# Anyone else displeased with the D7000's low light performance?



## CaptainNapalm (Jun 22, 2013)

Hey everyone.
I've had my D7000 for quite a while now and I couldn't be happier with it in all departments, except for it's low light performance.  To me, everything up to ISO 1600 is acceptable but unfortunately this doesn't cut it when I'm roaming out and about at night in the City.  Bumping ISO up to 3200 or 6400 makes the photos too noisy and when noise reduction is applied in post processing too much detail is lost for my liking.  I don't mind using a tripod for longer exposures at night for things like Cityscapes and Landscapes but obviously they're not possible when trying to shoot people.  I've seen photo comparisons online on how much better FX sensors are in handling low light situations but I was wondering what everyone else here thought? For those of you who switched from DX to FX (or those who shoot both), just how much better is low light performance of FX at high ISO, for example ISO 6400? I'm considering picking up a D600 just solely for it's low light performance.  After doing some research I conclude I'd be happy with it considering how similar it is to my D7000 which I really like.  Do you guys think I'll be impressed with this camera at high ISO?


----------



## cgipson1 (Jun 22, 2013)

I never had problems with my D7000 even up to 6400 (sometimes even above that). A new full frame will be an improvement... I love my D800 for low light. Keep in mind that you really will need to get rid of ALL your DX glass, and go FX lenses to optimize that FX sensor.

Your main problem is probably that you have no fast, constant aperture lenses, except that 35mm (which I have always considered to be a marginal lens).


----------



## Nikanon (Jun 22, 2013)

I am happy with my D7000 in low low light situations. But then again I shoot mainly with my Nikon 70-200 2.8 VRII or my 50mm 1.8G as well.


----------



## CaptainNapalm (Jun 22, 2013)

cgipson1 said:


> I never had problems with my D7000 even up to 6400 (sometimes even above that). A new full frame will be an improvement... I love my D800 for low light. Keep in mind that you really will need to get rid of ALL your DX glass, and go FX lenses to optimize that FX sensor.
> 
> Your main problem is probably that you have no fast, constant aperture lenses, except that 35mm (which I have always considered to be a marginal lens).



Yeah I realize that about the glass.  I already have the 70-300 which is an FX lens and thinking that if I went the D600 route, I'd grab the 24-70 f/2.8 and I'd be okay for a while until I save up for a real wide angle.  You're right, I don't have fast lenses for night photography, but even with my 35mm I find I have to stop down to about f4 to get the IQ and DOF I'm looking for.  Maybe I'll pick up a fast (good quality) lens first before I decide for sure the D7000 isn't capable of good night pics.  Can you recommend a good lens? Thanks in advance.


----------



## cgipson1 (Jun 22, 2013)

CaptainNapalm said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> > I never had problems with my D7000 even up to 6400 (sometimes even above that). A new full frame will be an improvement... I love my D800 for low light. Keep in mind that you really will need to get rid of ALL your DX glass, and go FX lenses to optimize that FX sensor.
> ...



That DX 35 is a soft lens.. IMO! Even F4 is not enough for that lens to be as sharp as it should be.. ( I know others feel differently). 

The 24-70 2.8 , 70-200 2.8, and the 14-24 2.8.. you can shoot them wide open with gorgeous IQ! Or pick up a 50 1.8 or 1.4, or the new 85 1.8 .... they rock, and are much less expensive!


----------



## CaptainNapalm (Jun 22, 2013)

cgipson1 said:


> CaptainNapalm said:
> 
> 
> > cgipson1 said:
> ...



Thanks for the recommendation.  I'm going to consider grabbing the 24-70 to see how it does on my D7000 and if I'm still having issues at least it will be a good lens to carry over to an FX body.


----------



## KmH (Jun 22, 2013)

The D7000 is now a 1 generation old entry-level DSLR. Plus if you don't control exposure using the ETTR method you're not maximizing the cameras potential.

It wasn't that long ago that ISO 400 was the max for even prosumer grade DSLR's.

Getting a flash unit or 2 is a lot cheaper than getting a different camera body. Plus learning how to use flash opens new creativity doors.


----------



## CaptainNapalm (Jun 22, 2013)

KmH said:


> The D7000 is now a 1 generation old entry-level DSLR. Plus if you don't control exposure using the ETTR method you're not maximizing the cameras potential.
> 
> It wasn't that long ago that ISO 400 was the max for even prosumer grade DSLR's.
> 
> Getting a flash unit or 2 is a lot cheaper than getting a different camera body. Plus learning how to use flash opens new creativity doors.



