This looks very good http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond7000/page17.asp
kind of makes me envy nikon shooters as i lighten up shadows very often in my pics. It seems there is still a lot of room for improvement in aps-c sensors
Now imagine such a new sensor with a little less pixels e.g. 10MP.
What a low light wonder would that be?
But still amazing what Nikon sqeezes out of these 16MP.
I think Nikon did some good engineering in terms of readout noise. Checking the other test shots and graphics, I must say the high ISO results with that much DR and good color reproduction is very impressive...
I'm already curious about the successor of D300s after seeing such a performance from D7000.
Serkan
it's a nice camera but the sensor is the same 16MP sensor as used in several current models from different makers. The D7000 of course but also the Sony A55 and the Pentax K5. Also it will likely be the same sensor used in the A580. So Sony came up with a very good sensor that each camera brand can adapt the body's firmware and hardware to get some pretty impressive results. It has and will be interesting to sit back and watch who gets what out of the sensor as they all shake out their final bugs from the early adopter production runs and the A580 is actually released.
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1036&message=36884822
[url="http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/en/Camera-Sensor/Compare-sensors/(appareil1)/676%7C0/(appareil2)/680%7C0/(appareil3)/675%7C0/(onglet)/0/(brand)/Pentax/(brand2)/Nikon/(brand3)/Sony"]Here are the DxO comparisons for the current three[/url]
They are all really close, save the A55 did not seem as "tuned up" for the DxO testing methods as the Nikon and Pentax bodies. But it's nice they all look to be delivering excellent results for whatever brand you are invested in glass wise.
genotypewriter
Unregistered
[quote name='deroppi' timestamp='1291223264' post='4661']
Now imagine such a new sensor with a little less pixels e.g. 10MP.
What a low light wonder would that be?
[/quote]
Well, since there's no such camera, the next best thing is to resize the images down... which pretty much has the same effect. Also because of the inefficiency of Bayer sensors, the larger image that's resized down will have more information (real resolution, not pixel dimensions) than the image that came from a less-MP sensor, even if they both have the exact pixel dimensions. Which means, for example, you can resize a 16MP image from a 16MP sensor down to less than 10MPs and still end up having the same detail as a 10MP image that came from a 10MP sensor.
Oh, and Nikon is known to perform NR on the Raw files...
http://forum.photozone.de/index.php?/topic/162-how-does-nikon-do-it/
It's sad how everyone's so caught up with noise figures these days but no one bothers to measure how much detail they're getting... especially when the sensors are so different.
GTW
[quote name='genotypewriter' timestamp='1291267660' post='4671']
Oh, and Nikon is known to perform NR on the Raw files...
http://forum.photozone.de/index.php?/topic/162-how-does-nikon-do-it/
[/quote]
So what? It seems to be either the best or one of the best aps-c sensors on the market. It seems to strike a very nice balance between noise and resoultion. Thats what counts. I really dont care which engineering trick helps the camera to its performance as long as the output is good.And in this case it seeems better than expected.
genotypewriter
Unregistered
[quote name='PuxaVida' timestamp='1291276117' post='4674']
I agree with the part regarding the obsessive noise peepers. But don't you think that 16.2mp for a 1.5 cropped sensor is good enough with that much resolution and DR even at higher ISOs like 800 - 1600? Apart from the FF bodies, I believe having such kind of cropped sensors in the market is a good thing.[/quote]
Didn't mean to say that it's not a good camera for a lot of people... was just commenting on how resolution should also be considered when looking at noise because they go hand-in-hand.
[quote name='PuxaVida' timestamp='1291276117' post='4674']
I don't know who doesn't adjust the raw data before it is saved to the card. According to my readings from Thom Hogan;[/quote]
IMO, Hogan is a joker... all that he and guys like that digilloyd do is publish their personal diary pages and not stuff that has much meaning to anyone else. I mean I just opened up [url="http://www.bythom.com/nikond700review.htm"]Hogan's D700 review[/url] and this is what I mean:
"I needed to do some shooting with it in the wild first ;~)."
"Nikon did me a favor"
"the more I looked at ... the more I realized that I had..."
"So I do have a few things to write about, after all"
"I don't always see in my ..."
"I really dislike someone moving my cheese, and Nikon has once again moved cheese,"
"But here's the way I see it..."
"If I were shooting sports..."
"If I were shooting all day..."
"I really don't need to repeat myself..."
"So when I say ... I mean it."
"I want a way to configure everything on the camera "
"It's a good thing I don't give marks for..."
"I think it's also time..."
"I expected..."
"I was pleasantly surprised to find that I could usually..."
"I use the words can be because you really need..."
"I clearly get..."
"The way I shoot..."
"I get around..."
"I've now got..."
"But in general I find..."
"... with more saturation than I like"
"In general, I see accurate..."
"I much prefer..."
"which is why I say limit your use of Auto"
"I suppose you want to see a photo, right? Okay, here are two photos,..."
"I use it next to the white Lego building" <-- dumb test subject alert
"I will note that my D700 is not quite..."
"I start with..."
"I said almost."
"If I really work at it, I can..."
"I find problematic."
"I can usually..."
"so I don't fear..."
"Which would I pick?"
"There are basically four scenarios in which I shoot:"
"That's all I really need."
"But I suspect that eventually" <-- can't go wrong with that now can you?
"I need..."
"...if I need it"
"I don't usually need..."
"... if I had a ..."
"I shoot wide a lot"
"... that has me smiling slightly ..."
"which is a bit low for me "
"But you're not me. You're you."
"Trust me, they're worth it."
Not sure why anyone reads his sentimental drivel for anything more than amusement, because that's what it's only valid for, sorry.
genotypewriter
Unregistered
[quote name='jenbenn' timestamp='1291278010' post='4676']
So what? It seems to be either the best or one of the best aps-c sensors on the market. It seems to strike a very nice balance between noise and resoultion. Thats what counts. I really dont care which engineering trick helps the camera to its performance as long as the output is good.And in this case it seeems better than expected.
[/quote]
Sure, it's good but "best" depends on what one needs to do. If it's a P&S that one needs, Nikon caters to that market ranging from the Dxxxx range to the Dx range. If one needs the maximum control because they know what they're doing, then raw shouldn't be cooked to anyone's liking because it can't be reversed/uncooked.
It's the same with most other areas too... for example there are such things as [url="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?Ns=p_PRICE_2%7C1&ci=8617&N=4294550597"]professional studio monitor speakers[/url] because they produce an output that's most linear/faithful to the recorded signal. They bring out all the ugly things recorded in a track too and so a sound-engineer can work on their piece/track as they choose to do. If you want something that just sounds nice you can go and get any of the other nice [url="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?Ns=p_PRICE_2%7C1&ipp=25&ci=2518&N=4294544049"]home entertainment speakers[/url] that add their own colour to the sound.
GTW
[quote name='genotypewriter' timestamp='1291280889' post='4680']Not sure why anyone reads his sentimental drivel for anything more than amusement, because that's what it's only valid for, sorry.
[/quote]
Well, I guess it's the same reason why people read Chuck Norris Ken Rockwell or watch Top Gear - sometimes personal experience / opinion gives you much more than charts.
