# Excessive Noise on D7000



## kirbym2 (Aug 3, 2011)

Hi All,

Looking for some tips.  I am often restricted to shooting indoors.  For me, this means a relatively dark environment.  I'm often trying to shoot my little one, who makes a habit of crawling away from me at warp speed (tripod is not an option).  I've noticed that when I use any iso above 800 I get an unacceptable level of noise.  I'm no expert in LR or PS, but when I play with noise reduction, the image comes off looking... processed.  

I've heard that one way to combat this problem is selecting a high enough iso to over-expose the photo.  I know by shooting in RAW, exposure isn't too big of a concern (unless I've completely blown out the image).

What's the general consensus here?  Any thoughts on noise with the D7000?  In terms of lens specs, I'm often using my 50mm 1.4 wide open (or pretty close to it).

Thanks!


----------



## mrpink (Aug 3, 2011)

Post an example photo with the EXIF data attached.






p!nK


----------



## Kerbouchard (Aug 3, 2011)

kirbym2 said:


> What's the general consensus here?



That you can't take photos in the dark.  Buy a flash.


----------



## Kerbouchard (Aug 3, 2011)

The real answer is to buy a flash, but here is my 'other' real answer.

Increasing ISO does not increase exposure.  It tells the camera processor to amplify the signal of the analog data that was recorded from your sensor before it converts it to digital data.  Sometimes, increasing ISO will reduce noise because it is sometimes easier to amplify an analog signal instead of a digital signal.  It all depends on the read noise and what the signal to noise ratio is.

My guess, you are using a kit lens with a small max aperture and you are still trying to get 1/60th or faster of a shutter speed.  There just isn't enough light in most houses to do that.  When you try, the inherent noise that is part of your circuitry plays a larger part in the overall signal since there wasn't much of a signal from the light that was recorded.

To reduce noise, you want to maximize your signal to noise ratio.  You do that by increasing the light, increasing the light that is let in by the lens(larger aperture), or increasing the amount of time the sensor has to record the signal(longer shutter speeds).  ISO is merely an amplification of the analog data that is created by those three things.

Basically, pick the slowest shutter speed you can and the largest aperture that you can with as much light in the room as you can.  From there, increase ISO until you get an image that looks like it has the proper exposure.  If the noise is still more than you are willing to deal with, you can buy a better lens that has a larger aperture, or you can buy a flash to add light.

You don't really have any other options than those.


----------



## nickzou (Aug 3, 2011)

kirbym2 said:


> What's the general consensus here?



That the D7000 is the king of crop mountain and has the best ISO performance of DX/APS-C bodies. You need better ISO performance? Next step up is the D700 or the Canon 5D mark II.


----------



## OrionsByte (Aug 3, 2011)

Getting a better exposure when you take the picture will result in less noise than taking an underexposed picture and trying to brighten it up in post. 

Personally, I've shot photos at ISO 1600 with my D7000 and found them pretty acceptable, if not super clean.  If all I did was look at them at 100% magnification I might change my mind, but generally speaking I think the sheer file size makes a little bit of noise less noticeable than it could be.


----------



## D-B-J (Aug 3, 2011)

I've shot at 6400 with my D7000 and been ok with the results.  Please post an example with the exif data, because there should be no excessive noise at that low an iso.


----------



## KmH (Aug 3, 2011)

kirbym2 said:


> Hi All,
> 
> Looking for some tips.  I am often restricted to shooting indoors.  For me, this means a relatively dark environment....


And likely have under exposed photos.

Under exposure makes image noise more visible.

Investigate the exposure technique known as ETTR, or expose-to-the-right, and learn how to read the histogram your camera can display on the rear LCD.  Set your D7000 up so it displays the 3 color channel histogram.


----------



## ghache (Aug 3, 2011)

I have no idea what your doing but i don't even hesitate to shoot my d7000 at iso3200.


----------



## kirbym2 (Aug 4, 2011)

Great feedback all around.  Hand held, my prime lens wide open (50mm 1.4) is still requiring shutter speeds that cause motion blur.  I thought I could offset this by increasing the iso, allowing me to increase shutter speed.  I think the big problem is the exposure... I'm underexposing, and trying to brighten up after the fact.  I'll look into some of the theories recommended and give it another go.  Sorry for not posting an example... not on the home computer at the moment.


