Not Thrilled with the D7000 Images That I Have Seen

[bob_h]

<p>Now that there are more and more D7000 produced images popping up across the web, I am less than thrilled with what I am seeing. They seem to be lacking in warmth and vividness to my eyes. What do you think of the D7000 images that you have seen? I prefer the images from the D5000 or D300s in either jpg or raw, and would buy both a D5000 or a D300s before I would buy the D7000. Your thoughts?</p>

[photo5]

<p>Well I've already decided to hold on to my D300 for now and wait for a possible replacement for the D300s which will hopefully have full 1080p 30fps video. I don't want to lose the excellent image quality the D300 offers. I had high hopes for the D7000 but if it is like the D90, which it sounds like it is, I'm not interested.</p>

[leicaglow]

<p>I was extremely impressed with the images I saw. They were sharp, colorful, and very tight when using a high ISO. I do wish it had 30 fps though. I'll probably buy one as my new backup for the D700 replacement.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>I would imagine that those small JPEGs on the web from images captured by the D7000, similar to images captured by other cameras, mainly reflect the photographers' creativity and technique.</p>

<p>How can people judge the quality of a camera from small JPEGs on the web?</p>

[christoph_hammann]

<p>Shun's right, you know. And those few full-size straight conversions from RAW that I've seen show a marked restraint on saturation on Nikon's part and, not surprisingly, the need to sharpen them in post-processing quite a bit. It's small photo wells behind a strong anti-aliasing filter, after all.</p>

[paul_wheeler1]

<p>Ditto Shun's response.<br>

I've have not seen any reason to replace my D300 yet, and when I shoot video I use a camcorder.</p>

[CvhKaar]

<p>Agree with Shun, Christoph and Paul.<br>

Apart from that, if you do not have a good calibrated monitor, its even harder to judge colors and warmth from the combo of Camera and lens used.<br>

For jpeg's I guess that I could only say anything about those examples if my monitor is calibrated in the same way as the ones used by the publishers of the pics...</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>It reminds me a personal story: A few years ago I captured the wedding of a young couple. Afterwards, I showed the images to a friend at work; that guy told me how much he liked those images and went on to say, "Shun, you must have a very good camera."</p>

<p>I was like what the $#%@! are you talking about? People do not credit Tiger Woods' clubs when he plays great golf, people do not credit Picasso's brushes when he makes a wonderful painting, but somehow when it comes to photography, people credit and blame the camera instead of the operator.</p>

[elliot1]

<p>Warmth and vividness [and sharpness] are more a function of the photographer and less about the equipment. </p>

 

[StanleyBeck]

<p>Shun, LOL! Tools always get more credit than people, and this goes back centuries. One of my favorite quotes was from the 19th century portrait painter John Singer Sargent, when asked what medium he used. His response was, "brains."</p>

[adam_kuan1]

<p>Great! That is all we need. Another thread spreading false rumor by someone wiithoug direct experience with the camera.<br>

I have one on hand and it is sharprer than any previous Nikon DX cameras.<br>

It is not a perfect cfamera, shutter buttom is a little mushy and autofocus speed is not up to my former D700.<br>

This camera is good enough for me until D700 replacement comes up as I've sold my D700 prematurely.</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>Fact is, you can tell from specs that a D7000, in capable hands, can probably "possibly" make a slightly better photo than a D90 or D300. Period. It has the capability.</p>

<p>However, a great photographer will be able to take an identical photo with a D3 or D7000. Or a D90 or a D3100 for that matter.</p>

<p>Do you need the functionality the D7000 has? If yes, then buy with confidence.</p>

[photo5]

<p>I'm not talking about small JPG files on the web, I'm talking about the full size samples I've downloaded shot at LOW ISO. Could actually care less about high ISO, if I wanted good high ISO I'd buy another D700.</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>Dave,</p>

<p>even then, it only shows the photographer's ability or lack thereof... I thought you had ordered a 7000. No?</p>

<p>When all else fails, blame the equipment... ;-)</p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>I'm not talking about small JPG files on the web, I'm talking about the full size samples I've downloaded shot at LOW ISO.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>But Dave, that still does not mean anything. For example, any sharpness issue is more likely due to technique, e.g. not using a proper tripod, focusing errors, not knowing how to use the new AF system on the D7000, lens issues, etc.</p>

