My wife picked up a D7000 yesterday at Best Buy while I was at work. That was the longest work day of my life! I had 2 hours to get the camera ready and we went to my nephews football game. I had the 70-200 f2.8 VR mounted and ready for action. I posted pics in my gallery. Look for the "HS Football" album. This was my first attempt at sports photography and I found I need a lot of practice.
There are some 100% crops unedited and the other shots are resized and I reduced the brightness a little using Paint Shop Pro X2. I captured in Jpeg, CNX2 2.2.5 does not support NEF files from the D7K. I hope Nikon fixes this soon.
I was surprised how bright the pictures are. The whites were almost blown out in most of the pics. The lights on the field were not very bright and I had troubles getting fast shutter speeds. I should have used manual mode and bumped up the shutter speed. This would have helped the blurred action and maybe toned down the whites.
I can say the D7K is a beast compared to my D5K. I love the huge viewfinder and the shutter release is very sensitive, like the D300S.
I plan to go out tomorrow and shoot some wildlife. I'll post some more pics when I return.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Here is a direct link to the D7000 images in your gallery. Thanks for getting something posted so quickly.

http://images.nikonians.org/galleries/showgallery.php/cat/16963/ppuser/319002

Note that the first few images are cropped - and as expected they are highly pixelated. The full size images at ISO 5000 show remarkably little noise. Look closely at the black helmets - no noise at all.

Eric Bowles
Nikonians Team
My Gallery
Workshops

Nikonians membership — my most important photographic investment, after the camera

Thanks for posting these revealing, real life images from the D7000. I wonder how the high ISO will look after you get the updated NX2.

My next comment is not directed at your photography. I have to say, the images looks pretty bad at ISO 6400 compared to the 12 Mpix DX cameras and pathetic compared to a D700.

The image that really struck me as bad is below. It appears well exposed, so it really was an eye opener.

http://images.nikonians.org/galleries/showphoto.php/photo/280005/size/big/cat/16963/ppuser/319002

What is Nikon thinking with this higher mpix, reduced SNR camera. I really hope NX2 can clean up the look, but that seems unlikely it can do that much.

""

David,

Could you be a bit more specific in what you see in this image that triggers this comment? One is a pretty small sample

This doesn't look like a representative image of what the camera can produce. It is a 100% crop of an action shot. The shutter speed was only 1/200, I'm assuming the lens was at full zoom, f/3.2 and the focus point seems to be behind the subject.

Best Regards,
Roger

Isn't that one of the highly cropped pictures? If so, it's not a fair comparison. Also, the pictures look a little overexposed to me, which makes a comparison difficult.

The noise on this picture shot at ISO 1600 looks pretty good. As Eric points out, look at the black helmets in this one. No noise.

Visit
My Nikonians Gallery
NorcrossPics.Com

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

David

I know you didn't intend to make a harsh comparison, but your statement is a little unfair.

The image you referenced is a poor comparison. It's labeled a crop - my guess is a 100% crop - at ISO 6400 - on a JPEG - and sized for the web. The same lens on a D700 JPEG with a crop to the same image would not be a success either. The sample is probably pixel level detail on an image not intended for that level of detail.

It's also the first day of use for a brand new camera. Additionally, you are comparing it to a camera that costs twice as much.

I share your thoughts on the value of NX2. Once we get the ability to post process fully, this has potential to be a great camera.

Eric Bowles
Nikonians Team
My Gallery
Workshops

Nikonians membership — my most important photographic investment, after the camera

Guys, the pics with "100 crop" in the name are just that, 100% crop unedited. ISO NR set to normal (default) in camera.
In this sample (player catching ball), 6400 may not be as good as the D700 would have been, I don't know. I don't understand why people are expecting the D7k to be equivalent to the D700 in ISO performance. Does Nikon claim that they are equal? Wishful thinking?
I have noticed that most of the players in action are blurred. I wish I would have increased shutter speed by using manual mode. But, if you look at the stationary objects there appears to be less noise.
Anyways, please don't judge the camera to harshly on my novice sports photography capabilities.
I did go out today to shoot some landscapes and wildlife. I'm going to investigate what I got today and post some samples in my gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Wayne,

I hope you noticed that there are some who are defenders of your posting . Keep up the good work. HS football under lights is tough to tackle and you did a good job with these photos.

