’s whose sole employment and experience is photography (i.e. professional) that I’ve correspondence with or met have had either zero post-secondary in this field or none at all.

          But whatever. I’m really not trying to insult the skill or the work, it’s just that I find the word ‘wannabie’ amusing in this context since it’s not at all the same as being a ‘wannabie’ physician, or a ‘wannabie’ engineer or a ‘wannabie’ dentist or any other profession that really requires no accreditation to prove your worth.

          • Peter

            I said: “or any other profession that really requires no accreditation to prove your worth.”

            Should’ve said: “or any other profession that really requires accreditation to prove your worth.”

      • Ryan

        “I always find professions that don’t really have any post-secondary accreditation are rife with defensiveness and undeserved snobbery.”

        I’m not too sure about this one. I think it only applies to the world of photography. I don’t know too many plumbers or used car sales men who behave like “photographers” do.

        There is a point where technology no longer helps, and the D7000 is a prime example of this situation. It shoots high ISOs, but the quality past 6400 is useless. The D90 still shoots better at high ISOs. If Nikon wanted to improve their cameras, they’d make them all full frame and focus efforts on improving AF, white balance, and metering. Nothing else matters.

        • SGN

          Is the D90 really better at higher ISOs than D7000, or is your last name Rockwell by any chance???

    • Dover

      “another small sensor for the consumer/wannabe video crowd keeps Nikon a step behind the game.”

      The sign of an amateur. I am selling full and double page spreads with a nearly five year old dslr with a dx sensor. If you are worrying about splitting these kinds of hairs, you are not out there taking pictures. It has more to do with how you interpret what happens in front of your camera than these specs.

      • Peter


      • Bruce


  • Mikils

    why Canon 7D is so low? I’m distraught! 😉

  • mg

    Why do so many people continue using Canon even when the SCIENCE says it’s so bad??

    • Eric Pepin

      id say pro photographers are better at judging there cameras then a guy in a lab coat. Also DXO means nothing, rated the same as the D700 please. Sure at base iso, then again at base iso my d300 is almost the same as well, so is every camera. D700 pumps out almost noise free ISO 20o0, d7000 has no such luck.

      also got to handle the d7000 yesterday, its half made out of plastic. Only some of the covers are magnesium, lots of it is cheaper aluminum and lots is plastic and it shows when you hold it. No d300s replacement this is.

    • CE

      Because there are better lenses for Canon? Because the 5D Mark II is still a better value? Because Canon responded much better to the demands over video?

  • PeterZheng

    We noticed a droll score between K5 and 645d came from dxomark website, you are unexpectedly seeing both sides have been put a same score “82”. This score “82” is lacking values.

    under the dxomark Overview window, there is some knowable (usable) data, like ‘Low-Light ISO’, ‘Dynamic range’ (needs to notice a related ISO), Color depth, but their ‘Overall Score’ lacks the value.

    DxO and dxomark are from France, over there is just the Brandy better.

    Read More :

  • Leaking Starfish

    France? That explains it.

  • Michael

    France? Never. Those are honest people. I think DxO is USA. There one gets the results one is paying for…. 🙁

  • broxibear

    “Pentax K-5 is $400 more expensive than the D7000.”
    Not here it isn’t…In the UK the Pentax K-5 is £20 cheaper than the D7000

    • nonono

      Agree , seems it’s only a number that makes D7000 looks better…

    • Worminator

      It’s just pre-release silliness. In all markets where both cameras are shipping, the D7000 and K-5 prices are in lockstep with each other. Pay X and take home whichever you feel happiest with.

      The flame wars glow brightly with this one, I guess because the two cameras are *very* similar in capability and output. There is no “wrong” choice.

      I’m touting the K-5 for this round.** I’m not getting that “everything in the right place” vibe with the D7000 I usually get from Nikon bodies. It’s a fattened D90 missing the fluid usability of the D300’s control layout. The K-5 is a bit small but a more elegant design compared to the D7000.

      **I use both Nikon and Pentax systems, so I’m well aware of the strengths and weaknesses of each. If you want to choose your camera based on the system alone, by all means, but if you are open to either and are considering the camera specifically, the K-5 gets the nod from me.

  • acendfilm

    How can a DX-sensor score so high on dynamic range? My D700 feels a bit jealous now =P

    • mandrake

      It will always depend on how these benchmarks are done and what influences them. There could be a component to the D7000 sensor that makes the DxO tool incorrectly measure DR. Without knowing the tech behind it it’s hard to put the correct value on these numbers.

