Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

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

Reply
Thread Tools

Nikon D7000 noise is considerable

 
 
Peter N
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-07-2011
On Thu, 07 Apr 2011 13:08:58 -0400, Mike Stand <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:
> 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.


If his photography skills are anything like his discussion skills,
who would want to.

--
Peter from my Droid
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Rich
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-07-2011
On Apr 7, 1:08*pm, Mike Stand <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> 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.


It's already happened. Someone took an image off it to do sales on
Ebay.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Rich
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-07-2011
On Apr 7, 1:06*pm, Mike Stand <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> 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?


I'll wonder which Eddie Haskell clone in this group when crying to
them like a little baby.
But I'll take the image down. Truth is, snippets off groups are just
another form of advertising that benefits those groups.
 
Reply With Quote
 
ScotchBright
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


The D3s is a super low noise camera though, and the D3x has a
very low noise sensor too, which actually beats some really high end
cameras from Hasselblad.

I'm surprised at this. I have a D3000 and there's no
noticeable noise at 100 ISO. It's good up to at least 400 ISO
according to what I've read, although I haven't specifically tested it
at that level.

I have taken some shots with it in the 100 iso range that
certainly don't show noise though, and it's markedly less expensive
than the D7000.
 
Reply With Quote
 
RichA
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-12-2011
On Apr 8, 7:05*am, Neil Ellwood <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:
> On Thu, 07 Apr 2011 13:08:58 -0400, Mike Stand wrote:
> > 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.

>
> Why would ANYONE lift one of his images (if they even recognised them for
> what they are)?
>
> --
> Neil
> Linux counter 335851
> delete l and reverse r anda


I guess they figured since it was made with the camera they were
selling, and it was impressive (to them) it would help them sell said
camera.
 
Reply With Quote
 
RichA
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-12-2011
On Apr 9, 6:52*am, Bruce <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> RichA <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >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

>
> If your D7000 is really as bad as you claim (as a D7000 user I find
> them slightly difficult to take seriously) you should take it back for
> a refund and wait until Panasonic GH2 bodies are available again.
>
> You know it makes sense.


How bad did I say the noise was? I said "considerable" (compared to
current cameras) and said nothing about it being "bad."
 
Reply With Quote
 
RichA
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-12-2011
On Apr 8, 7:05*am, Neil Ellwood <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:
> On Thu, 07 Apr 2011 13:08:58 -0400, Mike Stand wrote:
> > 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.

>
> Why would ANYONE lift one of his images (if they even recognised them for
> what they are)?
>
> --
> Neil
> Linux counter 335851
> delete l and reverse r anda


I never make any claims to fame regarding my photos. But I wouldn't
mind a link to yours.
 
Reply With Quote
 
John Turco
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-28-2011
"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:


<edited for brevity>

> >> > 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.


Yes, I quite agree..."gross violation" is an apt description
of Richard Anderson, himself.

> > 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...)


In his case, it's a rhetorical one, too.

> Fair use is using a quote from the book *when* *the* *purpose*
> *is* *to* *analyze* *the* *same* *book*. If on the other hand
> you went to the library and found someone else's review and
> lifted any significant amount about that book... it would not
> be legal. Commercial interest has little if any significance
> on whether it is a violation, but might be important in
> determining damages due the owner.
>
> Plus you did not just cite the source, you copied it entirely
> to your own site. A gross violation!


Rich has no regard for such trivial matters, as copyright laws.

> 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.


Why are you insulting all of the fine "jerks" of the world,
by associating them with Rich?

--
Cordially,
John Turco <(E-Mail Removed)>

Marie's Musings <http://fairiesandtails.blogspot.com>
 
Reply With Quote
 
John Turco
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-28-2011
Mike Stand wrote:

<edited for brevity>

> So when DPreview (the site Rich/RichA has so much disdain
> off) files a DMCA Notice of Infringement to pBase, what
> will happen?



Nothing at all. They'll quickly learn that Richard Anderson
is only an impoverished Toronto garbage collector, before
moving on to bigger game.

--
Cordially,
John Turco <(E-Mail Removed)>

Marie's Musings <http://fairiesandtails.blogspot.com>
 
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