Best Regards,
Roger

>Wayne,
>
>I hope you noticed that there are some who are defenders of
>your posting

Yes, I realize that. I didn't take David's comments personaly.

After shooting today I am very, very happy with the ISO performance of the D7k. It is better than my D5k, and from what I've read about the D300S and D90, I think it will surpass the performance of them as well.

Some other observations...

1. The D7k seems to slightly over expose. I haven't confirmed this yet, but I'm thinking I'll need to reduce exposure -.3 from ISO 500-800 and -.7 beyond ISO 800.

2. over exposure is worse with center-weighted metering than with matrix. BTW, I used center-weighted for the football pics.

3. When viewing at 100% on the computer, the images do appear soft (softer than my D5k images). Viewing at 50% the images are tack sharp. No post sharpening needed.

4. If you capture in Jpeg, use Landscape picture mode, not Standard, for good colors and contrast. Standard mode looks flat.

5. My current thought (comparing it to my D5k) is the D7k will be less tolerant for not using the correct settings for a paticular shot. Does that make sense?

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

As far as making sense, it's your experience that's setting the curve. I'm sure others will weigh in with other observations.

I would expect the image sharpening to be another area where experience will dictate the norm. How to deal with the AA filter on this sensor is new ground and the degree of sharpening, not only a matter of taste, but will depend on how to decode the filter.

It will be interesting to see more examples from the D7000. Thanks for your continued work with the camera.

Best Regards,
Roger

Eric,

I am just a perspective.

Stop and think really hard about this.

This sample represents the future of DX, which, like Canon's new stuff, represents a worsening of image quality as megapixels increase when compared to FX.

There is a lot of B.S. floating around the net about the so-called next generation of DX, (especially on this site), as if it will be a D700/D3s equivalent. Clearly, it is not, and we should ALL be thinking about it in our comparisons of DX vs. FX.

Like the old expression goes here in the U.S, there is no substitute for cubic inches. The same is true for pixel size. DX is only going to look worse as we push down pixel size when we compare it to FX and it is obvious as we look at the D7000.

Nikon is pushing marketing at us, not technology, as they preciously guard their Sony created FX technology with a ridiculous price differential that does not exist except in retail pricing.

Nikon is throwing a few things at us to protect its pricing schemes and attempt to obfuscate at the same time.

First, set a ridiculous price differential between FX vs. DX, (D700 vs. D300s).

Then, ridiculous FX lenses vs DX lenses price differentials. Example, the new fully silly price on the 24-120mm Vr FX lens. I mean come on, the old lens is less than $700, and was a piece of ####. Now the new lens is twice the price and finally does what the old lens should have done.

It all adds up to market manipulation to justify an extreme price premium for FX vs. DX. It is insulting to the intelligence of any thinking person, but that is what we are going to get from Nikon, Canon, et al as they build the perception, via marketing, that this is the price you pay for performance. Yeah, right.

Only Sony, with their weak marketing position against Nikon and Canon, is revealing the difference between FX vs. DX, and that difference is thin, thin, thin. Sony 850- $1999. Sony f/2.8 28-70- $799. Nikon D700 - `$2,400. Nikon 24-70mm `$1,700. Difference in price? Do the math, Nikon is reaming Nikon owners.

Bottom line. We are being MANIPULATED by large companies and their extreme desire to make MONEY.

Like it or not. Believe it, or not. Consume as you like.

""

I am not going to refute line by line, but your arguments are in some cases baseless and others specious. The bias against new products at better price points is noted.

