Nikon D7000 scores 80 on DxOMark

<p>DxOMark just announced the scores for the Nikon D7000:</p>

<p><a href="http://dxomark.com/index.php/en/Camera-Sensor/All-tested-sensors/Nikon/D7000">http://dxomark.com/index.php/en/Camera-Sensor/All-tested-sensors/Nikon/D7000</a></p>

<p>The Nikon D7000 scores a whopping 80! I guess all of the comparisons to full-frame sensors were indeed founded. The D700 scores a 80 as well.</p>

<p>My question is, how much does this really matter in the real world? For the people who say that all manufacturers make excellent sensors, DxO doesn't matter, etc., this is almost a *full* stop better than the Canon APS-C offerings, which all score a 66. Surely, that has to count for something.</p>

<p><a href="http://dxomark.com/index.php/en/Camera-Sensor/Compare-sensors/(appareil1)/680%7C0/(appareil2)/441%7C0/(appareil3)/619%7C0/(onglet)/0/(brand)/Nikon/(brand2)/Nikon/(brand3)/Canon">http://dxomark.com/index.php/en/Camera-Sensor/Compare-sensors/(appareil1)/680%7C0/(appareil2)/441%7C0/(appareil3)/619%7C0/(onglet)/0/(brand)/Nikon/(brand2)/Nikon/(brand3)/Canon</a></p>

<p>I know that the Pentax K-5 scored an 82, but they seem to be playing some tricks at higher ISO settings.</p>

<p>In low light performance, the D7000 rates about 1/2 stop better than the D300s and about 1 stop below the D700. Where this body seems to excel is in its dynamic range, which is at 13.9 evs compared to 12.2 evs with the D700 and D300s. I suspect this is why the ranking is so high. Its (D7000) high ISO performance is still not as good as FX. For anyone interested, Imaging Resources has comparison photos where you can clearly see the differences at ISO 3200 and above compared to FX. At ISO 1600, all current Nikon DSLR bodies are pretty good and fairly equal. If someone is looking at high ISO performance, FX is still the way to go.</p>

<p>If its AF performance is reasonably good, and there is no reason to suspect that it wouldn't be, I think this camera will be a great success.</p>

<p>Based on the DXO graphs, the D700 seems to be limited by read noise at low ISO (that's why the dynamic range does not improve too much below ISO 800), where the new D7000 is not (better electronics)</p>

<p>This means that at ISO 100, you would get better overall quality from the D7000 than the D700</p>

<p>When read noise is well below photon noise, ISO could be treated like metadata (like the RED camera or MFDB), since what really happens is that you lose 1EV of DR each time you double ISO. Check the DR for the D7000 from the DXO chart and you'll see that it is almost linear, decreasing 1 EV anytime you double the ISO. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>Well it surely makes me embarrassed to shoot with a D300, that's for sure.<br>

NOT.</p>

<p>Just when you think they can't improve stuff... they do...</p>

<p>The D300 is measured at 9.2EV and the D700 only measures up to 7.9EV, according to dpreview.com. DXO claims the D700 measures 12.2EV? So who do you believe, dpreview.com or DXO?<br>

There has to be a better way, folks.</p>

<p>From what I understand, dpreview says the D700 has 7.9 EV as usable DR from the jpeg out of camera. This is not comparable at all with DXO measurements.</p>

<p>Notice that in the RAW Headroom section in the D700 review (at dpreview.com) they claim:<br>

"The best result we could achieve was 11.6 EV which is almost 5 (!) stops more than the default JPG output"<br>

This is much closer to the DXO results.</p>

<p>Also, there is an important distinction regarding Dynamic range from an engineering point of view (the way DXO charts are built) and a photographer's point of view. </p>

<p>The engineering point of view starts from Signal to noise ratio of 1 (or 0 dB), which is usually not acceptable for a photographer</p>

<p>I'll recomend this tread from the luminous-landscape forum, especially the posts by user ejmartin:<br>

<a href="http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=42158.0">Dynamic Range and DXO</a></p>

 

<p>This is why we need to take pictures with cameras and see how they perform in real world use.</p>

<p>We can imagine the superiority of new D4 and D800 cameras when they arrive.</p>

<p>Apart from IQ, there are other factors to consider such as<br>

- Camera system as a whole? Do the lens choices and accessories fit you?<br>

- Handling/Ergonomcis?<br>

- Cost?<br>

I shoot Nikon not because I like Nikon (I actually would rather shoot minolta) but they are the best for me in terms of camera handling (speed of setting dials etc, ergonomics). Nikon sadly lacks certain lenses I lust for on the Canon camp (300/4IS for example) but as with almost everything, it is a compromise.<br>

