Better in low light: D7000 or D300?

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" wrote in message
...
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).

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

On Tue, 19 Oct 2010, eatmorepies wrote:

Save up for a D700.

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 wrote in
news
On Tue, 19 Oct 2010, eatmorepies wrote:

Save up for a D700.

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).


Pentax K5.

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).

Don Wiss wrote:
On Tue, 19 Oct 2010, wrote:

Save up for a D700.

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.

Sounds worth exploring what can be done to really push ISO through
reducing resolution. I don't know if there's any magic to be gained by
'binning' and such but at least worth learning everything you can find
about that approach, for your situation. To most of us it seems silly to
fret about getting a clean image at 1024 pixels wide (less than a
megapixel) but yes it can be difficult and that's an important threshold
to consider. Noise reduction at larger sizes might dramatically improve
the reduced final product. Perhaps shoot raw and figure out a batch process.

BTW the original question is an interesting one, for all participants,
and your situation might be the perfect test to answer it.

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.

--
Peter

On Wed, 20 Oct 2010, peter wrote:

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.

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 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.

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 wrote:
On Wed, 20 Oct 2010, wrote:

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.

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.

That's a DX lens though I think it works at some lengths.


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.

The 14-24 is a huge beast. Try a Sigma 12-24 at 21 oz. Yeah it's slow at
f/4.5 to f/5.6 but on a D700 it works fine at night. But it is awkwardly
wide so try an AF 20mm f/2.8 which is darn near a pancake lens.


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.

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.

Donwww.donwiss.com (e-mail link at home page bottom).

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.

Don www.donwiss.com (e-mail link at home page bottom).