Nikon D7000

wow

foxesamu wrote in post #10967123
That looks as good as my D700

I dont remember where i read it, so i didnt say it before, but i somehow remember a rumor where a guy was speaking to someone at Nikon and they hinted that the D90 replacement was shooting for "D700-noise levels"

It sure as heck looks like that might be true

Even I'm impressed (D3s owner). Pretty nice.

Unfortunately they're not as good as the 7D's.

http://picasaweb.googl​e.com …95580966906/Pho​tokina2010

maverick678 wrote in post #10911356
Very impressive camera....but I'd like to see some high ISO shots .

maverick678 wrote in post #10967279
Unfortunately they're not as good as the 7D's.

http://picasaweb.googl​e.com …95580966906/Pho​tokina2010

I'm not sure i agree...6400 looks cleaner and 12,800 looks realistically usable...12,800 is not usable on the 7D

But again, ill withhold final judgement

Not usable ?. Here is 25,600:

https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=770404

KenjiS wrote in post #10967293
I'm not sure i agree...6400 looks cleaner and 12,800 looks realistically usable...12,800 is not usable on the 7D

But again, ill withhold final judgement

maverick678 wrote in post #10967315
Not usable ?. Here is 25,600:

https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=770404

Thats with a lot of PP applied...Not comparing apples to apples either

Seriously, "looks" better doesnt mean it is, until i can actually, you know, handle one, shoot it and COMPARE then its all -speculation-

Keep in mind i also happen to own a 7D, I know what 3200 and 6400 look like from one..

Well same here I have a 7D too, it's pretty easy for me to see which one is better and I'm pretty sure the NR has killed the images...

KenjiS wrote in post #10967421
Thats with a lot of PP applied...Not comparing apples to apples either

Seriously, "looks" better doesnt mean it is, until i can actually, you know, handle one, shoot it and COMPARE then its all -speculation-

Keep in mind i also happen to own a 7D, I know what 3200 and 6400 look like from one..

maverick678 wrote in post #10967491
Well same here I have a 7D too, it's pretty easy for me to see which one is better and I'm pretty sure the NR has killed the images...

Possibly...

I reallllly wanna see some RAWs....stuff run through ACR..

I'd imagine it will only be a week or two before DPReview or someone gets some better samples up...ill hold back for now

KenjiS wrote in post #10967622
I reallllly wanna see some RAWs....stuff run through ACR..

Your wish is my command.

^^ Ah, obviously not as nice as the D3s, but alright for a cropper.

Yohan Pamudji wrote in post #10967727
Your wish is my command.

I saw those, but the NEF files wont open in LR3 yet, and they posted JPGs which are OBVIOUSLY sufferng from NR...very blocky

KenjiS wrote in post #10967011
And if Canon Mk2s it its going to easily be $2000...The Nikon is likely a bit better optically because it uses newer coatings and lens technologies

Theres a lot of reasons why, but the fact Nikon's stuff is "more expensive" tends to be that its newer

Dated Nikon 85mm f/1.8: http://www.amazon.com …tal-Cameras/dp/B00005LE75
$429 for a lens that focuses with a friggin screwdriver.

Modern Canon 85mm f/1.8: http://www.amazon.com …TF8&qid=1285348​137&sr=1-1
$379

I find myself using the latter above all the time these days and would dearly miss it were I to succumb to the temptation to switch to an eventual D700 successor. I guess I could figure out the goofy controls and the linear menus.

Nikon's 70-200 f/2.8 VR II leapfrogged Canon's original 70-200 f/2.8 IS a bit, and was priced much higher. Now that Canon's mkII is out, it's priced more closely to Nikon's. The bread/butter zooms would seem to be roughly in parity these days, especially that Nikon has updated their unfortunate 24-120, and anticipating an updated and more expensive Canon 24-70.

Canon hasn't bothered updating non-L EF primes in *years* - I wonder if they ever will.

anthony11 wrote in post #10970783
Dated Nikon 85mm f/1.8: http://www.amazon.com …tal-Cameras/dp/B00005LE75
$429 for a lens that focuses with a friggin screwdriver.

Modern Canon 85mm f/1.8: http://www.amazon.com …TF8&qid=1285348​137&sr=1-1
$379

Canon hasn't bothered updating non-L EF primes in *years* - I wonder if they ever will.

Thats just one example though

100L $944, 105 VR is $889

Nikon 70-300 VR is $520 right now, Canon's is $530 (Keep in mind the Canon doesnt come with a hood, the Nikon does..The Nikon also comes with a case...)

In general, Nikon loses when it comes to the -cheap- primes it seems. But not by much, yes i agree the 85mm f/1.8 is antiquated, But Nikon's 50mm f/1.4 is far FAR better optically than Canon's (Which is in dire need of an update) and it has a real SWM....

Oh and the 35mm f/1.8 is a very good value for an entry level prime..

If/when Canon updates the non-L lenses they will become Ls, Expect the 85mm f/1.8 to become an 85mm f/1.8L IS or something, and expect it to be about $900....

anthony11 wrote in post #10970783
Dated Nikon 85mm f/1.8: http://www.amazon.com …tal-Cameras/dp/B00005LE75
$429 for a lens that focuses with a friggin screwdriver.

Modern Canon 85mm f/1.8: http://www.amazon.com …TF8&qid=1285348​137&sr=1-1
$379

I find myself using the latter above all the time these days and would dearly miss it were I to succumb to the temptation to switch to an eventual D700 successor. I guess I could figure out the goofy controls and the linear menus.

Nikon's 70-200 f/2.8 VR II leapfrogged Canon's original 70-200 f/2.8 IS a bit, and was priced much higher. Now that Canon's mkII is out, it's priced more closely to Nikon's. The bread/butter zooms would seem to be roughly in parity these days, especially that Nikon has updated their unfortunate 24-120, and anticipating an updated and more expensive Canon 24-70.

Canon hasn't bothered updating non-L EF primes in *years* - I wonder if they ever will.

You can always wait and see what the Sigma 85 1.4 is like. That will be on Canon AND Nikon.