Here is a better set without in camera noise reduction (set to normal in the OP's set).
In this set I notice 2 things:
1. The 3200-6400 shots are actually handling noise grain well, and better than the d7000. The ability to hold details at 3200 and above suffers, but still it looks like a slight improvement on the d7000. Here is the amazing thing to me though, these are at 24 MPs. Down sample these to 12-16 and they will look even better.
2. The sharpness and details at low ISO (such as base) is amazing and clearly better than the d7000. The lack of AA filter and increase in MPs is at work here. Looks every bit as good as anything I have seen from the recent Nikon FX cameras.
>2. The sharpness and details at low ISO (such as base) is >amazing and clearly better than the d7000. The lack of AA >filter and increase in MPs is at work here. Looks every bit >as good as anything I have seen from the recent Nikon FX >cameras. >
the ISO 100 image is incredibly revealing... I'm super curious to see what official reviewers find.
The EXIF data shows sharpness set at '7'. The factory default is '3'.
So, assuming the EXIF data relates to the actual camera menus, it means you CAN increase the factory setting, get phenomenal results, without artifacts...
PS. why is sharpening necessary on a sensor without an AA filter?
My 2 cents comment: AS discussed in other sites, to be able to evaluate the noise or lack of it from a camera is to see pics taken in real life situations. When you have low-light, you normally have high contrast scenes that show highly under-exposed parts of the image, where chroma and luminance noise are too much to accept. Most digital cameras at high iso in low-contrast scenes perform quite well.