Go to a  "printer friendly" view of this message which allow an easy print Printer-friendly copy Go to the page which allows you to send this topic link and a message to a friend Email this topic to a friend
Forums Lobby GET TO KNOW YOUR CAMERA & MASTER IT Nikon D7100, D7000 (Public) topic #26296
View in linear mode

Subject: "D7100, D7000, D600 INTERESTING COMPARISON" Previous topic | Next topic
billD80 Silver Member Nikonian since 22nd Jan 2007Fri 12-Apr-13 12:01 AM
2141 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
"D7100, D7000, D600 INTERESTING COMPARISON"


US
          

http://kenrockwell.com/nikon/comparisons/2013-04-09-dslrs/index.htm

www.billkeane.zenfolio.com

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

Replies to this topic
Subject Author Message Date ID
Reply message RE: D7100, D7000, D600 INTERESTING COMPARISON
JosephK Silver Member
12th Apr 2013
1
Reply message RE: D7100, D7000, D600 INTERESTING COMPARISON
billD80 Silver Member
12th Apr 2013
2
     Reply message RE: D7100, D7000, D600 INTERESTING COMPARISON
JosephK Silver Member
12th Apr 2013
3
Reply message RE: D7100, D7000, D600 INTERESTING COMPARISON
Omaha
12th Apr 2013
4
Reply message RE: D7100, D7000, D600 INTERESTING COMPARISON
pimadude Silver Member
12th Apr 2013
5
     Reply message RE: D7100, D7000, D600 INTERESTING COMPARISON
Omaha
12th Apr 2013
6
          Reply message RE: D7100, D7000, D600 INTERESTING COMPARISON
pimadude Silver Member
12th Apr 2013
7
               Reply message RE: D7100, D7000, D600 INTERESTING COMPARISON
billD80 Silver Member
12th Apr 2013
8
                    Reply message RE: D7100, D7000, D600 INTERESTING COMPARISON
pimadude Silver Member
12th Apr 2013
9
                    Reply message RE: D7100, D7000, D600 INTERESTING COMPARISON
billD80 Silver Member
12th Apr 2013
10
                    Reply message RE: D7100, D7000, D600 INTERESTING COMPARISON
Omaha
12th Apr 2013
11
                         Reply message RE: D7100, D7000, D600 INTERESTING COMPARISON
billD80 Silver Member
12th Apr 2013
12
                              Reply message RE: D7100, D7000, D600 INTERESTING COMPARISON
Omaha
12th Apr 2013
13
                                   Reply message RE: D7100, D7000, D600 INTERESTING COMPARISON
billD80 Silver Member
12th Apr 2013
14
                                        Reply message RE: D7100, D7000, D600 INTERESTING COMPARISON
Omaha
12th Apr 2013
15
                                             Reply message RE: D7100, D7000, D600 INTERESTING COMPARISON
dm1dave Administrator
12th Apr 2013
16
Reply message RE: D7100, D7000, D600 INTERESTING COMPARISON
txstone12 Gold Member
12th Apr 2013
17
Reply message RE: D7100, D7000, D600 INTERESTING COMPARISON
Toby01 Silver Member
13th Apr 2013
18
Reply message RE: D7100, D7000, D600 INTERESTING COMPARISON
pgalligan
13th Apr 2013
19
     Reply message RE: D7100, D7000, D600 INTERESTING COMPARISON
Omaha
13th Apr 2013
20
          Reply message RE: D7100, D7000, D600 INTERESTING COMPARISON
pgalligan
13th Apr 2013
21
          Reply message RE: D7100, D7000, D600 INTERESTING COMPARISON
km6xz Moderator
13th Apr 2013
22
          Reply message RE: D7100, D7000, D600 INTERESTING COMPARISON
pgalligan
13th Apr 2013
23
          Reply message RE: D7100, D7000, D600 INTERESTING COMPARISON
Robman3
14th Apr 2013
34
          Reply message RE: D7100, D7000, D600 INTERESTING COMPARISON
Omaha
13th Apr 2013
27
          Reply message RE: D7100, D7000, D600 INTERESTING COMPARISON
agitater Gold Member
13th Apr 2013
24
               Reply message RE: D7100, D7000, D600 INTERESTING COMPARISON
Al G
13th Apr 2013
25
               Reply message RE: D7100, D7000, D600 INTERESTING COMPARISON
Omaha
13th Apr 2013
26
                    Reply message RE: D7100, D7000, D600 INTERESTING COMPARISON
agitater Gold Member
13th Apr 2013
28
                         Reply message RE: D7100, D7000, D600 INTERESTING COMPARISON
billD80 Silver Member
13th Apr 2013
29
                              Reply message RE: D7100, D7000, D600 INTERESTING COMPARISON
richardd300 Silver Member
13th Apr 2013
30
                                   Reply message RE: D7100, D7000, D600 INTERESTING COMPARISON
Omaha
13th Apr 2013
31
                                   Reply message RE: D7100, D7000, D600 INTERESTING COMPARISON
torwood Silver Member
13th Apr 2013
32
                                        Reply message RE: D7100, D7000, D600 INTERESTING COMPARISON
richardd300 Silver Member
13th Apr 2013
33
                                             Reply message RE: D7100, D7000, D600 INTERESTING COMPARISON
Lunastar Silver Member
15th Apr 2013
35
                                             Reply message RE: D7100, D7000, D600 INTERESTING COMPARISON
billD80 Silver Member
15th Apr 2013
36
                                                  Reply message RE: D7100, D7000, D600 INTERESTING COMPARISON
richardd300 Silver Member
15th Apr 2013
37