I realize the D7000 is a bit aged but the ISO performance of the recently released D7100 is not much better, just minimal improvement from what I read.  ETTR method is not easy in practice when taking photos at night.  I tend to under expose my images while shooting RAW in hopes that I can adjust the exposure in post, this allows me to shot at lower ISO's but it has it's drawbacks too.


----------



## KmH (Jun 22, 2013)

http://wwwimages.adobe.com/www.adob...e/en/products/photoshop/pdfs/linear_gamma.pdf

Under exposing digital images is the wrong approach, because of the way luminosity data is distributed in a digital image.
Under exposure reduces the overall amount of data in a digital image and also reduces the overall editing headroom.

Raw files can have *over* exposure *reduced* to a varying degree, but adding exposure almost always makes image noise more visible.

While an over exposed Raw file can have about 2 stops of over exposure corrected, that can only be done if one or two of the 3 color channels is not maxed out at 255.

An even better source for this information is - Attributes of a digital negative - in the front part of - The Digital Negative: Raw Image Processing in Lightroom, Camera Raw, and Photoshop


----------



## CaptainNapalm (Jun 22, 2013)

KmH said:


> http://wwwimages.adobe.com/www.adob...e/en/products/photoshop/pdfs/linear_gamma.pdf
> 
> Under exposing digital images is the wrong approach, because of the way luminosity data is distributed in a digital image.
> Under exposure reduces the overall amount of data in a digital image and also reduces the overall editing headroom.
> ...



Thank you sir.  I'll put that into practice in hopes of improvement.


----------



## Patriot (Jun 22, 2013)

Nope, My D7000 performs as should. I'm even planning on doing some long exposures with my Jeep tonight.


----------



## Mach0 (Jun 22, 2013)

It's all in the method ( for the most part.) Your d7000 should be fine at ISO 1600. Practice ETTR and get some glass. My 35 1.8 barely gets touched but you may want to try to AF fine tune and see how you like it. It may help you get sharper shots at wider apertures.


----------



## Tailgunner (Jun 22, 2013)

cgipson1 said:


> CaptainNapalm said:
> 
> 
> > cgipson1 said:
> ...



Absolutely!

My 50mm 1.8D is like night vision and their dirt cheap. Pick one up and try it out before you go spending $1,000's on a new camera system. The same can be said for the rest of the fast glass, well barring cost. I picked up a used 28-70mm 2.8 and it'sunbelievable. It stays mounted to my D7100 and I don't need anything close to the ISO settings you're mentioning. I would post something but I'm on the road. I've got what appears to be a cool lightning shot using my D3100 & 50mm I'll see about posting next week...no trigger either.


----------



## cptkid (Jun 22, 2013)

I love my d7000 with a 50mm 1.8d on at night. Pick up the 50, you can get one for about 100 bucks.


----------



## SCraig (Jun 22, 2013)

Go shoot some 100 ISO film for a while.  After that you'll always be able to find enough light at ISO 1600.

To answer your question, no.  I'm perfectly content with the low-light performance of my D7000 and I don't even own a fast lens.  The fastest lens I have is an f/2.8 17-70 zoom.


----------



## goodguy (Jun 22, 2013)

I guess it depends how much of a pixel peeper you are.
I used my camera a lot in Chicago at night, my ISO was most of the time on 3200ISO and few times on 6400ISO, this was the test and for me and my D7000 passed with flying colours.
I was very happy with it in 3200ISO and even the 6400ISO were very impressive (even though usually I will try not to go above 3200ISO).

I am sure the D600 will be an improvement in this department and that's why in the future when I am ready to upgrade my D7000 I will go full frame.


----------



## Nikanon (Jun 22, 2013)

These 2 photos were taken at Disneyland while on the Pirates of the Caribbean ride (No Flash). For those of you who have been on this ride knows it's extremely dark down there.

*ISO 4000
*


*ISO 6400*


These were shot with my 50mm 1.8G not too shabby for my first time (I Think)...


----------



## scaryloud (Jun 22, 2013)

I had the D7000 and performance in low light was 'eh' until I stepped up the the Nikon 17-55 2.8.  Good glass equals good performance.  I too ditched the 35mm but mainly due to bokeh performance...miserable.  I opted for the 40mm micro.  A full stop slower but substantially sharper and creamy bokeh.  I currently use the D7100.  I stuck with DX due to zoom benefits with wildlife and such.  FX will give you inherently better low light, but I have little complaints with my current setup.


