Nikon D7000 scores 80 on DxOMark

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by brian_b|9, Nov 8, 2010.

  1. DxOMark just announced the scores for the Nikon D7000:
    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.
    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.
    I know that the Pentax K-5 scored an 82, but they seem to be playing some tricks at higher ISO settings.
  2. 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.
    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.
  3. 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)
    This means that at ISO 100, you would get better overall quality from the D7000 than the D700
    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.
  4. Well it surely makes me embarrassed to shoot with a D300, that's for sure.
  5. Just when you think they can't improve stuff... they do...
  6. The D300 is measured at 9.2EV and the D700 only measures up to 7.9EV, according to DXO claims the D700 measures 12.2EV? So who do you believe, or DXO?
    There has to be a better way, folks.
  7. 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.
    Notice that in the RAW Headroom section in the D700 review (at they claim:
    "The best result we could achieve was 11.6 EV which is almost 5 (!) stops more than the default JPG output"
    This is much closer to the DXO results.
    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.
    The engineering point of view starts from Signal to noise ratio of 1 (or 0 dB), which is usually not acceptable for a photographer
    I'll recomend this tread from the luminous-landscape forum, especially the posts by user ejmartin:
    Dynamic Range and DXO
  8. This is why we need to take pictures with cameras and see how they perform in real world use.
  9. We can imagine the superiority of new D4 and D800 cameras when they arrive.
  10. Apart from IQ, there are other factors to consider such as
    - Camera system as a whole? Do the lens choices and accessories fit you?
    - Handling/Ergonomcis?
    - Cost?
    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.
    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
    - AF speed/accurancy. More cross sensors at the edge will be good :)
    - Higher sync speed.
    - Improved weather sealing.
    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.
  11. wmk


    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).
    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.
    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).
    So if high-iso is your primary concern then the D7000 makes sense.
  12. 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.
    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.
  13. 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.
  14. 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.
    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.
    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.
    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.
  15. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    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.
    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.
  16. 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!
  17. 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 ?
    - faster and accurate AF ( better than the D3 )
    - vertical grip included
    - distance provided in the viewfinder from camera to subject
    - sensor cleaning
    - AF TUNE ( automatically being done by the camera once you setup your lens - up to 6 lenses )
    - 9 frames x second at least
    - 16 millions pixels in the sensor
    - weather sealed
    - clean pictures at 6,400 ISO ( more than enough )
    - double memory cards
    - fast and accurate AF for live view
    - much better dynamic range
    - built-in-flash included ( to be use as a commander ) ....
    .... 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.
  18. karen, the only way to tell for sure is to hold both cameras in your hands, and shoot under field conditions.
    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.
  19. 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.
    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!!!
  20. 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.
  21. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    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. :)
    And I am sure my situation with the D7000 will change very soon.
  22. "The F5 flopped and the F6 came out fairly quickly"
    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.
  23. The upgrade frenzy is building. Just in time for the Christmas stampede.
  24. 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.
    The user stored settings could be a real plus, if I have certain "go to" settings I want to quickly recall.
    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.
    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.
  25. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    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.​
    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.
  26. I am thinking the D300s will be a gap filler between now and the D400 (at reasonable price).
    i think i said in another thread that the d300s is still nikon's top of the line Dx body. it's definitely a step up from the d200, so that should be all that matters.
    i remember when i got my d300 (which got stolen) three years ago. at the time, i remember thinking how good can they make these things? i almost never felt like it was lacking, except shooting action @ iso 2000+, while i had it. if it hadn't gotten pinched, i'm not sure i would have gotten a d7000, probably a d700 would have been the logical upgrade.
    now, my current bodies are d90 and d300s. they work really well together and separately; the d90 is great for light days and smaller lenses, and the d300s for active days and larger glass. a d7000 would be a tweener, for sure. if i only had one body, maybe that would be the one, but when you need to shoot with two bodies, things like battery interchangeability, and consistency of file sizes come into play.that's what's stopping me from selling the d90 and getting a d7000--because then i'll have to buy another grip and an extra battery...---at least until prices come down a bit, which they wont before 2011.
    i do know when all i had was the d90, i missed the larger size and button placement of the d300. i suspect that would be true in karen's case as well after shooting with D200.