JosephK Silver Member Fellow Ribbon awarded for his excellent and frequent contributions and sharing his in-depth knowledge and experience with the community in the Nikonians spirit. Nikonian since 17th Apr 2006Fri 12-Apr-13 12:08 AM
4102 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#1. "RE: D7100, D7000, D600 INTERESTING COMPARISON"
In response to Reply # 0


Seattle, WA, US
          

Wow, I expected more controversy from KR. *shrug*

---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
Joseph K
Seattle, WA, USA

D700, D200, D70S, 24-70mm f/2.8, VR 70-200mm f/2.8 II,
50mm f/1.4 D, 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 VR, 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5 DX

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    
billD80 Silver Member Nikonian since 22nd Jan 2007Fri 12-Apr-13 12:13 AM
2141 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#2. "RE: D7100, D7000, D600 INTERESTING COMPARISON"
In response to Reply # 1


US
          

You know, sometimes, I've found him to be a bit more definitive than he had a right to be...

His opinions on shooting JPEG as opposed to RAW, might be right for many, but I found out they weren't right for me...

Even so, in general, he offers quick and easy practicality that's really worth the price of admission.

www.billkeane.zenfolio.com

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

        
JosephK Silver Member Fellow Ribbon awarded for his excellent and frequent contributions and sharing his in-depth knowledge and experience with the community in the Nikonians spirit. Nikonian since 17th Apr 2006Fri 12-Apr-13 12:22 AM
4102 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#3. "RE: D7100, D7000, D600 INTERESTING COMPARISON"
In response to Reply # 2


Seattle, WA, US
          

>Even so, in general, he offers quick and easy practicality
>that's really worth the price of admission.

Many folks would disagree with the "in general" part.
While there are some pearls of wisdom that can be found on his site, they are too few and too far between to be worth searching for, in my opinion. Too many of his recommendations make sense only if you view the world as he does, which I don't. Maybe he has changed in the last 5 years?

---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
Joseph K
Seattle, WA, USA

D700, D200, D70S, 24-70mm f/2.8, VR 70-200mm f/2.8 II,
50mm f/1.4 D, 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 VR, 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5 DX

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

Omaha Registered since 07th Jan 2012Fri 12-Apr-13 01:35 AM
524 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#4. "RE: D7100, D7000, D600 INTERESTING COMPARISON"
In response to Reply # 0


Omaha, US
          

I have to confess that I LOVE KR!

As for this particular comparison, it doesn't mean much to me. If you shoot raw, then its pretty much meaningless. All this is is a comparison of the various jpg conversion software packages in the respective cameras...with a small dose of sensor comparison under the surface.

The great irony of KR is that he professes (correctly, in my view) that hardware is not all that important while simultaneously deriving whatever income his site generates off of the curiosity of hardwarephiles.

When I was first ramping up my knowledge base on digital, I found him invaluable. Now that I've learned more, I see things he says that I agree with, and things I disagree with. Sometimes he says things that are downright dumb.

But if you peel it all away, I think he still provides a useful web site. His greatest strength is that he is not "two handed" as in "on the one hand this and on the other hand that". He states a clear opinion, right or wrong. Sometimes an imperfect but definitive statement is better than a mushy one.

Just my $0.02. YMMV.

Visit my Nikonians gallery
Most of my Nikon photos end up here.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    
pimadude Silver Member Nikonian since 28th Nov 2012Fri 12-Apr-13 04:47 PM
57 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#5. "RE: D7100, D7000, D600 INTERESTING COMPARISON"
In response to Reply # 4


Tucson, US
          

I completely concur with your statements about KR. Whenever I do a Google search for a particular lens or camera review, his site is generally at the top of the list.

I usually find his comments relatively straightforward and not far off the mark, especially for a quick review. I'll still look at the other reviews that appear on my search results, but KR's review isn't that far off the mark in most instances.

In terms of his stated preference for jpeg I know some very experienced photographers who also shoot almost exclusively jpeg. For those who aren't interested (or don't have time) to do a lot of post-processing jpegs still are useful IMO.

Jim

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

        
Omaha Registered since 07th Jan 2012Fri 12-Apr-13 06:04 PM
524 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#6. "RE: D7100, D7000, D600 INTERESTING COMPARISON"
In response to Reply # 5


Omaha, US
          

The raw vs jpg thing is a PERFECT example.

When you are a newbie, and you are confronted by a zillion simultaneous learning curves, you really don't need someone saying "on the one hand raw, on the other hand, jpg". Its nice having a voice that just say "shoot jpg".

I shot jpg for quite a while based on KR's advice.

Eventually, as I mastered other aspects of digital, I decided to explore raw. I came to understand its usefulness, particularly since I've been a serious Photoshop user (part of my job) for the last ten years. Once I realized how raw shooting allowed me to bridge my photography into my professional skill set, that's what I went with.