Of all the companies who I involve with my life the one that gives the most satisfaction for money spent is Nikon, they make a great product, have a product philosophy that is a comfortable fit and seem to be more engineering, rather than marketing department driven. "Manipulated" you say? How much do you really thing Nikon has spent on buying congress or manipulating public policy? Probably the only company whose products we use that has NOT tried to manipulate us.
The D7000 is the new class leader in DX. The few fuzzy images posted and improperly rendered have been by people new to the camera and probably before reading the manual. The same thing happened with the D90, the reviews panned it for being soft in default settings compared to the P&S style over saturated and sharpened default settings of Canon and others. After a few days we all figures out that the defaults were very conservative and minor tweaking resulted in almost universal praise. A few D90 owners posted images with slight PC sharpening added reveals that to go along with the apparent wider dynamic range, the sharpness also surpasses the D300s and D90.
Give the people who have the new camera a little time to work it out, and you might be surprised how good it really is. Really, HS football, with terrible lighting, shot way too slow, and have this much Dr-black blacks and white whites, man, that blows my D90 away. I have not seen a DX and few FF cameras operating with those disadvantages still capture the color and DR so well.
Stan
St Petersburg Russia

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Pixel density does bring up a good point. It starts to look more and more like a P&S as density goes up. Also the premium for an FX sensor is ridiculous. As if it costs $1000 more for the D700 sensor vs the D7K.

""Manipulated" you say? How much do you really thing Nikon has spent on buying congress or manipulating public policy? Probably the only company whose products we use that has NOT tried to manipulate us."

I think your take on "manipulated" isn't what was meant (at least not the way I took it). I took it from the point of view of advertising which, at its basest, is not meant to inform but manipulate the buying public.
Note: I meant to respond to Stan's post but screwed up. So much for trying to squeeze this in during break from teaching. Sorry for messing up the flow.
Lee
From the rocking of the cradle to the rolling of the hearse, the going up was worth the coming down

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

>I am not going to refute line by line,

Ok, Stan, laziness is fine with me if you don't want a debate on the technology and would rather insult my intellect and dismiss my arguments out of hand and claim allegiance to all things Nikon - well that's just wonderful. Have a great day.

>The D7000 is the new class leader in DX.

Well, the class is dumbing down. Sans any real improvement in the materials and science used in sensor design, there is no way that adding megapixels is gonna improve image quality.

>"Manipulated" you say? How much do you really thing Nikon has spent on buying congress or manipulating public policy?

You are creating a strawman argument, (a ridiculous one, really), that you can easily knock down. I mean, really, how does marketing relate to congress? LOL

It really does not make your point and is a rather hamfisted debater's tactic to obfuscate what someone else is saying.

Now, if you want to discuss sensor technology, lets do it - I stand ready to support my positions with facts.

""

>Now, if you want to discuss sensor technology, lets do it - I
>stand ready to support my positions with facts.

Some facts would be good, David - and let's drop the personal remarks, please.

Brian
Welsh Nikonian
Check out the Nikonians Team pages

Brian,

I was insulted by Stan and you are chastising me?

>your arguments are in some cases baseless and others specious

Give me a break,

""

You are not being singled out David.

We are just asking everyone to refrain from making personal attacks. Attacking each other only damages the credibility of the individuals involved and hinders any meaningful dialogue.

Dave
Quad Cities, USA
A Nikonians Team Member
My Gallery
SummersPhotoGraphic.com

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

Share, Learn and Inspire

>We are just asking everyone to refrain from making
>personal attacks.

Yes, that's right - I'm sorry if that wasn't clear from my earlier post.

Brian
Welsh Nikonian
Check out the Nikonians Team pages

I am sorry if the comments were taken as a personal attack, my comment was about the arguments being baseless, not you being baseless.
By supplying the technical grounding for the arguments you make them "based", until then, they ARE baseless.

I am quite happy to discuss technical details, as an engineer, I thrive on technical details that are usually not considered by laypersons. Have a go of it.

Regarding materials, information theory and technologies remaining static in the art and science over the last couple years, it will come to great surprise to scientists and engineers to hear of that, although the public might not hear of it in general media. How did you come to the conclusion that their work was for naught? It is a full time job keeping up with the steady progression of technique, practice and materials. In just a few short years every class of camera has evolved in performance unimagined shortly before. An entry level, 3 work days in cost, camera with the imagine resolution and dynamic range, automation, and ease of use of a D3100? 5 years ago no amount of investment could have acquired those traits. The breakthrough D90, a champ in performance/cost ratio being trumped in every quantitatively evaluated criteria just 2 years later, at a lower real cost....if as you say, there have been no change in the art and science? How, if not by steady evolutionary improvements in materials, innovation and precision? Maybe there is a fundamental misunderstanding of how design and engineering works by those not involved in it.