    • Your D700 should not feel jealous.

      Where the rubber meets the road, you’re on top.

      • Worminator

        People are getting obsessed with the DxO score.

        It’s a number. It’s derived from multiple test results that are combined in an arbitrarily weighted way to give a final score. The individual test numbers are far more valid, but even these are just a ranking based on the measured output for a given test result.

        Choosing a camera based on the DxO score is like choosing a marriage partner by their grade 12 report card results.

    • I don’t see why the DX format should have different Dynamic Range? After all, its not about a bigger Sensors or higher resolution.
      So don’t be sad, you still own a FX camera – at least this will never be smaller than what DX have! ;-D

    • Michael

      don’t worry – your ISO1600 will show you which camera is better:]

      • I currently have the D7000 – and have owned the D700.

        There’s in my mind no doubt that for pure IQ, the latter is by far the better performer under difficult light conditions/high-iso.

        The D7000 might render finer details – but all in all, the pictures from the D700 simply looks better.

    • PHB

      A DX sensor can easily beat an FX sensor of a previous generation. If the D2 had had an FX sensor would you be at all surprised if the D300 had it beat?

      In this case though, the DxO scores are one dimensional and there are multiple degrees of goodness. In particular the D7000 has higher resolution (16MP vs 12MP) which DxO seems to put quite a bit of weight on. And the D7000 appears to have the same ISO performance boosting technology that the D3s has.

      The DxO figures are best for comparisons between like and like. The D3000 vs D3100 comparison is likely pretty accurate. The D7000/D700 comparison probably less so. They also provide insane amounts of detail besides just the one dimensional score.

      Comparisons across manufacturers are likely to be even less useful. Nikon and Pentax probably both believe that they have the other beat according to their favored design criteria.

      • Roger

        > D7000 appears to have the same ISO performance boosting technology that the D3s has.

        It does not. The difference is a lot bigger than it should be (DX v FX) which tells us D7000 is not as good as a design as the D3s, it’s not the same technology.

    • Why do you (your D700) feel jealous? How does the ability of some other camera affect the quality of photos from your current camera (one of the best cameras available)?

      • Anonymous

        It’s not a good feeling to wath your $3000 FX is approached close by a $1000 consumerish DX. Simply look at the DxO dynamic range value; D7000 is better than D700, at least on paper. Before the next-gen DX will completely dethrone D700, Nikon must bring the 24mp D800 asap!

  • Eric B

    I think we might be looking at both cameras, Pentax and Nikon both using basically the same Sony sensor….. Only difference is that Pentax has been able to generate a few higher marks via their software.

    • Dude

      Yes and the A580 has the same sensor as well.
      But it is almost ignored cause of the A33/A55 landing.

      As great as the Nikon 13 FF sensor may be, the company is far from beating Sony in mainstream/high-pixel-count sensors.

  • Did anyone compare the D7000 with the D90? To me it looks like they are almost the same. D90 is even better sometimes, just crops the ISO at an earlyer level, so D7000 seems to be better.
    But to be honest, I watched it a bit more disappointed, comparing to all the sample images and rumors about noise levels…
    Anyway, I have a D80. Looks like I will be satisfied! 😀

    • chEEtah

      Yes, the fact that D7000 and D90 look almost identical at ISO >= 200 is also somewhat disappointing for me. I’ve never questioned DXO methodology, but in this case the results significantly differ from what I’ve observed looking at sample images.

      • Ah, at least I’m not the only one who wonders about…

      • Worminator

        “I’ve never questioned DXO methodology”

        Perhaps more people should. DxO do not share the details of their testing procedures. I’m sure it’s rigorous, but it may not always be appropriate: the correlation between test scores and the real-world image quality may not be as direct as people tent to assume.

        I personally think they made a big mistake in even trying to roll the results into a single “score”. It’s obvious to anyone what kind of mess that’s going to lead to…

  • chEEtah

    Hmm, the numbers look really impressive at the base ISO. However, I was surprised to see almost identical SNR-graphs for D7000 and D90. Starting from ISO 200 they are practically indistinguishable… Judging from high ISO samples available everywhere I expected at least a half-stop improvement over D90.

    D700 on the other hand has a solid one-stop lead over both D90 and D7000:

    • PHB

      The significant portion of the graph is the dip at the tail end of the D90. If you assume that the D90 is non-linear then it is clear that the SNR dropping off rapidly towards the end. Same on the D700. Oddly enough the D7000 actually has the same performance as the D700 at the very highest ISO setting because it does not drop off at all at the end.

