All the shots with were with f/7.1 AWB. The D7000 had its kit lens, 18-105vr and the D700 had the 28-70 2.8, a much better lens....in theory. A couple things stand out, one is how at f/7.1, the lowly D7000/18-105 showed more fine detail. And how the color sensitivity hung in better than the D700 as ISO reached high levels. Note the red ring around the eyes of the teddy bear are displayed by both cameras at low ISO but gradually mutes and disappears at the ISO of the D700 increases. I never could have imagined discussions 2-3 months ago trying to spot the differences between images of a top of the line FX with pro glass and a consumer class Dx camera with a plastic kit lens. One additional note, the FL was kept constant so the FX camera to subject distance was adjusted to have the same field of view. That means the background is out of focus due to narrower DOF, which would have an effect on the apparent smoothness of the background on the D700. There was also a WB difference that affects the background color. Very impressive indeed. I can't wait to get my hands on for some portraits with my 85 1.4 or 70-200 for my own tests Stan St Petersburg Russia
The 18-105 has more T-loss and visibly lower contrast than the 28-70 2.8 used on the D700. I was surprised how much contrast the 18-105 appears to have on the D7000. Using the same quality lens on both would have been even more revealing.
I think Thom sums it up pretty well....I'll wait for the next Dx...D400 or whatever. Still many unanswered Q's on the AF.
Edit: finally spent a couple of hours on Nikon Cafe looking for some feel on the AF. I could not find anyone that thinks the Cam 4800 on the D7000 is up to the Cam 3500DX or FX. BIF shots I have seen so far could have been taken with my wife's D40x...slow moving, at distance... and have yet to see any really decent fast action sports....
For many things it looks a great camera but not so great for others Cheers, Tom
Tom, my D7000 is slated for delivery on Tuesday. Next weekend I'll be shooting high-school football with it side-by-side with my D3, and I promise to post a full report. That's not as rigorous a test as BIF, but it may add something to the body of knowledge.
Jon, you're very good so I look forward to your results. A comment on fps would be nice. Looks like the monsoon is finally finished so I have sun, probably too much, for the next 6 months so the D300s should work fine. I am primarily interested for my young son. He has a D200 and uses the D300 but at nine a lighter and , in some ways, simpler, camera would keep his progression in photography moving forward. He gets discouraged with the iso limits on the D200. If the AF is decent I could always borrow it for early/low light mornings at the Pond, an extra stop would be nice.
Hopefully by the time I start thinking about the next monsoon the D400(?) will be a reality and time for my wife's semi-annual London trip (Grays of Westminister ). Cheers, Tom
I agree that it's pretty amazing how well the D7000 is showing in these comparisons, but I think the "top of the line FX" is the D3s, not the D700. The kinds of IQ performance gains we're seeing in the D7000 remind me of the comparisons people did between the D3/D700 and D3s sensors. The D3s was getting better IQ and at higher ISOs.
Truly remarkable, and I can hardly wait for my D7000 to arrive to put it through its paces.
Jon... knowing you and your work from the sports forum, I anxiously await the arrival of your new toy. I hope it lives up to the hype so far. I have been very happy with my D90, but could really use the higher ISOs. Just waiting for a sports shooter like yourself to help me decide between it and a D700. I don't want to have to buy a new lineup of lenses and like the extra reach the DX body gives me, but will bite the bullet if I have to. I, along with several others await your report.