----------



## Tailgunner (Jun 22, 2013)

scaryloud said:


> I had the D7000 and performance in low light was 'eh' until I stepped up the the Nikon 17-55 2.8.  Good glass equals good performance.  I too ditched the 35mm but mainly due to bokeh performance...miserable.  I opted for the 40mm micro.  A full stop slower but substantially sharper and creamy bokeh.  I currently use the D7100.  I stuck with DX due to zoom benefits with wildlife and such.  FX will give you inherently better low light, but I have little complaints with my current setup.



The 17-55mm 2.8 is nice...and there is a used one in the FS section.


----------



## orb9220 (Jun 22, 2013)

*CaptainNapalm* 



> To me, everything up to ISO 1600 is acceptable but unfortunately this  doesn't cut it when I'm roaming out and about at night in the City.   Bumping ISO up to 3200 or 6400 makes the photos too noisy and when noise  reduction is applied in post processing too much detail is lost for my  liking.





> I tend to under expose my images while shooting RAW in hopes that I can adjust the exposure in post, this allows me to shot at lower ISO's but it has it's drawbacks too.



Second statement explains why you have problems stated in the first statement. 
Irregardless if the lens you have is or isn't fast enough.
The secret to minimize noise is to nail the exposure. 
Any underexposure will translate to noise. 
So nailing exposure is the first step whether lens,flash or tripod. 

I have seen many clean 6400 iso on the D7000 as a result of them nailing exposure. 
And as mentioned even higher is usable with apply the right amount of NR. 
Many don't spend enough time with there post processing programs and learn to use them properly. Instead just sliding sliders around until it looks right with no real understanding what is happening to the image and the why's. Which often times results in over-sharpened or over-saturated images.
.


----------



## CaptainNapalm (Jun 23, 2013)

Patriot said:


> Nope, My D7000 performs as should. I'm even planning on doing some long exposures with my Jeep tonight.



Long exposures are not my issue, high ISO (short) exposures are my issues


----------



## CaptainNapalm (Jun 23, 2013)

Mach0 said:


> It's all in the method ( for the most part.) Your d7000 should be fine at ISO 1600. Practice ETTR and get some glass. My 35 1.8 barely gets touched but you may want to try to AF fine tune and see how you like it. It may help you get sharper shots at wider apertures.



I'm happy with my D7000 up to and including ISO 1600, it's the 3200 and higher ISO that really bothers me.  My 35mm 1.8m is fine tuned already and still I need to stop this lens down quite a bit before I get the DOF and IQ i'm looking for.  Maybe I'll try another fast lens i.e. 50mm


----------



## CaptainNapalm (Jun 23, 2013)

orb9220 said:


> *CaptainNapalm*
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I was mistaken.  I figured I was doing myself a favour when I was underexposing while shooting at ISO 1600 rather than correctly exposing at ISO 6400.  I figured I'd end up with cleaner images if I control the exposure in post but what I'm ending up with is noisier photos.  This I'll adjust and see if things improve.


----------



## goodguy (Jun 23, 2013)

I think if you are not 100% happy then you should go for an FX body.
The D600 is an amazing camera, might solve all your problems and today this camera is pretty reasonable refurbished.
I really was looking for a reason to upgrade my D7000 to the D600 but for my newbie needs the D7000 is simply already an overkill.
But as I already stated in few past posts my next camera will be FX.


----------



## SCraig (Jun 23, 2013)

CaptainNapalm said:


> I was mistaken.  I figured I was doing myself a favour when I was underexposing while shooting at ISO 1600 rather than correctly exposing at ISO 6400.  I figured I'd end up with cleaner images if I control the exposure in post but what I'm ending up with is noisier photos.  This I'll adjust and see if things improve.



Read This Article on Luminous Landscape's site. It explains everything and I think you'll gain a much better idea of why you are having issues.  Exposing to the right side of the histogram makes a huge difference in the final exposure, especially in low light and/or high ISO.  Youhave to keep an eye on the histogram and the "Highlight Blinkies" to make sure you aren't blowing highlights but it is most assuredly worth the effort and I think it will solve a lot of your problems.


----------



## kathyt (Jun 23, 2013)

It is a Nikon. Upgrades are available at Canon U.S.A., Inc. Or you could try disposablecameras.com for another upgrade option. Sorry, it is like dangling a steak in front of a lion.