----------



## jake337 (Aug 4, 2011)

Heres 1600 with a d90.  It can't be worse than this.


----------



## KmH (Aug 4, 2011)

I recommend you read the following http://www.adobe.com/digitalimag/pdfs/linear_gamma.pdf.

Noise reduction and image sharpening are 2 sides of the same coin. Hopefully you are shooting in Raw and not just JPEG, because JPEG has so much less editing headroom than Raw.

You say you have Lightroom and Photoshop, but don't mention what release levels you have. Of course, both Photoshop Camera Raw and Lightroom use the same edit rendering egine - ACR, so the following 2 books will help with either of them:

Real World Camera Raw with Adobe Photoshop CS5 

Real World Image Sharpening with Adobe Photoshop, Camera Raw, and Lightroom (2nd Edition)

You might also look over this link: Sharpening 101


----------



## Destin (Aug 4, 2011)

Excessive Noise on a D7000 at iso 800? Either your camera is defective, you aren't using it right, or you're the pickiest person I've ever met. 

I'm betting, along with everyone else, that you're underexposing in camera causing the noise to be much more prominent. 


Also, you said that you had to lighten up the images in post.. this can also add noise to the photo, and make the pre-existing noise more visible. Especially if you're shooting .jpg and not Raw.


----------



## ghache (Aug 4, 2011)

This was a test shot of a new lens.


0.04 sec (1/25)
f/2.8
46 mm
iso 3200




0.04 sec (1/25)
f/2.8
46 mm
iso 3200










with no post processing. There is some noise but nothing that makes the pictures non useable.


----------



## Destin (Aug 4, 2011)

ghache said:


> This was a test shot of a new lens.
> 
> 
> 0.04 sec (1/25)f/2.846 mmiso 3200
> ...



I'm sorry, that's effin incredible. My D80 looks worse than that at 400, and not much better at 200.


----------



## jake337 (Aug 4, 2011)

Destin said:


> ghache said:
> 
> 
> > This was a test shot of a new lens.
> ...



If thats incredible, I also can't wait to see the ISO performance of the next line of pro models.


----------



## Derrel (Aug 4, 2011)

nickzou said:


> kirbym2 said:
> 
> 
> > What's the general consensus here?
> ...



Yes, diz-actly!


----------



## ghache (Aug 4, 2011)

jake337 said:


> Destin said:
> 
> 
> > ghache said:
> ...




the next pro line is going to be stupidly sick. even the d300s replacement is going to be sick.


----------



## Destin (Aug 4, 2011)

yeah, I'm kinda scared to see what will be possible the with D700/D3s replacements. 

It's gonna be rifreakingdiculous.


----------



## ghache (Aug 4, 2011)

Destin said:


> yeah, I'm kinda scared to see what will be possible the with D700/D3s replacements.
> 
> It's gonna be rifreakingdiculous.



My mom is already up for sale on kijiji. I am getting ready.


----------



## Destin (Aug 4, 2011)

ghache said:


> Destin said:
> 
> 
> > yeah, I'm kinda scared to see what will be possible the with D700/D3s replacements.
> ...



Hahaha  

Dude, I'm gonna be selling my kidneys, and robbing a bank so I can get my hands on a D4 (or whatever they call it)


----------



## jake337 (Aug 4, 2011)

Destin said:


> ghache said:
> 
> 
> > Destin said:
> ...



It will be easy, instead of your next/first car loan, just get a loan for the camera.  Done deal.


----------



## Destin (Aug 4, 2011)

jake337 said:


> Destin said:
> 
> 
> > ghache said:
> ...



I could do that. Haha good luck getting my dad to co-sign on that though, I'm only 19 and have NO credit yet lol


----------



## ghache (Aug 4, 2011)

well, i decided not to sell my mom.

this is what i have up for sale.

