D7000 sensor benchmark results are in!

[Derrel]

Why??? Nikon has tried to make its "serious enthusiast's camera" as good as it can possibly be. I've been shooting Nikon's since the early 1980's...the Nikon FE and FE-2 were more-advanced in some aspects than the professional Nikon's of that time frame. The Nikon FE-2 for example, had a SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER flash synch speed (1/250) than the Nikon F3 (1/80), which was the longest-running Nikon camera ever made, for around 20+ years of continuous production. Many professionals, and serious amateurs, used the "hobbyist" Nikon models FM, FM-2,FE,and FE-2 in preference to the "professional" Nikon F2A and F3 models. So, the Nikon "serious enthusiast" cameras have, for decades, been very feature-rich and loaded with lots of body/metering features that other companies have neglected.

In the case of the D300s...the framing rate of 7 frames per second. Better viewfinder system, and better body controls of the "semi-pro" D300s are higher concerns to people who need that type of camera than the "enthusiasts", who can get by with a lower-powered, lower-specified autofocus system. More money spent on the body and sub-systems than the D90, which has lower-end sub-systems and lower-end body, and frankly, probably lower electronic noise due to its much slower read-out speeds.

Nikon builds and has built cameras based on engineering first, marketing hype second. For decades. They build what they determine is the best camera, for its target price, and for its target market, and they tend to run the models for a long period of time, until such time as they can make a SIGNIFICANT,and MEANINGFUL, advancement to a model. For the D300s user, the criteria Nikon determined were most essential were a professional-level 51-point AF system, metering with the Ai and Ai-S MF lenses that go back to 1977, wireless flash commander system, and the ability to write files to the card at 7 frames per second, plus solid build, and a professional-like set of body controls, so that the D300s fits right in with the D3 series bodies. D300 users expect a "serious enthusiast's" camera when they buy a D300 or D300s...D90 users want "good pictures" at lower cost.

Of course, to somebody that bought his first-ever d-slr camera in 2006,and has never owned a Nikon camera...this probably would not make much sense. And, to a mom or dad buying a D90, they do not need money allocated to a 51-point, professional AF system, no to a secondary Ai-S metering interface that leverages 30 million pre-2010 lenses made over parts of four decades.

The D90 is one of Nikon 's biggest sellers, ever. GREAT sensor performance, but lacking in backward compatibility, and possessed of a consumer-level AF system. A better imager than a Canon 40D or 50D, at lower cost. But not a "semi-pro" body like a D300s.

 

[chito beach]

Why??? Nikon has tried to make its "serious enthusiast's camera" as good as it can possibly be. I've been shooting Nikon's since the early 1980's...the Nikon FE and FE-2 were more-advanced in some aspects than the professional Nikon's of that time frame. The Nikon FE-2 for example, had a SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER flash synch speed (1/250) than the Nikon F3 (1/80), which was the longest-running Nikon camera ever made, for around 20+ years of continuous production. Many professionals, and serious amateurs, used the "hobbyist" Nikon models FM, FM-2,FE,and FE-2 in preference to the "professional" Nikon F2A and F3 models. So, the Nikon "serious enthusiast" cameras have, for decades, been very feature-rich and loaded with lots of body/metering features that other companies have neglected.

In the case of the D300s...the framing rate of 7 frames per second. Better viewfinder system, and better body controls of the "semi-pro" D300s are higher concerns to people who need that type of camera than the "enthusiasts", who can get by with a lower-powered, lower-specified autofocus system. More money spent on the body and sub-systems than the D90, which has lower-end sub-systems and lower-end body, and frankly, probably lower electronic noise due to its much slower read-out speeds.

Nikon builds and has built cameras based on engineering first, marketing hype second. For decades. They build what they determine is the best camera, for its target price, and for its target market, and they tend to run the models for a long period of time, until such time as they can make a SIGNIFICANT,and MEANINGFUL, advancement to a model. For the D300s user, the criteria Nikon determined were most essential were a professional-level 51-point AF system, metering with the Ai and Ai-S MF lenses that go back to 1977, wireless flash commander system, and the ability to write files to the card at 7 frames per second, plus solid build, and a professional-like set of body controls, so that the D300s fits right in with the D3 series bodies. D300 users expect a "serious enthusiast's" camera when they buy a D300 or D300s...D90 users want "good pictures" at lower cost.

Of course, to somebody that bought his first-ever d-slr camera in 2006,and has never owned a Nikon camera...this probably would not make much sense. And, to a mom or dad buying a D90, they do not need money allocated to a 51-point, professional AF system, no to a secondary Ai-S metering interface that leverages 30 million pre-2010 lenses made over parts of four decades.

The D90 is one of Nikon 's biggest sellers, ever. GREAT sensor performance, but lacking in backward compatibility, and possessed of a consumer-level AF system. A better imager than a Canon 40D or 50D, at lower cost. But not a "semi-pro" body like a D300s.

I learned on a Nikon F1 and F2 back in the the day.......

Remember these are sensor performance ratings not camera ratings

One really can not compare the performance of my a55 to the D90 in any aspect but sensor performance.

you can wipe the froth off of you face now.......

settle

settle

LOL

 

[Derrel]

Some of us can write more than a sentence or two without frothing...you've been here what? Two weeks now ? What is this? Text messaging?

Cnt U rd mr than a fw wrds w/o having a spasm?

"Feature set". There was no F1....that was a Canon, named after the Nikon F...I own a couple F's....and a couple F2's...

 

[chito beach]

Some of us can write more than a sentence or two without frothing...you've been here what? Two weeks now ? What is this? Text messaging?

Cnt U rd mr than a fw wrds w/o having a spasm?

"Feature set". There was no F1....that was a Canon, named after the Nikon F...I own a couple F's....and a couple F2's...

Most of us do not need to prove what we know in every thread we write in.

Some like you, need to spew forth mountains of drivel in order to try to add substance to a simple concept.

Again what did your mountain of Nikon History have to do with sensor performance? Or can you not handle a simple question?

 

[MrLogic]

Here's another one to scratch your heads over:

Why?

The D300s is newer and has a similar sensor - and yet... the sensor rating is lower. That doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

But it seems to be consistent with actual performance. PhotoXopher is not the first one to notice it. If so... Nikon ****ed up, not DxO. Or DxO got it right by accident. Or...

 

[Derrel]

Some of us can write more than a sentence or two without frothing...you've been here what? Two weeks now ? What is this? Text messaging?

Cnt U rd mr than a fw wrds w/o having a spasm?

"Feature set". There was no F1....that was a Canon, named after the Nikon F...I own a couple F's....and a couple F2's...

Most of us do not need to prove what we know in every thread we write in.

Some like you, need to spew forth mountains of drivel in order to try to add substance to a simple concept.

Again what did your mountain of Nikon History have to do with sensor performance? Or can you not handle a simple question?

It's a pretty well-thought out answer to a question posed by a newcomer to photography who picked up his first-ever d-slr in 2006,and who has no background in cameras beyond this decade...

If you want 10-word answers, go back to the tavern. For a guy who has been here less than two weeks, I find you quite abrasive, and would say you're not fitting in here too well. It is a simple concept, but obviously, too advanced for you to follow...my answer was detailed, and thorough. If you want to communicate with grunts and gestures, by all means, feel free to continue. If you want grade-school-level discourse, maybe you ought to join a forum where that's the norm.

Until you can actually CONTRIBUTE some knowledge here, or experience, I think maybe, just maybe, you ought to go back to lurking...because in your very,very short time with us, you've contributed ZERO...except for smart-assed remarks...

 

[shaunly]

Here's another one to scratch your heads over:

Why?

The D300s is newer and has a similar sensor - and yet... the sensor rating is lower. That doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

But it seems to be consistent with actual performance. PhotoXopher is not the first one to notice it. If so... Nikon ****ed up, not DxO. Or DxO got it right by accident. Or...

D300s has the same sensor performance as the D300, which is older than the D90. The D90 has been proven to have better ISO performance than the D300 (not just on DxO).... just barely though.

 

[chito beach]

Some of us can write more than a sentence or two without frothing...you've been here what? Two weeks now ? What is this? Text messaging?

Cnt U rd mr than a fw wrds w/o having a spasm?

"Feature set". There was no F1....that was a Canon, named after the Nikon F...I own a couple F's....and a couple F2's...

Most of us do not need to prove what we know in every thread we write in.

Some like you, need to spew forth mountains of drivel in order to try to add substance to a simple concept.

Again what did your mountain of Nikon History have to do with sensor performance? Or can you not handle a simple question?

It's a pretty well-thought out answer to a question posed by a newcomer to photography who picked up his first-ever d-slr in 2006,and who has no background in cameras beyond this decade...

If you want 10-word answers, go back to the tavern. For a guy who has been here less than two weeks, I find you quite abrasive, and would say you're not fitting in here too well. It is a simple concept, but obviously, too advanced for you to follow...my answer was detailed, and thorough. If you want to communicate with grunts and gestures, by all means, feel free to continue. If you want grade-school-level discourse, maybe you ought to join a forum where that's the norm.