----------



## pixmedic (Jun 23, 2013)

kathythorson said:


> It is a Nikon. Upgrades are available at Canon U.S.A., Inc. Or you could try disposablecameras.com for another upgrade option. Sorry, it is like dangling a steak in front of a lion.



except....this
http://petapixel.com/2012/04/24/low...-canon-5d-mark-ii-5d-mark-iii-and-nikon-d800/

the only thing i found a little odd, was the D800 falls apart at the 12k ISO mark. 
meh, guess you cant have everything. but whos shooting that high anyway.


----------



## kathyt (Jun 23, 2013)

pixmedic said:


> kathythorson said:
> 
> 
> > It is a Nikon. Upgrades are available at Canon U.S.A., Inc. Or you could try disposablecameras.com for another upgrade option. Sorry, it is like dangling a steak in front of a lion.
> ...


User error. ^^^ Gotta go.....I have to go dust off my camera of the year trophy.


----------



## D-B-J (Jun 23, 2013)

The only problem with this.. you may find that 24mm is really not wide enough for a crop sensor.  I had a 28mm prime on my d7000, and i hated it.  I'm moving to the 17mm range, which is a little better for the crop sensor.



CaptainNapalm said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> > CaptainNapalm said:
> ...


----------



## pixmedic (Jun 23, 2013)

kathythorson said:


> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> > kathythorson said:
> ...



Interestingly enough, nikon took several "camera of the year"  awards.  D4 and D800 received camera of the yesr 2012-2013 from EISA and TIPA.  EISA also named the D4 "best professional camera"  2012-2013.

Guess someone was bound to throw canon a bone.


----------



## CaptainNapalm (Jun 23, 2013)

goodguy said:


> I think if you are not 100% happy then you should go for an FX body.
> The D600 is an amazing camera, might solve all your problems and today this camera is pretty reasonable refurbished.
> I really was looking for a reason to upgrade my D7000 to the D600 but for my newbie needs the D7000 is simply already an overkill.
> But as I already stated in few past posts my next camera will be FX.



Ill try toying with fast lenses first and ETTR first before venturing off to FX. But the d600 is tempting


----------



## CaptainNapalm (Jun 23, 2013)

SCraig said:


> Read This Article on Luminous Landscape's site. It explains everything and I think you'll gain a much better idea of why you are having issues.  Exposing to the right side of the histogram makes a huge difference in the final exposure, especially in low light and/or high ISO.  Youhave to keep an eye on the histogram and the "Highlight Blinkies" to make sure you aren't blowing highlights but it is most assuredly worth the effort and I think it will solve a lot of your problems.



Thank you sir. Ill have a look.


----------



## CaptainNapalm (Jun 23, 2013)

kathythorson said:


> It is a Nikon. Upgrades are available at Canon U.S.A., Inc. Or you could try disposablecameras.com for another upgrade option. Sorry, it is like dangling a steak in front of a lion.



Hahaha funny.


----------



## SCraig (Jun 23, 2013)

CaptainNapalm said:


> Ill try toying with fast lenses first and ETTR first before venturing off to FX. But the d600 is tempting


Before you trade compare the actual numbers between the two.  Just a word to the wise


----------



## KmH (Jun 23, 2013)

CaptainNapalm said:


> SCraig said:
> 
> 
> > Read This Article on Luminous Landscape's site. It explains everything and I think you'll gain a much better idea of why you are having issues.  Exposing to the right side of the histogram makes a huge difference in the final exposure, especially in low light and/or high ISO.  Youhave to keep an eye on the histogram and the "Highlight Blinkies" to make sure you aren't blowing highlights but it is most assuredly worth the effort and I think it will solve a lot of your problems.
> ...


Look at this Luminous Landscape page too - Optimizing Exposure


----------



## kathyt (Jun 23, 2013)

CaptainNapalm said:


> kathythorson said:
> 
> 
> > It is a Nikon. Upgrades are available at Canon U.S.A., Inc. Or you could try disposablecameras.com for another upgrade option. Sorry, it is like dangling a steak in front of a lion.
> ...


 Just a little light hearted camera banter.


----------



## pixmedic (Jun 23, 2013)

kathythorson said:


> CaptainNapalm said:
> 
> 
> > kathythorson said:
> ...



we try not to take things TOO seriously around here.


