Better in low light: D7000 or D300?

Discussion in 'Digital SLR' started by Don Wiss, Oct 19, 2010.

  1. Don Wiss

    Don Wiss Guest

    Which is more sensitive in low light. The Nikon D7000 or the Nikon D300?

    Don <www.donwiss.com> (e-mail link at home page bottom).
     
    Don Wiss, Oct 19, 2010
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Don Wiss

    eatmorepies Guest

    I don't know. But what I do know is that the D700 is astonishingly good in
    low light. So good I almost flogged £11000s worth of Canon gear to migrate
    to the D700 and some Nikon lens. I didn't. I bought a 5D mkII and put up
    with the ancient autofocus just to get the excellent sensor - which is only
    1 stop behind the D700 in low light. I also splashed out on a 1D mkIV - it
    has all the speed performance I can use, but costs twice what a D700 does.

    Save up for a D700.

    John
     
    eatmorepies, Oct 19, 2010
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Don Wiss

    Don Wiss Guest

    Hi John,

    I've thought of the D700. I wouldn't have to save up. My problem is I
    consider the D300 already too heavy. Hence looking at the lighter D7000.
    The numbers:

    D7000 27.5 oz
    D300 32.6 oz
    D700 37.9 oz

    Now I could continue using my 18-200 lens in DX mode on the D700. I only
    shoot for the web, so the lesser pixels would be fine. But most people
    would argue to upgrade the lens. A big weight hit:

    18-200 19.9 oz
    28-300 28.2 oz

    My biggest problem with the D7000 is the smallest picture is a 4 MP image.
    Way bigger than what is needed for a web page picture.

    Don <www.donwiss.com/pictures/> (e-mail link at page bottoms).
     
    Don Wiss, Oct 19, 2010
    #3
  4. Don Wiss

    Don Wiss Guest

    Sorry Rich. That would require selling four recent lens, three flashes, a
    fancy remote, an SU-4, in additon to the body. Plus a bunch of manual focus
    prime lens I wouldn't be able to use. And maybe more Nikon gear I can't
    think of sitting here at my PC.

    Don <www.donwiss.com> (e-mail link at home page bottom).
     
    Don Wiss, Oct 20, 2010
    #4
  5. Don Wiss

    peter Guest

    Don't pay much attention to Rich, or any of his nyms. If weight is an
    issue and you are only shooting for the web, the low light D700 with
    18-200 is fine. If you really do not need low light, consider the D5000
    because of its articulating viewfinder.
    I carry a D200 & D300 with a heavy lens, (70-200) As I have said before,
    I use an R strap, from black Rapid. It takes the weight off y neck and
    places it on my shoulders.
    Just my thoughts.
     
    peter, Oct 20, 2010
    #5
  6. Don Wiss

    Don Wiss Guest

    Two things drive my purchases. Wide angle and low light. With my D300 I'm
    still using the 12-24 lens. I can improve the wide angle two ways: D700 +
    14-24 or swap the 12-24 for the 10-24 lens. I have wondered just what do I
    lose quality-wise by switching to a cheaper lens with a variable minimum
    aperture?

    If I went to the D700 my intentions all along have been to stick with the
    18-200.

    Some weights:

    10-24 16.2 oz
    12-24 16.4 oz
    14-24 34.2 oz

    This is the first time I've compared the weights of the wide angle lens!
    Clearly the D700 option would weigh much more.
    I mostly bicycle with my camera and lenses. I use a waist strap with them
    hung off it. This allows easily pulling the camera out and pulling out a
    lens for a lens change. When traveling I could be out all day.

    Don <www.donwiss.com> (e-mail link at home page bottom).
     
    Don Wiss, Oct 20, 2010
    #6
  7. Don Wiss

    Don Wiss Guest

    I would shoot in DX mode. It would be just the same as on my D300.

    Don <www.donwiss.com> (e-mail link at home page bottom).
     
    Don Wiss, Oct 20, 2010
    #7
  8. Don Wiss

    Don Wiss Guest

    If you have read everything I've posted in this thread, you will see that I
    shoot only for the web and I don't need a gazillion megapixels for that.
    With my D300 I'm only shooting at 3 MP. If I went to a D7000 I would have
    to shoot at 4 MP. To me that is a negative.

    Don <www.donwiss.com> (e-mail link at home page bottom).
     
    Don Wiss, Oct 20, 2010
    #8
  9. Don Wiss

    me Guest

    Don, you keep saying you shoot for the web. It would help if you would
    provide detail as to what exactly that means to you and what level of
    performance you desire. If you could post a shot using the D300 that
    is at your limit of acceptance that would also help as well as your
    workflow.

    Possibilities for instance:

    1. shoot at camera minimum resolution with basic camera settings
    saving in camera to jpeg and post this result as is.

    2. post process 1. mimimally to smaller size, say 1024 by... in
    batch, post these. Tool might be Irfanview

    3. post process 1. more, resize filter etc using a better tool say PSE
    with a Neta Image plugin, post these.