But I still also shoot jpg. I set one card on the D7000 to raw, one to jpg. For quickie snapshots, its nice being able to upload them straight to facebook (or email, or whatever) without having to go through all the fiddling around with ACR and all that.

And I'm sure that most deadline-driven guys shoot jpg too...news, sports, etc. Nothing wrong with making sure your camera is configured correctly for good jpg output.

But for a beginner? Its so liberating to hear "shoot jpg, and here are my complete camera settings you can use". Easy peasy.

BTW, I finally figured out today that this is why KR is so in love with the U1/U2 modes on the D7000/7100/600. That makes a lot more sense when you are shooting jpg. I kept wondering what I was missing, because in my style, I've never seen a need for that particular control.

Visit my Nikonians gallery
Most of my Nikon photos end up here.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

            
pimadude Silver Member Nikonian since 28th Nov 2012Fri 12-Apr-13 06:37 PM
57 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#7. "RE: D7100, D7000, D600 INTERESTING COMPARISON"
In response to Reply # 6


Tucson, US
          

Once again... I'm in agreement. I also have my D7000 set up to take both a raw (memory card slot 1) and jpg (memory card slot 2). The ease of using the jpg images for e-mails, Facebook, etc. just makes that a logical choice, at least for me!

Jim

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                
billD80 Silver Member Nikonian since 22nd Jan 2007Fri 12-Apr-13 06:45 PM
2141 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#8. "RE: D7100, D7000, D600 INTERESTING COMPARISON"
In response to Reply # 7


US
          

Shooting JPEG's makes sense on a lot of levels...

BUT, if one plans to do any PP, keep in mind that EVERY time you save a JPEG, you lose quality. It's probably imperceptible at first, but it definitely gets noticeable.

I have some JPEGs I wish I'd shot as NEFS because I've wanted to do some PP on them, and my hands are tied as to how far I can go.

www.billkeane.zenfolio.com

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                    
pimadude Silver Member Nikonian since 28th Nov 2012Fri 12-Apr-13 07:45 PM
57 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#9. "RE: D7100, D7000, D600 INTERESTING COMPARISON"
In response to Reply # 8


Tucson, US
          

I pretty much have always shot both raw and jpeg since I bought my first DSLR (a Nikon D50 in 2005). If I edit or PP a jpeg I generally use Save As to keep the original intact without the edits.

With the low cost of memory, it just seems rather easy to maintain originals of images (I keep both raw and jpeg generally, and back them up on a separate hard drive frequently).

Jim

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                        
billD80 Silver Member Nikonian since 22nd Jan 2007Fri 12-Apr-13 08:15 PM
2141 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#10. "RE: D7100, D7000, D600 INTERESTING COMPARISON"
In response to Reply # 9


US
          

If I edit or PP a
>jpeg I generally use Save As to keep the original intact
>without the edits.

And in so doing you are reducing the quality of the file.

www.billkeane.zenfolio.com

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                    
Omaha Registered since 07th Jan 2012Fri 12-Apr-13 08:55 PM
524 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#11. "RE: D7100, D7000, D600 INTERESTING COMPARISON"
In response to Reply # 8


Omaha, US
          

Just curious...What would be a scenario where one would want to save a jpg file more than once?

This seems more about workflow than file format, but if I were to want to massage a jpg file, I'd load it into Photoshop (or Illustrator, or whatever software package I happened to be using) and give it a workout there. The working file would then be a PSD.

If I needed one, I could export a jpg out of Photoshop. And depending on the settings I chose for the export, that will be a lossy event at one level or another...deliberately so. My "master" file (the full resolution one) is the Photoshop file. The jpg becomes a representation of that master, intended for a specific purpose (ie, web sharing, etc).

But I don't see a scenario where I would pull a jpg off a camera and then repeatedly save it in multiple generations.

Anyway, I decided to run a quick test. I pulled a jpg into Photoshop, and did a "Save->As" to a new file. Then I closed it, opened the new one, and did another "Save-As", and so on and so on until I had produced 20 generations of the file.

Then I loaded the original file, and then placed the 20th generation file on top of it in a new layer. I set the layer blending mode to "Difference". The result: No difference. Not a single pixel. So I'm not sure I agree with your premise either.

Total thread drift, I know. Sorry about that. Just curious about how you are approaching this.

Visit my Nikonians gallery
Most of my Nikon photos end up here.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                        
billD80 Silver Member Nikonian since 22nd Jan 2007Fri 12-Apr-13 09:05 PM
2141 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#12. "RE: D7100, D7000, D600 INTERESTING COMPARISON"
In response to Reply # 11
Fri 12-Apr-13 09:06 PM by billD80

US
          

>Anyway, I decided to run a quick test. I pulled a jpg into
>Photoshop, and did a "Save->As" to a new file.
>Then I closed it, opened the new one, and did another
>"Save-As", and so on and so on until I had produced
>20 generations of the file.
>
>Then I loaded the original file, and then placed the 20th
>generation file on top of it in a new layer. I set the layer
>blending mode to "Difference". The result: No
>difference. Not a single pixel.

If you see no difference, then great.