Regarding marketing and public policy not being related, a scan of the literature in political science and marketing journals, will put that notion to rest quickly.
Stan
St Petersburg Russia

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

"Regarding marketing and public policy not being related, a scan of the literature in political science and marketing journals, will put that notion to rest quickly." Dubious at best and not the point.
From the rocking of the cradle to the rolling of the hearse, the going up was worth the coming down

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Stan,

>I am quite happy to discuss technical details


I'm good too, so lets just talk camera stuff here.

I think two examples of my position both came out today.

Thom Hogans comments on the new Nikon D7000 under his Broken Record commentary. I won't quote him directly here, we can all read, but I do completely agree that we are not making huge strides anymore in sensor design. Quite the opposite, we are at the point of diminishing returns as it relates to CMOS based image sensors. Maybe some new materials will improve this situation, but it has not made it into the last few generations of CMOS sensors from Canon or Nikon. In fact, the D700 sensor is really fabbed with the same materials as a D300/D90/D3100/D7000. Its main advantage? Giant pixels.

The second example of what I am talking about is the latest DXOMark review of the Nikon D3100

If you take the measured specs of the D3100 14 megapixel sensor and compare it to the D90's sensor, the D3100 is a step backward - it loses a stop of DR, it has less ability to process high ISO shadows, it has less color range at higher ISO, etc.

http://dxomark.com/index.php/en/Camera-Sensor/Compare-sensors/%28appareil1%29/664|0/%28appareil2%29/439|0/%28onglet%29/0/%28brand%29/Nikon/%28brand2%29/Nikon

I hope this link works, but if not, just pick the D3100 and compare it to the D90 - it will line them up side by side.

""

Did you try comparing it to a 10MP D60. The D3100 seems to do well when compared to another entry level body. I see about 2 stops of improvement in dynamic range at ISO 1600 and 3200.

Kurt

Kurt,

I did not. Here's why - as I see it, it was way past time for Nikon to dump what was essentially the sensor in my D200, (D200, D80, D40x, D60). Canon has been all CMOS sensor forever, even in its lowliest DSLR and Nikon knew they could not keep that up any longer. So comparing the D60 to the D3100 is like comparing my D200 to a D90. No comparison.

My point, however, is that the increasing megapixels are not yielding better SNR or any other characteristic over the lower megapixel sensors such as the D90 have.

I really expect to see the D7000 to be even worse in the DXO numbers than the the D3100, in the very similar way that Canon is experiencing with their 7D against their earlier sensors.

As Hogan says in his article, we have passed the point in the megapixel race of seeing significant resolution gains or jumps in high ISO noise improvement. Right now, to double resolution over our 12 mpix sensors, we need 4 times the pixels. At that point, we will be getting down to the pixel size of a P&S camera. He even notes, as many have, that extra resolution is being lost due to diffraction, a phenomena that many of us have seen in our everyday images as sensor resolution increases.

I think Hogan makes the best suggestion. Lenses will do more than a new body for people that are in the current generation of bodies, (D300 series, D90, D5000). Crop less, get a stronger telephoto. Need low light? Get a faster lens.

On a side note, does anybody besides me find Hogan's position that the 12 mpixel FX sensor just flat needs to stay in the lineup indefinitely? I happen to agree - even to the point of wishing Nikon would make a 10 mpixel DX sensor and pull out the low noise stops. I doubt they will though, (my marketing comments from earler kick in here).

What is really interesting in the megapixel race is that in the P&S world, we are now seeing some cameras coming out with reduced number of pixels to try and be a better low light camera!, (Canon G11, Nikon P7000). I personally find that to be a hilarious refutation of the megapixel wars that the manufacturers have been engaged in.

""

>On a side note, does anybody besides me find Hogan's position
>that the 12 mpixel FX sensor just flat needs to stay in the
>lineup indefinitely? I happen to agree - even to the point of
>wishing Nikon would make a 10 mpixel DX sensor and pull out
>the low noise stops. I doubt they will though, (my marketing
>comments from earler kick in here).