Kidney for sale. - Ottawa objets à vendre - Kijiji Ottawa


----------



## kirbym2 (Aug 8, 2011)

Okay... thought I'd follow up on this thread.  Posting this image, as I took it at ISO 2000.  Very dark lounge type atmosphere - I DID use my flash (lesson learned) .  Exposure clearly key.  Now, obviously not a technically perfect photo, but the excessive noise I was experiencing before doesn't seem to be an issue here.   

Thanks all for the feedback
1.


----------



## cklwilliam (Aug 22, 2011)

I'm actually experience the same problem with my D7000.  the noise on mine is actually really bad imo, wondering if it's a defect.


----------



## cklwilliam (Aug 22, 2011)

cklwilliam said:


> I'm actually experience the same problem with my D7000.  the noise on mine is actually really bad imo, wondering if it's a defect.




here is a screen shot of what I mean


----------



## TheFantasticG (Aug 22, 2011)

Simple solution = don't crop to 100%


----------



## Vtec44 (Aug 22, 2011)

cklwilliam said:


> cklwilliam said:
> 
> 
> > I'm actually experience the same problem with my D7000.  the noise on mine is actually really bad imo, wondering if it's a defect.
> ...



Did you apply any lightening process?


----------



## Kerbouchard (Aug 22, 2011)

Why are you at 1/800th of a second at f/14, and ISO 800 for a subject that isn't moving at a focal length of 32mm?  Just seems like some strange settings for that situation.


----------



## cklwilliam (Aug 22, 2011)

Vtec44 said:


> cklwilliam said:
> 
> 
> > cklwilliam said:
> ...



no, thats the original


----------



## cklwilliam (Aug 22, 2011)

TheFantasticG said:


> Simple solution = don't crop to 100%



thats no good, why pay a grand for something that doesnt work well?


----------



## cklwilliam (Aug 22, 2011)

Kerbouchard said:


> Why are you at 1/800th of a second at f/14, and ISO 800 for a subject that isn't moving at a focal length of 32mm?  Just seems like some strange settings for that situation.



it was a snap shot, shot with aperture priority, forgot to lower the iso


----------



## djacobox372 (Aug 22, 2011)

cklwilliam said:


> here is a screen shot of what I mean


Two issues:1) the faces are underexposed by about 1.5 stops.  2) it looks like you're using zero noise reduction,  even my d700 will show noise at 100% in a mid-tone/dark area at iso 800 without noise reduction.


----------



## Vtec44 (Aug 23, 2011)

It can also be lens related.  I know that there's a HUGE difference in noise between my Nikon 50mm f1.8D and my Tamron 10-24mm.  Also double check your image quality settings, sharpness correction, and other image related settings.  My D7000 has beautiful "grains" at 100% zoom.  Your sample posted looks like it's reduced 256 colors GIF.  I'll post a sample of my 100% zoom in a bit.


----------



## Sw1tchFX (Aug 23, 2011)

Vtec44 said:


> It can also be lens related.  I know that there's a HUGE difference in noise between my Nikon 50mm f1.8D and my Tamron 10-24mm.


 Noise/grain has absolutely nothing to do with optics.


----------



## Vtec44 (Aug 23, 2011)

Sw1tchFX said:


> Vtec44 said:
> 
> 
> > It can also be lens related.  I know that there's a HUGE difference in noise between my Nikon 50mm f1.8D and my Tamron 10-24mm.
> ...



Maybe you're right, but this is what I see, both were shot at ISO 125, f7.1, 1/250s, 100% zoom.


----------



## TheFantasticG (Aug 23, 2011)

cklwilliam said:


> TheFantasticG said:
> 
> 
> > Simple solution = don't crop to 100%
> ...


 
It works for fine. I dont see a problem with the camera. I do, however, see a problem (as stated above) underexposed areas which will cause excessive noise in any digital camera. It is the nature of the beast.


----------



## cklwilliam (Aug 23, 2011)

Vtec44 said:


> Sw1tchFX said:
> 
> 
> > Vtec44 said:
> ...




that's what I was trying to point out, I'm getting that same pattern/texture on my photos that was shot in low ISO too.  not sure what it is that's causing that.


the shot i posted was shot in RAW with NR set as high.   I'll see if I can find a better example


----------



## cklwilliam (Aug 23, 2011)

TheFantasticG said:


> cklwilliam said:
> 
> 
> > TheFantasticG said:
> ...