    KR is certainly fanning the flames, though. not sure how much of that can be believed--i'd rather hear it from shun, truth be told.
  27. I paid less for the d300s than I could have got the d7000 for... that's if i could get a d7000 in the first place. luckily, i don't peep at pixels, so I should be over my anxiety fairly soon.
    Eric, I'm not sure I want to know what Shun has to say about d7000... I might have to avoid the Nikon forum for a while. I'll go 'way and worry about which ebook reader I should have bought instead. I mean, I love my Sony Touch reader but.... hmmm....the Kindle's got.... blah blah blah....
  28. <<not sure how much of that can be believed--i'd rather hear it from shun, truth be told.>>
    Awww. That was nice to see.
    I bought a D300 used for almost $1100 about two weeks before the D7000 announcement. It has a veeery low actuation, according to the seller, whom I trusted. I mean ridiculously low, lower than any shamster would claim; he's a pro who had it as his back up and rarely used it. What made me feel bad was not having missed out on buying the D7000 -- the 1100 w/o tax was already further than I could really afford to go -- but that the prices of D300 's dropped to $900 and below in short order.
    Before my D300 came I'd been using a D40x and I dreamt of having the D300 so I could CPU my manual focus lenses; use my AF-D lenses with actualy autofocus, hurray; and have sensor cleaning and weather sealing. The D40x sensor was CONSTANTLY in need of manual cleaning. And so it has made me extremely happy. I didn't realize I also wanted and needed good quality at ISO 3200 and outstanding quality at ISO 2000 but now I do know it and I am thrilled.
    Anyway I was at B&H yesterday (Sunday) and played with the D7000 and man, it is so fine. I have small hands and live in NYC where being conspicuous is, uh, problematic, so the small size is breathtaking. From a quality/features/marketing point of view except for the size, which some people here seem not to like, it essentially puts the D300s out of business. They must have something amazing up their sleeves for THAT upgrade because this will take the floor out from beneath the current offering.
    And I know that someday within the next two years Ima get me one.
    Or a by-then-discontinued used D700. Or both. Ha!
  29. if you would have told me 3 years ago you could get a d300 for $900, i would have jumped on about four of them inna heartbeat. for now, i'll hold onto the d300s and try not to drool too much over d7000 reviews as they come in.
  30. The D7000 really does make the D300 and D300s obsolete and I am sure that their value has plummeted. I'll do someone a favor and take one off their hands and they can go out and get that nice new D7000 and we'll all be happy. :)
  31. my d300s has been dispatched and I will have it tomorrow. so i don't wanna know. truth is i don't wanna d7000...want d400.
  32. Eric, I wouldn't get the D700 if I were you. It is FX, yes, that's great. But in many ways it is a step down from the D300 and D300s. I am sure the replacement for the D700 will have a 100% viewfinder, which is the biggest downfall of the D700 in my experience. I compose in camera, I don't do post processing, so I depend on being able to see 100% of what I get when I shoot. The D700 would always have stuff coming in to the image that wasn't there in the viewfinder, due to its poor 90% coverage. Nikon really dropped the ball on that one. I don't consider the D700 a pro camera due to that shortcoming. And for me, the chunky body made for poor handling compared to the D300. Now the D700 does have a nice big viewfinder, which I liked, but I'd take the D300 any day over the D700. I'll be very interested to see what the D700 replacement has to offer. If it has 100% viewfinder I'll be very very tempted. I don't expect it to be announced for another 6 months though.
  33. Shun,
    I would have used Ken's name, in full, but not so long ago, his name and web link were expunged from the record, so to speak. So, he became " He who must not be named " , in my book.
    I like reading his reviews of cameras as 1 point of view, and ... he takes more shots than 1 of a basketball going through a hoop. That's always been a downer for me, with Thom Hogan.
  34. I compose in camera, I don't do post processing, so I depend on being able to see 100% of what I get when I shoot. The D700 would always have stuff coming in to the image that wasn't there in the viewfinder, due to its poor 90% coverage. Nikon really dropped the ball on that one. I don't consider the D700 a pro camera due to that shortcoming.
    Well, this was true of numerous previous cameras happily used by pros, i.e. FM and FE series, F-801 series, F90 series, etc. When you scan the images you get to see a bit more. If you had someone else print them the framing was essentially random since the VF was off-center and the printing was off-center. It didn't prevent their successful use. I don't even notice the D700's viewfinder any more compared to the D3. I'm aware of the differences of course. Your sentences "I do not do post processing" and "I don't consider the D700 a pro camera due to that shortcoming" are funny as all professional images are post-processed before use.
    As for dxomark, they don't consider the lens' in the sensor rankings. Most lenses used on FX render detail with higher contrast thanks to the bigger area. This is quite a substantial difference at wide apertures on short glass in my experience. And there is always the question of lens availability.
  35. So, Ken Rockwell is actually Lord Voldemort?!
  36. Brian, actual photographers don't take any notice of the DXO thing, it really makes no difference in the real world. For example, look at the DXO mark of the Leica M9. I don't actually now what it is, but i've heard it is not as high as the top end Nikon or Canons. Yet for MOST photographer, pro or amatuer, the M9 is probably the best small format digicam money can buy. image quality can't be defined by shooting test scenes or shooting high ISO (do we really need to shoot at 3200?). Look at the print on the wall, not the pixels on the monitor. Look at the images taken by Cartier-Bresson, Cappa, Frank et al. I'd love to see the DXO mark on the cameras that they used to make their immortal images............DXO is for camera enthusiast's, not photographers.
  37. KR's sample images show how much better Nikon has made in-camera JPGs look. DXOMark shows the capabilities of Nikon DSLR bodies and how well they can perform (regarding IQ). The D7000 offers slight improvements over other recent Nikon bodies when shooting RAW and perhaps noticeable improvements at higher ISOs for JPG shooters. It has always been up to the photographer to choose which way they want to go (with or without post processing). Up until now, post processing was necessary for good high ISO results for pre-D90 bodies. The D90 and D7000 change that quite a bit.
  38. Thom Hogan's recently posted comments on "DxO Hysteria" give a bit of perspective to the very relative value of these ratings. In the end, the conclusion would seem to be that it is never the camera that makes the real difference, but the eye, the inspiration and the expertise of the one behind it
  39. It surprises me that according to DxOMark most of current dslr's sensors(including D7000) are very close to medium format digital backs and cameras from Hassy, Leaf, Pentax etc. D7000 sensor scored 80 points while Pentax D645 sensor scored 82 points - how is that possible?
  40. Ilkka, in the olden days shooting film, it wasn't an issue, because you wouldn't be getting the entire image on the print or slide anyway. Apples and oranges.
  41. My D700 only has an 80 score. Am I in trouble now?
  42. If you're not able to get great images with your D300, you're not going to get great images with a D7000.
    Wasn't me who said it first of course, I'm not that smart. ;)
    I think it's great that Nikon continues to build great cameras.
  43. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    While I know that some of the responses here are sarcastic, I am still surprised that plenty of people take DxO Mark so seriously.
    Now that I have played around with the D7000 a little, I think that it is a nicely built camera, with similar construction quality as the D300 and D700. It is considerably smaller; in fact, it does not have much room to the left of the viewfinder so that even though you try to hold the camera incorrectly, grabbing the left side with your left hand, there is not much you can hold onto. You pretty much have to hold the camera right by supporting the bottom with your left hand.
    Coming from a background with the D200, D300, D700, D2X, and D3, I find the controls for the D7000 unfamiliar. The exposure mode control P, S, A, and M is a knob on the top left side and the AF mode control is very different, involving the mail and sub-command dials. At one point I was using my D100, F5 and Contax 645; therefore using drastically different bodies is not a big issue for me, but if you shoot two bodies simultaneously with a D7000 plus any one of those above, it will be somewhat awkward.
