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 #5784
View in linear mode

Subject: "On the fence" Previous topic | Next topic
browntdb Silver Member Nikonian since 10th Apr 2009Thu 10-Feb-11 06:06 PM
224 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
"On the fence"


Corvallis, US
          

I am seeking some feedback on the D7000. I have a D90 and love it, but with the slower kit lenses that I use, I get frustrated that I can only go to iso 800 and get good images. The ability to shoot at higher iso levels with the D7000 is very attractive.

I have been reading this forum since the beginning and notice several posts that discuss the bigger sensor with greater pixel density may cause lack of sharpness of images unless the camera is very stable; ie, camera shake is more tolerated in the D90 vs. the D7000. If this is the case, this nullifies some of the advantages of higer ISO - having to shoot at a higher shutter speed.

I would really appreciate some quantitative input from D7000 users who may have experienced this phenomenon. How much of a problem is it?

If I disliked the D90, the decision would be easier, but laying out $1200 for a new camera body when it may not make that much difference may not be the wisest thing to do. I am really trying to fight back NAS and be realistic about what real improvements the D7000 would give me over the D90. If I was coming from a D60 or D70, it would not be an issue.

I appreciate any thoughtful input someone could give me.

Terry

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

  

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

Replies to this topic
Subject Author Message Date ID
Reply message RE: On the fence
JPJ Silver Member
10th Feb 2011
1
Reply message RE: On the fence
Gamecocks Silver Member
10th Feb 2011
2
Reply message RE: On the fence
billD80 Silver Member
10th Feb 2011
3
Reply message RE: On the fence
browntdb Silver Member
10th Feb 2011
4
     Reply message RE: On the fence
luckyphoto Silver Member
10th Feb 2011
5
Reply message RE: On the fence
TomCurious
10th Feb 2011
6
Reply message RE: On the fence
DAJolley Silver Member
10th Feb 2011
7
Reply message RE: On the fence
captainkev
10th Feb 2011
8
Reply message RE: On the fence
PAStime Silver Member
10th Feb 2011
9
Reply message RE: On the fence
jgamble Silver Member
11th Feb 2011
10
Reply message RE: On the fence
billD80 Silver Member
11th Feb 2011
11
     Reply message RE: On the fence
JPJ Silver Member
11th Feb 2011
12
          Reply message RE: On the fence
billD80 Silver Member
11th Feb 2011
14
Reply message RE: On the fence
po6ept
11th Feb 2011
13
Reply message RE: On the fence
JPJ Silver Member
11th Feb 2011
15
     Reply message RE: On the fence
browntdb Silver Member
11th Feb 2011
16
          Reply message RE: On the fence
browntdb Silver Member
15th Feb 2011
17
               Reply message RE: On the fence
briantilley Moderator
15th Feb 2011
18
Reply message RE: Sharpness - and MP.
Len Shepherd Gold Member
16th Feb 2011
19
Reply message RE: Sharpness - and MP.
billD80 Silver Member
16th Feb 2011
20

JPJ Silver Member Nikonian since 20th Aug 2009Thu 10-Feb-11 06:48 PM
1327 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: On the fence"
In response to Reply # 0


Toronto, CA
          

Terry,

I was a loyal d90 owner, having bought it when it came out. Although I tried the d300(s) cameras I never gave in to NAS as they didn't offer me anything that was going to improve my image quality over the d90 (my view was the greatest advantage the d300(s) had was the AF and burst shooting, something that was not a huge deal for me).

If shooting in low light is something you do often, than the d7000 will give you notable improvement over the d90/d300(s). The d90 and d300(s) were good up to ISO 800, 1600 if you were pushing it. The d7000 is good up to ISO 3200, 6400 if you are pushing it and in fact 12800 retains good colour and detail although it is noisy.

In addition, the d7000 would give you usable video (the d90's video mode is so bad I never used mine), a slightly better AWB, a more intuitive matrix meter (no longer will it over or under expose because it is weighing the scene towards whatever is under your focal point), and a much, much better AF system that performs noticably better in low light.