Agree. Would love an 8 or 10 MP D300.

>What is really interesting in the megapixel race is that in
>the P&S world, we are now seeing some cameras coming out
>with reduced number of pixels to try and be a better low light
>camera!, (Canon G11, Nikon P7000). I personally find that to
>be a hilarious refutation of the megapixel wars that the
>manufacturers have been engaged in.

It is a bit ironic, eh?

-Holmes
http://holmes.zenfolio.com/

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

I agree as well David. I'm looking for better high ISO performance and faster focus. I've got plenty of megapixels.

Visit
My Nikonians Gallery
NorcrossPics.Com

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

>I think Hogan makes the best suggestion. Lenses will do more
>than a new body for people that are in the current generation
>of bodies, (D300 series, D90, D5000). Crop less, get a
>stronger telephoto. Need low light? Get a faster lens.

I'm hopeful that sensor technology is still way in it's infancy and that we'll see marked improvements in the coming years. F/2.8 lenses are just not going to be an option for most people.

>On a side note, does anybody besides me find Hogan's position
>that the 12 mpixel FX sensor just flat needs to stay in the
>lineup indefinitely? I happen to agree - even to the point of
>wishing Nikon would make a 10 mpixel DX sensor and pull out
>the low noise stops. I doubt they will though, (my marketing
>comments from earler kick in here).

They could have kept the D7000 at 12MP also, make ISO and DR improvements with it and all would have been good!

Kurt

Thanks for posting the photos so fast!

Of the files that I have looked at, none stand out as being groundbreaking from the camera perspective. The high ISO noise does look incredible. But at what cost? There just does not appear to be a lot of detail. A lot of the detail just appears to be muddy. @ 5000 ISO, I would guess that there is a LOT less noise than my D300, but I am thinking that there is also a lot less detail.

I know that HS football is a tough test for any photographer and camera. some of the shots may be a tad overexposed and the shutter speed may not be quite fast enough to stop action to get the best sharpness.

Keep the samples coming so that us mere mortals can try an judge the quality of the new camera.

With all the talk about the D7000 and the manipulation required to get sharp pictures makes me question my ability to operaste the camera being a beginner.

George,

A lot of print has gone into this discussion and culmination of all this is just basic stuff. Something anyone using a DSLR will eventually become familiar with. Many of the people who have taken the time to look at images where sharpness was questioned have verified that a slight increase in post processing sharpening is all that's needed. This correction can easily be applied with most image editors (e.g. Photoshop Elements)

That points to possibly increasing the in-camera sharpening if you are interested in taking jpg files and minimize any post processing work. Those adjustments are very easy to make using the camera menu and possibly consulting the camera manual. Once made those settings can easily be made semi-permanent.

We go through this pain with each new camera and the reason you might not have seen discussions to this length is that the D7000 sensor is new to the Nikon lineup and the first new sensor in roughly a year.

Best Regards,
Roger

I don't think that unsharp mask is going to help those football photos in any discernible way. I will give the benefit of the doubt to their being motion blur and no amount of sharpening or lipstick will make photos with camera shake or motion blur look any sharper without looking horrid.

Since you are referring to the photos posted on the review listed in teh other thread, I'd go as far to say that some of the images on that "review" look as though they were really good .gif files, not sharp JPG's.

I'd also say that we need to see a lot more samples before making any significant judgments about the sharpness of the camera. In every camera, there is a trade-off between sharpness and noise. In recent years, Nikons have had the bar leaning toward better noise performance in most models. Either way, one can usually add enough sharpening or noise reduction in post to any image to suit their needs. Since I shoot almost everything in RAW, I am more adept at RAW conversion to the desired sharpness. Until I have the ability to play with the RAW files, I will reserve any real judgement about the sharpness of the D7000 images.

It has been said that the D90 suffered early after its release from the same issues of simply needing more post sharpening. I shot well over 10,000 images with my D90 and it was soft. I have shot well over 200,000 digital images with Nikon D-SLR's and I know how to sharpen an image in post. The D90 images were more consistently softer than any other D-SLR that I have used. Apparently, the D90 uses the same sensor as the D300. But I have always felt that the D300 images, over a large sample, were consistently better in terms of sharpness and noise performance.

