[joachim]

Hi there,



Unfortunately this is German only. Saw this one: [url="http://www.magnus.de/testbericht/nikon-d7000-rueckschritt-1036283.html"]http://www.magnus.de...tt-1036283.html[/url]

German magazin ColorFoto, recommends buying a Nikon D90 over the D7000, because of "noise". Looking what other sites say and show, I am just left scratching my head. E.g. a side-by-side shoot out of JPEG is available at the bottom of [url="http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Nikon_D7000/noise_JPEG.shtml"]http://www.cameralab...oise_JPEG.shtml[/url]



I am wondering whether this is another example of a lab test, which has little to do with what people perceive from the photos <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wacko.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />. --- Just to make it clear: I am not referring to photozone testing here ---

[Guest]

[quote name='joachim' timestamp='1291760052' post='4849']

Hi there,



Unfortunately this is German only. Saw this one: [url="http://www.magnus.de/testbericht/nikon-d7000-rueckschritt-1036283.html"]http://www.magnus.de...tt-1036283.html[/url]

German magazin ColorFoto, recommends buying a Nikon D90 over the D7000, because of "noise". Looking what other sites say and show, I am just left scratching my head. E.g. a side-by-side shoot out of JPEG is available at the bottom of [url="http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Nikon_D7000/noise_JPEG.shtml"]http://www.cameralab...oise_JPEG.shtml[/url]



I am wondering whether this is another example of a lab test, which has little to do with what people perceive from the photos <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wacko.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />. --- Just to make it clear: I am not referring to photozone testing here ---

[/quote]



sometimes I have the impression colorfoto and fotogmagazin(the rival magazine)test only to contradict the result of the other. Anyhow, I wouldnt give a fiddlers fart about this. SO far there hasnt been a new dslr that was worse than its predecessor. Sometimes advances in image quality were small to none existant, but I cant remeber any manufacturar taking a step backwards.



Honestly there is only one reliable way of comapring two cameras with differnt MP numbers: Print the picures at the same large size. Only then you can tell to what extent more MP might cancel out additional noise introduced by them, if any. Only from prints of comparable size resolution differnces and be judged in a PRACTICALLY MEANINGFUL way. 100%-on-screen-views show images at different sizes if the MP count is different. Please somebody help those measurbators come to conscience and do their tests for photographers not for computer geeks.



Regarding the D7000: Having worked with a .nef real life sample file from dpreview in PS CS5 I can say that the low iso shadow noise of the D7000 is truly astounding. You can almost infinately lighten up the shadows without any noise of relevant proportion becoming visible. This is actually close to if not equal to my 5d Mark II.



Edit:

I just realized that colorfoto tested only jpg files. It is quite possible that Nikon has taken some bad decisions and distroyed their good raw output by too much NR. This needs to be investigated.

[Brightcolours]

Colorfoto's test of "noise" always has been "wank", and especially when they redesigned the testing "methods" a few years back it has gotten worse.



They test JPEG, they do NOT look at if there has been done any NR, and what that means to still achievable image quality. In short: Color Foto's measuring of noise in particular and IQ in general is a joke and has been a joke for a long time.

And that is not just with recent DSLR tests, it has been that way for eons.



I do like their lens tests, although you do have to learn how to read them in order to get a real idea about the lenses.



Their big rival, Foto Magazin, is not much better in testing the performance/quality of the image data, though.

[joachim]

Hi,



Thanks for discussing with me. I used to like the magazin a lot when I was younger. We are speaking the early 80ies. In the 90ies had developed a know it better attitude which I couldn't stand. I perceive their writing style as patronising. When moving to Britain I enjoyed the British publications much more. They convened a enthusiasm about photography, which CF is just lacking. Cameras can be used for picture taking <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/ohmy.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' /> and people manage to take nice images even with cameras CF thinks are not worth buying. When reading that piece about the Nikons I knew nothing has changed. I still don't like them.



Thanks again for your contributions.

Joachim

[genotypewriter]

[quote name='jenbenn' timestamp='1291763537' post='4851']

It is quite possible that Nikon has taken some bad decisions and distroyed their good raw output by too much NR. This needs to be investigated.

[/quote]

Tell me again... are you against or for the cooked RAWs? I'm having trouble figuring out after [url="http://forum.photozone.de/index.php?/topic/513-nikon-d7000/page__view__findpost__p__4689"]what you said before[/url].

[Guest]

[quote name='genotypewriter' timestamp='1291875308' post='4891']

Tell me again... are you against or for the cooked RAWs? I'm having trouble figuring out after [url="http://forum.photozone.de/index.php?/topic/513-nikon-d7000/page__view__findpost__p__4689"]what you said before[/url].

[/quote]

I am talking overcooked JPG files here. If somebody wants to cook raws he may. I am indiffernt to that. I am not a camera moralist. Results count. period.

[genotypewriter]

[quote name='jenbenn' timestamp='1291890992' post='4902']

I am talking overcooked JPG files here. If somebody wants to cook raws he may. I am indiffernt to that. I am not a camera moralist. Results count. period.

[/quote]

Ah... that's where we're different I suppose... I know how to work the camera to get the results <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />



GTW

[Guest]

[quote name='genotypewriter' timestamp='1291938742' post='4915']

Ah... that's where we're different I suppose... I know how to work the camera to get the results <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />



GTW

[/quote]



Ok, just out of curiosity:



1. Some NR at long exposure shots would affect your shooting - how?



2. Would it be visible on prints?



3. Did you actually see the NR effect on the images or you're just referring to the FT analysis of the noise distribution?

[Guest]

[quote name='genotypewriter' timestamp='1291938742' post='4915']

Ah... that's where we're different I suppose... I know how to work the camera to get the results <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />



GTW

[/quote]

Great to havean expert on the forum then.

[Brightcolours]

[quote name='Lomskij' timestamp='1291982182' post='4922']

Ok, just out of curiosity:



1. Some NR at long exposure shots would affect your shooting - how?



2. Would it be visible on prints?



3. Did you actually see the NR effect on the images or you're just referring to the FT analysis of the noise distribution?

[/quote]

First of all, it is NOT about affecting so much, as it is about cheating.



Cheating? Yes, Cheating.



Just read the reviews, rating cameras that filter noise better, while you can achieve better results without the NR (doing NR yourself as needed).



1. How does long exposure NR affect shooting? By... for instance... getting rid of details? By... for instance... messing up photos of the night skies (stars and such)?



2. Of course NR is visible on prints. Take the desaturating NR from the Nikon D300 for instance. Or simply the removal of details, they do not appear magically back on prints.



3. From what camera?

If you look at the D7000 and K5 results on dpreview next to the 60D results, yes you clearly see an adverse effect from the NR.



It would help to just use one's eyes..