There are also little things to consider like having the option of release priority for AF-S, user shooting banks which are actually well done and useful, etc.

I could go on, there are numerous things about the d7000 that make it an improvement to the d90 and the d300(s) imo. It has the capability of certainly providing you with greater flexibility in your shooting and certainly in low light, the ability to capture photographs you may otehrwise not be able to.

I was a d40 user who bought the d90 amidst complaints it was producing soft images. Personally I have not had a problem with the d7000 using the same basic shooting rules I used on the d90. For focal lengths up to 200mm I like to shoot at just over 1/focal length if I can, bumping up ISO if required. I have certainly captured sharp images below that with the d7000. Over 200mm I start trying to get my shutter speed up to more like 1/1.5x focal length or higher. I have never had a problem. In fact, I find with shots of highly detailed items, that the d7000's extra MP's can actually produce sharper results when treated correctly (I prefer to do all of my sharpening post processing, but I have produced great results out of the camera setting sharpening to 6 or 7).

Although I am sure some people have had legitimate issues with the d7000, such as the odd defective camera, most of the issues I have seen from people complaining of softness either involved photos taken at shutter speeds that were too low or photos that had little to no sharpening applied. Nikon, for years now, has produced DSLR's that are very conservative on sharpening to allow the user to determine how much to apply. This may cause some people to believe that a largely unsharpened image is soft.

I still think the d90 is a fantastic camera and if I couldn't afford to upgrade to the d7000 I would still be using it happily. The d7000 however definitely improved on it in areas that make a difference to me, and this was enough to pull the trigger (for me).

Jason

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

  

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

Gamecocks Silver Member Nikonian since 22nd Jul 2010Thu 10-Feb-11 07:24 PM
982 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: On the fence"
In response to Reply # 0


Joanna, US
          

Terry,

Jason covered everything very well as the 7k does have many advantages. I went from a D70s and have produced what I believe are very sharp pictures and when you add great resolution and tone qualities it makes the 7k really jump. The only "out of focus" shots I've had have been user error - nothing to do with the camera's sensor or pixel size. We all should be working on improving our techniques and learning as we continue to shoot. When we do this our end results are better.

Regards,

John

Nobody should seek his own good, but the good of others. <><

  

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

billD80 Silver Member Nikonian since 22nd Jan 2007Thu 10-Feb-11 07:28 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
#3. "RE: On the fence"
In response to Reply # 0


US
          

>I have been reading this forum since the beginning and notice
>several posts that discuss the bigger sensor with greater
>pixel density may cause lack of sharpness of images unless the
>camera is very stable; ie, camera shake is more tolerated in
>the D90 vs. the D7000.

Greater pixel density does not cause lack of sharpness.

It may REVEAL lack of sharpness at 100% that lesser density sensors might hide, simply because they cannot resolve to as fine a degree...

www.billkeane.zenfolio.com

  

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

    
browntdb Silver Member Nikonian since 10th Apr 2009Thu 10-Feb-11 08:30 PM
224 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: On the fence"
In response to Reply # 3
Thu 10-Feb-11 08:31 PM by browntdb

Corvallis, US
          

Thank you all for your comments, and especially for the detailed response from Jason. That was very helpful. If anyone else would like to comment on the original topic, I think it might be helpeful to not only me, but others in the same situation as I am.

I think this is a timely topic now that many of the early adopters have purchased the D7000 and the rest of us are now catching up weighing our options.

Thanks again, Guys.

Terry

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

  

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

        
luckyphoto Silver Member Nikonian since 27th Dec 2010Thu 10-Feb-11 09:19 PM
743 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: On the fence"
In response to Reply # 4


Port Charlotte, US
          

While I was shooting with my D80 I was drooling over the D90, but when the D7000 was announced it wasn't a tough choice. I've had the D7000 since early November and love it, but discovered a reality.

