adam_kuan1

<p>"In addition to that, Nikon tends to use more aggressive antialiasing filters, so that might actually negate the resolution advantage from the 28% higher pixel density (in pixels/mm). "<br>

FYI, for $300 more Nikon offers D800E model without antialiasing filter.<br>

I'm surprised that no one talk is talking about any possible improvement of read noise at low ISO setting on the new Canon sensors.<br>

This is an area where Canon sensors are really lagging behind Sony sensors and it is manifested as almost 2 stops less DR at base ISO.</p>

 

<p>"Compare whatever you wish. I made my comparisons and decided to go with the 5D2 instead of wasting a ton of cash on a camera with a single specialty, poor High ISO performance, no video, and an archaic Live View implementation. Your mileage may vary."<br>

Yeah! The 5D2 has state of the art focusing and metering system (sarcasm).<br>

Anyone can justify his/hers own purchasing easily by making the right comparisons.<br>

For me 5D2 was never the right camera, shutter lag is just too freaking slow!<br>

I seldom use live view on my Canon DSLRs, they are just too slow to be useful except for still life photopgraphy.</p>

 

<p>"Street price (USD): 5D2 (2600), D3S (5k), D3X (7500)."<br>

You are comparing apples and oranges.<br>

The D3x and D3s should be comapred to 1D and 1Ds series.<br>

It reminds me of car tv comercials in which they selectively compared power, size and other specs to other cars's specs that are not really their strength area (ie. more room interior than a X brand, more power than Y brand, etc).</p>

<p>The 60D's mirror/shutter noise and vibration are terrible compared with D7000.<br>

I was really surprised by it even coming from using D700 which was one the loudest of the Nikon cameras I've owned.</p>

<p>I currently have both Nikon and Canon systems. I recently added Canon 60D with 24-105 and 70-200F4IS lenses. It does take a while to get used to a new system so I would really not recommend using two separate systems on an assigment.<br>

All of my current lenses are not for cropped format (EF-S or DX) because I'm waiting for either 5D or D700 replacement to arrive to make decision on which brand I will stick although I do have much more Nikon gear now.<br>

Canon cameras seems to be getting behind as compared with the competition.<br>

My D7000 is an overall much better camera than the 60D and I will be surprised if the 5D replacement will top Nikon's D700 replacement.</p>

<p>I don't know what is the point of this comparison. The D3100 is not a replacement for D5000 or D90, it is a replacement for D3000.<br>

Also why didn't you include comparison to D300 which has same overall score of 67?<br>

The D3100 perfomance is very close to D90/D5000 or even better according to some users' reports.<br>

Also, D7000 easily "blows" D90/D5000 in sensor perfomance from my experience.</p>

 

<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>

 

<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>

<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>

<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>

<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>

<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>

<p>I picked up D7000 from BB yesterday.<br>

I've tried it using 24-70, 16-35 and Zeiss 35mm lenses and don't see any softness on the pictures.<br>

I'm a little bit surprise at some of these reports about softness. The kit lens was never used so that could be some of the reason.<br>

Low ISO shots seem a little better than the D90/D300 ones and look very similar to those samples posted in Nikon website.<br>

So far the only negative for me is the feel of the shutter switch, it doesn't have positive tactile feel and I tend to unintentionally snap pictures.<br>

However, camera shutter lag time and overall response are much better than D90 I had and the quiet mode is a good enough reason to replace my D700 for stage perfomance photography.</p>

 

<p>"Now if the question was, should I buy a 500mm f4 non IS and a big leg set or a 500mm f4 IS and a smaller leg set then the answer is less defined. "<br>

The only question is can you carry a sturdy tripod regardless wether you are buying a lens with IS or non-IS?<br>

Can you shoot 1 second or longer exposure with your long lens and IS on and get consistent sharp result?<br>

Also the 190XPRO tripod that you are touting it to be a light setup is really not that light at almost 4lb. The Gitzo GT1541 at 2.5lb is much more sturdier tripod. Hey even the GT3541LS is fractional lighter but significantly more sturdy.<br>