----------



## Derrel (Jun 23, 2013)

The 5D III versus D800 comparison that Fred Miranda did, using the same,exact Zeiss Distagon 21mm f/2.8 prime lens on both a 5D-II and a D800  via lens adapter showed Canon's dirty little secret: horrible color noise and significant pattern noise in the shadows. This is probably due to canon's outdated sensor fabrication technology, which uses old .5 micron technology, and on-chip A/D conversion. Nikon's using .18 micron sensor technology these days, so they simply have newer, better sensor technology, and also better image processing technology. We must remember, even an entry-level Nikon D3200 has 24 megapixels now...Canon cannot top that in any model they have ever introduced-at any price point... and Canon is still stuck on their 18-megapixel sensor developed back in 2009...they just keep regurgitating that same, tired old sensor in model after model these days.

Part II - Controlled tests

Pretty embarrassing for the Canon engineers in Japan, I'll bet.


----------



## Patriot (Jun 23, 2013)

Jeep_Night 7 by Jarrett_Hunt, on Flickr

I think my D7000 did well here. Once you learn how to use it then the performance will be great.


----------



## CaptainNapalm (Jun 23, 2013)

Patriot said:


> http://www.flickr.com/photos/jhuntphotography/9116086438/
> Jeep_Night 7 by Jarrett_Hunt, on Flickr
> 
> I think my D7000 did well here. Once you learn how to use it then the performance will be great.



I agree this is a nice pic. Im fine with my d7000 taking pics at night of static objects. In fact i have many of cityscapes. It's taking pics of people where I'm struggling with where shutter speed has to be at least 1/50 of a second.  I'm guessing your shutter was much slower than that.


----------



## jake337 (Jun 23, 2013)

CaptainNapalm said:


> Hey everyone.
> I've had my D7000 for quite a while now and I couldn't be happier with it in all departments, except for it's low light performance.  To me, everything up to ISO 1600 is acceptable but unfortunately this doesn't cut it when I'm roaming out and about at night in the City.  Bumping ISO up to 3200 or 6400 makes the photos too noisy and when noise reduction is applied in post processing too much detail is lost for my liking.  I don't mind using a tripod for longer exposures at night for things like Cityscapes and Landscapes but obviously they're not possible when trying to shoot people.  I've seen photo comparisons online on how much better FX sensors are in handling low light situations but I was wondering what everyone else here thought? For those of you who switched from DX to FX (or those who shoot both), just how much better is low light performance of FX at high ISO, for example ISO 6400? I'm considering picking up a D600 just solely for it's low light performance.  After doing some research I conclude I'd be happy with it considering how similar it is to my D7000 which I really like.  Do you guys think I'll be impressed with this camera at high ISO?




Then buy a D4, D3S, D800, or a D800E.



I'm always amazed when people expect flagship performance out of a consumer model........



You gotta pay to play......


----------



## CaptainNapalm (Jun 23, 2013)

jake337 said:


> Then buy a D4, D3S, D800, or a D800E.
> 
> I'm always amazed when people expect flagship performance out of a consumer model........
> 
> You gotta pay to play......



I'm not expecting flagship performance out of my d7000, that's why I was considering upgrading to d600. I have no use to pay a 1200 premium to get a d800


----------



## pixmedic (Jun 23, 2013)

I think you should try some of the techniques mentioned, and exposing properly instead of underexposing on purpose , and THEN take another look at whether you feel you need to upgrade or not.


----------



## Tailgunner (Jun 23, 2013)

Patriot said:


> Jeep_Night 7 by Jarrett_Hunt, on Flickr
> 
> I think my D7000 did well here. Once you learn how to use it then the performance will be great.



Me likey a lot! 

What lens are you using an what where your settings?


----------



## slow231 (Jun 24, 2013)

SCraig said:


> CaptainNapalm said:
> 
> 
> > Ill try toying with fast lenses first and ETTR first before venturing off to FX. But the d600 is tempting
> ...


+1.  I know you say you're displeased with the d7000 noise performance, but what are you comparing it to?  you should at least have some concept of what is reasonable to expect.  You can't expect night-into-day 1/1000" shots with no noise out of any camera.  the d7000 is a generation old but it really is still a good low light performer (comparatively), and you're not going to get a whole lot more out of the newer cameras.  I have both the d7000 and d600.  i didn't really notice all that much difference in noise performance.  fix your technique, fix your processing, get some faster/better glass, use a flash...   there's a lot more significant low hanging fruit that you can address before hopping bodies and expecting miracles.  I've shot entire events (people shots) at iso4000+ on a d7000 (@f3.2).  If you can't make the the d7000 work for you the d600 is not going to save you.