The D7000 is more demanding than my D80 (and your D90). I need both good glass and excellent shooting technique to get the absolute best results. My new best friends are the D7000, 50mm f/1.8 in low light, 18-55mm VR in daylight. I do a lot of hand-held with great results and use a tripod for ultimate sharpness.

The 18-55mm will be upgraded in the future, but in good light that lens provides pretty decent results.

Good glass and good photo technique will, I believe, provide the delta between the D90 and the D7000 you're looking for.

Larry

"Red is gray and yellow white, but we decide which is right
....and which is an illusion"

Moody Blues - Nights in White Satin

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

  

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

TomCurious Registered since 03rd Jan 2007Thu 10-Feb-11 09:45 PM
2318 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: On the fence"
In response to Reply # 0


Bay Area, US
          

>I have a D90 and love it, but with the slower kit lenses that I use, I get
>frustrated that I can only go to iso 800 and get good images.

For the price of a D7000, I'd rather upgrade the kit lens instead. You already have fast primes for 35 and 50mm. Add the 85/1.8, and/or the 17-55/2.8 and you'll have a terrific kit. A D90 with 17-55 will beat the D7000 with 18-105 any day. Not only will the faster lens allow for faster shutter speeds at the same ISO, you will achieve subject isolation and bokeh that the kit lens cannot deliver at any ISO. Also, good glass holds it's value and you will be able to enjoy it with future cameras.

Tom
Bay Area Nikonian


http://www.tkphoto.me/

  

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

DAJolley Silver Member Nikonian since 19th Dec 2007Thu 10-Feb-11 09:52 PM
1143 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: On the fence"
In response to Reply # 0


US
          

I just moved up from the D90 to D7000 and so far am very happy for the reasons stated in the previous posts. My primary camera is a D700 and so far the RAW files from the D7000 look every bit as good as those from the D700.
You may find as I did that you need additional SD cards to accommodate the larger files and faster cards if you plan to shoot video or do high speed bursts. Most of my SD cards are class 4 and class 6 is required for video and class 10 is even better. These cards don't come cheap.
You may also need to invest in an additional battery at about $60 roughly double what an extra battery costs for the D90.
Dave Jolley
http://www.pbase.com/hockingphotos

David Jolley
Pickerington, Ohio
Please visit my Website

  

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

captainkev Registered since 24th Jan 2011Thu 10-Feb-11 10:09 PM
78 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: On the fence"
In response to Reply # 0


Washington Township, US
          

I recently went from a D70 to the D7000 and have heard the same things about sharpness. Due to the deep freeze here in Michigan I have not been outside shooting as much as I would like. I do have on pic in my gallery called For the Love of Hockey which was taken on the D7000 with my 80-400 vr len out to 400, handheld, aperture F7, shutter 1/800. It was a bit of quick shot but I am happy with the clarity of it considering the conditions. So I dont feel the lack of sharpness is a real factor

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

  

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

PAStime Silver Member Nikonian since 10th Feb 2009Thu 10-Feb-11 11:31 PM
2669 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: On the fence"
In response to Reply # 0


Kingston, CA
          


>I have been reading this forum since the beginning and notice
>several posts that discuss the bigger sensor with greater
>pixel density may cause lack of sharpness of images unless the
>camera is very stable; ie, camera shake is more tolerated in
>the D90 vs. the D7000. If this is the case, this nullifies
>some of the advantages of higer ISO - having to shoot at a
>higher shutter speed.

Hi Terry. As mentioned by someone else, a higher resolution sensor can not be a source or cause of lack of sharpness. Do not be concerned with this. Peter

  

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

jgamble Silver Member Nikonian since 22nd May 2007Fri 11-Feb-11 12:46 AM
161 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 profileClick to send message via AOL IM
#10. "RE: On the fence"
In response to Reply # 0


New Smyrna Beach, US
          

I also was shooting a D90 with a D80 as backup. I sold my 105vr to help finance my D7000. Best decision that I made. My kids now us the D80 and my D90 is my backup. I believe you need medium to pro glass to get the benefit out of the D7000. If you're on the low end of Nikon or third party glass, you may want to stay with the D90, and spend the money on better glass. If you have the good glass, go for it, you will not regret it.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

  

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

    
billD80 Silver Member Nikonian since 22nd Jan 2007Fri 11-Feb-11 01:17 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
#11. "RE: On the fence"
In response to Reply # 10
Fri 11-Feb-11 01:34 AM by billD80

US
          

>If you're on the low end of Nikon or third party glass, you
>may want to stay with the D90, and spend the money on better
>glass.

