Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2011/08/13
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Alastair, Looking forward to trying your D3s in Kenya! This one is a beauty: http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/Alastair/album184/Technical/D7000FF-2.jpg.html Cheers Jayanand On Sun, Aug 14, 2011 at 9:09 AM, <afirkin at afirkin.com> wrote: > Peter, I bought the D7000 to back up the D3s. In many situations it had > advantages over the D3s, which is again probably on stop better than the > D700. Let me explain. > > I was 'forced' into nikon by the scuttling of the R system and my desire > to continue using an SLR in far away places. I had already risked the DMR > in the Arctic and Antarctic and had 'survived', but I knew that the dusty > conditions of our next venture to Africa would sorely test the Leica: this > was confirmed by Jay and Howard, who simply told me to "forget it". > > Using a DMR R9 I was used to the heaviness of the bigger pro cameras, so I > decided that while I still "could" (read still strong enough) I should at > least replace the wonderful Leica with a similar built/quality beast. > Hence the D3s. It was not easy to get one, especially when the one I > ordered was 'flooded' in the tsunami, but I picked up one second hand > along with new lenses, concentrating on telephotos: 300 f2.8, 70-200 f2.8 > and 24-70 f2.8 (the last one is NOT a favorite lens: great quality, but > very bulky and stripped of VR, which is one of the advantages of Nikon V > the older Leicas). > > So armed with the D3s, I needed a back up: after all that was one of the 5 > reasons to go Nikon. (battery technology, auto/follow focus, VR, dust > control and ongoing system). I looked at the D3x: too expensive, no dust > control, huge files, D700: good price, great camera, slower fps and 'old' > technology (surely due for an upgrade) and the D7000: great price, small, > might convince Helen to use it and fantastic technology. As you know I > also have the M9, a beast of another colour as you know. I chose the > D7000, and am very happy. > > I should say at this point that the Canon system is probably better for > someone wanting to go telephoto hunting for critters in that the cameras > are the right way round. The super fast fps autofocus/follow focus machine > is also the camera with the smaller "magnifying" sensor and the > fantastically priced 5D is full frame with more pixels. My Nikon system > has the full frame 12mp armed with fast fps autofocus etc 'perfect' for > wild life, but boy to get an 800mm lens would be pec destroying, and the > bigger 16mp 1.5x mag sensor on the 'lesser' performance beast, so I've > found myself tempted too often to bolt the D7000 onto the big lenses to > get that extra reach and resolution. > > I will try to post some examples, but overall, the speed features of the > D3s are simply amazing, but the D7000 is not far behind. I do have trouble > with both systems chasing the wrong focus point, but less with the D3s, in > that regard the D7000 can cause you to miss occasional shots, but in some > ways, I also found the focus tracking on the D7000 sometimes seemed better > than the older designed top of the range beast. It certainly had a very > high 'hit' rate when I was shooting birds in flight off a cliff top as I > will show, and the extra resolution and mag factor mean that if I bolt the > 300mm lens with 2x converter, I get a 600mm image on the D3s with 12mp of > wonderful pixels, but 'feel' the temptation of either using only a 1.4 > teleconverter and getting a similar 'reach' not allowing for the extra > enlargement factor of those 16 very very good pixels, or with the 2x > having 900mm equivalent, similar speed autofocus (its in the lens) similar > VR (its in the lens) and the extra 4mp of data to play with in LR. > > I 'think' the pixel data looks slightly better on the D3s, and boy can it > handle low light, but in good light the D7000's pixels look pretty damn > good. For me, there was little hesitation in using the D3s at 6 to 12 > thousand ISO and little hesitation in using the D7000 at 1.6 to 3.2 > thousand ISO: EXAMPLES: > > 1. Full frame from the D3s. I was using the 70-200 with a 1.7tc. This > image is half size, ie 1/4 the pixels to allow comparison with the rest: > view