    The D7000's shutter is very quiet. There is a Q (quiet) mode to make it even more so. Image quality is fine; ISO 6400 seems to be better than those on the D300/D90/D5000 cameras that use the 12MP Sony CMOS sensor. But if you currently own the D300 or D300S, I see no need to rush out to get a D7000. Personally, I prefer the larger size of the D300/D300S over the D7000.
    Nikon has paid attention to some of the details. The new charger is improved so that you have the option to directly plug it into an outlet without a long cord, which is also available. The D7000's battery chamber has a little latch so that the EN-EL15 cannot fall off.
    Again, if you bought a D300S recently, I think it is still a good choice. If you are in the US and are buying a camera (D7000, D300S or D700), Nikon USA has some nice rebates if you also get one of the higher-end lenses. The rebate ends on November 20.
  44. I always thought "he who must not be named" was Bjorn.
    Just kidding.
    Personally, the more I look at the specs, the more I think it might make a great second body/temporary primary/video/travel body. Personally, I have been coming up with ways to travel lighter and usually limit myself to just a backpack for the trip (clothes/computers/camera and all) or only a hand full of small bags on the motorcycle. A body like the D7000 sounds like it would give me exactly what I need in a high quality travel body that would fit easily in a backpack (think 60L backpacking pack) along with all my clothes and a netbook. Carry a lens or two, which shouldn't be unreasonable, and I should be set.
  45. Elliot, to me, in the KR's sample images, those of D7000 seems oversharpened, with less texture and too contrasty in comparison to the D300s and D3.
    Regards, Nicola
  46. The DXOmark page contains engineering measurements about a specific component (sensor) or combinations (sensor + lens) that not necesarilly can be translated in final image quality.
    For example, if internal flare in your lens limits the maximun DR you can have in your image, let's say 6EV, then it does not matter if your camera has a DR of 14 EV, because you won't be able to get it. What you should do with that information is expose accordingly so you use the upper 6EV of the 14 EV the camera is capable (Expose to the right) and you will get the best quality out of your system.
    Personally, I think that most of the controversy about DXO is related to the DXO overall score, which I consider the least useful data in the whole DXOmark site.
    Specific data about noise level, dynamic range, color depth, color response, etc. at a specific ISO value can be useful to anticipate potential limits of your equipment in specific conditions.
    I agree that you don't have to rush and change your D300/D300s for the new D7000. I would not do it. The information there just shows that electronic imaging is evolving and we keep getting better products. It is the same with computers and software
    Now if we pretend that evolution stopped with the D300 and we don't need or there won't be anything better in the future, please wake up.
  47. So, it would seem if DxO is to be believed, Nikon cracked the Fuji S5 in an affordable camera:|0/%28appareil2%29/680|0/%28onglet%29/0/%28brand%29/Fujifilm/%28brand2%29/Nikon
    The D3x supposedly can as well but...
  48. It seems every one believe the DxO. The joke is DxO rated the D3X Low-Light ISO performance good to ISO1992, but Nikon hidden the D3X ISO above ISO1600 (you need deep steps to ramp to ISO above 1600).it seems Nikon and DxO has different Low-Light ISO performance standard. Do you trust DxO?
  49. Alvin Yapp. (8th nov,2010, at 12.38pm), wished for a better sync speed, I still retain my ancient D70, mainly for the fact that its sync speed, is perfect, (full frame) right up to 1/8000th, how or why I know not, it can't be a conventional focal plane shutter type, I lost this ability on all later purchases, but I am not selling my old D70!
  50. The joke is DxO rated the D3X Low-Light ISO performance good to ISO1992, but Nikon hidden the D3X ISO above ISO1600 (you need deep steps to ramp to ISO above 1600).it seems Nikon and DxO has different Low-Light ISO performance standard. Do you trust DxO?​
    There is no joke or conspiracy, nor Nikon hidding ISO above 1600 in the D3X. "normal ISO range" is achieved varying the analog amplification of the signal from the sensor before input to the A/D converter. "Extended ISO values" are achieved by numerically scaling the output values of the A/D converter.
    There are cameras that ONLY use the numerical scaling of the output of the A/D converter, like the digital cinema RED One, and most medium format Digital Backs. In these cases, ISO can be considered just metadata.
    Another point: White balance is performed by numerical scaling of each channel in all digital cameras.
    You may not trust the numeric results from DXO mark, but the concept is right.
    A/D = analog to digital
  51. Well, my new d300s has just arrived and I'm am happy with my decision. It's raining at the mo. While I'm stuck inside I might even be tempted to do something real dumb, like, read (casual glance at) the manual.
  52. It's a weather sealed body...
  53. Yeh right, Zach. At the moment, it's soooo new, I don't even wanna breathe on it, wanna bring out the gloves just to pick it up. Of course, in a couple a days and I'll be throwing round, the dogs will be slobbing on it (weather seal comes in handy), I'll be crawling through the dirt with it. But right now it's sooo new and shiny.
  54. Fair enough. Hurry up and break in that camera ;-)
  55. @carl watson: You might want to read this thread about CCD blooming and shutter speeds above sync speed:
    Again. I wish for a higher sync speed :D 1/500 on DX will be a good start :D Just compare scans of Press 800 (or, Delta 3200) vs 3200 on a modern dslr, I am very, very satisfied.
    Disclaimer: I'm an amateur photographer :)
  56. """"While I know that some of the responses here are sarcastic, I am still surprised that plenty of people take DxO Mark so seriously."""
    I never knew a number that took a picture, plus numbers can be mathematically configured to make them anything you want them to be if you try hard enough.
    It's what's behind the camera that really takes the picture....
  57. DxO Mark is very clear about what they are measuring. No one reasonable states that you can't take a great photograph with a camera that ranks below another camera in these highly measurable areas. This "it's what is behind the camera that takes the picture" stuff is intellectually dishonest. When you bought whatever cameras you're using you made judgments about their features and their concomitant value. Digital cameras (as was true of mechanical and electronic cameras before them ) rely on engineers to build them. You can't build one. So when other engineers assess what has been built, it's stupid and ignorant to get irritated about it and claim it means nothing. It means what it means. Certain aspects of camera performance are measurable and that's that. Stop fighting the idea.
    By the way some might recall that the D90 also outperformed the D300 sensor on these tests. For some while at least the D90 was the highest ranked APS-C sensor on DxO Mark's list.
  58. I am sympathetic to both arguments - I do not think you can dismiss out of hand the technological advancements nor do I think you should fall into a trap that a "better camera will make you produce better pictures".
    I think what technology does do is allow you to capture some pictures you might otherwise not been able to capture (period) and/or or successfully capture images that otherwise might have been unsuccessful.
    For instance, I still love my Fuji S2, but there are a lot of lighting situations that it just can't handle, where my D300 or even Fuji S5 would (whether say, low light or high contrast). Another example might be focus, where the advances in focusing technology improve your likelihood of getting the shot. Or flash, where accuracy may again improve your chance of getting the shot or offer off camera options. Or megapixels, which might allow you to crop more effectively.
    Many of these things can be replaced by simple effort and care in taking photographs - and there's a lot to be said for that effort as it often brings more to the image than simple success. However much of our photographic lives are spent in situations where time for such care isn't available (say "the decisive moment", sports photography, when you're traveling with others, or, like me, where you have a family and everything seems rushed). In that case, technology can be a real lifesaver.
    Moreover, even when you do take care, it is possible to still muck up - I am sure all of our hard drives are filled with many such instances, and any advances that reduce that risk increase our chances of getting usable photos. Since "good photos" are usually a subset of "usable photos", increasing the later increases the chance of the former.
    But in the end, yes, it comes down to the photographer, not the camera. No amount of technology can replace that (though they're trying damn hard).
    Honestly what bugs me more is the number of bad photographers (actually bad photos - I can't generalize on the photographers themselves) who take a boring shot, jazz it up with like fake cross-processing, and shove it out like some godsend. Yes, often the fake cross-processing or whatever temporarily rescues the photo, but it's so formulaic as to sort of suck the life out of the genre. Actually it's definitely not bad photographers - I see good photographers who overuse this stuff and it drives me crazy.

Share This Page