>>It's a bit puzzling that in your case some underexposure >leads >>to unacceptable noise performance in a camera which sets a >new >>standard in this regard, at least for APS-C format. > >The D7K is good but it is not perfect in the noise department >IMHO. Depending on one's expectations or in my case >pipe-dreams , I did hope for a touch better noise >performance. The thing is I could still very much benefit >from even better noise performance on my DX cameras. For >example if the D7000 matched the D700 that would have been >astounding.
I am surprised that you wanted more out from the d7k and noise performance. Up to 1600 ISO the difference between the d7k and the d700 from reviews I have seen (at least the ones that appear to have been relatively fairly done) are pretty much non-existent. At 3200-6400 ISO the d700 has a slight advantage but it is not significant, perhaps 2/3rds of a stop. Higher than that and the d700 advantage grows a little more, but I can't imagine why you would ever need to realistically shoot over ISO 6400. Speaking of which, usable photos at ISO 6400 on DX was in fact a pipe dream before the d7k, now it is reality - certainly for internet use or smaller prints.
And that does not even take into account the fact that with the extra MP's and dense pixel density one wouldn't expect this type of performance. One wonders how great the noise performance could have been on the d7k if Nikon had stuck with the 12 MP formula.