I notice you have the D7000 as well, if it's not too much of a hassle, can you post a few samples? I just want to see some comparison 
Thanks!


----------



## Vtec44 (Aug 23, 2011)

cklwilliam said:


> that's what I was trying to point out, I'm getting that same pattern/texture on my photos that was shot in low ISO too.  not sure what it is that's causing that.



In my case, it was two different lenses.  The Tamron 10-24mm f3.5-5.6  produces a much more noticeable grain than my Nikon 35-70mm f2.8, with the same camera (D7000) and exact settings as you can see.  This grain is different than digital noise.


----------



## GooniesNeverSayDie11 (Aug 23, 2011)

Derrel said:


> nickzou said:
> 
> 
> > kirbym2 said:
> ...


 Actually the Canon 7D is king of the crop mountain. We can argue pros and cons of each, but at the end of the day, the Canon 7D racks up more pros than the D7000. Therefore, its the King. The D7000, much like Derrel, is more of a Queen. :lmao:



cklwilliam said:


> Vtec44 said:
> 
> 
> > Sw1tchFX said:
> ...



Optics do not cause noise. Optics may cause poor image quality in other regards. They may also cause your camera to underexpose ( like sometimes when using teleconverters) which in turn produces more noise. The second of these two images is underexposed and that is why there is more noise. Also, when you use a wider lens and your subject seems more distant in the shot, then you in turn have to zoom in further to view the same spot ( a persons head for instance ) and with less detail. Therefore it looks like crap all around. Also, I have noticed that at times when using a really long focal length, and teleconverters, that the viewfinder gets very speckled and cloudy but that is due to low light and the inner workings of the viewfinder and has nothing to do with the image that the sensor sees. 

Noise is very subjective. Depending what camera you used before, how you view your image, how you edit your images, and what your expectations are to begin with, can all influence whether or not you feel a camera has too much noise. Expose properly to minimize noise (ETTR) Do not view a shot at 100% in an underexposed area and expect a miracle, and learn to process the shot effectively. Shoot in RAW ( which does not apply any in camera NR which could be another expectation problem ) and then bring the noise down a bit in ACR or LR during the RAW conversion. Also be careful of your sharpening process, you may be accentuating noise because your "masking" or your "threshold" is not set right so you are sharpening smooth areas like the blurred background or an area that is not your subject.


----------



## Kerbouchard (Aug 23, 2011)

cklwilliam said:


> TheFantasticG said:
> 
> 
> > Simple solution = don't crop to 100%
> ...





cklwilliam said:


> Kerbouchard said:
> 
> 
> > Why are you at 1/800th of a second at f/14, and ISO 800 for a subject that isn't moving at a focal length of 32mm? Just seems like some strange settings for that situation.
> ...


That's no good.  Why spend a grand on something and not learn how to use it?


----------



## nickzou (Aug 23, 2011)

GooniesNeverSayDie11 said:


> Actually the Canon 7D is king of the crop mountain. We can argue pros and cons of each, but at the end of the day, the Canon 7D racks up more pros than the D7000. Therefore, its the King. The D7000, much like Derrel, is more of a Queen. :lmao:



Really? Because there's a website that just counts pros and cons. Canon 7D vs Nikon D7000 Here's the comparison. I think the only things on the 7D that are superior are is the autofocus and and the megapixel count.

Now if we're looking at things that are less superfluous, here's the sensor comparison. DxOMark - Compare cameras side by side
And since this is a thread about noise performance; I'd say the 7D just got smashed.

And let me quote myself and highlight the context of the comment. 





nickzou said:


> That the D7000 is the king of crop mountain and has the *best ISO performance of DX/APS-C bodies.*



The Canon 7D does not have the *best ISO performance of DX/APS-C bodies*. Even the D3100 kicks its ass.


----------



## EPPhoto (Aug 23, 2011)

Kerbouchard said:
			
		

> Why are you at 1/800th of a second at f/14, and ISO 800 for a subject that isn't moving at a focal length of 32mm?  Just seems like some strange settings for that situation.