      The DxO scores are normalized to an 8MP sensor resolution. So the D3x and D3s both appear to give the same performance even though the D3x is over a stop slower. The ISO stops are also compensated so don’t think that you are necessarily comparing the same stops.

      This suggests to me that the production change in the D3s and D7000 has something to do with the amplifier stage, some change that allowed them to deal more accurately with very low light levels rather than having the results swamped by circuit noise. Note that the curves are now completely linear.

      • chEEtah

        Well, on non-normalised SNR graphs (Screen tab) D90 is even better that D7000 due to larger pixels… 🙂 Anyway, I think it is correct to compare normalised pictures.

        I should probably just try D7000 myself to see the difference.

  • Julio

    I’m waiting form Sigma SD1 to be available, because this camera has an APS-C sensor really different. I think is important someone create an alternative technology to Bayer sensors. Foveon X3 sounds as a nice option.

  • John Doe

    Canon will compete with D7000 with 7D MK II that has 25 Mpix sensor. Thanks to so big sensor the 7D Mark II will have even poorer high iso performance and you basically can use it at max ISO 800. The second uber feature of the 7D Mark II will be portrait capture asistant a face that appears in the back screen that gives you audio quides on how to take pictures. In the first version you cannot even turn of the portrait capture asistant but since the feature will create such huge cry canon realeases a quick firmware fix to remedy the situation where users can disable the speaking helper face.

    • Mandrake

      7D has only been out for a year. If it were part of the rebel line I would say it has a chance for a refresh but I think it’s still a couple years away. It’s time for them to refresh their full frame offerings.

  • Martin

    DxOMark have their methodology but I think that this methodology doesn’t reflect real life. For example: I own a D90 and I made my own test to get the carachteristic curve of the sensor. I came to the conclusion that ISO 100 is actualy better than ISO 200. There is a gain of ~0.5 stop of dynamic range based on my own test. Actualy winning 2/3 stop in the shadow but loosing a bit less than 1/3 stop on the highlight. Comparing images, I also concluded that for 18% grey the noise is much less @ ISO 100 than 200. (I did not compared the noise for different density). The difference between my result and DxO’s one is maybe because i’m using out of camera RAW and they are using sensor Raw data. What do you think?

  • D7000 got a great score, that should be the point for Nikon fan-boys, not that the K5 did better! Anyway, DSLR bodies are always dammed to imperfection: they have a very short life. What matters is the lens system and both Pentax and Nikon have fine ones, as Canon, Olympus and most of the well-established Japanese brands have. For not even mentioning the German fellows…
    In some markets the K5 might be more expensive than the D7000, but check out the specifications: it is also an all-round better body with real weather and dust proofing. I was testing both cameras last weekend (the 60D as well), and the 5K is a great tool, it is just that most of the people don’t know there are other alternatives to Canon and Nikon. Btw, the new Foveon X3 looks promising, let’s hope other companies go in that direction, but it’ll take a long run since most of the big-public-dslr sensors are made by Sony or Kodak. Let’s just hope they all stop the useless megapixel race!
    I have shot with 50mp Hasselblad H4D, 24mp Sony A900, 21mp Canon 1DsM3iii… but outside of my workframe, “in real life shooting” as so many of you like to point out, the 6mp of my old and great 50D are more than enough! Very few people, who works in very specialized fields need more than that. Let’s not be fooled by all that rubbish marketing : remember is not the camera specification (or brand for the matter) who should make pictures in first place.

  • Del-Uks

    You might find this one interresting… Nikon D7000, D300, D3 (D700) and Canon 5D Mark II High ISO Comparison by Ken Rockwell

    • Michael

      D3 still the best…

  • Bruce

    These DXO scores are completely arbitrary and totally meaningless for all practical purposes including (especially for) purchase decisions. I am yet to see DXO present a rational argument as to why their scores have any practical bearing upon what camera I should use and/or what lenses I should attach to it. The recent LL nonsense and hysteria around “ISO manipulation” is yet another example of measurbators with too much idle time on their hands using “data” of dubious import to create an issue where in fact none exists. Laughable.

    • Denko

      I have to agree here.

      Once it was:
      Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics

      Today it is:
      Lies, Statistics and Measurbating

      hmmm… good title on a book 😀

  • Bruce

    Folks it’s simple… if you change the weightings of the factors used to calculate the DXO scores you change the scores, and the rankings, it’s completely arbitrary nonsense.

  • Ant

    These rankings are one of many factors that you can take into account when making a decision to buy a new piece of kit. You look at this, you look at side-by-side images, you go to a dealer and play around with the thing. In the end there are very few duds on the market (apart from D3000 maybe), with so much information out there it’s pretty difficult to make a truly bad decision.

    Great to see a really strong product from Pentax. It should be a winner for them, and great for all the Pentax shooters looking for higher res.

  • Yamuk

    Rating sensor is just rating raw meat, nonsense.

  • Yamuk

    Rating sensor is just like rating raw meat, nonsense.

  • Mock Kenwell

    I disagree with so much being said here. Firstly, Pentax makes great cameras and even better lenses. Always have.

    Secondly, I think DxOMark is a wonderful service. We live in a day and age where objective and subjective evaluations abound right at our fingertips. It allows you to be as savvy and shrewd as you care to be. DxOMark is a great way to gauge camera performance. It’s quite uni-dimensional of course, but it’s also very valuable and objective, as long as you know what and how it evaluates. And as long as you temper it with other points of view.

    The bummer in all this is at some point, you have to get off your sad surfing ass and actually shoot the damn camera you eventually decide to buy. If you manage to land one of the top 7 cameras in your class, you have no excuse but to shoot kick ass pictures. The field is pretty tight, and pretty capable. Go shoot.

    • Bruce

      The point is that the DXO methodology is completely SUBJECTIVE. It’s by no means an objective measure at all. The factor weights are arbitrary and changing them changes the scores and thus the rankings. Complete CR@P.

  • Fredbare

    If one compares sensors on DXO then the differences start to become apparent.
    Assuming the figures are ‘relevant’ the D7000 is not much of an improvement over the D90 – if any.
    The D700 is markedly better than both.
    Substituting the K-5 for the D700 the results of all 3, D90/D7000 and K-5 are all much of a muchness.
    So what does this tell us?

    • Mock Kenwell

      It tells us to just pick one and go shoot.

      • Fredbare


  • shivaswrath

    pretty great rating, awesome camera, they actually beat the D90’s success!

    Still not at the D700 level in terms of high ISO, but the algorithms are better, and DX is catching up!

    I would’ve seriously considered this body if I was in the market for a FX camera. .

  • decemberlight

    Just bought the D700 on B&H. Good Night.

  • Davidold

    Great. Now if only you could BUY IT!

  • Dover

    The Pentax is $400 more AND you are then stuck with Pentax lenses.

    • You make it sound like that’s a bad thing 🙂

    • Just A Thought

      You are not stuck with Pentax lenses. You can mount Nikon lenses via low cost eBay adapter. The K5 will even meter with per-AI Nikkors, which NONE of the Nikon DSLR can do. You can mount a huge number of M42 lenses via a Pentax made M42 to K adpater – lots of German designed glass like Zeiss, Enna among others. You get infinity focus and can meter which NONE of the Nikon DSLRs can do. You can also mount Leica R lenses on a Pentax via a low cost adapter. You can use Pentax mount Sigma, Tamron and Tokina lenses. Then there are the Pentax medium format lenses which can also be used via adapters.

      • st r

        You also have free VR on any lens, since it is in-camera.

  • I just bought a used D700. Couldn’t wait for the replacement!!! Very excited to go full-frame.

  • Dover

    This is something I find funny on modern photo forums: Everyone seems to be so absorbed in minute, barely measurable differences in one sensor/ motor drive/ ISO rating and whatever else (the algorithms are better though!!!!). It was only a few years ago that film was just fine to produce double page spreads, covers, calendars. Today’s digital cameras outperform film (I don’t care what you armchair photographers say, I work in the field and have made close comparisons, digital surpassed film at 10MP). Does anyone realize that what kind of an image you are able to capture with a camera makes the whole “but the D7000 has marginally better performance at ISO 64,000 than the D90” conversation invalid? When you see people splitting hairs like this, it is clear they are pretty clueless about real photography. These tiny differences are not going to make you a better photographer. Who hasn’t seen a million extremely sharp horrible pictures? And another thing. What is with this amateurish shift toward overly applying hdr rendering to every fcking photo? Halos around everything, ridiculously fake colors, everything looking the same from one photographer to the next. Topazing the shit out of every family photo of your dog or the shed or your ugly house. Software also doesn’t make you a better photographer. Shoot it right the first time. There is such a thing as just practicing photography. Writing with light. Take a class, learn something. Buy a camera, it will be obsolete in a year or less and you will worry yourself until you get the next upgrade and support the whole industry.

