Nikon D7100 or D700 for low light?

Well to me the d7100 would appear to be less noisy than the d700 in those pics, but the colour rendition from the 700 looks better. Pretty clear aswell to my eyes. :thinking:

Obviously this is just one shot and i have never used the d700 to compare myself.
 
DxO rated the D700 cleaner at high ISO than the D7100

Just compare that blue box / packaging with TRADE written on it, way noisier in the D7100 image
 
Martyn... said:
DxO rated the D700 cleaner at high ISO than the D7100

Just compare that blue box / packaging with TRADE written on it, way noisier in the D7100 image
Click to expand...
And snapsort say the D700 is over 1 stop better, however, i freekin hate these s***e lab tests, I USED BOTH in the real world and the D700 wins hands down
 
Well what can one say, I like to thank everyone who has replied and uploaded the pictures.

Well going by the pictures that David put up, I must say that the d7100 has the lower noise. Then I get to the pictures that manualfocus-g has put up and I think that the D700 has the lower noise, not by much but is lower.

Still not sure which way I am going to swing at the moment but to be honest, I do not think there is too much to choose between them. The price of a s/h d7100 might just swing it.

It would be good to see if Dilip could put a picture up of the D750 file @ 25600 iso, just to see what sort of noise is on that.
 
Test images are all well and good, but they are not real world shots. One of the posters in this thread used both bodies for, amongst other things, night time pro sports. He has stated which, in his experience is the better.
 
F/1.4 said:
Do you like to pixel peep more than take photographs pookeyhead?
Click to expand...


Nope... just dealing with facts here. Is the D7100 better in low light than a D700.. that was the question. Unless you pixel peep then you'd probably never actually be able to tell them apart based on noise... so if you want to establish whether that's true... some peepage is required.
 
discoman said:
It would be good to see if Dilip could put a picture up of the D750 file @ 25600 iso, just to see what sort of noise is on that.
Click to expand...

The D750 kicks the arse of both cameras quite convincingly.
 
You also need to bear in mind that if were talking shooting high ISO images were generally talking shooting in dark environments, as such you also need an AF system that is up to the job in those dark conditions, i know which camera i would be packing to shoot high ISO images in dark conditions and im pretty sure there are thousands of pro wedding photographers and sports and news journalists dong exactly the same, even if it is 8 year old tech and thats why these lab tests mean nothing even when they shoot high ISO theyre testing under good light and in reality those exact same shots could be captured at ISO 100
 
Pookeyhead said:
I've always said It is more than enough if you don't ever print anything, sure... anything is more than enough if you don't print anything.
Click to expand...

I was tempted to say that you're talking utter tosh but I suppose it really depends upon what each of us find acceptable. Personally I found my 8mp 20D and my 12mp 5D good enough for prints but I'm not surprised that someone else thinks 12mp is unsuitable as I obviously have low standards.

Oh, hang on, this is Pookey... that explains it. I may just have change my view from I rarely agree with Pookey to I never agree with Pookey :D

Only kidding :D Keep up the good work :D
 
woof woof said:
Why do you think you can't print a picture taken with a 12mp camera?

How many mp's do you think are needed for what size prints?
Click to expand...


That's what I was asking you. How big?
 
dkh said:
It does, in fact it does so so seriously that it... it is a huge 0.4 stops better. Better pick my jaw up from the ground now!
Click to expand...

This is really getting confusing

I have a D7100 and D700 - I am thinking about buying a D750 for it's better high ISO performance as my interest is bird photography and most of my images are crops.

Are you saying that the D750 is only very slightly better in poor light and at high ISO values than the D7100 and therefore if I use high ISO values to enable me to push up the shutter speed that the noise in the image will be the same as with the D7100
 
Try the new studio scene at DP Review:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikon-d750/13

Select the D7100 as the second camera
Select a high ISO setting
Click the low light bulb icon at the top
Move the square about (I click on the top left girl's face normally)

The D750 looks over a stop cleaner to me. You can check this by selecting ISO 3200 for the D750 and ISO 1600 for the D7100.
 
BillN_33 said:
Are you saying that the D750 is only very slightly better in poor light and at high ISO values than the D7100 and therefore if I use high ISO values to enable me to push up the shutter speed that the noise in the image will be the same as with the D7100
Click to expand...

