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

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).

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.

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.

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

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

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

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.

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

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?