I was thinking the sane thing.  You could have easily shot at a lower ISO and opened up your aperture a bit to f/5.6 or so.  You would still have had a good exposure but you wouldn't have had to shoot at f/14 and 800 ISO.


----------



## Kerbouchard (Aug 23, 2011)

I'm thinking the f/14 was intentional to get more of the background in focus. The ISO 800 at 1/800th of a second was the part I was confused about.

My point was, regardless of what camera you have, if you don't use the right settings for the situation, you're probably not going to be happy with the results.



EPPhoto said:


> Kerbouchard said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## GooniesNeverSayDie11 (Aug 23, 2011)

nickzou said:


> GooniesNeverSayDie11 said:
> 
> 
> > Actually the Canon 7D is king of the crop mountain. We can argue pros and cons of each, but at the end of the day, the Canon 7D racks up more pros than the D7000. Therefore, its the King. The D7000, much like Derrel, is more of a Queen. :lmao:
> ...


 
Actually, that page is flawed in its winner/loser comparison on many accounts. I have seen it rank bridge cameras higher than SLRs. While it is a decent source for a quick side by side comparison, it is still often flawed. Case in point, it claims that the 7D is not weathersealed which is clearly wrong. It also fails to mention the full magnesium body of the 7D, most notably around the spot where the lens attaches to the camera ( many would say THE MOST IMPORTANT SPOT TO BE REIENFORCED ON A HOUSING! ) Also, I prefer quality over quantity as in all cross-type focus points. It also has a faster response and a higher frame rate. Noise is a silly argument considering EVERY digital camera has noise to some degree or another ( For example, see the title of this thread ) and you need to know how to tame it as a photographer regardless of which camera you are using. The 7D does not have an amount of noise that makes it unusable so the topic becomes pretty moot at that point. While I am not saying the D7000 is junk, and it is a very strong competitor, it is not above the 7D. I will say that in the video department, it probably wins, but who cares about that?

Here is a more indepth comparison.

http://www.whatdigitalcamera.com/equipment/advice/516727/dslr-head-to-head-nikon-d7000-vs-canon-eos-7d.html

Also, my post was mainly made to poke fun at Derrel since he chimed in simply to be a Nikon praise-singing choir boy


_"I think the only things on the 7D that are superior are is the autofocus and and the megapixel count."


_And the FPS, and the magnesium body. To me, if you are buying either of these two cameras, its for the frame rate and the fast AF.


----------



## Destin (Aug 23, 2011)

GooniesNeverSayDie11 said:
			
		

> Actually, that page is flawed in its winner/loser comparison on many accounts. I have seen it rank bridge cameras higher than SLRs. While it is a decent source for a quick side by side comparison, it is still often flawed. Case in point, it claims that the 7D is not weathersealed which is clearly wrong. It also fails to mention the full magnesium body of the 7D, most notably around the spot where the lens attaches to the camera ( many would say THE MOST IMPORTANT SPOT TO BE REIENFORCED ON A HOUSING! ) Also, I prefer quality over quantity as in all cross-type focus points. It also has a faster response and a higher frame rate. Noise is a silly argument considering EVERY digital camera has noise to some degree or another and you need to know how to tame it as a photographer regardless of which camera you are using. The 7D does not have an amount of noise that makes it unusable so the topic becomes pretty moot at that point. While I am not saying the D7000 is junk, and it is a very strong competitor, it is not above the 7D. I will say that in the video department, it probably wins, but who cares about that?
> 
> Here is a more indepth comparison.
> 
> ...



High iso performance is a moot point? Go shoot sports indoors at iso 3200-5000 with both the 7d and the 7000, and tell me
Which one puts out more useable images. 

As far as a moot point... Sure, the 7d is built better. But who cares? I don't pound nails in with my camera body. I have beat the living heck out of my d80 (all plastic nikon) and exposed it to dirt/mud/moisture at least once a week for the last 2 years. It's never skipped a beat, and therefore I know the d7000 will be plenty durable for just about everyones needs.


