Got a Nikon? Share your thoughts and photos here or ask a question! (II)

Low ISO noise is often a result of high numbers of pixels and small sensors. The D700 has significantly bigger pixels, probably 5 times bigger (guess, could be more or less) so collect far more light, so the inter-pixel variance of photon counts will be less. The reason going to print hides the noise is pixels are mixed together, averaged out, simulating the larger pixels of full frame cameras.

This is one reason high ISO has more noise - larger inter-pixel light collection variance. That and digital/thermal noise from the electronics.

tim wrote in post #13130017
Low ISO noise is often a result of high numbers of pixels and small sensors. The D700 has significantly bigger pixels, probably 5 times bigger (guess, could be more or less) so collect far more light, so the inter-pixel variance of photon counts will be less. The reason going to print hides the noise is pixels are mixed together, averaged out, simulating the larger pixels of full frame cameras.

This is one reason high ISO has more noise - larger inter-pixel light collection variance. That and digital/thermal noise from the electronics.

^- This

Also D700 is full frame, 7D is crop, Not really a completely fair comparison IMHO, of course the D700 is going to be better

KenjiS wrote in post #13130135
^- This

Also D700 is full frame, 7D is crop, Not really a completely fair comparison IMHO, of course the D700 is going to be better

I wasn't making a comparison.

My point was that I don't go looking for the noise but it was obvious, and I much prefer a camera that doesn't do that.

TMR Design wrote in post #13130189
I wasn't making a comparison.

My point was that I don't go looking for the noise but it was obvious, and I much prefer a camera that doesn't do that.

Sorry...

And yeah, if it has -obvious- noise at low ISO then i can understand your point

I owned 7D for a year and iso 3200 is the max I would use. it's quite noisy and it requires a lot of noise reduction to clean up which means lost of IQ (most noticeable for portrait.)

Then I switched to D700 and all problem seems to be solved! Plus I don't have to worry if my 24-70 is a good copy or not!

KenjiS wrote in post #13130222
Sorry...

And yeah, if it has -obvious- noise at low ISO then i can understand your point

I didn't want to take the time to figure out it if was just my body or if I was seeing something that was inherent in the 7D, but since I had a list of things I didn't like by the end of the first week I knew it just wasn't the camera for me.

I had a similar experience with the 5DMkII and my body went to Canon twice within the first month of ownership. Argghhhh!

ching wrote in post #13130228
Plus I don't have to worry if my 24-70 is a good copy or not!

Amen!!

I had a noisy but totally acceptable print from a 7D at ISO20,000 equivalent in a customers album. The customer was happy with it, it was a nice photo, the noise wasn't important.

Of course, Tim. I've had usable images for clients that were noisy or focus wasn't perfectly nailed, etc.

I like a nice balance between knowing I can produce the quality that my clients will like and what will make me happy as a photographer.

I've always believed that if a shot is "the shot" and something's not perfect then it doesn't matter, but it doesn't mean I wouldn't like to have it better, if it's something that I can at all control.

ching wrote in post #13130228
I owned 7D for a year and iso 3200 is the max I would use. it's quite noisy and it requires a lot of noise reduction to clean up which means lost of IQ (most noticeable for portrait.)

Then I switched to D700 and all problem seems to be solved! Plus I don't have to worry if my 24-70 is a good copy or not!

No offense but i HAVE heard Nikon's 24-70 has a nasty bug with the zoom ring sometime being a bit wonky....So i guess its not all 100% peachy

That said id take the nikon 24-70 over the Canon...

TMR Design wrote in post #13130231
I didn't want to take the time to figure out it if was just my body or if I was seeing something that was inherent in the 7D, but since I had a list of things I didn't like by the end of the first week I knew it just wasn't the camera for me.

I had a similar experience with the 5DMkII and my body went to Canon twice within the first month of ownership. Argghhhh!

Understandable..

Heres an ISO200 shot from mine...i guess if i squint and look close theres some "texture" to my file..but im not sure thats "noise"

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …unetsukiphoto/6​157474882/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …unetsukiphoto/6​078407955/

KenjiS wrote in post #13123796
FWIW i think the D7000 is built a little better than the D90 personally...

Still not to the level of a 7D or D300s, But better than a D90

it should be, it is the replacement for the d90. that said i am not unhappy with my d90 i have yet to find it's limits as far as my style of photography goes

Anyone know where I can find a used D700 from?

Downs Photography wrote in post #13130974
Anyone know where I can find a used D700 from?

Alan's Camera in PA had one. They were selling it for around $1900 w/50K actuations.
http://www.allenscamer​a.com/

The 17-55 f2.8 is incoming.

Downs Photography wrote in post #13130974
Anyone know where I can find a used D700 from?

You're really going to switch teams?