EVERY time a JPEG is saved as a JPEG, there is a loss in quality.

www.billkeane.zenfolio.com

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                            
Omaha Registered since 07th Jan 2012Fri 12-Apr-13 09:12 PM
524 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#13. "RE: D7100, D7000, D600 INTERESTING COMPARISON"
In response to Reply # 12


Omaha, US
          

I just don't think my test supports that conclusion.

Its not a question of subjectively seeing any difference. I mean at a pixel level, there is literally NO difference at all.

Curiously, though, the file sizes are not identical. They generally grew a bit, but not always, as the generations piled up. Where that comes from I have no idea (perhaps the file name/date/time stamp or other meta data are embedded in the jpg?).

But as for the image itself, I can say conclusively that saving 20 generations of a jpg using Photoshop resulted in absolutely no change.

Perhaps other programs are different?

Visit my Nikonians gallery
Most of my Nikon photos end up here.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                
billD80 Silver Member Nikonian since 22nd Jan 2007Fri 12-Apr-13 09:33 PM
2141 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#14. "RE: D7100, D7000, D600 INTERESTING COMPARISON"
In response to Reply # 13


US
          

>I just don't think my test supports that conclusion.
>
>Its not a question of subjectively seeing any difference. I
>mean at a pixel level, there is literally NO difference at
>all.

I think other tests show there is a very real difference, especially at pixel level.

There are tons of posts on this, but here's one from Steve's Digicams: "JPEG on the other hand, is a lossy format. Lossy means that compromises are made to allow some image quality to be lost each time the image is saved. In return for the slight quality loss, the file size can be much smaller, on the order of 2-10 times smaller than a compressed TIFF. When an image is saved in the JPEG file format and later reloaded, the saved/reloaded image will not be identical (pixel to pixel) to the original before it was saved. Fortunately, the quality losses can be very difficult if not impossible to detect with the unaided eye after only a single save. Keep in mind that repeatedly opening and resaving JPEG photos will incur cumulative losses with each save, making quality worse each time you resave the JPEG."

www.billkeane.zenfolio.com

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                    
Omaha Registered since 07th Jan 2012Fri 12-Apr-13 10:11 PM
524 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#15. "RE: D7100, D7000, D600 INTERESTING COMPARISON"
In response to Reply # 14


Omaha, US
          

This is one of those things that seems rather meaningless to me.

I now know (never bothered testing before) that repeatedly re-saving 20 generations of a jpg doesn't result in any changes. I'll allow that there could possibly be changes so subtle (a pixel being rendered at 246 rather than 245, for example) that I'm not seeing it. But if its that subtle, it becomes a "how many angels dancing on the head of a pin" question.

I still go back to my earlier comment as well: I can't visualize a work flow that would require repeatedly saving a jpg file. Maybe there are hobbiest image programs that use jpg as their working files? But if one is using professional or enthusiast grade tools (like Photoshop, etc), then the issue becomes moot. You won't ever need to re-save a jpg.

Lastly, none of this has anything to do with the question of shooting raw or jpg. Even if one chooses to have the camera do the initial jpg conversions, that doesn't imply running into a lossy, repeated save problem downstream.

Visit my Nikonians gallery
Most of my Nikon photos end up here.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                        
dm1dave Administrator Awarded for high level knowledge and skills in various areas, most notably in Wildlife and Landscape Writer Ribbon awarded for his excellent article contributions to the Nikonians community Nikonian since 12th Sep 2006Fri 12-Apr-13 11:03 PM
11279 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#16. "RE: D7100, D7000, D600 INTERESTING COMPARISON"
In response to Reply # 15
Fri 12-Apr-13 11:23 PM by dm1dave

Lowden, US
          

I agree, while it is true that as the image is repeatedly compressed damage is done, it really doesn’t matter until the damage can be seen in the final output of the file.

Also, opening or copying the JEPG does not result in any changes or damage to the file. So, a JEPG shooter should keep an unedited copy (strait from the camera) of the file. That way you can always go back to an original untouched image.

I recommend that beginners should shoot NEF + JEPG. Then save the NEF files as back-up until they develop a post processing skill set. .

I have a few images that I shot as JEPG only because I had not learned how to edit NEF’s – now that my post processing skills are much better I really wish I had NEF versions of those images. I could create much better images processing a NEF than I was/am able to create using the JEPG files.

Dave Summers
Lowden, Iowa
Nikonians Photo Contest Director

Nikonians membership -
"My most important photographic investment, after the camera"

My Nikonians Gallery | SummersPhotoGraphic.com | My Crated Gallery
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Showcase your best work in any of our 7 Monthly Nikonians Photo contests.


Wildlife | Landscape | Macro | Sports | Travel | Online Assignments | Best of Nikonians 2014

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

txstone12 Gold Member Nikonian since 12th Feb 2012Fri 12-Apr-13 11:28 PM
201 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#17. "RE: D7100, D7000, D600 INTERESTING COMPARISON"
In response to Reply # 0
Sat 13-Apr-13 01:57 AM by dm1dave

Texas, US
          

I agree with the philosophy of why we might want to shoot both RAW and JPEG.