----------



## nickzou (Aug 23, 2011)

Destin said:


> I have beat the living heck out of my d80 (all plastic nikon)



Me too. For the first month I was under the impression that it had a magnesium body. So I was pretty rough with it. Solid as a rock.


----------



## GooniesNeverSayDie11 (Aug 23, 2011)

Destin said:


> GooniesNeverSayDie11 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 "Usable" is a subjective term. The 7D handles noise at high ISO very well. Does it need some help in the post processing department? Sure, so does your D7000, or we wouldn't be on this thread right now.. Sorry, if we are talking about shooting sports, I would rather have the fastest frame rate, lightning quick AF, and a magnesium body that can support the rigors of fast super-teles no matter how hard of an abuse it gets. Dropping 10K worth of glass can ruin a day of shooting pretty damn fast. I can buy faster glass for indoor shooting. Thats also what god invented strobes for. Of course if you aspire to shoot nothing but elementary school gymnasium sports, then perhaps the cheaper D7000 is the more wise investment for that smidgen of better ISO performance. 

Also, keep in mind, test labs, and the real world are very different animals.


----------



## GooniesNeverSayDie11 (Aug 23, 2011)

Anyway, I am sure you guys love your D7000, and I am sure it is a great camera. My point wasn't so much to insult or rip down your prized camera, it was just to  bring you guys out of your fervor and into reality once again.


----------



## Vtec44 (Aug 23, 2011)

GooniesNeverSayDie11 said:


> . Thats also what god invented strobes for. *Of course if you aspire to shoot nothing but elementary school gymnasium sports, then perhaps the cheaper D7000 is the more wise investment for that smidgen of better ISO performance. *
> 
> Also, keep in mind, test labs, and the real world are very different animals.



That's the best cheap shot got? lol

Both cameras are fine, both will do very well in many things.  I'm a Nikon guy but I'd buy a Canon just for the better video features.


----------



## GooniesNeverSayDie11 (Aug 23, 2011)

Vtec44 said:


> GooniesNeverSayDie11 said:
> 
> 
> > . Thats also what god invented strobes for. *Of course if you aspire to shoot nothing but elementary school gymnasium sports, then perhaps the cheaper D7000 is the more wise investment for that smidgen of better ISO performance. *
> ...



Not sure what you are saying here......maybe I am missing something. sorry.


I agree about both cameras being great. I typically am not one to argue Nikon vs Canon, and I am really not doing that here although I know thats what its taken as. I will readily admit that the D7000 is a better camera than the Canon 60D. Its not that I just hate Nikon, I am just being honest about it. I'd shoot with a D7000 any day of the week if that was the camera I had at my disposal.  I bet there are people that can show you pics with both that are great as well as people who could show you pics taken with both that completely suck.  However, that doesn't change reality. The 7D is slightly better than the D7000. It doesn't blow it out of the water or anything, but its better. Plain and simple. If you say other wise, you are simply living in a fantasy world.


----------



## Vtec44 (Aug 23, 2011)

GooniesNeverSayDie11 said:


> Not sure what you are saying here......maybe I am missing something. sorry.
> 
> 
> I agree about both cameras being great. I typically am not one to argue Nikon vs Canon, and I am really not doing that here although I know thats what its taken as. I will readily admit that the D7000 is a better camera than the Canon 60D. Its not that I just hate Nikon, I am just being honest about it. I'd shoot with a D7000 any day of the week if that was the camera I had at my disposal.  I bet there are people that can show you pics with both that are great as well as people who could show you pics taken with both that completely suck.  However, that doesn't change reality. The 7D is slightly better than the D7000. It doesn't blow it out of the water or anything, but its better. Plain and simple. If you say other wise, you are simply living in a fantasy world.




Here's a quick look at the strength and weaknesses of both cameras, Canon 7D vs Nikon D7000.  Both cameras perform very close and better in different areas. I'd say if you think one is just simply better than the other then you are really living in a fantasy world.


----------



## mjhoward (Aug 23, 2011)

GooniesNeverSayDie11 said:


> However, that doesn't change reality. The 7D is slightly better than the D7000. It doesn't blow it out of the water or anything, but its better. Plain and simple. If you say other wise, you are simply living in a fantasy world.



