#2. "RE: D7000 Extensive Testing" In response to Reply # 0 Sat 30-Oct-10 08:52 PM by Ray S
I went to the Imaging Resource samples you listed and they looked pretty good. But then I used the "Compare Sample Images" available on that forum and compared the images with the new Canon 60D. If you look at the house picture in full size, I think you can see that the bricks are much sharper on the Canon. Exposure on the lady is better on the D7000. Also if you compare the "Resolution" image the Canon is definitely better.
#6. "RE: D7000 Extensive Testing" In response to Reply # 3
You made a good point about the lens so I went back and checked. Apparently the Resolution photos both used a Sigma 70,, F/2.8 lens so I think they shold be comparable. However the house pictures appear to have used differrent lenses. The D7000 used a Sigma 70 mm F/2.8 lense and the Canon used the Canon 16-35 mm lense so we probably should not be comparing those.
#7. "RE: D7000 Extensive Testing" In response to Reply # 0 Sun 31-Oct-10 07:54 AM by km6xz
St Petersburg, RU
The main problem with comparing the 60d and D7000 is the difference in settings. Canon has higher sharpening as default and any boost is over sharpened, same with saturation. Nikon, starting with the D90 has very dull default settings. That created a rash of complaints about poor sharpness when the D90 came out, and early reviews panned it, like DPR saying it was not as good at the rather pedestrian Canon 450D. They even mentioned it looked a lot better when sharpening was set up a notch or two but their policy was not use anything but default settings. The same with the D7000, the EXIF settings show "Normal" or default settings. The D7000 just as the D90 requires a boost to 5-6 for best image quality. On the D7000 the difference is even more striking than on the D90. Posts of properly sharpened D7000 images compared to the 7d show a distinct advantage to the 7d, which if boosted looks very much over sharpened. Canon knows how the test sites test so sets their defaults to the highest practical. Nikon has been much more conservative which hurts them in the on-line reviews. After seeing how unrealistic the DPR review was compared to real world shooting I stopped paying attention to any of them. Later reviews got it a lot closer to what real users were getting out of theirs. Do not expect great images or values from early reviews. As in most fields where consumers can evaluate numbers and judge, single category tests do not relate well to real experience. For instance in Hi-Fi gear, testing of single values ranks systems in people's minds but tell absolutely nothing about how well it performs in use, the perceived quality takes in a vast array of interdependent criteria and some never tested for because of not being well understood. What is tested for is what is easily tested for. Power output is tested for because it is very easy to test for but means little in listening tests. Frequency response is even less a factor in listening tests but is easy to test for. Dynamic inter-harmonic distortion is very hard to test for but has great bearing on subjective listening tests, so it is ignored. Same with cameras and images. Two images with the same total grain value might have vastly differing quality impression by viewers since amplitude is not as important as character, randomness, granularity etc. Higher levels of randomness in film grain looked more pleasing than less randomness even if amplitude was lower. Realism has little connection to Sharpness, that is a term used by photographers to quantify one value because it is easy to measure despite not having much to do with subjective perception of an image. Micro contrast for example has more impact but harder to test for so it is ignored in tests. Non-photographers subjectively rate images very differently than photographers who tend to isolate slight differences that have no impact on the perception by a view of the image. So manufacturers have been focusing on testing well in the tests that give quantitative values for single criteria tested in isolation. Car and Hi-Fi makers ended up doing the same thing. Sometimes, by luck improvements in one of these criteria, when combined with other not tested for criteria ended up with an improvement in perception but that is mostly by accident. Double blind tests of images, cars, hi-fi gear often embarrass the hobbyists who thrive on single criteria tests. Stan St Petersburg Russia