I think for my amateur needs the D300 is already really, really amazing. I won't mind upgrading to a sensor with less noise/more mp/etc in the future, but I'd be more more concerned with<br>

- AF speed/accurancy. More cross sensors at the edge will be good :)<br>

- Higher sync speed.<br>

- Improved weather sealing.<br>

The rest of it is already near perfect for my needs. Buying a camera based on a number is.... probably not that good an idea.</p>

 

<p>That's pretty interesting. I got to finally play with a D7000 at a shop this weekend (they had a demo, none in stock at the time). I just got a D300 a few weeks ago and from eyeballing the images on the viewscreen it's pretty clear that high iso images on the D7000 are better than the D300 (I don't know by how much, going from the D200 to the D300 for me was big as far as high iso, I don't know whether there is a comparable jump between the D300 and the D7000).<br>

Ergonomics wise, I like the D300, the D7000 feels cramped. It's definitely smaller than the D300 and the grip is contoured slightly differently. Control wise, I'd almost call it a tie, you can change iso quickly on the D7000 by pressing a button on the back and turning the command dial.<br>

For what I'd be using the camera for (sports, potraits, etc) I don't doubt that the D7000 would win in high iso , but I suspect the D300 would win in the focusing and handling (at least for my needs).</p>

<p>So if high-iso is your primary concern then the D7000 makes sense.</p>

 

<p>i'm in the same boat as william--just got a d300s. so while i'm intrigued by the d7000, i dont have a sense of urgency around it. my current NAS-related issue, in fact, is agonizing over whether to jump on a d700 with the lens rebates, or wait to see what comes down the pipe. i like the fact that the d700 uses the same battery as d90 and d300s, both of which i have, and that the d300s and d700 share the same grip and overall button layout. it's possible the d400/800 will also share similarities, but that's a ways away.</p>

<p>IMO the 1080p video on the d7000 is going to be a big deal to some folks, since even the d3s is only 720p. and from what i've read, the new AF module seems quite competent. but overall, i think the d7k will seem like an ergonomic downgrade from d300, but an upgrade in terms of both ergonomics and performance from d90 or lesser bodies.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I just ordered my d300s. I am not sure how annoyed I am. I've been unsuccessfully trying to find out about DR particularly and, yep, as soon as I order, out come all the stats. Anyway, the D400 I will be getting in a year or so, should be pretty good then.</p>

<p>Be careful not to fall into the trap of feeling that your DSLR is no good just because a new one comes out. This is the tyranny of the digital age.<br>

The same thing happened when Nikon announced the F5. Everyone who owned an F4 got all insecure....But guess what? The F5 flopped and the F6 came out fairly quickly. But it never had the utter quality and ease of use of the F4.<br>

A good example of this in todays times is the D40. Every so often a really good camera comes out and the D40 was Nikons at the time. Why? Resolution was great for its sensor size, it was very easy to use and was reliable. Thats a hard act to follow.<br>

The D300/300s is also a hard act to follow. The D7000 is aimed at the D90 market, but if the sensor is really good, then it will certainly impact D300s sales too, and for one reason: U1 and U2. Finally Nikon gives us an easy way to store picture and shooting profiles without having to go to menu's.</p>

<p>I never pay much attention to DxO Mark's ratings. I would much rather look at actual images and A/B comparisons under the same condition.</p>

<p>As Thom Hogan pointed out a day or two ago, Nikon has shipped another bunch of D7000. I just picked one up from my local store. They have enough supply to pretty much clear their entire pre-order. So hopefully supply will no longer be a serious issue soon.</p>

<p>ahhh... so Shun, you will shortly be able to tell all of us just how much a mistake it is to buy a d300s. If you're quick, I might be able to cancel my d300s order!</p>

<p>I do agree with William, Eric and Shadforth. Just because we got a new camera out there, does not means we should go for it. I do have a D300 and I am happy with it. Honestly, I don't care about having a video feature in a camera, for me, that is not important. Video and photos are two different disciplines and two different ways to do art; personally, I do prefer photographs. The D7000 may be much better about ISO capability, etc, but still the D300 is much better camera overall. According to Thom Hogan, in 2011 we will probably have the D4, the D400 ( DX ) and probably the D800. What would I like to have to have in my camera if Nikon let me choose ?<br>