Its also been said (in the review thread) that with more resolution, you need lenses that resolve more. Well, some of those photos were taken with the 24-70. Maybe he had a bad copy, but mine resolves fine on the D3x, which has more resolution than the D7000. So that lens should be able to resolve all the detail that the D7000 can deliver.

There's nothing like a healthy forum discussion! I posted one of the first comments when the D7K was announced and followed all the subsequent forum posts from a distance. Now, we have the first real actual hands on user review from both this forum and I'm also reading those from other sources. It's also interesting that some commentators e.g. Ken Rockwell are applauding a camera they've never even held and dismissing the D300s as redundant.

In the UK the 7K is not even on the streets yet and I am now pleased about that. In my early post I was interested as at the time I was considering replacing my D90 with either a 300s or a 7K. An increase in hopefully healthy pixels with low noise at higher ISO's being my wildlife bench mark. Everything I have read thus far leads me towards caution and because of posts here and elsewhere the decision to buy, or not, will be on hold until at least the year end. By which time this forum will be more lengthy than the Gettysburg Address.

So, thanks guys, Nikonians certainly helped me in not making a hasty decision. My D700 and D90 will still be rewarding me with excellent images until then. For all those who aquire a D7K please keep posting.

Richard.

Visit my Nikonians gallery

I think it is still way too early to make any concrete judgments, positive or negative. But I agree that the forums are a good place for us to discuss and share information. Ultimately, I too will make a decision to purchase a D7000 or not based in large part by the forum's posters and photos that they share.

>I think it is still way too early to make any concrete
>judgments, positive or negative. But I agree that the forums
>are a good place for us to discuss and share information.
>Ultimately, I too will make a decision to purchase a D7000 or
>not based in large part by the forum's posters and photos that
>they share.

I agree and boy these are interesting times aren't they?

Thanks very much Wayne for the football samples and I encourage you and other D7K owners to keep posting. There is an interesting Eagle thread over at dpreview that may also indicate problems (with AF and/or sharpness) but that was a single camera/lens combination and he was cropping too so kind of hard to tell (and eliminate all the variables). The more we see the better!

Cropping images is not free, there is a very real cost to it (regardless of camera). I deal with other local bird forums and I do find it is common for people starting out birding to overcrop (because they can) and then draw conclusions from that. I am therefore not a fan of 100% crops straight out of camera. For me, on Wayne's football photos it is better that I look at the uncropped ones for now to try and sense image quality until I get my hands on my D7K.

Night HS football is very tough shooting indeed. It kind of looks like my torture test theatre venues but with twice the subject motion! In theatre, whites are supremely difficult not to blow, especially at higher ISOs where you have reduced dynamic range in the first place. So yes I use negative exposure compensation in that venue. Killer conditions!

Since I ordered a body-only I am bummed it could be a further few weeks until I can contribute with examples. Meanwhile thanks very much Wayne for the samples and hoping you will post some wildlife and other subjects.

Best regards, SteveK

'A camera is an instrument that teaches people how to see without a camera.' -- Dorothea Lange
My Nikonians gallery
My Nikonians Blog

Wayne,

Be careful with some of these guys... There are a lot of "trolls" here looking for a fight.
You seem to have run into a few of them...

Let me just say this... When I got my D700 it took me nearly two months to fugure out the autofocusing system and I still needed help in getting all the settings correct... I even created the D700 spreadsheet in the D700 forums in order to understand what was going on and to allow others to message and tweak it for their own needs.

I now shoot a 300mm f/4 handheld of football and even motorsport races and get sharp images that I have printed at 20x30 with no issues.

http://www.outdoorstudiosphotography.com/p972164772

The one thing I did have to learn is sharpness is relative to the output.. For example, in post processing, you'll need to sharpen differently for the web than you do for print.

I am going to get this wrong, and get hammered for it, but this is close enough for you to understand or research further, but in simple terms ther is a filter between the lens and the actual sensor in the boby that is designed to soften your image. It is in ALL DSLRs and it is an anti-alining type of filter.

