# D90 vs D7000 Low Light Test...



## PhotoWrangler (Sep 11, 2012)

I had a few spare minutes, so I *very unscientifically* did my own tests... All shot with the Nikon 80-200 F2.8 AF-S.

D90 ISO 3200




D90 ISO3200 100% Crop



D90 ISO H0.3 (which I think is 6400) ETA: I guess it isn't 6400, since its 1/3, would that be ISO4000 then? 



D90 ISO H0.3 100% crop



D7000 ISO 3200



D7000 ISO 3200 100% crop



D7000 ISO 5000



D7000 ISO 5000 100% crop





Focus point was his left eye in all photos.


----------



## gryffinwings (Sep 11, 2012)

That's not bad for the D90, I usually set up my camera for no higher than 1600 on my D5100, which for me makes it easier to a decision.


----------



## Mach0 (Sep 11, 2012)

ChristopherCoy said:
			
		

> I had a few spare minutes, so I very unscientifically did my own tests... All shot with the Nikon 80-200 F2.8 AF-S.
> 
> D90 ISO 3200
> 
> ...



How do you like your 80-200 afs?


----------



## PhotoWrangler (Sep 11, 2012)

I love it!! It's like trying to hand hold a Sherman tank, but it's sharp as a tack!


----------



## TheFantasticG (Sep 12, 2012)

The higher DR in addition to the cleaner ISOs helped me make my jump from the D90. After clicking my old D90 over 25,000 it became easy to tell when someone else was using it, underexposed and tried to pull it back. I never did like those results.


----------



## PhotoWrangler (Sep 12, 2012)

I've got to be getting near 50k or better on my D90...


----------



## orb9220 (Sep 13, 2012)

Nice pics and had a non-AF-s version of the 80-200 f2.8 AF-D. And still hanging with my D90 just back from 3-day camping trip to Trillium Lake at the foot of Mt. Hood. And just passed the 65k clicks on it! Crossing my fingers that it is at half it's life mark. As pretty much for the most part sates any desire for a D7000.
.


----------



## PhotoWrangler (Sep 13, 2012)

The 80-200 AF-D has a known back focusing issue on the D90. Nikon has admitted to not being able to fix it. The AF-D version I previously owned did it on my D90. Have you had any issues with yours?


----------



## orb9220 (Sep 14, 2012)

Nope luckily had a good pair up. Tho sold it to pay medical bills.




Yellow Leaf Hang no.1 by Orbmiser, on Flickr

Used a lot with the tamron 1.4x and pretty much right on focus. 
But was a tad soft at f2.8. Generally loved shooting it at f4 as a good start.
.


----------



## Enticingimagery (Sep 15, 2012)

Much as I love my D90, in real world situations where you really need the high ISO, it could be much better. I shot many gigs using it, and the last one, thurs night gone, made me realise more and more that i need an FX body. At 3200, in a dimly lit bar with **** lighting, it struggles. You get tonnes of speckles, making it a pain to process. This is why so many gig shooters who use DX bodies go B&W with a lot of their images. The colour noise can be brutal at times. On the other hand, at well lit gigs, it does very well. But you have no control over lighting at these things. I can't wait to jump to FX. 

Try some comparisons in darker situations where higher ISO is actually needed. In well exposed, well lit situations, it's obviously going to do ok.


----------



## Derrel (Sep 15, 2012)

Enticingimagery said:


> Much as I love my D90, in real world situations where you really need the high ISO, it could be much better. I shot many gigs using it, and the last one, thurs night gone, made me realise more and more that i need an FX body. At 3200, in a dimly lit bar with **** lighting, it struggles. You get tonnes of speckles, making it a pain to process. This is why so many gig shooters who use DX bodies go B&W with a lot of their images. The colour noise can be brutal at times. On the other hand, at well lit gigs, it does very well. But you have no control over lighting at these things. I can't wait to jump to FX.
> 
> Try some comparisons in darker situations where higher ISO is actually needed. In well exposed, well lit situations, it's obviously going to do ok.



Exactly. When the sensor size is boosted to FX, which is significantly larger than DX, and the pixel wells are also MUCH,much bigger, the light-collecting ability of EACH pixel, ranging from 12 million to 24 million to 36 MILLION pixels, is better. As in "Better". Better color depth. Bigger light-collecting area. And these millions of bigger, better pixels are accompanied by electronics that cost more, in cameras that cost more money to both make, and therefore cost more money at retail and on the secondary markets as well. If you want a low-light camera, the Nikon D3s is still "king". The D4 is not far behind. AND, at a "reasonable" price, the new D800 has an AF module that can actually achieve focus in craptastic lighting levels AND produce a remarkably good image at ridiculous ISO levels.


----------

