D7000 vs 5D3 ISO

Phil Young

Phil Young

Messages
6,584
Name
Phil
Edit My Images
Yes
I was a bit surprised when I went onto DPreview to see how much the 5D3 was better at handling noise and retaining detail than my D7000, expecting it to be at least 2.5 stops.

......It may just be me, but I can see about 1 stop difference - the 5D at 6400 appears to be very similar to the D7000 at 3200.

Is it just me, or is there not "that much difference"???

I am really thinking about moving to FF and in particular - the D600 when it comes down a bit in price, but 1 stop difference would not tempt me...

Here's the link: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-eos-5d-mark-iii/28
 
gman said:
The D7000 isn't full frame so I would expect the 5D Mk3 to be better.

However, if you mean the D700 then apparently it's better than the 5D MkIII, probably because of the resolution?

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Compare-Camera-Sensors/Compare-cameras-side-by-side/(appareil1)/795%7C0/(brand)/Canon/(appareil2)/680%7C0/(brand2)/Nikon/(appareil3)/441%7C0/(brand3)/Nikon
Click to expand...

That's the thing - I expected it too....but was surprised to see the evidence...

1 measly stop.
 
Last edited:
If that's the difference between a useable shot and a shot to be deleted though, it isn't so measly!
 
I don't think their example image is great, but I would agree it appears only one stop improvement to the 5DIII. I would say easily 2 stops on the D800E vs D7000 - Just tested that to see how my new baby performs ;) But yeah, it means more so that the D7000 is pretty damn good for a crop sensor, rather than the 5DIII being bad for FX.
 
Graham - OP has a D7000 (not D700) and is talking about moving to full frame so is definately referring to that link for comparisons between D7000 v full frame options.

Phil - If you're in no rush and waiting for prices to drop - I'd be more inclined to seek views on 'real world shooting' from folk who make the move your considering.
 
You've lost me? Unless we are now talking about the D700? lol

It doesn't surprise me too much because as said the resolution of the 5D MkIII is much higher, yet it's almost as good as the D700 with noise (I'd take DXO Mark with a pinch of salt though). Personally, I think the 5D MkIII was more about the AF and it's a very good camera but when you drop the D800 with its huge resolution and the D3s and its awesome low light performance into the equation, then I think Nikon are a little bit ahead at the moment.

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Ca...rand2)/Nikon/(appareil3)/628|0/(brand3)/Nikon
 
Ah, I follow you now. lol Well, if considering the move to full frame then there's more than just low light performance to consider but I guess it depends on what you want the camera for?
 
gman said:
Ah, I follow you now. lol Well, if considering the move to full frame then there's more than just low light performance to consider but I guess it depends on what you want the camera for?
Click to expand...

Low light performance mainly lol. DOF is neither here nor there as I can get whatever I need from my current lens lineup.

I will easily shoot at 12800 now.

Am I expecting too much? I wouldn't move to FF unless either I got a really good deal on a new model (very unlikely) or the difference was 2-3 stops of improvement over my current body.

I was expecting to be able to shoot at 51k and for a camera like this to perform at the level D7k is at 12800 but evidently not.
I'm just dissapointed from the test really and wanted to moan a bit as I got my hopes up!
 
I have to say I was very tempted today when buying my D800E. They had a D4 with €200 off towards other shops in Dublin. Started thinking in my head, I could get that, and forget about a 24-70 and 70-200, just get cheap primes!! But I took the smaller, lighter option. I'm not used to the bigger bodies, it would probably annoy me after a while.
 
The few short video tests I tried with the 800 today impressed me. But then, I'm comparing to my old D90, which had rubbish video. Just being able to adjust aperture and ISO while recording is a big step forward. The D600 doesn't allow aperture adjusting in Live view, you have to go out of it, change and go back in, D90 was same. The controls are better laid out for video too, I love the record button. Once my finger gets used to finding it without having to look over the top. I've never really dabbled much in video but now I'm actually considering purchasing an external mic. I also had a quick pop at a time lapse, that's going to be fun on starry nights.
 
Last edited:
If you look at the dxo figures it seems to back up what you are saying. I've been torn by this myself when i was looking at the figures last night contemplating a d600 purchases. Do i want to go through the expense of going FF for a 1 - 1.5 stops. The d5100/d7000 are great little performers.
 
If you want to see that much improvement a D3s is your baby.
 
This is my current dilemma.

I have a D7000 and some nice lenses including a couple of full frame lenses, but when I read about the D600 it seemed the answer to my prayers... A full frame Nikon with the size/weight/handling/battery life etc of a D7000.

Perfect.

BUT... Is it really worth £1995 plus a £700 for a 28-300mm which I WILL need for travel, days out, holidays etc as I currently travel with the D7000 and an 18-200 VR which I find excellent.

Taking into account all the buying and selling to get to where I want to be it will effectively cost me £1500 to upgrade to the D600.

Am I really going to see a £1500 advantage?

Hmmm...
 
twist said:
1 - 1.5 stops is a lot.
Click to expand...

Exactly. There are a few threads on here stating the virtues of a D7000 vs D90 sensor and how much better the D7000 is. Well there's about 1 stop in that as well. It's a big jump.

The other thing not mentioned is that the 5D3 shoots up to 25,600 natively. To go beyond 6400 on the D7000, you end up shooting in the expanded range' which basically means the camera is shooting an iso 6400 image and then pulling the recovery up before presenting it to you. The results are invariably poor but also something that could potentially be done better in software afterwards.
 
TimB said:
This is my current dilemma.

I have a D7000 and some nice lenses including a couple of full frame lenses, but when I read about the D600 it seemed the answer to my prayers... A full frame Nikon with the size/weight/handling/battery life etc of a D7000.

Perfect.

BUT... Is it really worth £1995 plus a £700 for a 28-300mm which I WILL need for travel, days out, holidays etc as I currently travel with the D7000 and an 18-200 VR which I find excellent.

Taking into account all the buying and selling to get to where I want to be it will effectively cost me £1500 to upgrade to the D600.

Am I really going to see a £1500 advantage?

Hmmm...
Click to expand...

You could buy a D600 from Panamoz for less than £1500 and pick up a good used 28-300 for less than £500. Might help a bit...
 
gad-westy said:
Exactly. There are a few threads on here stating the virtues of a D7000 vs D90 sensor and how much better the D7000 is. Well there's about 1 stop in that as well. It's a big jump.

The other thing not mentioned is that the 5D3 shoots up to 25,600 natively. To go beyond 6400 on the D7000, you end up shooting in the expanded range' which basically means the camera is shooting an iso 6400 image and then pulling the recovery up before presenting it to you. The results are invariably poor but also something that could potentially be done better in software afterwards.
Click to expand...

Well d7000 v d90 1 stop is a big difference firstly they're both crop sensors, and secondly the d7000 is as little as £100 extra. Here we are talking potentially thousands of £ spent for the 1 stop improvement.
 
Last edited:
Ermm a used D700 is £1200, a new D7000 is £700. How much do people pay for a 1 - 1 1/2 stop improvement in lens.
 
Last edited:
gad-westy said:
You could buy a D600 from Panamoz for less than £1500 and pick up a good used 28-300 for less than £500. Might help a bit...
Click to expand...

I'm thinking body only right now. I have a couple of FF compatible lenses and like the idea of being able to use DX lenses with an OK resolution as well if I want/need to.

Not concerned about lenses, just contemplating the upgrade wondering if it's really worth it.

Take the 1.8/1.4 argument. Is it REALLY worth double the price??? Nope. Will people argue DOF, more light and robustness though? Yes.

I'm seeing nothing at the moment that would justify the £1500.

Higher frame rate in video and 1 stop in ISO doesn't tempt me to spend that much money unfortunately.

I think its a classic case of having expectations too high...that and the fact that nothing is ever good enough ;)
 
Phil Young said:
Low light performance mainly lol. DOF is neither here nor there as I can get whatever I need from my current lens lineup.

I will easily shoot at 12800 now.

Am I expecting too much? I wouldn't move to FF unless either I got a really good deal on a new model (very unlikely) or the difference was 2-3 stops of improvement over my current body.

I was expecting to be able to shoot at 51k and for a camera like this to perform at the level D7k is at 12800 but evidently not.
I'm just dissapointed from the test really and wanted to moan a bit as I got my hopes up!
Click to expand...

I have to agree that 2-3 stops is probably asking a lot but the D7000 does seem to have considerably better dynamic range. I think I'd only upgrade from the D7000 if I were going for a D3/D4 series camera so that I had a higher shutter life expectancy (here), better weather protection etc but if that's not required then I wouldn't see an upgrade as being necessary?
 
Phil Young said:
I'm thinking body only right now. I have a couple of FF compatible lenses and like the idea of being able to use DX lenses with an OK resolution as well if I want/need to.

Not concerned about lenses, just contemplating the upgrade wondering if it's really worth it.

Take the 1.8/1.4 argument. Is it REALLY worth double the price??? Nope. Will people argue DOF, more light and robustness though? Yes.

I'm seeing nothing at the moment that would justify the £1500.

Higher frame rate in video and 1 stop in ISO doesn't tempt me to spend that much money unfortunately.
)
Click to expand...
You're still using the kit lens, so i much cheaper option for you to gain a stop for a general use lens is get a tamron 17-50 and spend the £1200 on a holiday!:)
 
rjbell said:
You're still using the kit lens, so i much cheaper option for you to gain a stop for a general use lens is get a tamron 17-50 and spend the £1200 on a holiday!:)
Click to expand...

Come on, keep up - I regretably sold my 18-55 for the weaker 18-200mm and all my low light stuff is done on the 50mm 1.8g.

I want a 18-70mm...wasn't that a kit lens?! ;)
 
Phil Young said:
Come on, keep up - I regretably sold my 18-55 for the weaker 18-200mm and all my low light stuff is done on the 50mm 1.8g.

I want a 18-70mm...wasn't that a kit lens?! ;)
Click to expand...

Phil, I'll be selling Grahams (gad-westy) 18-70 if you fancy it:D
 
The 18-200 is kit lens performance with more range... Great versatile lens though all the same.
 
rjbell said:
Well d7000 v d90 1 stop is a big difference firstly they're both crop sensors, and secondly the d7000 is as little as £100 extra. Here we are talking potentially thousands of £ spent for the 1 stop improvement.
Click to expand...

I think I've maybe failed to get my point across here. The D7000 is often stated to be 'much' better in low light than a D90. I agree with that but 'much' better in that case is still only one stop. So my barometer of what should be considered much better is maybe different to some. If the 5D3 is one stop better at high iso than the D7000, then I would call that 'much' better. It can make a huge difference in shooting terms.

Whether the price is justifiable or not is personal but there are always laws of diminishing returns at this level. You must also remember that you're not simply paying £x thousand for 1 stop of improved low light performance. It's a completely different camera with a completely different feature set.
 
Last edited:
gad-westy said:
I think I've maybe failed to get my point across here. The D7000 is often stated to be 'much' better in low light than a D90. I agree with that but 'much' better in that case is still only one stop. So my barometer of what should be considered much better is maybe different to some. If the 5D3 is one stop better at high iso than the D7000, then I would call that 'much' better. It can make a huge difference in shooting terms.

Whether the price is justifiable or not is personal but there are always laws of diminishing returns at this level. You must also remember that you're simply paying £x thousand for 1 stop of improved low light performance. It's a completely different camera if a completely different feature set.
Click to expand...

Good way of putting it and I think I am on the team of 1 stop not being that much more beneficial to me.

I know they are completely different cameras, just highlighting what's important to me - ISO and video :)
 
Phil Young said:
I would.

I also have a 50mm 1.8D that I can't get rid of, possible PX?
Click to expand...

Possibly Phil, let me get a proper 'puter in a while, my app on iphone playing up.....just bought cageys 2.8 17-50 this week you see so decided to replace 18-70 . Sorry to hijack
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top