Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2011/08/13

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: [Leica] Thinking about a D700 or D7000 long reply IMGs
From: jayanand at gmail.com (Jayanand Govindaraj)
Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2011 09:59:55 +0530
References: <4E45FE06.7030307@threshinc.com> <18c294c85ec2a5bdf1de183863944bef.squirrel@emailmg.globat.com>

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
>


Replies: Reply from afirkin at afirkin.com (afirkin at afirkin.com) ([Leica] Thinking about a D700 or D7000 long reply IMGs)
Reply from imagist3 at mac.com (George Lottermoser) ([Leica] Thinking about a D700 or D7000 long reply IMGs)
In reply to: Message from pklein at threshinc.com (Peter Klein) ([Leica] Thinking about a D700 or D7000)
Message from afirkin at afirkin.com (afirkin at afirkin.com) ([Leica] Thinking about a D700 or D7000 long reply IMGs)