- faster and accurate AF ( better than the D3 )<br>

- vertical grip included<br>

- distance provided in the viewfinder from camera to subject <br>

- sensor cleaning<br>

- <strong>AF TUNE</strong> ( automatically being done by the camera once you setup your lens - up to 6 lenses ) <br>

- 9 frames x second at least<br>

- 16 millions pixels in the sensor<br>

- weather sealed<br>

- clean pictures at 6,400 ISO ( more than enough )<br>

- double memory cards <br>

- fast and accurate AF for live view<br>

- much better dynamic range<br>

- built-in-flash included ( to be use as a commander ) .... <br>

.... but if I could choose between that ( dreamed ) camera or lenses, I definitely would choose lenses, like the 300 mm f/2.8 VR II and 70-300 mm f/2.8 VR II. I guess Nikon will not give us something like that at an affordable price but it does look that the D4, will probably have everything mentioned above except ( who knows ) for the automatic AF TUNE. I pass on the D7000. Will wait for the D400 / D800, but I would prefer to invest on lenses rather than a new camera. </p>

<p>karen, the only way to tell for sure is to hold both cameras in your hands, and shoot under field conditions.</p>

<p>shadford makes a good point, that the d7000 didnt make the d300s a bad camera all of a sudden, just a victim of NAS envy. at least the d300s has two memory card slots, which eases the pain...somewhat.</p>

 

<p>I just have to agree with Shadforth. Dont be so quick to drop what you have just because of what others say. I have a D300 and a D70s. I shoot both for clients and not one client has ever said they did not like the quality of there prints. It is all in how you use the camera, your post work and who does the printing. I have done 20x24's with my D70s and the client thought they were great. I have also made 16x20's with a P&S, nikon coolpix S2.</p>

<p>They will have to make great improvements before I give up my D300 or D70s. Now if I want really great prints I will pull out my Hasselblad and shoot with it. Ektar here I come!!!</p>

<p>Randy</p>

<p>Please, keep the consoling comments coming. I am trying not to feel too bad. After all, I made the final decision based on build quality, ergonomics and AF and that hasn't changed. I needed to replace my D200 and can't wait for the D400. I am thinking the D300s will be a gap filler between now and the D400 (at reasonable price). D7000 does sound pretty good though. It's still not in the shops here. </p>

<p>To all D300/D300S owners, there is no need to panic. I am sure your "old" cameras are still fine, including my 3-year-old D300. I am saying this from a very unique situation: I am a D7000 owner but I have never taken even one picture with the D7000. :-)</p>

<p>And I am sure my situation with the D7000 will change very soon.</p>

<p>"The F5 flopped and the F6 came out fairly quickly"<br>

Dude where do you get your info? That is plain wrong. The F5 was around for 8 years before the F6 showed up and was "the" camera for pro's until digital put it's professional lights out. The F6 as fine as it is could be considered a curiosity in comparison.</p>

<p> The upgrade frenzy is building. Just in time for the Christmas stampede. </p>

<p>I am jazzed about the D7000, because it will allow me to use MF lenses, rather than buy expensive new ones, and it costs less than the D300.D300s , however, I am a little concerned about the size. I found the D90 to feel really light and felt small, but, I'm coming from an F4 ( F4S at that time ) and almost any DSLR is going to feel light compared to that. I suspect I would prefer the heft and size of a D300(s) , but, it's $400 more, and not a lot better, over all, than the D7000. Then, my concern that a D400 will come out soon after I buy one and then I WILL feel like I got the old mare in the barn for the price of a much younger horse.</p>

<p>The user stored settings could be a real plus, if I have certain "go to" settings I want to quickly recall.</p>

<p>The better picture quality at ISO 100 ( if that is an accurate measurement at DXO ) would be something I would like too, for scenic shots.</p>

<p>One particular reviewer, who most know, but shall not be named, has put up an ISO shoot off between the D7000 and other higher end cameras. All in out of camera jpg, rather than RAW, to keep software settings from altering the results. Some might want to give it a look.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>One particular reviewer, who most know, but shall not be named, has put up an ISO shoot off between the D7000 and other higher end cameras. All in out of camera jpg, rather than RAW, to keep software settings from altering the results. Some might want to give it a look.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>John, if you would like to mention Ken Rockwell, please just say so. Most knowledgeable photographers take him with a grain of salt, but that topic has been beaten to death all over the internet.</p>