I don't remember exactly what it does, but you need to know that it is there and that you HAVE to apply some sharpening to the RAW file to compensate for this, either in camera or in post.

Other factors my be at play here as well... It is a well known that the 70-200 f2.8 VR I has softness issues, especially on FX sensors, especially on the outer edges. There are always lens issues (not that this is what is happening to you) when a new sensor comes out. The new sensor may be optimized for some of the newer Nikkor lenses and some of the older lenses may have to be addressed, it is a little early to know this for the D7000 yet... There is already reports that some of the 3rd party lenses are having issues, including locking up the D7000 and serious AF (not working) issues.

My susggestion is to try putting your D7000 into a perfect (or as perfect as possible) conditions and then start testing there. IE, Great light, perfectly still subject, excellent glass in its sweet-spot, on very stable support, with a cable release or self-timer. Start there first and see what that gets you...

Even after 10 years of shooting photography, I will do exactly the same thing when my D7000 arrives in a couplle of weeks... I'll want to know what its strengths and weakness are so that I can use it in a the most complementing manner.

Hopes this helps...

---
Regards,
Chris Sgaraglino
Outdoor Studios Photography || on Flickr || on Google+

>Wayne,
>
>Be careful with some of these guys... There are a lot of
>"trolls" here looking for a fight.

I don't believe that's the case here whatsoever and such comments simply fuel the fire.

-Holmes
http://holmes.zenfolio.com/

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

>Be careful with some of these guys... There are a lot of
>"trolls" here looking for a fight.

If you see a post that you consider to be "trolling" or otherwise inappropriate, please use the "Alert" link at the bottom of the post to bring it to the attention of the Moderator Team.

Many thanks.

Brian
Welsh Nikonian
Check out the Nikonians Team pages

I tried your ISO3200 1/160 second photo. This is noise reduced, sharpened, and cropped a little. I think it looks not half bad Wayne! The sharpness seems acceptable once a little USM is applied (I tried not to apply too much).

Folks we are talking night high-school football shot-in-jpg here!

I believe the D7000 beats what my D300 could do and that is all I am looking for in the D7K. Beat my D300 at ISO 1600 and maybe give me a usable ISO 2000 (or even 3200?) in a pinch and I will be a very happy camper!.

Best regards, SteveK

'A camera is an instrument that teaches people how to see without a camera.' -- Dorothea Lange
My Nikonians gallery
My Nikonians Blog

Attachment #1, (jpg file)

Looking back at the forum posts from 2 years ago when the D90 came out, techniques of getting D7000 to perform are actually progressing faster. It was not but a couple months after availability that people started to say it took acceptable images. In another month, there is no reason to suspect that the D7000 will still be looked at so negatively as it is now by some.

Every tool requires adjusting to its use and response to its feedback before the tool's usefulness becomes accepted. Seeing this same cycle for decades in everything from technical components to home cleaners, this argument surrounding the D7000 is right on track, perfectly normal and traditional. It is the nature of change and resistance to it, regardless of good, bad or neutral.

Right now, not having a chance to play with one for months to come based on where I live now, all the signs are rather positive that I would enjoy this camera. I could not take the photo above with a D90 and still get the DR...black blacks and white whites without clipping one or the other end of the spectrum, or having major noise issues. Sharpness comes with practice and technique.
Stan
St Petersburg Russia

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

I note several things.
1. My D3100 tends to over expose and create over bright images too.
I think this is due to the push for even higher ISO capability.
2. These images helps to slow down my NAS.
I can now wait for my D7000 body only to arrive instead of running out to Best Buys to get a kit with a lens that I don't wont.
3. It appears that Best Buys bought the entire first release of cameras.
I hope any defective ones are in that batch.
4. There will be firmware updates.
5. Some think that Nikon is overcharging.
I hope they make millions of dollars so that they can continue their R&D.
What they have done so far is amazing and truly awesum.
6. Although it is probably not best to test a new camera with an extreme condition, this is what we buying the D7000 for.
7. I suggest using the LCD and zooming in.
Make adjustments such as EV and speed settings (S or Auto ISO) one at a time.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.