Anyone else displeased with the D7000's low light performance?

[goodguy]

I guess it depends how much of a pixel peeper you are.
I used my camera a lot in Chicago at night, my ISO was most of the time on 3200ISO and few times on 6400ISO, this was the test and for me and my D7000 passed with flying colours.
I was very happy with it in 3200ISO and even the 6400ISO were very impressive (even though usually I will try not to go above 3200ISO).

I am sure the D600 will be an improvement in this department and that's why in the future when I am ready to upgrade my D7000 I will go full frame.

 

[Nikanon]

These 2 photos were taken at Disneyland while on the Pirates of the Caribbean ride (No Flash). For those of you who have been on this ride knows it's extremely dark down there.

ISO 4000


ISO 6400


These were shot with my 50mm 1.8G not too shabby for my first time (I Think)...

 

[scaryloud]

I had the D7000 and performance in low light was 'eh' until I stepped up the the Nikon 17-55 2.8. Good glass equals good performance. I too ditched the 35mm but mainly due to bokeh performance...miserable. I opted for the 40mm micro. A full stop slower but substantially sharper and creamy bokeh. I currently use the D7100. I stuck with DX due to zoom benefits with wildlife and such. FX will give you inherently better low light, but I have little complaints with my current setup.

 

[Tailgunner]

I had the D7000 and performance in low light was 'eh' until I stepped up the the Nikon 17-55 2.8. Good glass equals good performance. I too ditched the 35mm but mainly due to bokeh performance...miserable. I opted for the 40mm micro. A full stop slower but substantially sharper and creamy bokeh. I currently use the D7100. I stuck with DX due to zoom benefits with wildlife and such. FX will give you inherently better low light, but I have little complaints with my current setup.

The 17-55mm 2.8 is nice...and there is a used one in the FS section.

 

[orb9220]

CaptainNapalm

To me, everything up to ISO 1600 is acceptable but unfortunately this doesn't cut it when I'm roaming out and about at night in the City. Bumping ISO up to 3200 or 6400 makes the photos too noisy and when noise reduction is applied in post processing too much detail is lost for my liking.

I tend to under expose my images while shooting RAW in hopes that I can adjust the exposure in post, this allows me to shot at lower ISO's but it has it's drawbacks too.

Second statement explains why you have problems stated in the first statement.
Irregardless if the lens you have is or isn't fast enough.
The secret to minimize noise is to nail the exposure.
Any underexposure will translate to noise.
So nailing exposure is the first step whether lens,flash or tripod.

I have seen many clean 6400 iso on the D7000 as a result of them nailing exposure.
And as mentioned even higher is usable with apply the right amount of NR.
Many don't spend enough time with there post processing programs and learn to use them properly. Instead just sliding sliders around until it looks right with no real understanding what is happening to the image and the why's. Which often times results in over-sharpened or over-saturated images.
.

 

[CaptainNapalm]

Nope, My D7000 performs as should. I'm even planning on doing some long exposures with my Jeep tonight.

Long exposures are not my issue, high ISO (short) exposures are my issues

 

[CaptainNapalm]

It's all in the method ( for the most part.) Your d7000 should be fine at ISO 1600. Practice ETTR and get some glass. My 35 1.8 barely gets touched but you may want to try to AF fine tune and see how you like it. It may help you get sharper shots at wider apertures.

I'm happy with my D7000 up to and including ISO 1600, it's the 3200 and higher ISO that really bothers me. My 35mm 1.8m is fine tuned already and still I need to stop this lens down quite a bit before I get the DOF and IQ i'm looking for. Maybe I'll try another fast lens i.e. 50mm

 

[CaptainNapalm]

CaptainNapalm

To me, everything up to ISO 1600 is acceptable but unfortunately this doesn't cut it when I'm roaming out and about at night in the City. Bumping ISO up to 3200 or 6400 makes the photos too noisy and when noise reduction is applied in post processing too much detail is lost for my liking.

I tend to under expose my images while shooting RAW in hopes that I can adjust the exposure in post, this allows me to shot at lower ISO's but it has it's drawbacks too.

Second statement explains why you have problems stated in the first statement.
Irregardless if the lens you have is or isn't fast enough.
The secret to minimize noise is to nail the exposure.
Any underexposure will translate to noise.
So nailing exposure is the first step whether lens,flash or tripod.

I have seen many clean 6400 iso on the D7000 as a result of them nailing exposure.
And as mentioned even higher is usable with apply the right amount of NR.
Many don't spend enough time with there post processing programs and learn to use them properly. Instead just sliding sliders around until it looks right with no real understanding what is happening to the image and the why's. Which often times results in over-sharpened or over-saturated images.
.