If you modify and re-save a JPEG image multiple times, recompressing portions of the image multiple times, eventually you diminish the quality of the image. Here's a reference that's relevant to modifying JPEGs by Darrell Young (Digital Darrell) on Nikonian's

http://www.nikonians.org/reviews?alias=image_format_guide

Nasim Mansurov provides some DR examples showing the flexibility with RAW here

Photographylife - Raw-vs- JEPG


Edited: to fix raw-vs-jepg link

David

Visit my Nikonians gallery


Visit my SmugMug Gallery.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

Toby01 Silver Member Nikonian since 19th Nov 2012Sat 13-Apr-13 02:19 AM
229 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#18. "RE: D7100, D7000, D600 INTERESTING COMPARISON"
In response to Reply # 0


El Sobrante, US
          

I expect KR makes many of his comments just to generate controversy and generate traffic on his website. Every once in a while he actually says something useful, but mixed in with a bunch of opinionated nonsense. I admit to visiting his site regularly, but it's almost entirely for the amusement value. If I want sensible opinions/information, I use Nikonions, Nasim Mansurov, or Thom Hogan. When I first looked at the images the OP pointed to, I didn't check to see which one was from which camera. Unlike KR, I see the one from the D7100 as sharpest, followed by the D600, and then the D7000. As someone else commented, this is probably the result of the jpeg processing rather than any inherent advantage of one camera over the others.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    
pgalligan Registered since 11th Dec 2012Sat 13-Apr-13 03:52 AM
32 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#19. "RE: D7100, D7000, D600 INTERESTING COMPARISON"
In response to Reply # 18


AU
          

With Lightroom and Aperture you are doing non-destructive editing. You can apply as many changes as you like and view the output on screen without touching the original JPEG. If you export, the original is left untouched. Only the new file you are exporting to will have a small amount of diminished quality. If you need to use Photoshop to do further editing, export to TIFF or PSD and you will see minimal loss in quality in your final output.

Does anyone really do multiple saves over the top of the original file?

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

        
Omaha Registered since 07th Jan 2012Sat 13-Apr-13 05:38 AM
524 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#20. "RE: D7100, D7000, D600 INTERESTING COMPARISON"
In response to Reply # 19


Omaha, US
          


>Does anyone really do multiple saves over the top of the
>original file?

Exactly. Why would that ever happen?

Just for fun, I extended my test a bit tonight.I printed out both the original and the 20th generation version on the HP Designjet Z2100 we have at the office.

To the naked eye, they look absolutely identical. Under a loop, they look absolutely identical. Stacked in Photoshop with the layer blending mode set to "difference", there are no apparent differences. I showed the prints to five different people. None could tell them apart, with or without a loop.

I don't see the slightest bit of evidence that the jpg-generational-degradation "problem" means anything in the real world. I suppose its theoretically possible that you would introduce visible degradation if you went through 50 or 100 generations, but, again, why would you? Maybe it depends on the nature of the image...the one I used has a lot of contrasty elements (its an outdoor portrait with an in-focus background of a forest scene). Maybe if you had a big, solid area (like a wall) the compression losses would be more apparent.

Anyway, lets go create some awesome images with our Nikons!!!

Visit my Nikonians gallery
Most of my Nikon photos end up here.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

            
pgalligan Registered since 11th Dec 2012Sat 13-Apr-13 06:06 AM
32 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#21. "RE: D7100, D7000, D600 INTERESTING COMPARISON"
In response to Reply # 20


AU
          

A comment on your test - I expect that Photoshop is a lot smarter than many other image editors/viewers. If you were to use, for example, Irfanview and repeat your test I suspect the results would be different and you would notice a difference after 20 generations.

What did you have the Quality option set to when you were saving your 20 generations of files?

A comment on KR - his opinion is worth what you pay for it, and it is just one man's opinion. I enjoy reading his articles but I certainly don't treat his advice as gospel. For starters I've always shot RAW except for some sporting events where I might need the extra memory card space. I find it hilarious that some people get so worked up over one man's opinion.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                
km6xz Moderator Awarded for his in-depth knowledge in various areas, including Portraits and Urban Photography Nikonian since 22nd Jan 2009Sat 13-Apr-13 07:05 AM
3292 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#22. "RE: D7100, D7000, D600 INTERESTING COMPARISON"
In response to Reply # 21


St Petersburg, RU
          

Well, you DO pay for it. He makes his money by affiliate agreements with large retailers who pay not only for clicks but for sales also. His site gets far more visits than less controversial sites like Nikonians.
You pay in getting self serving recommendations that drive sales to what gets the highest commissions. When a site has that many uniques per day they can negotiate pretty good commission rates instead of just cpm. So we have seen him switch opinions about items that are in ample stock away from items that have waiting lists. So unsuspecting readers are getting bad advice if it suits his financial goals.
He is well known to promote linkbacks by posting controversial statements and sees his site visits soar if he says something intentionally stupid. He knows that even people who think he is a phony will spam forums with links back to his site which generates more money for him. His detractors promote his business more that paid ads could. He is very good playing to the less informed and has to be laughing at those who reliably post links enticing people to visit his site even if they know he is full of it.
Posting links that take people off the Nikonians site or any site, that contributes nothing to the conversation is not good netiquette. Starting yet another KR debate does not further the goal of the site.
Stan
St Petersburg Russia

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                    
pgalligan Registered since 11th Dec 2012Sat 13-Apr-13 07:34 AM
32 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#23. "RE: D7100, D7000, D600 INTERESTING COMPARISON"
In response to Reply # 22


AU
          

I don't pay for it. I don't click his links and I don't buy from any of the mobs he advertises (mainly because I'm on the other side of the world). "Unsuspecting readers" deserve what they get if they believe everything written on the Internet

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                    
Robman3 Registered since 12th Apr 2010Sun 14-Apr-13 05:52 PM
1756 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#34. "RE: D7100, D7000, D600 INTERESTING COMPARISON"
In response to Reply # 22


West of Santa Monica, US
          

Thanks Stan, many do not "get" his business model and there are other sites for research, the guys at Photography in Malaysia come to mind.

