«

People where so enamoured of the DR, they must have missed this.
Not the improvement we might have expected. In RAW, noise is
noticeably worse than the D5000, and worse in chroma than the old
D300. I wondered when I shot night shots if it didn't seem a bit high
for such a new camera. You can see noise in the sky at 100 ISO in
some of the shots I've taken.
Dpreview cut example: 1600 ISO RAWs

http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/133715388

On Wed, 6 Apr 2011 09:46:38 -0700 (PDT), RichA <>
wrote:
> People where so enamoured of the DR, they must have missed this.
> Not the improvement we might have expected. In RAW, noise is
> noticeably worse than the D5000, and worse in chroma than the old
> D300. I wondered when I shot night shots if it didn't seem a bit
high
> for such a new camera. You can see noise in the sky at 100 ISO in
> some of the shots I've taken.
> Dpreview cut example: 1600 ISO RAWs


> http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/133715388

Advice from a reliable and unbiased source. You would be better off
and so would we, if you spent half as much time looking for
meaningful employment.

--
Peter from my Droid

On Apr 6, 8:06*pm, Peter N <photo.maven @fakeverizon.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Apr 2011 09:46:38 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rander3...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > People where so enamoured of the DR, they must have missed this.
> > Not the improvement we might have expected. *In RAW, noise is
> > noticeably worse than the D5000, and worse in chroma than the old
> > D300. *I wondered when I shot night shots if it didn't seem a bit
> high
> > for such a new camera. *You can see noise in the sky at 100 ISO in
> > some of the shots I've taken.
> > Dpreview cut example: *1600 ISO RAWs
> >http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/133715388
>
> Advice from a reliable and unbiased source. You would be better off
> and so would we, if you spent half as much time looking for
> meaningful employment.
>
> --
> Peter from my Droid

Why, I have a job and it isn't internet stalking either.

On Apr 6, 1:23*pm, fl...@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:
> RichA <rander3...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >People where so enamoured of the DR, they must have missed this.
> >Not the improvement we might have expected. *In RAW, noise is
> >noticeably worse than the D5000, and worse in chroma than the old
> >D300. *I wondered when I shot night shots if it didn't seem a bit high
> >for such a new camera. *You can see noise in the sky at 100 ISO in
> >some of the shots I've taken.
>
> Noise in the sky at ISO 100 is a virtual certainty with
> *all* digital cameras! *It's called Photon Noise. *It
> has nothing at all to do with how the camera works, but
> rather thay the little photons don't stay evenly
> separated as they are falling into the bucket.
>
> >Dpreview cut example: *1600 ISO RAWs
>
> Maybe you need to look closer at the DPR data, eh?
>
> >http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/133715388
>
> That appears to be a gross violation of copyright law,
> and probably *something you want to remove before they
> send you threatening letters.

It's no different than using a passage from a book to do a book report
in school an citing the source. There is no commercial interest. Net
nanny.

On Apr 7, 1:21*am, fl...@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:
> RichA <rander3...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Apr 6, 1:23 pm, fl...@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:
> >> RichA <rander3...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >People where so enamoured of the DR, they must have missed this.
> >> >Not the improvement we might have expected. In RAW, noise is
> >> >noticeably worse than the D5000, and worse in chroma than the old
> >> >D300. I wondered when I shot night shots if it didn't seem a bit high
> >> >for such a new camera. You can see noise in the sky at 100 ISO in
> >> >some of the shots I've taken.
>
> >> Noise in the sky at ISO 100 is a virtual certainty with
> > > *all* digital cameras! It's called Photon Noise. It
> >> has nothing at all to do with how the camera works, but
> >> rather thay the little photons don't stay evenly
> >> separated as they are falling into the bucket.
>
> >> >Dpreview cut example: 1600 ISO RAWs
>
> >> Maybe you need to look closer at the DPR data, eh?
>
> >> >http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/133715388
>
> >> That appears to be a gross violation of copyright law,
> >> and probably something you want to remove before they
> >> send you threatening letters.
>
> >It's no different than using a passage from a book to do a book report
> >in school an citing the source. *There is no commercial interest. *Net
> >nanny.
>
> It is a *lot* different. *Are you really that dumb?
> (Okay, that's a dumb question...)
>
> Fair use is using a quote from the book *when* *the* *purpose*
> *is* *to* *analyze* *the* *same* *book*. *

Nonsense. It's often to make an argument or point. Unless you think
every source used for an essay is the target of any said essay.

On Apr 7, 11:10*am, Paul Furman <pa...@-edgehill.net> wrote:
> RichA wrote:
> > People where so enamoured of the DR, they must have missed this.
> > Not the improvement we might have expected. *In RAW, noise is
> > noticeably worse than the D5000, and worse in chroma than the old
> > D300. *I wondered when I shot night shots if it didn't seem a bit high
> > for such a new camera. *You can see noise in the sky at 100 ISO in
> > some of the shots I've taken.
> > Dpreview cut example: *1600 ISO RAWs
>
> >http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/133715388
>
> How does it compare to your GH2?

I don't have a GH2, I borrowed one from a friend to compare them.
http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/d7000_gh2_noise_tests

On 07/04/2011 1:21 AM, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
> RichA<> wrote:
>> On Apr 6, 1:23 pm, fl...@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:
>>> RichA<rander3...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Plus you did not just cite the source, you copied it
> entirely to your own site. A gross violation!
>
> Copyright protection is a seriously important issue to
> all photographers who use the Internet. Having some
> jerk that claims to be a photographer violating
> copyright law doesn't make it any easier for the rest of
> us to protect our own copyrighted materials. You seem
> to be such a jerk.
>
So when DPreview (the site Rich/RichA has so much disdain off) files a
DMCA Notice of Infringement to pBase, what will happen?

On 07/04/2011 10:45 AM, Rich wrote:
>
> Nonsense. It's often to make an argument or point. Unless you think
> every source used for an essay is the target of any said essay.
>
It is bizarre that somebody who claims to be a "photographer" will have
so little respect over © copyrights. I bet if somebody lifted his images
off of pBase and posted them elsewhere, Richard Anderson, would be the
first to fire off a DMCA NOI.

On 07/04/2011 12:21 AM, RichA wrote:
>
> Why, I have a job and it isn't internet stalking either.
>
Rich's job is to hang around in a Toronto Henry's store and take test
shots with every new camera on their shelves.

Mike

On Wed, 6 Apr 2011 21:21:34 -0700 (PDT), RichA <>
wrote:
> On Apr 6, 8:06pm, Peter N <photo.maven @fakeverizon.net> wrote:
> > On Wed, 6 Apr 2011 09:46:38 -0700 (PDT), RichA
<rander3...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > People where so enamoured of the DR, they must have missed this.
> > > Not the improvement we might have expected. In RAW, noise is
> > > noticeably worse than the D5000, and worse in chroma than the
old
> > > D300. I wondered when I shot night shots if it didn't seem a
bit
> > high
> > > for such a new camera. You can see noise in the sky at 100 ISO
in
> > > some of the shots I've taken.
> > > Dpreview cut example: 1600 ISO RAWs
> > >http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/133715388
> >
> > Advice from a reliable and unbiased source. You would be better
off
> > and so would we, if you spent half as much time looking for
> > meaningful employment.
> >
> > --
> > Peter from my Droid


> Why, I have a job and it isn't internet stalking either.

You do remember your own posting?

--
Peter from my Droid