I was mistaken. I figured I was doing myself a favour when I was underexposing while shooting at ISO 1600 rather than correctly exposing at ISO 6400. I figured I'd end up with cleaner images if I control the exposure in post but what I'm ending up with is noisier photos. This I'll adjust and see if things improve.

 

[goodguy]

I think if you are not 100% happy then you should go for an FX body.
The D600 is an amazing camera, might solve all your problems and today this camera is pretty reasonable refurbished.
I really was looking for a reason to upgrade my D7000 to the D600 but for my newbie needs the D7000 is simply already an overkill.
But as I already stated in few past posts my next camera will be FX.

 

[SCraig]

I was mistaken. I figured I was doing myself a favour when I was underexposing while shooting at ISO 1600 rather than correctly exposing at ISO 6400. I figured I'd end up with cleaner images if I control the exposure in post but what I'm ending up with is noisier photos. This I'll adjust and see if things improve.

Read This Article on Luminous Landscape's site. It explains everything and I think you'll gain a much better idea of why you are having issues. Exposing to the right side of the histogram makes a huge difference in the final exposure, especially in low light and/or high ISO. Youhave to keep an eye on the histogram and the "Highlight Blinkies" to make sure you aren't blowing highlights but it is most assuredly worth the effort and I think it will solve a lot of your problems.

 

[kathyt]

It is a Nikon. Upgrades are available at Canon U.S.A., Inc. Or you could try disposablecameras.com for another upgrade option. Sorry, it is like dangling a steak in front of a lion.

 

[pixmedic]

It is a Nikon. Upgrades are available at Canon U.S.A., Inc. Or you could try disposablecameras.com for another upgrade option. Sorry, it is like dangling a steak in front of a lion.

except....this
http://petapixel.com/2012/04/24/low...-canon-5d-mark-ii-5d-mark-iii-and-nikon-d800/

the only thing i found a little odd, was the D800 falls apart at the 12k ISO mark.
meh, guess you cant have everything. but whos shooting that high anyway.

 

[kathyt]

It is a Nikon. Upgrades are available at Canon U.S.A., Inc. Or you could try disposablecameras.com for another upgrade option. Sorry, it is like dangling a steak in front of a lion.

except....this
http://petapixel.com/2012/04/24/low...-canon-5d-mark-ii-5d-mark-iii-and-nikon-d800/

User error. ^^^ Gotta go.....I have to go dust off my camera of the year trophy.

 

[D-B-J]

The only problem with this.. you may find that 24mm is really not wide enough for a crop sensor. I had a 28mm prime on my d7000, and i hated it. I'm moving to the 17mm range, which is a little better for the crop sensor.

Yeah I realize that about the glass. I already have the 70-300 which is an FX lens and thinking that if I went the D600 route, I'd grab the 24-70 f/2.8 and I'd be okay for a while until I save up for a real wide angle. You're right, I don't have fast lenses for night photography, but even with my 35mm I find I have to stop down to about f4 to get the IQ and DOF I'm looking for. Maybe I'll pick up a fast (good quality) lens first before I decide for sure the D7000 isn't capable of good night pics. Can you recommend a good lens? Thanks in advance.

That DX 35 is a soft lens.. IMO! Even F4 is not enough for that lens to be as sharp as it should be.. ( I know others feel differently).

The 24-70 2.8 , 70-200 2.8, and the 14-24 2.8.. you can shoot them wide open with gorgeous IQ! Or pick up a 50 1.8 or 1.4, or the new 85 1.8 .... they rock, and are much less expensive!

Thanks for the recommendation. I'm going to consider grabbing the 24-70 to see how it does on my D7000 and if I'm still having issues at least it will be a good lens to carry over to an FX body.

 

[pixmedic]

It is a Nikon. Upgrades are available at Canon U.S.A., Inc. Or you could try disposablecameras.com for another upgrade option. Sorry, it is like dangling a steak in front of a lion.

except....this
http://petapixel.com/2012/04/24/low...-canon-5d-mark-ii-5d-mark-iii-and-nikon-d800/

User error. ^^^ Gotta go.....I have to go dust off my camera of the year trophy.

Interestingly enough, nikon took several "camera of the year" awards. D4 and D800 received camera of the yesr 2012-2013 from EISA and TIPA. EISA also named the D4 "best professional camera" 2012-2013.

Guess someone was bound to throw canon a bone.