Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2011/08/13
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Thanks Jay, I'm sure we will have fun. I am amazed to discover that I won't have a battery charger back up from you D700 guys. Nikon make sure every camera has its own unique set of accessories ;-) Still I'm sure we will be trying out different bodies and I'm really keen to see if my 300 is anywhere near the money compared with your 200-400 zoom. Cheers Alastair > 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 >> > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >