Production D7000 hitting the stores - any high iso samples?

[huntrbll]

<p>Here is a crop of my grandson, again, no prost-processing.....</p><div></div>

[john_morris4]

<p>That does look pretty soft, but maybe it's mostly the in-camera JPG processing that does it.</p>

<p>Is there really not yet an update to Capture NX for the D7000?</p>

 

[anand_dhupkar]

<p>Nikon is shipping D7000 but the software along with doesn't include converter for RAW images shot with this camera ? Am I missing something ? So what happens if one is going to use RAW format only ? <br>

I am really not quite clear on this .. can someone explain how it works ?</p>

[anand_dhupkar]

<p>I just now checked up on nikonusa.com - capture NX-2 - full featured, non destructive photo editing program - as mentioned by Nikon, supports D7000. Wouldn't it then support RAW files created by D7000 ?</p>

[thephotophile]

<p>Just a thought, when the D90 was just released there was a lot of concern that it too was too soft. But I don't think we have heard any complaints about it over the years! The D7000 will be the same.</p>

[thomas_lozinski]

<p>From what I could see just looking at the LCD 3200 is great, 6400 is about as good as the 3200 on my D90. The autofocus on the D7000 is ten times better than the D90. I was getting bird shots I would never dream of getting with the D90 (although the D300 might even be better) I'm disappointed that you can only do multiple exposures of 3 instead of 9 like on the D300, that is actually something I use a lot for super long exposures.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Bill Keaton, congratulations on your new camera.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I had planned to wait for reviews of the camera before making the purchase, but then started reading how initial shipments had sold out, and didn't want it to be 2011 before having the camera in hand.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>However, I don't buy those hype that how difficult it'll be to find a D7000. Bill getting one so quickly is a good example (although he was probably on some pre-order list).</p>

<p>Moreover, please read this parallel thread on images from the D7000 displayed on the web: <a href="00XUpd">Not Thrilled with the D7000 Images That I Have Seen</a></p>

[adam_kuan1]

<p>The only D7000 kit that were or maybe still are available are those from Best Buy stores. I bought mine from them and cancelled my pre-order. Apparently Best Buy stores started selling them before the official sell date.</p>

<p> </p>

[adam_kuan1]

<p>Here are a couple 100% crop pictures with no PP taken at default setting using large fine JPG of D7000.<br>

This one is taken at ISO 3600, f5.6 1/60s using 60mm AFD lens</p>

<p><img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v650/ak1999/D7000%20Samples/d7000_2.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>This is full picture of above crop.</p>

<p><img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v650/ak1999/D7000%20Samples/d7000_3.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>Here is a 100% crop of a picture taken in bad lighthing with no PP and with camera default setting.<br>

This one was shot at ISO 5000, f2.8 at 1/60s with 24-70 at 70mm</p>

<p><img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v650/ak1999/D7000%20Samples/D7000_1.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p> </p>

[huntrbll]

<p>Shun - Thanks for the response. I wasn't on a pre-order list for the D700, I read about them possibly being available at Best Buy and found one. I checked with my local camera store, and the people there said they were not sure when they would get one in because of backorders.<br>

Since I am retiring soon I did not want to be in a position of not being able to get the camera until 2011, since I want to become familiar with it for my first photo vacation (Arches, maybe Bryce/Zion) in March/April. Obviously, I have not been able to shoot a lot and compare images, but my gut reaction is the quality is noticeably better than my D200.<br>

As for images being soft, I thought they might have been just a tad more so than my D200 (again, gut reaction), but turned out very well with a little sharpening. The color balance with jpegs straight from the camera are more accurate than with my D200.<br>

I would have preferred taking more time and first reading actual reviews of the camera before the purchase, but at this point I am not going to second-guess my decision but rather enjoy having the D7000 during fall peak color and just buckle down and try to learn about and become familiar with the camera.</p>

[adam_kuan1]

<p>Here is a 100% crop of a picture taken at low ISO 100. There is no PP and sharpening is set at camera default. Note that picture will sharpen very nicely if PP is applied. I can't wait for RAW converter to be available to get the most out of it.<br>

ISO 100, F8 1/13s with 85mm PC on a tripod<br>

<img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v650/ak1999/D7000%20Samples/D7000_4.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>This is full image of above picture<br>

<img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v650/ak1999/D7000%20Samples/D7000_5.jpg" alt="" /></p>

[dennis_brabender]