Until you can actually CONTRIBUTE some knowledge here, or experience, I think maybe, just maybe, you ought to go back to lurking...because in your very,very short time with us, you've contributed ZERO...except for smart-assed remarks...

Another put down answer from a man who has to prove his worth by insulting others :thumbup:

Go back to your Nikon corner and if you can actually answer a question without an insult Ill be waiting.

you crack me up.

Your answers are proof that time on a board and number of posts has little if anything to do with worth

 

[Derrel]

My Nikon corner? I have a nice Canon system. Two bodies, eight lenses. It's really some nice stuff.

Your ability to understand the dynamics at work here is obviously due to you just showing up in the last couple of weeks. Your lack of understanding of the camera business is also quite telling. cfusionpm has been grinding the DxO Mark axe for months, simply because his favorite camera tests out so poorly (in the mid-60's). But, as a newcomer, you probably do not really understand who you're relating to,or what their hidden biases are. You sound like a Canon fanboi to me...

...so, what have you contributed to the Nikon D7000 benchmarks thread? Anything??????????? Any insights, comparisons, theories? Anything?

Seriously...contribute a little. Write something. Do a screen cap. Answer some questions. Contribute a bit. Or go back to lurking.

 

[chito beach]

My Nikon corner? I have a nice Canon system. Two bodies, eight lenses. It's really some nice stuff.

Your ability to understand the dynamics at work here is obviously due to you just showing up in the last couple of weeks. Your lack of understanding of the camera business is also quite telling. cfusionpm has been grinding the DxO Mark axe for months, simply because his favorite camera tests out so poorly (in the mid-60's). But, as a newcomer, you probably do not really understand who you're relating to,or what their hidden biases are. You sound like a Canon fanboi to me...

...so, what have you contributed to the Nikon D7000 benchmarks thread? Anything??????????? Any insights, comparisons, theories? Anything?

Seriously...contribute a little. Write something. Do a screen cap. Answer some questions. Contribute a bit. Or go back to lurking.

So still no answer? LOL typical. Im done in this one. LOL

 

[cfusionpm]

So still no answer? LOL typical. Im done in this one. LOL

I'm still waiting for an answer to this one from back in June (linked earlier in this thread). :thumbup:

 

[kundalini]

Should we start a thread for the two of you?

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/off-topic-chat/186104-unofficial-derrel-intempus-thread.html

 

[emh]

Thom Hogan's commentary on DxO's sensor ratings:

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]DxO Hysteria


Nov 7 (commentary)--Now that DxOmark has "rated" the Pentax K-5 and Nikon D7000, the nutty interpretations and spirited discussions have begun in earnest. [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]But let me introduce a completely different idea: I don't care what DxO's number is. It's meaningless to me, and probably should be meaningless to you. [/FONT]...

I agree that the overall DxO mark number is meaningless. However, the individual measurements that feed in to the overall score (color depth, dynamic range, low light performance) as well as the detailed plots for each measure are meaningful and quite useful.

Can a camera with a low score take good pictures? Absolutely. It's just that a camera with a higher score can take good pictures in a wider range of situations.

Here's another one to scratch your heads over:

Why?

My guess is that the D90 has a more accurate 12b A-to-D converter than the 14b one in the D300s.

 

[chito beach]

Thom Hogan's commentary on DxO's sensor ratings:

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]DxO Hysteria


Nov 7 (commentary)--Now that DxOmark has "rated" the Pentax K-5 and Nikon D7000, the nutty interpretations and spirited discussions have begun in earnest. [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]But let me introduce a completely different idea: I don't care what DxO's number is. It's meaningless to me, and probably should be meaningless to you. [/FONT]...

I agree that the overall DxO mark number is meaningless. However, the individual measurements that feed in to the overall score (color depth, dynamic range, low light performance) as well as the detailed plots for each measure are meaningful and quite useful.

Can a camera with a low score take good pictures? Absolutely. It's just that a camera with a higher score can take good pictures in a wider range of situations.

Here's another one to scratch your heads over:

Why?

My guess is that the D90 has a more accurate 12b A-to-D converter than the 14b one in the D300s.

How much effect does the higher pixel pitch on the D90 have? It has to contribute to the higher score also

 

[emh]

How much effect does the higher pixel pitch on the D90 have? It has to contribute to the higher score also

In general, pixel pitch is a factor. All else being equal, more spaced apart pixels will give better low-light performance.

But it's probably not much of a factor here. The difference in pixel pitch between the D90 and D300s is about 1% while the difference in low light performance is close to 25%. So there has to be a bigger factor in play and my money is on the A-to-Ds.