RM

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                
Omaha Registered since 07th Jan 2012Sat 13-Apr-13 01:14 PM
524 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#27. "RE: D7100, D7000, D600 INTERESTING COMPARISON"
In response to Reply # 21


Omaha, US
          

I set the quality slider to "12" (the maximum) and the format options to "Progressive" with three scans.

FWIW, I'm using Photoshop CS6.

Visit my Nikonians gallery
Most of my Nikon photos end up here.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

            
agitater Gold Member Nikonian since 18th Jan 2007Sat 13-Apr-13 10:47 AM
3956 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#24. "RE: D7100, D7000, D600 INTERESTING COMPARISON"
In response to Reply # 20


Toronto, CA
          


>To the naked eye, they look absolutely identical. Under a
>loop, they look absolutely identical. Stacked in Photoshop
>with the layer blending mode set to "difference",
>there are no apparent differences. I showed the prints to five
>different people. None could tell them apart, with or without
>a loop.

Of course you can't find any differences because you didn't do any file edits. All that changed was the date and time in the EXIIF data, a change which does not cause re-compression. No re-compression takes place unless you alter the image or alter the compression setting.

My Nikonians Gallery

Howard Carson, Managing Editor
Kickstartnews Inc. - http://www.kickstartnews.com

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                
Al G Registered since 17th Nov 2012Sat 13-Apr-13 11:30 AM
116 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#25. "RE: D7100, D7000, D600 INTERESTING COMPARISON"
In response to Reply # 24


US
          

I started shooting jpg but I like RAW because at least with my D90 the out of camera jpgs were not that great looking to me. KR was a big fan of lots of saturation (very warm people photos) and that is not for me. Nikon was getting lower marks on out of camera images compared to others in some reviews.

RAW (along with LR) allowed me to create a jpg like I wanted (sharpening, contrast, etc) plus I could save a few images that were not perfect (exposure off,etc).

Once I started using RAW 100% the only real impact is just HDD size since the file sizes are significantly bigger. This became more obvious with the D600. You just need to do what you really needed to do and delete the ones you would never use. I do miss the depth of field more but then it just makes me pay for attention to what I am doing - use aperture priority more.

Al

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                
Omaha Registered since 07th Jan 2012Sat 13-Apr-13 01:08 PM
524 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#26. "RE: D7100, D7000, D600 INTERESTING COMPARISON"
In response to Reply # 24


Omaha, US
          

But even that is alleged to degrade the image.

Visit my Nikonians gallery
Most of my Nikon photos end up here.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                    
agitater Gold Member Nikonian since 18th Jan 2007Sat 13-Apr-13 01:46 PM
3956 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#28. "RE: D7100, D7000, D600 INTERESTING COMPARISON"
In response to Reply # 26
Sat 13-Apr-13 02:09 PM by agitater

Toronto, CA
          

>But even that is alleged to degrade the image.

I've seen such claims too. They're not accurate.

Open a newly shot JPG file. Straighten, adjust levels, adjust contrast, adjust colour. Apply unsharp mask. Save file at 100% (which amounts to minimal compression).

After some time considering the edit while staring at the photo, decide that it needs some colour correction. Open the same JPG file in the editor, make your colour corrections, then resave or save as at 100%.

Diff the two files and note the differences. They'll be small but detectable.

Open the twice edited file a third time, etc., etc., etc., re-diff the thing to find even more detectable differences.

The trick with JPG is only to recognize the limitations of the format. Do all your edits at once, use a really good and comprehensive JPG handler/editor such as ACDSee Pro, and you'll get almost every benefit out of JPG files that you'll get out of RAW files.

There are still far too many comparative benefits available from working with NEF/RAW files, especially when final output is going to be printed. Going from NEF to TIF is part of an ideal workflow for medium-to-large size, high resolution print output with real 'pop' - no doubt about it. But for small-to-medium size (up to about 16"x20" IMO), properly handled JPG files can work perfectly.

In 1998, at MGI Software, the guys from Altamira Group who had developed Genuine Fractals gave us a demo of the plug-in and the newly developed standalone version of the software. They took a full size JPG (shot with a prototype Sony DSC-F505V, 2.6mp image), blew it up to a print size of 16'x20" 16"x20", and output it on our Epson wide format printer. For most intents and purposes (display, postering, framing, exhibiting) it was a perfect resize. From a 2.6mp JPG.