    • Bruce


      Love your take on this.

      I just love those HDR images with that greenish/antique tinge and brownish $hit on the wall edges (particularly in abandoned building interiors) that look absolutely NOTHING like I have ever seen come out of a camera in the history of creation, or evolution of krill snot, whichever takes your fancy.

      Photo based art/graphic design perhaps; PHOTOGRAPHY, definitely NOT.

      I bought a copy of Photoshop once. Never used it. Then I UPGRADED it in a moment of complete madness. I still haven’t used the upgrade.

      OK maybe I’ll tweak some exposure or WB in CaptureNX now and then. Noise reduction..??? What’s THAT all about? No, I’m really enjoying just trying to create the best image I can straight out of the camera.

      So if you bump into some bald onion-headed ugly mutt on the street in NYC, Tokyo, Hong Kong, or some other place, fiddling with his manual focus lens on a D700 and trying to get the manual exposure settings right… it might be me. If he has a M6 Leica hanging off the other shoulder… probably is me.

      My camera choice comes down to a single number. Yeah right DXO.

      Total B.S.

      • No problem, if one doesn’t like technotalk, ok, this is a free world, just don’t participate. Why do you have to be aggressive about that?

    • broxibear

      I’ve made the same points before on this forum but to no avail.
      You just have to accept that some people have to have the latest, best equipment because it makes them feel better…it’s their money.
      I’ve yet to hear anyone comment on an image and say “that’s a good photograph but it would be great if he’d used a Canikon Ed 2000”
      (No I don’t know when the Canikon Ed 2000 is being released lol)

    • Worminator

      “And another thing. What is with this amateurish shift toward overly applying hdr rendering to every fcking photo? […halos around everything … ridiculously fake colors … everything looking the same … topazing the shit out of every family photo …]”

      Ok, reading that rant made my morning… nice to see I’m not the only one to have noticed these depressing trends.

      I blame CMOS. Super-hyper-vivid images and built-in HDR free to all. :/

  • 1) Margin of error = 5 points (1/3 stop). Get different camera samples and scores may reverse.
    2) K5 has base ISO set at 80. If you look at graphs you see both have exactly same curves at low range, just expose it a bit more and you get the extra DR. They look like the same cameras for low ISO, actually.
    3) For higher ISOs (>= 3200) K5 employs RAW NR, DxO Mark has detected it (change of inclination in graphs).

    Same sensor, basically, outstanding performances.

    • The differences are not bigger than 1,4%. That’s not really significant (scientific). It could be an error in measuring (measuring is quite variable). Unless those scores are an average of a lot of tests (to make it more valid). K5 and D7000 will practically be the same. The AF, handling and lenses will make the difference. But mostly the photographer.

  • broxibear

    I’m with Thom Hoggie Hogan…
    “I don’t care what DxO’s number is. It’s meaningless to me, and probably should be meaningless to you. ”
    “Are my photos with the camera that scores a 47 terrible and my photos with the camera that scores an 88 great? No, it doesn’t work that way. Not even close. ”
    © bythom.com

  • JohnT

    Meh. Don’t understand the anger toward software. I don’t use HDR or Topaz yet and don’t want to see it on every photo, but I appreciate some of the more subtle examples I’ve seen of each applied appropriately. How many of us used to stand in front of an enlarger adding filters, dodging and burning, throwing the print in a sepia bath, flipping the light on during development to get the solarisation effect, or applying some other form of old school post processing?

  • DXO suck

    Proof yet again that DXO tests suck, they never publish how they do their tests so they slant the results to suit themselves. Funny how their software cannot produce images with the amount of DR that their camera tests claim for a specific camera. Go out and take pictures with a D7000 and process with DXO software and see if you get the same DR as this test claims, bet you can’t.

    • Catastrophile

      i agree, i looked in the imaging-resource house test shot
      comparing the D7000’s image to that of the A33, A55, it doesn’t look like the D7000 has as much DR advantage over these two cams as the DXO numbers suggest. it looks to me that A33 image is better in DR and that the JPG engine in the D7k is doing some tricks:

      some the darkest areas in the image are first brightened and they originally will look covered with a veil of whitish noise grain, the JPG engine tries to subtly hide that whitish veil by pumping the contrast in that area (look at some heavily shaded brick work between 2 windows very close to the center of the frame). However any Nikon –even the D3100– beats the DR of Canon 60D, even 1D4, but Canon sensors are really bad in DR, so not big deal to beat them.

