Subscribe to PostsAs part of my ongoing assessment of the Nikon D7000′s capabilities, I decided to take it with me to a venue I often shoot, where high ISO is needed to capture photos in limited lighting. The comparison that follows is admittedly less than scientific, given the inability to control slight lighting changes and subject movement from one shot to the next. Nonetheless, I post them here as a rough comparison that should give a broad brush idea of how the D7000 compares to the D300 and D700 under these types of scenarios.
Each of the comparison pair sample image includes a cropped area of interest where one can observe noise. Below each full-size crop, we also include the downsampled version of the crops so that we can compare noise at similar resolutions (see note at end of article). You may click on any of the thumbnails to view larger versions.
Scene 1: D300 vs. D7000
| D300 @ ISO 2000, f2.8 1/200 with 135 f2.0 DC | D7000 @ ISO 2000, f2.8 1/200 with 135 f2.0 DC |
|
|
 
|
 
|
Scene 2: D700 vs. D7000
| D700 @ ISO 3200, f4 1/160 with 24-120 f4 | D7000 @ ISO 3200, f4 1/160 with 24-120 f4 |
|
|
 
|
 
|
Scene 3: D700 vs. D7000
| D700 @ ISO 3200, f4 1/160 with 24-120 f4 | D7000 @ ISO 3200, f4 1/160 with 24-120 f4 |
|
|
 
|
 
|
Note: In my experience and using common sense, comparing downsampled crops to judge noise performace is the only way to really emulate what we end up doing with our images. Whether these are 12MP, 16MP, or 24MP, the final image size (1024 on the long end for web display, in my case, or 11×14 for print sizes) will be the same. Hence it follows that the compared crops must scale to the same output size if they are going to represent how noise performance (or sharpness/detail, for that matter) would affect the final for-display image.
Al
May 21st, 2011 at 14:53
I tried taking some concert photos last night with my D7000 in probably poorer light than what you have here. (I wish I had read your article before last night so that I could have tried your settings.) I was unable to achieve very fast shutter speeds (1/160 – 1/250) without having the subjects be far too dark. My lens (18-200) can only go from f3.5-5.6. What do you recommend for such conditions? Will D7000 @ ISO 2000, f3.5 1/200 work for me? I would just go try it, but I have no way to reproduce concert lighting in my home.
Eduardo
May 21st, 2011 at 15:12
I don’t recommend the 18-200 for concert photography. You really do need wider apertures (2.8-4) and the lens isn’t terribly sharp and for me (back when I tried it) really falls apart when focusing in low light. Even the 16-85 wasn’t very good for this.
Al
May 21st, 2011 at 16:09
Are there any relatively inexpensive lenses that you would recommend?
Eduardo
May 23rd, 2011 at 09:34
For about $300, you can get a used Tamron 28-75 f2.8 (look for the non-built-in-motor, aka non-BIM, model), which in my experience is superior to the Tamron 17-50 f2.8. I’ve tried them both, and actually you won’t miss the wide end on the 17-50, as with concert photography, you’re often a distance away. Another more expensive choice is the 24-120 f/4, which does well on both FX, and DX, though you will have to push the ISO higher.
Jason
June 26th, 2011 at 00:27
I was wondering if you use in camera noise reduction, or do you do it all in pp?
Eduardo
July 20th, 2011 at 12:04
I do noise reduction in PP, and only when needed. Usually, I leave it in, as it doesn’t show up or otherwise detract from the final image.