I think the takeaway is that if we genuinely know what we're doing with Perfect Resize (Altamira sold Genuine Fractals to LizardTech which sold it to its current developer, OnOne Software) or any other high-end photo editor, and if we take the time to learn the nuances and limits of various image file formats, it's possible to get superb, professional results out of well-shot, properly handled JPG files.

So I agree that simply stating that NEF/RAW is universally better than JPG doesn't make sense. That said, since post-processing is a fact of life no matter what the source file format happens to be, purely from a time management point of view it frequently makes the most sense to start off with a file that contains the greatest amount of data - and that means NEF/RAW, especially if the photographer does a lot of printing or is producing work for studios and so on. For many, many photographers who publish the majority of their output only online though, shooting RAW + JPG makes sense because they can go right to JPG editing and resizing, and only have to get into NEF/RAW file editing and coverting when they decide to do fine quality prints or editing for contests or exhibitions.

That's how I see the issue and that's my own practice.

My Nikonians Gallery

Howard Carson, Managing Editor
Kickstartnews Inc. - http://www.kickstartnews.com

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                        
billD80 Silver Member Nikonian since 22nd Jan 2007Sat 13-Apr-13 02:30 PM
2141 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#29. "RE: D7100, D7000, D600 INTERESTING COMPARISON"
In response to Reply # 28


US
          

>Open a newly shot JPG file. Straighten, adjust levels, adjust
>contrast, adjust colour. Apply unsharp mask. Save file at 100%
>(which amounts to minimal compression).
>
>After some time considering the edit while staring at the
>photo, decide that it needs some colour correction. Open the
>same JPG file in the editor, make your colour corrections,
>then resave or save as at 100%.
>
>Diff the two files and note the differences. They'll be small
>but detectable.
>
>Open the twice edited file a third time, etc., etc., etc.,
>re-diff the thing to find even more detectable differences.

Yes, exactly.

I noticed this by accident when slightly reworking a shot with a great deal of clear sky. After a few re-saves, at 100% quality, there was slight blotching in the sky, instead of a seamless gradation of darker to lighter color tones.

It might not have been picked up on a small print, but it was definitely there. It wasn't something I was looking for because I assumed a re-save at full quality wouldn't degrade the image at all.

That's when I went back to shooting RAW and editing from the NEF...


www.billkeane.zenfolio.com

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                            
richardd300 Silver Member Nikonian since 19th Apr 2009Sat 13-Apr-13 04:26 PM
3294 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#30. "RE: D7100, D7000, D600 INTERESTING COMPARISON"
In response to Reply # 29


Dyserth, GB
          

For me it's not complicated. I have two top level cameras, a D7100 and a D800. I have mostly pro and a few consumer lenses, I have good CF and SDHC cards. In other words I have the cards to match the cameras. Why would I want to spoil the party by taking anything other than RAW files. Even with card slot 2 I use them as RAW backup.

I would have thought the argument of jpeg v RAW would by now be dead in the water. I am both a competition contributor at club level and a competition judge at other clubs. One thing I notice and is noticed by other judges of a far higher caliber than I, is the degradation caused through original jpeg image post processing. Often the jpeg deterioration and artifacts can all too often be clearly seen as most competitions are presented either by 16x12 inch mounted prints or 1024x768 px. At the very least a jpeg shooter is advised to process a jpeg as a background copy so the original is left reasonably untouched.

The only reasons I can see not to use RAW is if one is a pro photographer who undertakes deadline or upload images for press tethered to a laptop or sport purposes. Or perhaps wherever fast unprocessed images may be required by the client then using the 2nd SDHC cards for jpegs to allow for immediate slideshows etc.

Richard

Visit my Nikonians gallery

Visit my website www.pixels4u.co.uk
The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing. Einstein

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                
Omaha Registered since 07th Jan 2012Sat 13-Apr-13 05:04 PM
524 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#31. "RE: D7100, D7000, D600 INTERESTING COMPARISON"
In response to Reply # 30


Omaha, US
          

Totally agree. Anyone who is serious about IQ really needs to be shooting raw. I dont see how there can be any serious debate on that point.

But I do believe that for the DSLR beginner, confronted with all manner of overlapping learning curves, its good advice to just say "use these settings and shoot jpg". If it suits them, they will migrate to raw in time.

Visit my Nikonians gallery
Most of my Nikon photos end up here.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                
torwood Silver Member Nikonian since 06th Dec 2010Sat 13-Apr-13 05:08 PM
664 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#32. "RE: D7100, D7000, D600 INTERESTING COMPARISON"
In response to Reply # 30


Jefferson Hills, US
          

I shoot exclusively jpeg for two reasons: 1) My pp skills are not very well developed, and I don't have the time or inclination to seriously work on them; 2) I shoot mostly sports images these days, and I don't have the time or inclination to pp 100 keeper images from every shoot, which could be 3-4 per week. I know others like Perrone Ford have conversion protocols (or whatever you call them) that batch edit their raw images, but,...see item 1, above.

I'm pretty happy with the way my Nikons (currently a D7000) produce jpegs right out of camera. For outdoor shots, I rarely do anything but crop and sharpen. This can be done in jpeg. The only time I'm even tempted to use raw is when I get an indoor basketball shoot that has a particularly difficult WB situation for the camera - like the mix between sunlight and fluorescent light, which Auto-WB seems to be clueless how to deal with.