Just to throw in... I only have 3rd party glass. Most of which is better than what Nikon offers in the given focal length/range, and all of which performs beautifully on the D7000.

I'm talking about the: Sigma 8-16mm; Sigma 50/1.4; Sigma 150/2.8; and the Tamron 17-50/2.8. If money was no object, apart from the Tamron, there isn't a Nikon variant of what I have that I'd actually want.

At 100% mag on your computer monitor, the D7000 is very revealing. But even here, I think most "issues" aren't glass related, but operator induced.

But to reiterate, 100% mag of a 16mp image on a PC monitor represents a print of enormous size. A size most people will NEVER print.

www.billkeane.zenfolio.com

  

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

        
JPJ Silver Member Nikonian since 20th Aug 2009Fri 11-Feb-11 01:32 PM
1327 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: On the fence"
In response to Reply # 11


Toronto, CA
          


>I'm talking about the: Sigma 8-16mm; Sigma 50/1.4; Sigma
>150/2.8; and the Tamron 17-50/2.8. If money was no object,
>apart from the Tamron, there isn't a Nikon variant of what I
>have that I'd actually want.
>
>At 100% mag on your computer monitor, the D7000 is very
>revealing. But even here, I think most "issues"
>aren't glass related, but operator induced.
>
>But to reiterate, 100% mag of a 16mp image on a PC monitor
>represents a print of enormous size. A size most people will
>NEVER print.

Agreed, I have the Sigma 50 and the 150, and the Tokina 11-16 and all 3 perform great on the d7k.

As you noted, pixel peeping at 100% is not generally relevant, even for cameras such as the d90 given not only the size of the print/image and the viewing distance. Few people view prints at the same distance you would look at an image on the computer (which would be much smaller).

I have to say, even pixel peeping on the d7k I have not been concerned. Any problems have been user error for me.

Jason

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

  

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

            
billD80 Silver Member Nikonian since 22nd Jan 2007Fri 11-Feb-11 04:22 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: On the fence"
In response to Reply # 12


US
          

>I have to say, even pixel peeping on the d7k I have not been
>concerned. Any problems have been user error for me.


I'll admit, I'm a resolution freak, and commonly print/sell images that are 20x30".

I love looking at 100% size, BUT have found occasional user error (slight motion blur) that I'd not have seen on my D200.

One thing that's helped me is the fact that I used to shoot Kodachrome 25 all the time, and had to develop approaches to hand-hold at 1/15th. This has translated very well into the DSLR technology, as I still prefer the lowest ISO at all times.

www.billkeane.zenfolio.com

  

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

po6ept Registered since 27th Nov 2010Fri 11-Feb-11 02:50 PM
40 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: On the fence"
In response to Reply # 0
Fri 11-Feb-11 03:02 PM by po6ept

Peoria, US
          

I also moved from a D90 to a D7000. I was completely happy with the D90 but I upgraded for the increased flexibility the D7000 offers and for the dual memory card slots - not because I thought it would give me better photos.

A defective SD card in the D90 cost me a day's shooting and it really got under my skin, so having the in-camera backup became the tie-breaker for me. Then again, maybe I just wanted a new toy and that was the excuse. It's hard to tell sometimes.

As Tom said, you might want to consider spending the $1200 on glass rather than on a new body unless you need or want a specific D7000 feature. The D90 is an excellent camera. $1200 comes close to getting you a used 70-200mm f/2.8 or a brand new Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 paired with a fast prime. The D7000 does work extremely well at high ISO settings, but fast glass wins over high ISO.