    4. shoot raw, etc


    see where I'm coming form. Paul alluded to something like the most
    processed flow starting full size raw and pushing for the max iso
    possible.
     
    me, Oct 20, 2010
    #9
  10. Don Wiss

    Robert Coe Guest

    : > >Pentax K5.
    : >
    : > Sorry Rich. That would require selling four recent lens, three flashes, a
    : > fancy remote, an SU-4, in additon to the body. Plus a bunch of manual focus
    : > prime lens I wouldn't be able to use. And maybe more Nikon gear I can't
    : > think of sitting here at my PC.
    : >
    : > Don <www.donwiss.com> (e-mail link at home page bottom).
    :
    : Sorry, didn't realize you were system-tied.

    You're joking, of course. In this day and age, anyone who isn't system-tied
    is, quite simply, not serious enough about photography to have acquired a
    significant amount of equipment. Every now and then, someone changes horses
    ("Bruce" comes to mind); but when that happens, it's significant enough that
    we all notice.

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Oct 21, 2010
    #10
  11. Don Wiss

    Robert Coe Guest

    : On 10/19/2010 10:40 PM, Don Wiss wrote:
    : >
    : >> Pentax K5.
    : >
    : > Sorry Rich. That would require selling four recent lens, three flashes, a
    : > fancy remote, an SU-4, in additon to the body. Plus a bunch of manual focus
    : > prime lens I wouldn't be able to use. And maybe more Nikon gear I can't
    : > think of sitting here at my PC.
    : >
    : > Don<www.donwiss.com> (e-mail link at home page bottom).
    :
    : Don't pay much attention to Rich, or any of his nyms. If weight is an
    : issue and you are only shooting for the web, the low light D700 with
    : 18-200 is fine. If you really do not need low light, consider the D5000
    : because of its articulating viewfinder.
    : I carry a D200 & D300 with a heavy lens, (70-200) As I have said before,
    : I use an R strap, from black Rapid. It takes the weight off y neck and
    : places it on my shoulders.
    : Just my thoughts.

    Now that I frequently carry two cameras, I understand the attraction of the R
    strap. What concerns me is that it appears that the cameras will be a lot more
    vulnerable to swinging around and being bumped by whatever you're walking
    past. With a regular neck strap, the worst I've done is bury the end of a lens
    in sour cream dip. (Which ISN'T exactly good, but ...)

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Oct 21, 2010
    #11
  12. Don Wiss

    Wilba Guest

    You tend to rest a hand on the camera while you're walking or in a crowded
    space, to prevent it flopping around too much or touching anything it
    shouldn't.
    Clean your lens with your tongue only as a last resort.
     
    Wilba, Oct 21, 2010
    #12
  13. Don Wiss

    Bruce Guest


    Guilty as charged. I guess there can't be many Nikon D3 shooters who
    use a Canon EOS 5D as a back-up body, with a Nikon F to Canon EF
    adapter, of course. ;-)

    For a couple of months until last weekend, the 5D was my main body,
    with a Kodak DCS Pro 14n as back-up. It works beautifully at ISO 80
    (base ISO) but there can't be many other DSLRs still around that
    suffer from excessive noise at ISO 160 and are unusable at 400. :-(
     
    Bruce, Oct 21, 2010
    #13
  14. Old 20D (similar age to a D70), at max ISO (1600), underexposed
    (pushed by 1.5 stops). Denoised with a bit of Noise Ninja (8,8,8
    luma, 10,8,8 chroma). At 1024x786:
    http://www.shooting4joy.com/photos/904594795_dWejv-XL-1.jpg

    I don't think it looks like hell ... even if a 20D used to be
    quite good at low light shots.

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Oct 21, 2010
    #14
  15. Don Wiss

    Me Guest

    I think the 20d had at least a stop better high ISO performance than the
    D70. I used to envy that.
    I did some 12x18 prints from my D70 @ ISO 800 or so, and a few large
    2x3m commercial posters, with some careful noise reduction they came out
    very well indeed, but sometimes typical screen (with poor calibration /
    over-bright, bad gamma) is less forgiving than print.
     
    Me, Oct 21, 2010
    #15
  16. Don Wiss

    Robert Coe Guest

    : Robert Coe wrote:
    : >
    : > Now that I frequently carry two cameras, I understand the attraction of
    : > the R strap. What concerns me is that it appears that the cameras will
    : > be a lot more vulnerable to swinging around and being bumped by whatever
    : > you're walking past.
    :
    : You tend to rest a hand on the camera while you're walking or in a crowded
    : space, to prevent it flopping around too much or touching anything it
    : shouldn't.
    :
    : > With a regular neck strap, the worst I've done is bury the end of a lens
    : > in sour cream dip. (Which ISN'T exactly good, but ...)
    :
    : Clean your lens with your tongue only as a last resort.

    I've had heart surgery. I'm not supposed to even be in the same ROOM with sour
    cream dip. :^|

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Oct 22, 2010
    #16
  17. Yep. Bibble raw converter with inbuild Noise Ninja (with licence,
    tuned down a bit from the defaults).

    I regularly get good results from this technique, well printable
    at 300dpi (which means about 20x30cm for 8MPix).

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Oct 23, 2010
    #17
  18. OK, here is one pushed by 2.5 stops (otherwise same
    settings):
    http://www.shooting4joy.com/photos/1059762723_oGNzs-XL.jpg

    Like hell? surely not.
    Perfect? Nope, but you need to look closely, and IMHO it isn't
    worse than film grain was. (and what does film grain do at
    effective ISO 10.000?)
    True.

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Oct 23, 2010
    #18
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.