      • DXO Suck

        But is Nikon’s DR much better than Canon’s? If you belive DXO then yes but as DXO results are sceptical at best can we trust that they don’t slew the results in favour of one manufacturer. Even DSLR released in the past 2 years has a great sensor if you ask me and there is little to choose between them as far as IQ goes, all that seperates cameras these days are features, IQ is broadly the same.

  • Alex

    I just bought my Pentax K-5 few days ago from my local camera store here in UK.
    The price for the K-5 is £1200 with £120 cash back from Pentax! While the D7000 cost £1300 no cash back! I was going to go for the D7000 but i just felt the K-5 felt overall better for me…

  • And more importantly, the best ASP-C camera from Nikon.

  • squirrel

    Excuse me for partly off topic, but I need someone to listen:

    Got my D7000 on 6th in a smaller shop near Stuttgart, Germany, thanks to a hint of another poster here. I really fell in love with it.

    However, I got at least three hot pix. The shop guy told me today that it’s ok to up to 12 hot pix, they send it in and mute those pixels on the sensor.

    I got a little sad after testing the video performance, as that’s what I bought it for. I’m into filming (Sony Z1) and cutting (AVID MC) for 2 years now, so guess I know little about the deal. Have you seen the Chase Jarvis movie about the grafitti artist coloring the bar tender’s van? My D7000 doesn’t even come close to the image quality the show off in that movie! WHAT!!! WHY? I got strong in-motion unsharpness, offset of the edges (dt. Kantenversatz) and bucking (I don’t wanna write jerking). I breaks my heart!

    It can’t be due to my SDHC class 10 16GB, I guess?!

    Any hints?


  • Richard_Cheese

    “No you can’t. Digital passed film at 10mp. I am not talking about mathematically, I am talking about real life. I have dealt with both extensively, and process them at very high magnification. You can spot a film shot a mile away. Film has been dead for several years.”

    Dealt with both extensively? Clearly you havent.

    Sounds like a kid who works in a mini-lab, processing what little film comes in from old people with point-and-shoot 35mm cameras they are still attached to.

    People “see” what they want to see, and little else. I shoot digital on every job, like everyone else, but I also sometimes will shoot some film images alongside. And after scanning, in an A/B comparison, the edge still goes to film in terms of aesthetics, latitude, smoothness, and whatever other unnamed goodies you get as a result of the photo-chemical process which would take a lengthy essay to discuss.

    “Spot a film shot a mile away”? Yes youngster, because it probably looks better. Digital wins in pretty much every way, obviously, but in the final enlargement (overlooking all of the techy stats which make the children salivate), the film images, if shot by someone who knows what they are doing, mind you… look significantly “better”. Especially when there are out of focus highlights in the background, talk about spotting things a mile away, that is where some digital images are easy to spot. I should know, I shoot with digital side-by-side with film fairly often.

    So statements like his are just the childlike enthusiasm of someone who doesnt know better, who was most probably not a working photographer during the days of film, and probably isnt a working professional now. People seem to love using “blah blah…is dead” in a comment. Always have. No one is saying to shoot film. No one is saying it’s an alternative to digital in the current environment. But do understand that it has a quality that still beats digital in one overwhelmingly important way, when viewing an enlargement. That is to say, when viewing with your eyes, and not drooling over charts. My 16×20 prints from 35mm film are more pleasing to the eye then my 16×20 prints of the same subject matter shot on the same day with a 5D mkII…and I have been shooting with digital since 2000 as a commercial photographer, not as a hobbyist. I am quite experienced and skilled at manipulating my digital images to achieve the most film-like final product. And despite that, I still hold to my original statement…film just looks better. This will change eventually, I’m sure.

    For those of you who are indeed professionals, try slipping a few film scans into an assignment in the future, and if your art director is good, he/she will notice. There are quite a few commercial shooters who now are using film to give their work a bit of an edge. Interestingly, some of them are rather new professionals, who had never shot film before, and are using it solely to emphasize it’s dissimilarity from the current conformist digital look. That’s something pretty difficult (impossible, I’d say) for people like Mr. “Spot a film shot a mile away” to contemplate in his world of numbers and charts, but no actual real-world paying jobs.

    This is inconsequential to most of you, I am of course aware. But statements like his by a “kid with a camera” who have little history and/or experience in the professional world and have presumably never had a paid assignment in their lives… always chap my goat. And I like a smooth goat!

    Happy shooting.

  • Sergio Roux

    Caressez vous tous

  • Back to top