Bob
Phoenix, AZ

  

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

    
JPJ Silver Member Nikonian since 20th Aug 2009Fri 11-Feb-11 09:31 PM
1327 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: On the fence"
In response to Reply # 13


Toronto, CA
          


>As Tom said, you might want to consider spending the $1200 on
>glass rather than on a new body unless you need or want a
>specific D7000 feature. The D90 is an excellent camera.
>$1200 comes close to getting you a used 70-200mm f/2.8 or a
>brand new Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 paired with a fast prime. The
>D7000 does work extremely well at high ISO settings, but fast
>glass wins over high ISO.


F/2.8 zooms are not a huge advantage for low light shooting in my experience (I own the 17-55/2.8, 70-200/2.8, Tokina 11-16/2.8 and Sigma 150/2.8). It is more of an advantage at the telephoto end of the range where the kit zooms are closer to 2 stops slower.

Compared to say the 18-55 (3.5-5.6) and 55-200 (4-5.6) you are talk about a 2/3rds to 2 stop advantage depending on where you are in the range.

As I said the d7000 is good to ISO 3200 whereas the d90 realistically is only good to 800. That is a 2 stop advantage at any point in the range.

A fast 1.4 prime is another story, now you are talking about a real low light advantage. My Sigma 50 is my go to for this purpose.

Cost wise, if one were shooting in low light frequently, being able to shoot at higher ISOs consistently would beat fast glass any day as the cost of getting fast glass for a wide focal range is much greater.

Example: D7k = $1200, 2 stop advantage throughout the range, which is still a few hundred dollars less than the 17-55 and much cheaper than the 70-200.

Additionally, the d7k focuses better than the d90 in low light in my experience.

Jason

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

  

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

        
browntdb Silver Member Nikonian since 10th Apr 2009Fri 11-Feb-11 10:32 PM
224 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: On the fence"
In response to Reply # 15


Corvallis, US
          

I am amazed at all the thoughtful comments that have been posted on this thread. I, and I know others on the fence really appreciate all the time folks are taking to share their experiences. Since I started this thread, I thought I would add a bit more info. I already have an 18-105 kit lens and the 70-300VR Nikon, Nikon AF Micro 105 F2.8D, Nikon 35mm F1.8 prime, and Tokina 11-16.

I typically use the 18-105 for 80 percent of my everyday shooting. I love the big range especially at the lower end. It goes well with my Tokina for wide angle. However, I know it is not as sharp as ome of the mid range zooms offerend by Nikon, and sounds like some of the other manufacturers.

I do have a possibility of passing on my D90 to someone, but it would require giving up the 18-105 lens as well. That would leave a delemma. Get another 18-105 as the kit lens with the D7000 or try a third party mid-prime lens with the D7000 body. I can't afford a D7000 and a Nikon pro lens. The other option, which was mentioned and is actually a very good one is to get a faster pro nikon mid-range zoom and keep the D90. That still only gives me, and I am an old 35mm photographer going back to the Nikkormat FTN, only one stop faster than the 18-105, but a sharper lens. It is really a tough decision.

I am not sure if this additional information is helpful to the discussion but thought I would throw it out there anyway.

Thank you all very much for your input

Terry

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

  

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

            
browntdb Silver Member Nikonian since 10th Apr 2009Tue 15-Feb-11 09:33 PM
224 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: On the fence"
In response to Reply # 16


Corvallis, US
          

I wanted to follow up and perhaps end this discussion thread with what my ultimate decision was and how I arrived at it. I try to buy all my camera's locally at Oregon Camera in Corvallis, OR. They had the D7000 listed at the same price as the big discount guys. The advantage of buying from them is that they encouraged me to bring in my D90 and 18-105, plus I tried their 17-50 Tamron which comes highly regarded for sharpness. I took outside pictures at full zoom, mid-zoom and wide angle at wide open, F8 and F18 on all lenses using the D7000 and my D90 at identical settings.

