Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Nikon D7000 noise is considerable

Reply
Thread Tools

Nikon D7000 noise is considerable

 
 
RichA
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-06-2011
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
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Peter N
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-07-2011
On Wed, 6 Apr 2011 09:46:38 -0700 (PDT), RichA <(E-Mail Removed)>
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
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
RichA
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-07-2011
On Apr 6, 8:06*pm, Peter N <photo.maven @fakeverizon.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Apr 2011 09:46:38 -0700 (PDT), RichA <(E-Mail Removed)>
> 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.
 
Reply With Quote
 
RichA
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-07-2011
On Apr 6, 1:23*pm, (E-Mail Removed) (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:
> RichA <(E-Mail Removed)> 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.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Rich
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-07-2011
On Apr 7, 1:21*am, (E-Mail Removed) (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:
> RichA <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >On Apr 6, 1:23 pm, (E-Mail Removed) (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:
> >> RichA <(E-Mail Removed)> 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.
 
Reply With Quote
 
RichA
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-07-2011
On Apr 7, 11:10*am, Paul Furman <(E-Mail Removed)> 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
 
Reply With Quote
 
Mike Stand
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-07-2011
On 07/04/2011 1:21 AM, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
> RichA<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> On Apr 6, 1:23 pm, (E-Mail Removed) (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:
>>> RichA<(E-Mail Removed)> 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?


 
Reply With Quote
 
Mike Stand
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-07-2011
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.



 
Reply With Quote
 
Mike Stand
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-07-2011
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
 
Reply With Quote
 
Peter N
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-07-2011
On Wed, 6 Apr 2011 21:21:34 -0700 (PDT), RichA <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:
> On Apr 6, 8:06pm, Peter N <photo.maven @fakeverizon.net> wrote:
> > On Wed, 6 Apr 2011 09:46:38 -0700 (PDT), RichA

<(E-Mail Removed)>
> > 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
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Pentax's ugly K-01 camera bests Nikon's D7000 for noise control RichA Digital Photography 4 05-22-2012 09:29 PM
Nikon sub-enthusiast (D7000) level sensor flaws? RichA Digital Photography 0 12-03-2010 07:34 PM
Nikon D7000 first pics Eddy Digital Photography 4 11-07-2010 06:33 PM
The Nikon D90 is dead. Long live the Nikon D7000! Bruce Digital Photography 9 09-27-2010 02:09 PM
$& imposes a considerable performance penalty they say Dan Jacobson Perl Misc 5 11-09-2004 02:39 PM



Advertisments