<p>Again, there is no RAW converter for the D7000 from Adobe. Is Nikon Capture NX2 covering the D7000 yet? I wouldn't evaluate a DSLR with JPEG images from the camera.</p>

<p>All color issues are more likely due to setting and post-processing problems. The D7000 has only been out for a few days. Whoever already has one must still be learning about the camera. It is very premature to draw any conclusion at this point.</p>

[adam_kuan1]

<p>Low-ISO performance is better on D7000 than D90/D300's ones otherwise I would have returned it.<br>

It is not up to D700 level but those extra pixels do help in "smoothing" out noise.<br>

I'm waiting from a friend to come back from a trip a borrow his D300 and hopefully RAW converter will be available to use with D7000 files.<br>

On thing to remember that it has a true ISO 100 setting which gives me more flexibility for shooting outdor pictures using standard studio flashes.<br>

Some of the features I really like about D7000 are new AF-area mode switch, live-view autofocus mode and live-view switch.<br>

Live-view mode is much more usable with the 30fps rate as compared 15fps.<br>

You can switch to LV mode with the new dedicated switch and select AF-area mode by pressing a dedicated switch near AF/manual switch.<br>

There are 4 AF-area mode in LV full-time AF mode that you can select, single center, wide single center, face detect and user selectable area mode.<br>

Also contrast detect focus speed in LV is significantly faster and can probably be improved even more with firmware update.<br>

I can't wait for the D700 replacement. I have money burning a hole in my pocket...</p>

<p> </p>

[rossb]

<p> I have never seen a picture from the camera. I did not even know they were around yet. I live in a small town in Calif and I may not even see one of these camera's for a couple years unless they sell them at CostCo. I cannot imagine the pictures from it would look any different then most any other newer digital camera. You just photoshop up the picture to look like you want it to. That's the deal on a digi. There is no doubt in my mind that the pictures will not be just as nice as any other digi rig around. </p>

[adam_kuan1]

<p>I've posted some 100% crop of pictures taken with D7000 on the other thread.<br>

It includes some high ISO and an ISO 100 picture.</p>

 

[justin_lee6]

<p>Uhh, Adam? <br>

Low ISO performance of the D90, D5000, D300, D300s, D700, D3, and D3s are <em>identical. </em><br>

If you manage to spot the difference, I would be genuinely impressed, cause I certainly can't. <br>

If the D7000 has better image quality at low ISOs than the D90 and D300, it certainly must be better than the $5000 D3 and D3s. <br>

So I definitely am excited to get mine. </p>

[stan_schurman1]

<p>Dave Lee, I hope you're not implying that the D90's image quality is inferior to the D300.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>i'm on the fence.</p>

<p>i had my d300 stolen, replaced it with a lightly used d90, and now am pondering either a d300/d300s or a d7000.</p>

<p>the d90's image quality is just as good as the d300, but i miss the AF speed, fps, and responsiveness. also, i used the dedicated AF-On button a lot.</p>

<p>the d7000 has a partially mag-alloy-enclosed body in a lighter overall package, which is a plus, as are the improved technology and ergonomics, like the focus mode button instead of switch. more mp also means more room to crop. if the high-ISO noise is better, that could be a deal-sealer.</p>

<p>but...the d300/s has a better AF module, and i know that camera inside and out. i could probably get both, then sell the d90 for what i paid for it, but right now i'm leaning toward either the 300 or 300s used, and waiting a bit on the d7000, at least until more reviews are in.</p>

 

[photo5]

<p>Stan and Eric, look at the D90 review on dpreview.com. There they show in a very technical manner that the D90 does not meet the same image quality standards of the D300. I'm a pixel peeper, and my standards are high. I understand that not everyone is like me. For the average user, the D90 has identical image quality to the D300. However, I am not an average user.</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>No, Dave, you are most definitely not an average user... ;-)</p>

[andylynn]

<p>You're pre-rejecting the D7000 because the D90 didn't pixel peep as satisfyingly as the D300 when the DPReview people took some pictures of wine bottles? That's just silly.</p>

[wogears]

<blockquote>

<p>I cannot imagine the pictures from it would look any different then most any other newer digital camera. You just photoshop up the picture to look like you want it to.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I cannot 'photoshop up' my d70 files to print like the ones from a D3x at 20x30. Nor can I completely get rid of the noise above ISO 1240, although I can minimize it.</p>