The only reality is that the 7D its better at _certain things_.  The D7000 is better at others.  There is no cut and dry winner.  I have and use both and I personally prefer the D7000.  




GooniesNeverSayDie11 said:


> Anyway, I am sure you guys love your D7000, and I am sure it is a great camera. My point wasn't so much to insult or rip down your prized camera, it was just to bring you guys out of your fervor and into reality once again.



LOL, you are the only one who is defending your camera like it was your own creation.  You are quick to mention all the 'pluses' for the 7D, but you've failed to mention any of the D7K, so for fairness sake, lets take a look at a few. For starters, the sensor has 12.5% more area than that of the _better built_ 7D (I realize you were likely referring to the chassis only, but 'better built' with respect to what; its a subjective statement). How about when you've shot a sporting event (since you continue to mention sports shooting) and your CF card fails?  What, the 'better built' 7D body doesn't have dual card slots for backing up important shoots?  The _inferior_ D7000 does.  The metering system on the D7000 is more accurate and consistent, IMO, and the AF performance differences between the two are pretty negligible in my experience. High ISO performance is not really a moot point, btw.  A _useable_ image may be subjective, but if my ISO 6400 looks like your ISO 3200, then I just gained 1 full stop of light over you, all other things being equal of course.  And please do not embarrass yourself by comparing the D7000 to the 60D as they're not even on the same level.


----------



## Kerbouchard (Aug 23, 2011)

This has just turned into petty bickering.  I'm sure both can take outstanding images with the right hands.  As has beeen shown, the D7000, at least can take bad images with the wrong settings for the situation.  I am sure the 7D is no different.

FWIW, I'll stick with my 'old' D700.


----------



## GooniesNeverSayDie11 (Aug 23, 2011)

Vtec44 said:


> GooniesNeverSayDie11 said:
> 
> 
> > Not sure what you are saying here......maybe I am missing something. sorry.
> ...


 This has already been posted and responded to, keep up.


----------



## D-B-J (Aug 23, 2011)

ISO 6400, SOOC.  Shot in raw, so just in camera NR.


----------



## GooniesNeverSayDie11 (Aug 23, 2011)

mjhoward said:


> GooniesNeverSayDie11 said:
> 
> 
> > Anyway, I am sure you guys love your D7000, and I am sure it is a great camera. My point wasn't so much to insult or rip down your prized camera, it was just to bring you guys out of your fervor and into reality once again.
> ...


  You didn't even bother reading anything written prior to your rambling. I stated strengths of the D7000. So do you buy an advanced camera because of a memory card slot? If you do, you are a bigger idiot than I suspected. Don't embarrass yourself. If you use cheap cards and do not format, you get crashed cards. An extra memory card slot doesn't fix stupid. The metering being better is a debatable statement, but regardless I will humor you on that, if you shoot manual, metering doesn't matter. See, metering does not mean that a picture exposes better, it means that the camera sets the settings ( or tells you what to set it at more or less accurately ) You can meter on your own and get the correct exposure, no matter what camera you have.  You can't however, reach into the camera and manually speed your camera up to a faster frame rate. You also can't reach in and make it focus faster ( you could try and argue that you can manual focus, but I am talking about highspeed shooting where a fast AF would actually matter ). Here is a reality check for you, more AF points does not mean faster or more accurate AF. It just means more sh*t to sift through and clog up your viewfinder and sounds better in a checklist of features.

Also, I did not mention sports, it was a response to someone else mentioning shooting indoor sports.Try reading before sticking your nose into something, or atleast comprehending what you read. I am not defending my camera because I own it. I also own a T1i, I won't debate that being better than a D7000, or even a D90. I can just admit the truth. Its ok if you can't.


----------



## CGnTtown (Aug 23, 2011)

I say their both awesome cameras and you can't go wrong with either one. I prefer the 7D because it feels better in my hands. I just wish it was priced closer to the D7K, which I think is an amazing value. I wonder what is in store for the 7D MK 2? As to the OP, I think maybe some more experience would help solve the issue, cause it's not the camera nor the glass.