No.. the D750 is significantly better

oZftc7H.jpg
 
F/1.4 said:
Maybe less complaining??
Click to expand...

I've never complained, I've never seen any facts explaining the extent of the problem or problems - but it seems as though everyone on here is sending their D750's back to Nikon
 
BillN_33 said:
I've never complained, I've never seen any facts explaining the extent of the problem or problems - but it seems as though everyone on here is sending their D750's back to Nikon
Click to expand...

No you certainly aren't one to complain. Change to Canon, that'd be fabulous lol
 
From my real world experiences of owning the D750 and D7100, I would happily shot at iso 6400 for the D750, with the D7100 I dont like going above iso 1250.

Make of that, what you will.
 
BillN_33 said:
I've never complained, I've never seen any facts explaining the extent of the problem or problems - but it seems as though everyone on here is sending their D750's back to Nikon
Click to expand...
Well yes, as Nikon are fixing cameras for free, even grey ones, why wouldn't you send it back? There is no such thing as a perfect camera, noise or not I would prefer Nikon at the moment for the superior shadow recovery and noise.
 
Pookeyhead said:
That's what I was asking you. How big?
Click to expand...

Pookey, as I've been (obviously quite wrongly) very happy with my 12mp and sub 12mp prints and as many people have been producing and selling 12mp and sub 12mp prints for years now (also obviously quite wrongly) I'm waiting for your expert knowledge to educate the world on the subject and rewrite history but if your statements here have just been the histrionic hyperbole they appear to be then I'll gladly just move on :D
 
woof woof said:
Pookey, as I've been (obviously quite wrongly) very happy with my 12mp and sub 12mp prints and as many people have been producing and selling 12mp and sub 12mp prints for years now (also obviously quite wrongly) I'm waiting for your expert knowledge to educate the world on the subject and rewrite history but if your statements here have just been the histrionic hyperbole they appear to be then I'll gladly just move on :D
Click to expand...


I've written long and expansively on this subject in many other trheads, and it inevitable always comes back to this tired old argument of "at reasonable viewing distances" thing. IMO as someone who regularly prints for gallery exhibition to very high standards.. both my own work, and that of others, I wouldn't be happy with a 12MP file over A3.

woof woof said:
but I'm not surprised that someone else thinks 12mp is unsuitable as I obviously have low standards.
Click to expand...

Maybe that is indeed the case, yes.
 
Thank you.. thank you... I'm here all week. :)
 
From my experience of using both of these cameras extensively, I'd say the D700 absolutely has the best low light performance, but, if you get the chance to use the D7100
in good light with top grade glass it can yield some incredibly detailed images which are literally a delight.

please view large, thanks.

original.jpg
 
Last edited:
Pookeyhead said:
I've written long and expansively on this subject in many other trheads, and it inevitable always comes back to this tired old argument of "at reasonable viewing distances" thing. IMO as someone who regularly prints for gallery exhibition to very high standards.. both my own work, and that of others, I wouldn't be happy with a 12MP file over A3.

Maybe that is indeed the case, yes.
Click to expand...

So 12mp is fine for up to and including A3? So your earlier statement about not being able to print from 12mp was as I thought not just rather silly but completely ridiculous.

As for my standards being low... well, I continue to read your posts so they must be.
 
Last edited:
Lol, starts to yawn.
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
blah blah blah....
Click to expand...

I get why you're called woof woof now... dog with bone etc.

If you think being just about able t get away with A3 is great or something, then yes, you have low standards.

Take a leaf out of my book then if you're concerned.....

 
Pookeyhead said:
I get why you're called woof woof now... dog with bone etc.

If you think being just about able t get away with A3 is great or something, then yes, you have low standards.

Take a leaf out of my book then if you're concerned.....
Click to expand...
How come you dont ignore me, i give you a much harder time, NOT happy. :(
 
Pookeyhead said:
I get why you're called woof woof now... dog with bone etc.

If you think being just about able t get away with A3 is great or something, then yes, you have low standards.

Take a leaf out of my book then if you're concerned.....

Click to expand...

Well Pookey, you tell the world that 12mp isn't enough to print from and just a few posts later you tell the world that 12mp is enough to produce exhibition quality prints with up to and including A3, but at least you're consistently inconsistent.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top