Nikon D7000 noise is considerable

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by RichA, Apr 6, 2011.

  1. RichA

    RichA Guest

    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
    RichA, Apr 6, 2011
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. RichA

    Peter N Guest

    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
    Peter N, Apr 7, 2011
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. RichA

    RichA Guest

    On Apr 6, 8:06 pm, Peter N <photo.maven @fakeverizon.net> wrote:
    > 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


    Why, I have a job and it isn't internet stalking either.
    RichA, Apr 7, 2011
    #3
  4. RichA

    RichA Guest

    On Apr 6, 1:23 pm, (Floyd L. Davidson) 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.

    >
    > 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.
    RichA, Apr 7, 2011
    #4
  5. RichA

    Rich Guest

    On Apr 7, 1:21 am, (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:
    > RichA <> wrote:
    > >On Apr 6, 1:23 pm, (Floyd L. Davidson) 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.

    >
    > >> 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.
    Rich, Apr 7, 2011
    #5
  6. RichA

    RichA Guest

    On Apr 7, 11:10 am, Paul Furman <> 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
    RichA, Apr 7, 2011
    #6
  7. RichA

    Mike Stand Guest

    On 07/04/2011 1:21 AM, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
    > RichA<> wrote:
    >> On Apr 6, 1:23 pm, (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:
    >>> RichA<> 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?
    Mike Stand, Apr 7, 2011
    #7
  8. RichA

    Mike Stand Guest

    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.
    Mike Stand, Apr 7, 2011
    #8
  9. RichA

    Mike Stand Guest

    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
    Mike Stand, Apr 7, 2011
    #9
  10. RichA

    Peter N Guest

    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

    <>
    > > 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
    Peter N, Apr 7, 2011
    #10
  11. RichA

    Peter N Guest

    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.


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

    --
    Peter from my Droid
    Peter N, Apr 7, 2011
    #11
  12. RichA

    Rich Guest

    On Apr 7, 1:08 pm, 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.


    It's already happened. Someone took an image off it to do sales on
    Ebay.
    Rich, Apr 7, 2011
    #12
  13. RichA

    Rich Guest

    On Apr 7, 1:06 pm, Mike Stand <> wrote:
    > On 07/04/2011 1:21 AM, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:> RichA<>  wrote:
    > >> On Apr 6, 1:23 pm, (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:
    > >>> RichA<>  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.
    Rich, Apr 7, 2011
    #13
  14. RichA

    ScotchBright Guest

    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


    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.
    ScotchBright, Apr 7, 2011
    #14
  15. RichA

    RichA Guest

    On Apr 8, 7:05 am, Neil Ellwood <>
    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’ and’a’


    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.
    RichA, Apr 12, 2011
    #15
  16. RichA

    RichA Guest

    On Apr 9, 6:52 am, Bruce <> wrote:
    > RichA <> wrote:
    > >On Apr 7, 11:10 am, Paul Furman <> 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."
    RichA, Apr 12, 2011
    #16
  17. RichA

    RichA Guest

    On Apr 8, 7:05 am, Neil Ellwood <>
    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’ and’a’


    I never make any claims to fame regarding my photos. But I wouldn't
    mind a link to yours.
    RichA, Apr 12, 2011
    #17
  18. RichA

    John Turco Guest

    "Floyd L. Davidson" wrote:
    >
    > > RichA <> wrote:
    > >> On Apr 6, 1:23 pm, (Floyd L. Davidson)
    > >> wrote:
    > >> > RichA <> 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 <>

    Marie's Musings <http://fairiesandtails.blogspot.com>
    John Turco, Apr 28, 2011
    #18
  19. RichA

    John Turco Guest

    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 <>

    Marie's Musings <http://fairiesandtails.blogspot.com>
    John Turco, Apr 28, 2011
    #19
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Bruce

    The Nikon D90 is dead. Long live the Nikon D7000!

    Bruce, Sep 15, 2010, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    661
    Wolfgang Weisselberg
    Sep 27, 2010
  2. Eddy

    Nikon D7000 first pics

    Eddy, Nov 6, 2010, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    392
  3. RichA

    Nikon D7000. Some improvements for the D8000

    RichA, May 9, 2011, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    676
    RichA
    May 9, 2011
  4. RichA

    Is Nikon the old Canon? (D7000)

    RichA, Jul 8, 2011, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    292
    RichA
    Jul 8, 2011
  5. RichA
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    441
    John A.
    May 22, 2012
Loading...

Share This Page