----------



## 12sndsgood (Jun 24, 2013)

I will get into the ISO2000 range at times and have had to go into the ISO 2500 range at a wedding. That is as far as I like to go or for me they start getting to noisy. normally at night if im out shooting it's cars and they are usually static and Ive got lights setup so it's not a huge concern for me.


----------



## Robbo521 (Jun 24, 2013)

my daughter uses our D7000 and sigma 17-50 2.8 at basketball and volleyball games and we push it to its limits.still happy with it.its not my D3s but hey it works for her.


----------



## gregtallica (Jun 25, 2013)

I'm really happy with the high ISO on my 7000, better than I expected honestly.


This was shot at 3200 with my 35mm 1.8 wide open. Not as sharp as I would like, but I'm working on that. It has noise, but I think it's definitely usable noise. Nothing that, to me, really damages the shot. As far as NR, I just played with the slider in LR4 just a little, but didn't put much more into it.


----------



## o hey tyler (Jun 25, 2013)

pixmedic said:


> kathythorson said:
> 
> 
> > It is a Nikon. Upgrades are available at Canon U.S.A., Inc. Or you could try disposablecameras.com for another upgrade option. Sorry, it is like dangling a steak in front of a lion.
> ...



Were we looking at the same video? The D800 was pretty unacceptably noisy at ISO3200. Even noiser than the 5DII.


----------



## shicanebuzz (Jun 26, 2013)

I had used this camera before but the lenses did not give me the exact quality I was looking for so I went for better apertures.


----------



## Onbird (Jun 26, 2013)

slow231 said:


> +1.  I know you say you're displeased with the d7000 noise performance, but what are you comparing it to?  you should at least have some concept of what is reasonable to expect.  You can't expect night-into-day 1/1000" shots with no noise out of any camera.  the d7000 is a generation old but it really is still a good low light performer (comparatively), and you're not going to get a whole lot more out of the newer cameras.  I have both the d7000 and d600.  i didn't really notice all that much difference in noise performance.  fix your technique, fix your processing, get some faster/better glass, use a flash...   there's a lot more significant low hanging fruit that you can address before hopping bodies and expecting miracles.  I've shot entire events (people shots) at iso4000+ on a d7000 (@f3.2).  If you can't make the the d7000 work for you the d600 is not going to save you.



Bang on! Get involved in camera club, take photography courses, these days everyone wants instant gratification. You have to work at it! I hardly ever have to shoot at the real high ISO's ...great response my friend!


----------



## CaptainNapalm (Jun 26, 2013)

slow231 said:


> +1.  I know you say you're displeased with the d7000 noise performance, but what are you comparing it to?  you should at least have some concept of what is reasonable to expect.  You can't expect night-into-day 1/1000" shots with no noise out of any camera.  the d7000 is a generation old but it really is still a good low light performer (comparatively), and you're not going to get a whole lot more out of the newer cameras.  I have both the d7000 and d600.  i didn't really notice all that much difference in noise performance.  fix your technique, fix your processing, get some faster/better glass, use a flash...   there's a lot more significant low hanging fruit that you can address before hopping bodies and expecting miracles.  I've shot entire events (people shots) at iso4000+ on a d7000 (@f3.2).  If you can't make the the d7000 work for you the d600 is not going to save you.



Actually not so. Yesterday I borrowed my coworkers D600 and shot with it all night and the low light performance was amazing,
Much better than that of my d7000. I compared shots side by side and the difference is huge at Anything over 1600 ISO.  Seems like in my case the body does make a difference.
Picking one up this weekend.


----------



## goodguy (Jun 26, 2013)

CaptainNapalm said:


> slow231 said:
> 
> 
> > +1. I know you say you're displeased with the d7000 noise performance, but what are you comparing it to? you should at least have some concept of what is reasonable to expect. You can't expect night-into-day 1/1000" shots with no noise out of any camera. the d7000 is a generation old but it really is still a good low light performer (comparatively), and you're not going to get a whole lot more out of the newer cameras. I have both the d7000 and d600. i didn't really notice all that much difference in noise performance. fix your technique, fix your processing, get some faster/better glass, use a flash... there's a lot more significant low hanging fruit that you can address before hopping bodies and expecting miracles. I've shot entire events (people shots) at iso4000+ on a d7000 (@f3.2). If you can't make the the d7000 work for you the d600 is not going to save you.
> ...



I always read here on the forum when people ask if to buy this camera or that lens, people reply in a question "Is your equipment limiting you ?"

I think for you the D7000 capable as it is really limits you so I think you are doing the right thing.

Good luck on your new camera and please do share with us how you like it.

Enjoy it


----------