<p>my local best buy has the 7000 but only as a kit<br>

nikon must have a lot of the 18-105 lens that they want to download and are sending the first examples as kits<br>

the display unit at the store didn't have a battery so didn't get too much from the experience<br>

called B&H, the rep there said they weren't expecting to ship until the end of the month to the middle of next month.....<br>

still waiting</p>

[steven_ford1]

<p>Ok, first of all a disclaimer, as this "test" I did is about as unscientific as they come.</p>

<p>Disclaimer: I am not a pixel peeper, but I do like (and generally take) sharp pictures.</p>

<p>I opened up a RAW (unconverted) image from my D7000 and compared it to a RAW (unconverted) image from my D60. Both images were opened in Picasa. Both images were taken with the same lens (Sigma 150-500) at the same focal length (500) and the same aperture (6.3, or wide open at 500). Shutter speeds were slightly off (1/125 for the D7000, 1/100 for the D60). Both images were shot on a tripod, and both were of the same subject (a cardinal). Lighting conditions were slightly different, as they were on different days. The D60 image was shot @ ISO 400 and was properly exposed. The D7000 image was shot @ ISO 1000 and (sadly) I underexposed slightly (if I had been at 1/100s it probably would have been dead on). The sharpness of both images (pre any PP) is very similar. The D7000 image has a little more noise, which probably wouldn't be as noticeable if I hadn't underexposed. The image I took with the D60 (after some PP work) is one I'm very proud of and looks pretty awesome after being cropped 30% and printed at 8x12.<br>

Seeing this, I am very satisfied with the sharpness of the D7000, and I expect the better sensitivity of the D7000 will let me shoot and print up to ISO 1600 (versus my 400 to 800 limit on the D60) with out any qualms.<br>

I am now really looking forward to a release for ACR which encompasses the D7000's version of NEF because I think I got some pretty good images today and I think it's only going to get better the more familiar I become with the camera (it's a massive step up in terms of functionality compared to the D60, I'm still wrapping my head around the AF system).<br>

My only nitpick is the combination of the microphone and autofocusing during a video. If the focus changes at all, the only thing the mic hears is the AFS motor whirring. Not that I really plan on doing anything major video-wise where I'd be using the internal mic OR AF, but it still seems kinda silly : /.</p>

[frank_f.]

<blockquote>you can't "look" at an unconverted RAW image since it is just luminance values for each pixel - in other words, it isn't an image at all. Only after Bayer Interpolation has been carried out in the RAW conversion will there be a viewable image.</blockquote>

<p>By unconverted, I meant decoded but unprocessed (noise reduction, sharpening, etc.). Is there a technical term for this?<br>

When you open a raw file in Picasa (which uses code from dcraw for its decoder), the viewable image that is displayed is the result of the Bayer Interpolation, but without any noise reduction, sharpening, etc.<br>

Please have a look at this thread:<br /><a href="http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1036&message=36661126">http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1036&message=36661126</a><br>

Obviously, the quality of images that are converted in-camera matters if you are shooting in jpeg. But when you compare jpegs, whether they are processed in-camera or with a raw converter, you are introducing another, albeit important real-world, variable: the performance of whatever is performing the conversion to jpeg.<br>

This is something I was curious about when the Canons with 18Mpix sensors came out: I wanted to see how much of the mushiness was due to noise reduction and how much of the detail was due to sharpening. I also wanted to see for myself if the Canon sensors really were noisy at ISO greater than 400, as indicated by DxO.</p>

 

[marypar4]

<p>Well its official..there was a mini brawl in my local Best Buy in Bricktwon NJ when two people almost came to blows over the LAST D7000 in the store..I went to take a look at the camera after calling the store ..but I was about 20 minutes too late. Best Buy in NJ is completely sold out of them. I am not sure we are in a recession..given that news!</p>

[coryc]

<p>Here is a 50% crop and a full crop. D7000 with the kit lens. Shot with a monopod at ISO 1600. RAW opened in ViewNX and saved out as a 16-bit TIFF, cropped and saved as 8-quality JPEG. No PP adjustments made. Looking back and forth from the JPEGS below to Photoshop, the JPEGs are obviously a little softer and noisier.</p>

<p>I'm coming from my trusty old 8 1/2 year-old D100 so I can't tell how this compares to anything recent. All I know is if I would have tried this shot with my D100 it would have looked like it was raining Skittles.</p>

<p><img src="http://www.aldercreek.net/PN/D7K0429_halfcrop.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p><img src="http://www.aldercreek.net/PN/D7K0429_fullcrop.jpg" alt="" /></p>