If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Better in low light: D7000 or D300?
"Don Wiss" wrote in message ... On Wed, 20 Oct 2010, Paul Furman wrote: Don Wiss wrote: If I went to the D700 my intentions all along have been to stick with the 18-200. That's a DX lens though I think it works at some lengths. I would shoot in DX mode. It would be just the same as on my D300. Except that it'd be a 5 MP camera... -- David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Better in low light: D7000 or D300?
On Thu, 21 Oct 2010, "David J. Littleboy" wrote:
Don Wiss wrote: I would shoot in DX mode. It would be just the same as on my D300. Except that it'd be a 5 MP camera... 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). |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Better in low light: D7000 or D300?
RichA wrote:
On Oct 20, 2:41 pm, Don wrote: On Thu, 21 Oct 2010, "David J. wrote: Don Wiss wrote: I would shoot in DX mode. It would be just the same as on my D300. Except that it'd be a 5 MP camera... 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. Donwww.donwiss.com (e-mail link at home page bottom). For the web, D300 and D700 are massive overkill, unless you are doing action. He's doing low light though. A D70 image at max ISO, underexposed, is going to look like hell even at 1024 pixels wide. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Better in low light: D7000 or D300?
On Wed, 20 Oct 2010 14:41:32 -0400, Don Wiss
wrote: On Thu, 21 Oct 2010, "David J. Littleboy" wrote: Don Wiss wrote: I would shoot in DX mode. It would be just the same as on my D300. Except that it'd be a 5 MP camera... 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, 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. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Better in low light: D7000 or D300?
On Tue, 19 Oct 2010 21:25:09 -0700 (PDT), RichA wrote:
: On Oct 19, 10:40*pm, Don Wiss wrote: : On Tue, 19 Oct 2010 20:30:21 -0500, Rich 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). : : 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 |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Better in low light: D7000 or D300?
On Wed, 20 Oct 2010 07:26:21 -0400, peter
wrote: : On 10/19/2010 10:40 PM, Don Wiss wrote: : On Tue, 19 Oct 2010 20:30:21 -0500, 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. : : Donwww.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 |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Better in low light: D7000 or D300?
On 2010-10-20 18:37:33 -0700, Robert Coe said:
On Wed, 20 Oct 2010 07:26:21 -0400, peter wrote: : On 10/19/2010 10:40 PM, Don Wiss wrote: : On Tue, 19 Oct 2010 20:30:21 -0500, 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. : : Donwww.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 I also use a BlackRapid R-strap, and I am quite happy with it. but for being more mobile issues I had thought the Cotton Carrier system might provide an answer to some of the swinging camera problem. http://www.cottoncarrier.com/store.html ....also BlackRapid has an option with their RS DR-1 Double Strap. -- Regards, Savageduck |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Better in low light: D7000 or D300?
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. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Better in low light: D7000 or D300?
Paul Furman wrote:
RichA wrote: For the web, D300 and D700 are massive overkill, unless you are doing action. He's doing low light though. A D70 image at max ISO, underexposed, is going to look like hell even at 1024 pixels wide. 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/9...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 |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Better in low light: D7000 or D300?
Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
Paul wrote: RichA wrote: For the web, D300 and D700 are massive overkill, unless you are doing action. He's doing low light though. A D70 image at max ISO, underexposed, is going to look like hell even at 1024 pixels wide. 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/9...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. Looks great. That's from raw with some noise reduction? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Hitler finds out his Nikon D7000 is not shipping until November | Paul Furman | Digital SLR Cameras | 4 | October 20th 10 01:12 AM |
The Nikon D90 is dead. Long live the Nikon D7000! | [email protected] | Digital Photography | 6 | September 27th 10 03:09 PM |
Biggest mistake with the new D7000 | Superzooms Still Win | Digital SLR Cameras | 7 | September 26th 10 12:37 AM |
Nikon D7000, FX trapped in a D90's body? | David Ruether[_3_] | Digital SLR Cameras | 7 | January 21st 10 10:48 PM |
Nikon D7000, FX trapped in a D90's body? | Rich[_6_] | Digital SLR Cameras | 13 | January 19th 10 01:30 PM |