I understand some don't like to use tripods and use IS instead which is fine by me.<br>

However if you are going through the trouble of carrying a tripod, it should be one sturdy enough so it will give you more flexibility (like longer exposure time).</p>

 

<p>I don't see the point of using IS or VR to compesate for tripod instability.<br>

Why not getting a sturdy tripod if you are going though the trouble of carrying a tripod (or maybe just carry a monopod for weight relief purpose).<br>

IS or VR is for convenience, there is no substitute for a sturdy tripod.<br>

I have a 190XDB tripod with thumbscrew locks with a Markins head and it is not up to the task for handling a cropped DSLR with 300mm lens IMHO.<br>

For over 10 years I was happy with my old bogen 3001/3025 combo and thought everything else was a waste of money until I bit the bullet and bought a real leg set...</p>

<p>Those manfrotto tripods like 055 or 190 series ones are good value and will last long time.<br>

However if you are going to be working with long lenses like 300mm or longer, those aluminum tripods are just not stiff enough.<br>

You can easily test them using camera magnified live view mode.<br>

I had Manfrotto 055XPROB tripod briefly but I sold it right away after I compared it with my Gitzo GT1540 tripod. The Gitzo one was less than half 055's tripod weight (2.5lb vs 5.3lb) but it was noticeable stiffer.<br>

I also have GT2540 and GT3541LS tripods and those are even stiffer and studier and weight less .<br>

There is reason why people still pay outrageous prices for those Gitzo CF tripods but I still think they are getting way too expensive.<br>

I will suggest looking for alternative CF tripods like Feisol ones.</p>

 

<p>I think the size advantage is negliable when using non-pancake lenses. One also need to consider that NEX5 does not have built-in flash so it won't be that small with external flash attached.<br>

One other thing to consider is that Sony DSLRs are not rally well known for state-of-the art high ISO perfomance so I really don't expect it to be much better than NX10's.</p>

<p>Why not consider Samsung NX10 camera? It has APS sized sensor and built EVF and flash.</p>

<p>If you don't mind manual focus and manual stop down aperture then you can get Nikon 85mm PC for about same price of 105VR. There is one in the classified now at a really good price. This is 1:2 lens for FF frame but it will give you a little bit more magnification on DX. This is also a tilt and shift lens and easily outclass the 105VR at any distance.</p>

<p>For non-macro work the 70-200mm VR2 is much better. The focusing speed is much faster on the zoom, in fact it is not even close.<br>

The only reasons to get macro lens are for the 1:1 magnification, ligther/smaller lens and cheaper price.</p>

 

<p>I was of course refering to new ZF .2 version. The post I replied to was in reference to my statement that began with "The .2 ZF version will allow.."</p>

 

<p>"If you only use the lens in your studio and with mostly static objects, then you would work out all the obstacles once for most of pictures."<br>

Not true, you can use many of the automated exposure with D90 (which I do own in addition to a D700) and it is not that hard to manual focus a 35mm F2.0 lens.<br>

I never care about "wasting" any of the automated flash features, I'll be more concerned about not getting full image benefit of the Zeiss lens which is somewhat wasted on a crop sensor body like a D90.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>The .2 ZF version will allow using all exposure modes on your D90 which include shutter priority and auto programed modes.</p>

<p>"Some people are OK with paying the premium for top performance - the Zeiss delivers that, its price may be steep but for the top optics it is, it's fairly priced, I think."<br>

It is not only the optics but the mechanic and build are a bit better than Nikon AIS manual lenses.</p>

<p>I had the 18-35mm AF-D and now I have 16-35mm lens. Here is a quick summary of my impressions on the 16-35 compared with the 18-35 one.<br>

- It is significatly larger but does not feel heavy<br>

- It is sharper and contrastier specially at the corner<br>

- It has more distortion at 16mm but it is very decent above 20mm<br>

- I can get consistent sharp picture at 1/8s @35mm with VR and about 50% @1/4s and 20% @1/3s<br>

- It does have noticeable focal breathing at widest setting and short focus distance<br>

- It is much better built except for the manual focusing ring</p>