large size. I took 6 to 8 with the D3s, missed a couple of the > smaller birds you will see later and changed to the greater magnification > of the D7000: no issue with light on this day of course. > > http://tinyurl.com/429l2qd > > 2. Full frame with the D7000 now of course with effective 500mm lens. > > http://tinyurl.com/3l2xrae > > 3. Full frame D7000. Smaller faster moving bird. I think the D7000 locked > in on it slightly better than the D3s simply because it took up more of > the frame now that I was using a 500mm equivalent, but remember the lens > is much lighter than it would have been on the FF camera to get the same > 'view'. > > http://tinyurl.com/4xdtknk > > 4. Full frame D7000 just to show it was not luck ;-) I had a very high hit > rate on focus of better than 50% more like 75 > > http://tinyurl.com/443a54f > > 5. Full frame of very fast moving small bird heading east west across my > line of sight: amazing. I have done this with the DMR, but hit rate was > very much lower, and I had to pre-focus -- ie guess the range. > > http://tinyurl.com/3ec6424 > > 6. Here is the same image magnified to show you the degree of > magnification you get by having the extra pixels: ie cropped to be 12mp. > > http://tinyurl.com/3bno78y > > 7. Here the crop is 1/4 the frame to give you some idea of what the sensor > on the D7000 is like. This is not really the 'fairest' example, as the > bird was moving very quickly and there MUST be some movement blurr. Boy VR > is great though: all these were hand held and I think the only real > degradation is due to the minor movement at 1/2500th sec > > http://tinyurl.com/3oaj2jw > > 8. Static subject D3s 1/4 frame ie 3mp interpolated up to match the next > D7000 image. > > http://tinyurl.com/3zl5rt6 > > 9 Same magnification ie 3mp interpolated to 4mp but this time the D3s is > at 1800 ISO as well > > http://tinyurl.com/3fchd98 > > 10. D7000 using quarterframe ie 4mp image static subject reasonable light > > http://tinyurl.com/4x4fdkl > > 11. D7000 using 1/4 frame now in the jungle: its dark and I really needed > the 3200 ISO. Not like those images at high ISO taken in sunshine, where > they always look remarkable: this is the reality. No noise reduction > > http://tinyurl.com/3bnfggp > > 12. Same image with 50% noise reduction. I am not a noise reduction > expert, it was done quick and dirty in LR > > http://tinyurl.com/3bswsgn > > 13. LAST IMAGE: for now. D3s at 3200 ISO when it was really needed. Here > there is no image noise reduction and remember you are looking at 3mp > image ie 1/4 frame interpolated to 4mp > > http://tinyurl.com/3op5u9d > > Tell me what you think > > Alastair > > > > > > > Today I was at Glazer's in Seattle, and had a chance to handle two > > cameras that interest me--the Nikon D700 and D7000. I've long had a bit > > of D700-lust, as it is one of the best available-dark cameras out there. > > I liked the big viewfinder of the D700 But after hefting them both, I > > looked at the D700 and thought, "would you really carry that around > > much?" Hmm--maybe not. Still, the ability to shoot at ISO 3200 like I > > shoot the M8 at 800 is very tempting. > > > > On the other hand, the D7000 seems like a "Goldilocks" camera--a lot > > about it is "just right." It felt good in my hands. The viewfinder is > > not as spacious as the D700, but quite usable. The new sensor (also in > > the Pentax K5) has previously unheard-of performance (for an APS-C > > sensor) in both dynamic range and low light ability. There are buttons > > for the commonly-used functions. The shutter is relatively quiet (the > > D700 is MUCH louder). Dpreview and DXOMark comparisons indicate it might > > have a 1-stop low-light advantage over the M8, compared to the D700's 2 > > stops or more. But that's lab tests. How about in real life? > > > > So... I would be interested in anyone's experience with the D700 and/or > > D7000--particularly those who can compare it to the M8 or M9. I know > > the difference between an SLR and a rangefinder. I'm most interested in > > image quality, handling, and real-world available-dark performance. K5 > > users are welcome to chime in, too. > > > > --Peter > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Leica Users Group. > > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >