I also saw at the higher ISO settings the noise on the D7000 was by far the worse of the 4 cameras... I do not recall this being common in other comparisons of these cameras. No where do I see or can I find what and how the images were processed, what lenses were used, etc... We must just take the commentators word for all of his gibberish that he has appointed himself the all knowledgeable camera guru.
His was an unscientific, meaningless rant -- in my opinion.
As soon as he started talking about 'interpolating', I knew he had a problem with proper scientific technique. It is also clear that he has an axe to grind with Nikon -- which indicates a total lack of objectivity.
He interpolates, converts at least twice and yet has the nerve to exclude information on lenses -- at least as long as I hung in there, which was way too long! Other viewers have indicated the absence of lens information too.
A large part of the skill involved in using the internet is working out which sources of information can be trusted. Anyone can say or write what they like (within the law...), but in this case I'm sure this "review" can be safely ignored
Tue 30-Apr-13 10:24 AM | edited Tue 30-Apr-13 06:34 PM by billD80
>A large part of the skill involved in using the internet is >working out which sources of information can be trusted. >Anyone can say or write what they like (within the law...), >but in this case I'm sure this "review" can be >safely ignored
>Thank you.... >Am getting more relieved with each response. >It was a surprise to hear being so negative about the D7100 >image quality. >Yes, he did seem to be negative about Nikon in general. >Ben
Ben take heed. You have a great camera and the potential to make great photography...use it. Don't listen to every jerk with an opinion, unless it is me. LOL This guy has an ego and his own opinion regarding folks who tend to stay with a brand that has over the years been an industry leader. Forget this guy.
>I lasted 2:30 before I gave up. > >Was there a point in there? > >Cameras don't matter. Not in the least. Every single iconic >image of the 20th century was taken with a camera dramatically >less capable than any DLSR on the market today.
Omaha, as a photographer and a psychologist there is a point. He likes his own voice and learned how to broadcast it on youtube.
Owned my D7100 for 4 weeks now & it has exceeded my expectations in every way. I'm just too busy enjoying the picture taking experience it has afforded me to worry about anybody with a YouTube account and an axe to grind. Oh, curiosity did get the best of me though & I watched 2 min 12 secs but when he said "reinforce their beliefs" I stopped looking.
As Brian says, this reviewer can safely be ignored. I looked at his separate comparison of the D7100 vs the Pentax K5 IIs - basically he loaded both cameras' files into Corel and auto-balanced them, which he says processes the RAW files as intended by the manufacturer. Firstly, none of the manufacturers share their proprietary RAW file architecture with third party software vendors, so auto correction of RAWs is pretty much guess-work. Secondly, if you have ever used the 'Auto' button on any PP software, you'll know the results are wildly unpredictable even on files from the same camera, let alone files from different manufacturers' cameras.
This guy has a serious axe to grind with Nikon and his testing is neither scientific, nor objective......
It's also interesting that he quotes DxOMark's results to support his conclusions when the D7100 scored higher than the K5 IIs in three out of four tests and came out better overall.
Cute, cute.... I have to update what my 5th grade told us.... "Never believe all you read in the newspapers." Later was taught to find the source and it's agenda. All applicable to the world of the internet. Ben