A900 ISO 3200 'D7D' style

[David Kilpatrick]

Shirley was supposed to be shooting with the Nikon D90+18-105VR kit doing movie clips on Tuesday while I went round the show. The D90 arrived four hours after we left Scotland! It finally got delivered today. So, she had to take the A700 and just do some other shooting:



She was not pleased, because the Cologne Zoo animals (I can tell from the stills) did some stuff which would have made top class HD movie clips - and we only have eight days left with the D90.

David

[aster]

Very nice photo indeed!
Can imagine how an HD movie might look like with such enjoyable, playful animals around doing their utmost to receive attention...

A pity about D90 arriving late.

Thanks
Yildiz

[bfitzgerald]

I would think the A900 should be pretty decent at high ISO (RAW), looking at current samples floating around, it would appear there are some jpeg problems. Not too impressive jpeg wise at high ISO "yet"

IR have updated their review, and now show a noticable improvement in dynamic range RAW v jpeg, which again possibly highlights a weak jpeg engine. Maybe a firmware update will help. I see some odd speckled artifacts on high ISO A900 jpegs. The jury is out unti more raw samples appear, and proper raw support for software.

[David Kilpatrick]

Man...you need to pick up a KM5D if you want some nice 13x19" ISO 1600 prints...works for me!

Well, of course, we had a D5D. It is identical in raw file format to the D7D, the only noise benefit happens if you shoot JPEGs. Since we shoot raw and nothing else, the D5D was sold. It offered no high ISO advantage over the D7D at all when working from raw. It just had better JPEGs, and that's what the site you quoted tested - not raw. Also, these test sites never compare firmware updates. They compare the first D7D with the first D5D, and the D7D has firmware updates which improved it to match the D5D.

David

[David Kilpatrick]

IQ firmware changes were not documented. The firmware upgrade did improve image quality, as users found - but KM never admitted there was any need to. We used the 5D and 7D side by side for a year and more. In the end, we sold the 5D and kept the 7D. The 5D was great in its own right, but as ACR and other raw processor improved, the quality of the 7D files kept improving too. The benefits of the camera over the 5D were so much that the choice of which to keep, which to sell, was clear.

I'll admit that we also wanted to keep the original as a pioneering museum piece. But it's still my studio camera and the colour rendering has never been equalled.

David

[[SiC]]

the hi-200 & low 80 settings

No big difference from the D7D

[bfitzgerald]

I do use the hi ISO 200 option, and it def does help in many situations. Bit of a shame it got dumped on the new A200

[David Kilpatrick]

Yes, and the D7D includes it too - under the title of Zone Matching, Hi 250 and Lo 100 in effect. It is slightly more powerful than on the D5D because instead of setting ISO 125 on the sensor and then exposing for ISO 200 or ISO 80 respectively, it sets ISO 160 and exposes for ISO 250 or 100. The rest of the process is all down to the special A to D conversion curve used to create the JPEG. It lives in the Custom Menu instead of on the ISO menu, which is a bit obscure, but it's the same function.

The instructions are slightly incorrect because in the manual it says 'the camera sensitivity' is fixed at 250/100. What is meant is the metering sensitivity. In both modes, the EI (the sensor sensitivity) is identically set to 160, resulting in either an underexposed raw file, or an overexposed one (within headroom). There's no point in using Hi or Lo, in any of the cameras, when shooting raw - it only actually alters your in-camera JPEG result or IDC conversion, rather like DRO. However, Hi 250 or 200 is a safe way of getting a slightly underexposed raw file which is never likely to blow highlights.

I would guess from the changes made to the Hi and Lo, that the D5D sensor was given slightly less pre-A-to-D analog gain (1/3rd stop). This might account for Don's assertion that the 5D is superior at high ISO settings. I can only say that in practice (perhaps because we worked from raw all the time) we found the 5D and 7D impossible to tell apart for image quality across the whole range.

David

[[SiC]]

Yes, and the D7D includes it too

My point exactly.

[[SiC]]

Yes, and the D7D includes it too

My point exactly.

Ahh...I had forgotten the 7D has this on it!

Thanks.

-Sonolta

NP, just seemed a bit odd - like saying you chose the D5D over D7D because it's 6 megapixels

[[SiC]]

Just for the record, I didn't choose D7D over the D5D, because I bought it about two months after the Swedish release and no D5D in sight then
The better jpg IQ of D5D sounds interesting for me since I shoot jpg at about 99% of the time, but since they still are a bit pricey I'll probably go for A700 or the sucessor and keep D7D as backup body.

/Z!

[bfitzgerald]

Well why did I buy a 5d over a 7d. Simply price!

I have used a 7d, and it obviously is better in some respects, esp ergo/viewfinder and build. 5d has less controls, and a downgraded LCD, which is best described as "bearable" rather than good, lol

But it did get some tweaks, b&w mode was one, the jpegs do look like they got a bit of attention.
Shame KM never fixed the dedicated flash WA bounce overexposure issue, damn lazy of them..AF isnt up to many film bodies, but I get along with it ok. Overall there was not much to not like, esp in the wallet dept. I think the appeal was "most of the 7d stuff you would want", at a much nicer price. Evidently I heard it did sell pretty well, but KM were half way out by then..

If you compared it to rivals at the time, in my books, IQ wise and features, it was a hands down winner. I looked at the D50 and well, the KM just was better featured, and had the nice colours, but not Nikon budget crayola style. And you know me and Canon, more chance of buying a bag of ice cubes for £500 than pack a Canon in my bag

[maratrs13]

I'll admit that we also wanted to keep the original as a pioneering museum piece. But it's still my studio camera and the colour rendering has never been equalled.

David, are you saying that 7D's color rendering is even better than A700/A900? It makes me wonder if I need to sell my 7D...

[David Kilpatrick]

Don, the sites you refer to are all assessing in-camera JPEGs. That's all. All the comments about the 5D apply to JPEGs and the in-camera NR used on these. The same goes for the incorrect information you are spreading about Zone Matching Hi/Lo - the references you show are all referring to JPEGs, except of course the ACR Best chart which does not refer to Hi/Lo, as it can not, since RAW files shot with Hi or Lo are identical to those shot without it in all respects expect exposure bias.

This is either something you understand at a glance - bias the exposure to over/saturated (Lo) or to under, and apply special tone curves in the in-camera process which creates JPEGs from the resulting light or dark raw files - or you need a thousand word primer, and I really have no time to write that, nor any need as most people reading this will I am sure be able to understand it perfectly.

David