I found some interesting things. Either my D90 is exceptionally good or the D7000 is only average because in some cases, I preferred the shots taken with my D90. In the instances where the D7000 had a very slightly better image quality, I doubt that one could ever see it in a photograph. I also noticed that at iso 400 on both lenses, my D90 shot the scenes at a slightly brighter image at a shutter speed one stop faster. Some trial shots at 1600 iso on the D7000 showed noticable noise at 1:1 in Lightroom.

I realized that I was using kit lenses, so I had a chance at another store to try out a 17-55 Nikkor 2.8. I was taking my shots inside a mall at not a fast shutter speed. The images were crisp and stunning. I guess I will take the advice of one person, I believe it was Bob, who suggested I purchase better glass instead of a new camera. I am now in the market for a used 17-55 2.8 Nikkor.

Thanks again for all those how made comments to my original posting.

Terry

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

  

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

                
briantilley Moderator Deep knowledge of bodies and lens; high level photography skills Nikonian since 26th Jan 2003Tue 15-Feb-11 10:15 PM
28728 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: On the fence"
In response to Reply # 17


Paignton, GB
          

Thanks for the update, Terry. It's always good to hear what members decide after soliciting opinions here

Brian
Welsh Nikonian

  

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

Len Shepherd Gold Member Nikonian since 09th Mar 2003Wed 16-Feb-11 06:40 AM
12722 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: Sharpness - and MP."
In response to Reply # 0


Yorkshire, GB
          

Unsharpness due to camera shake increases with magnification.
The "rule of thumb" seems to go back to the 1950's and seems to be based on a 1/100 edge blur being acceptable in a 10x8 inch print taken with a standard lens for the format of a 1 foot wide format.
Half a century ago few people had anything other than a standard lens, zoom lenses hardly existed, and film was not good by modern standards.
Modern equipment is much better and can be enlarged much more - and the 1/100 blur OK in a 10x8 print can easily become 1/15 of an inch from 16 MP viewed at 200% on a monitor.
If your technique is reasonable you get sharp images from any camera in a 10x8 inch print.
If you want to make a print after cropping a lot, or to view at 200% (as you can from 16 MP) your technique needs to be very good for camera shake not to show at large magnifications.

Photography is a bit like archery. A technically better camera, lens or arrow may not hit the target as often as it could if the photographer or archer does not practice enough.

Len Shepherd

  

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

    
billD80 Silver Member Nikonian since 22nd Jan 2007Wed 16-Feb-11 12:03 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
#20. "RE: Sharpness - and MP."
In response to Reply # 19


US
          

>Unsharpness due to camera shake increases with
>magnification.
>The "rule of thumb" seems to go back to the 1950's
>and seems to be based on a 1/100 edge blur being acceptable in
>a 10x8 inch print taken with a standard lens for the format of
>a 1 foot wide format.
>Half a century ago few people had anything other than a
>standard lens, zoom lenses hardly existed, and film was not
>good by modern standards.
>Modern equipment is much better and can be enlarged much more
>- and the 1/100 blur OK in a 10x8 print can easily become 1/15
>of an inch from 16 MP viewed at 200% on a monitor.
>If your technique is reasonable you get sharp images from any
>camera in a 10x8 inch print.
>If you want to make a print after cropping a lot, or to view
>at 200% (as you can from 16 MP) your technique needs to be
>very good for camera shake not to show at large
>magnifications.

This kind of clearly stated info is priceless. The paradigms have changed (I think, for the better). Looking at a box of Velvia with a 10x loupe was always exciting, but perhaps not as revealing as 100% of a 16mp sensor on a large monitor.

Interesting that the camera/lens often gets blamed for simply better recording what's actually been done by the photographer.

www.billkeane.zenfolio.com

  

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

Forums Lobby GET TO KNOW YOUR CAMERA & MASTER IT Nikon D7100, D7000 (Public) topic #5784 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.