Regarding KR, I know he is a hot button here, and I do recognize the limitations of his site, but I admit to enjoy reading him. I also saw this particular comparison before it was posted here. For me, as a jpeg shooter, this has real value. What I saw was that when shooting jpeg, the D600 is slightly less noisy at extreme ISOs (I'd never shoot my D7000 at ISO 12,000), but otherwise, the D7100 seems to apply slightly less in-camera NR (though I don't think he tells us his settings for that - though probably OFF), which results in (VERY) slightly greater detail retention at high ISO's. The disappointing thing is that the D7100 does not appear to give us more than maybe a 1/3 stop improvement in noise over the D7000,...and that isn't worth upgrading for.

But, since KR does not shoot action, he does not stress in his D7100 review that the the D7100 autofocuses an order of magnitude better/faster than the other two cameras due to the pro AF module. For that reason, i will probably trade my D7000 and maybe an older lens (to soften the blow) I don't shoot anymore and upgrade to the D7100 for the indoor season next fall. If I can get half the cost back on a D7100, $500 seems like a small price to pay for 50% more pixels and much better AF.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                    
richardd300 Silver Member Nikonian since 19th Apr 2009Sat 13-Apr-13 05:54 PM
3294 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#33. "RE: D7100, D7000, D600 INTERESTING COMPARISON"
In response to Reply # 32


Dyserth, GB
          

<< For that reason, i will probably trade my D7000 and maybe an older lens (to soften the blow) I don't shoot anymore and upgrade to the D7100 for the indoor season next fall.>>

I think that is a reasonable decision considering upgrading at some stage to the D7100. To me I am as thrilled with the D7100 as I was with my D800 and likewise my D300 many years ago now. For anyone who fights against too much time spent on a computer post processing (that's me to) the D7100 offers something only the D800E can, sharper images which amaze me every time I upload a new batch of files. Somehow it just seems to do things better, a big one here for me is tonal quality.

Last week I took a break and went photographing wildlife, mainly birds and landscapes. Almost unbelievably for me I left my D800 at home in preference for the D7100. It's been a roll reversal in some ways, but the D800 still makes best use of my pro lenses when wider fields of view are required and taking slow shots with ND multi stop filters etc.

Richard

Visit my Nikonians gallery

Visit my website www.pixels4u.co.uk
The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing. Einstein

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                        
Lunastar Silver Member Nikonian since 06th Jan 2010Mon 15-Apr-13 05:20 AM
3032 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#35. "RE: D7100, D7000, D600 INTERESTING COMPARISON"
In response to Reply # 33


Mankato, US
          

That appears to actually be helpful w/o the usual KR hyperbole. Still, if you want to see a photo store salesman tighten up all you have to do is wait for a customer to say, " yeah but..KR says...."


Mark



www.mercuryoutdoorcommunications.com

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                        
billD80 Silver Member Nikonian since 22nd Jan 2007Mon 15-Apr-13 01:35 PM
2141 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#36. "RE: D7100, D7000, D600 INTERESTING COMPARISON"
In response to Reply # 33


US
          

>Last week I took a break and went photographing wildlife,
>mainly birds and landscapes. Almost unbelievably for me I
>left my D800 at home in preference for the D7100.

That's a rather powerful endorsement. I held a D800 last week, and it's quite something...


www.billkeane.zenfolio.com

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                            
richardd300 Silver Member Nikonian since 19th Apr 2009Mon 15-Apr-13 06:23 PM
3294 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#37. "RE: D7100, D7000, D600 INTERESTING COMPARISON"
In response to Reply # 36


Dyserth, GB
          

<<That's a rather powerful endorsement. I held a D800 last week, and it's quite something...>>

Please don't misunderstand me, but what I mean is in terms of fps, the APS-C x1.5 sensor, the extra x1.3 crop and the removal of the AA filter makes the D7100 an almost perfect wildlife camera. I say almost as I do miss the AF-ON button! To me the D7100 for the purpose I use it is the best tool I have.

The D800 is perfection in another way and my principal landscape, portrait, cityscape and architectural camera. My pro lenses come alive especially the pro wide angle lenses including the 24-70mm f2.8.

So in a way I guess in old money one is my D2x and the other my D2H, but perhaps not the fairest comparison.

The plus point is that both cameras will be used mostly within the genres I bought them for, however both with some caveats will stand in for the other when I don't want to carry two bodies. Believe me I have been very critical in the past especially with the D7000, but now I count myself very fortunate to have two cameras that I trust

Richard

Visit my Nikonians gallery

Visit my website www.pixels4u.co.uk
The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing. Einstein

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

Forums Lobby GET TO KNOW YOUR CAMERA & MASTER IT Nikon D7100, D7000 (Public) topic #26296 Previous topic | Next topic


Take the Nikonians Tour and learn more about being a Nikonian Wiki /FAQ /Help Listen to our MP3 photography radio channels Find anything on Nikon and imaging technology - fast!

Copyright © Nikonians 2000, 2014
All Rights Reserved

Nikonians®, NikoScope® and NikoniansAcademy™ are trademarks owned by Nikonians.org.
Nikon®, Nikonos® and Nikkor® are registered trademarks of Nikon Corporation.