Better in low light: D7000 or D300?

On 21/10/2010 10:32 p.m., 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.

-Wolfgang

I think the 20d had at least a stop better high ISO performance than the
D70. I used to envy that.
I did some 12x18 prints from my D70 @ ISO 800 or so, and a few large
2x3m commercial posters, with some careful noise reduction they came out
very well indeed, but sometimes typical screen (with poor calibration /
over-bright, bad gamma) is less forgiving than print.

On Thu, 21 Oct 2010 11:16:22 +0800, "Wilba"
wrote:
: 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.

I've had heart surgery. I'm not supposed to even be in the same ROOM with sour
cream dip. :^|

Bob

Paul Furman wrote:
Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
Paul wrote:

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?

Yep. Bibble raw converter with inbuild Noise Ninja (with licence,
tuned down a bit from the defaults).

I regularly get good results from this technique, well printable
at 300dpi (which means about 20x30cm for 8MPix).

-Wolfgang

Me wrote:
On 21/10/2010 10:32 p.m., Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:

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.

I think the 20d had at least a stop better high ISO performance than the
D70. I used to envy that.

OK, here is one pushed by 2.5 stops (otherwise same
settings):
http://www.shooting4joy.com/photos/1...3_oGNzs-XL.jpg

Like hell? surely not.
Perfect? Nope, but you need to look closely, and IMHO it isn't
worse than film grain was. (and what does film grain do at
effective ISO 10.000?)

I did some 12x18 prints from my D70 @ ISO 800 or so, and a few large
2x3m commercial posters, with some careful noise reduction they came out
very well indeed, but sometimes typical screen (with poor calibration /
over-bright, bad gamma) is less forgiving than print.

True.

-Wolfgang