----------



## GooniesNeverSayDie11 (Aug 23, 2011)

D-B-J said:


> ISO 6400, SOOC. Shot in raw, so just in camera NR.





D-B-J said:


>



Nice. I do see noise though and I don't really base noise examples off small online pics. Post the full sized file to Flickr. And again to reiterate, I don't doubt that the D7000 does well with noise. Thats typically the main strong point of Nikon over Canon ( typically due to their choice to not always try to push the megapixels )

Although this may be a good example for the OP


----------



## GooniesNeverSayDie11 (Aug 23, 2011)

CGnTtown said:


> I say their both awesome cameras and you can't go wrong with either one. I prefer the 7D because it feels better in my hands. I just wish it was priced closer to the D7K, which I think is an amazing value. I wonder what is in store for the 7D MK 2? As to the OP, I think maybe some more experience would help solve the issue, cause it's not the camera nor the glass.


 I agree. The D7000 is an amazing value for its features.


----------



## TheFantasticG (Aug 23, 2011)

cklwilliam said:


> TheFantasticG said:
> 
> 
> > cklwilliam said:
> ...


 
I would love to, but I won't be in the position to do it for alittle while.


----------



## Vtec44 (Aug 23, 2011)

GooniesNeverSayDie11 said:


> This has already been posted and responded to, keep up.



Then why are you still in your own fantasy world?


----------



## GooniesNeverSayDie11 (Aug 23, 2011)

Vtec44 said:


> GooniesNeverSayDie11 said:
> 
> 
> > This has already been posted and responded to, keep up.
> ...


 :er: Clearly you have not read anything that I typed ( or just have trouble comprehending things ) or you would have answered your own question. Perhaps you should have read the more in depth ( and actually accurate)  review that I posted in response as well 

However, this is getting rather tedious and annoying and shame on me for bickering about it for so long. You love your D7000, and I love my 7D. End of conversation.


----------



## Vtec44 (Aug 23, 2011)

GooniesNeverSayDie11 said:


> Vtec44 said:
> 
> 
> > GooniesNeverSayDie11 said:
> ...




Clearly, you bring nothing to the discussion other than childish personal attacks and attempt to belittle others that don't share the same view.  Defending your purchase much?   lol  Who said anything about loving an inanimate object?  The D7000 is nothing but a tool I'm using right now.  I always know the strength and weaknesses of the tools I so that I use it effectively, cameras, firearms, cars, whatever.


----------



## GooniesNeverSayDie11 (Aug 24, 2011)

Vtec44 said:


> GooniesNeverSayDie11 said:
> 
> 
> > Vtec44 said:
> ...


 *Facepalm*  You're right.:thumbup:


----------



## Vtec44 (Aug 24, 2011)

GooniesNeverSayDie11 said:


> *Facepalm*  You're right.:thumbup:



Finally you see the light that I'm right!  Good boy! :thumbup:


----------



## Stradawhovious (Aug 24, 2011)

I guess I don't understand the "Excesive noise" part.  I just took this, as a snapshot, at work at ISO 6400.  This is straight out of the camera, no post at all.





In my book, at ISO 6400, this is an insanely usable picture.  Is thre noise?  Sure!  if you do a 100% crop, there is noise.  Is it excessive?  Personally I don't think so.


----------



## Sw1tchFX (Aug 25, 2011)

LOL @ all this pixel peeping! I mean really, c'mon, seriously?

If we're going to talk about noise and grain at low ISO's, guess what ISO and camera this was shot at: 






 And I guarantee you these have a hell of alot more noise/grain than you're D7000.


----------



## Sw1tchFX (Aug 25, 2011)

And here's a 100% crop of the bird, is this noise/grain unacceptable?


----------



## nickzou (Aug 25, 2011)

My definition of unacceptable noise is when bokeh looks like it primarily caused by the ISO setting.


----------



## cklwilliam (Aug 26, 2011)

Stradawhovious said:


> I guess I don't understand the "Excesive noise" part.  I just took this, as a snapshot, at work at ISO 6400.  This is straight out of the camera, no post at all.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




here is mine at 6400


----------

