ISO3200 JPEG from 16MP Sony Sensor (from Nikon D7000)

kevinschoenmakers · 09-16-2010, 06:14 AM

Keep in mind the A55 has half a stop of light lost due to its design, which would partially explain the higher native ISO. Also, the K-5 information is just rumors so who knows what its native ISO actually is.

Surely though, Nikon didn't just take that sensor out of the package and put it in the D7000 without tweaking it considerably.

**ManuH** · 09-16-2010, 06:18 AM

Originally posted by RBellavance

One thing puzzles me a bit when I look at the specs of the D7000 and those of the A55 and the rumoured K-5: the former's ISO range is listed as 100-6400 with 12800 and 25600 "expanded", while the latter are both specified as 200-12800, with 100 and 25600 "expanded".

Good observation. The video specifications don't seem to be the same either. And BTW many people (including the Nikon guru Thom Hogan) think that the D3100 uses a Nikon sensor. It's quite possible that the D7000 also uses a different sensor than the Sony EXMOR.

All this will be clarified in the next few weeks when the cameras hit the shelves. If the sensors are not the same it could be a big advantage for Nikon if they realize the same performance advantage they did in the D3s (the undisputed king of low-light according to DXO).

**ManuH** · 09-16-2010, 06:20 AM

Originally posted by kevinschoenmakers

Keep in mind the A55 has half a stop of light lost due to its design, which would partially explain the higher native ISO.

In this case it would start *lower* not higher to compensate for the half stop lost.

kevinschoenmakers · 09-16-2010, 06:27 AM

Originally posted by ManuH

In this case it would start *lower* not higher to compensate for the half stop lost.

It depends on whether Sony is reporting the ISO as it truly is, or as it is without the half a stop lost. I seem to recall it's the latter. Not that it matters because it still wouldn't really change anything. We can be sure the D7000 sensor isn't vanilla Sony, and that the K-5 sensor won't be vanilla Sony either. That's all we know until next week

However, if it's anywhere near Nikon's version that would already be a big improvement over the K-7 (not to mention over my K10D

).

Spongefingers · 09-16-2010, 06:35 AM

That ISO 3200 sample looks pretty good. Nice film-grainy luma noise and minimal banding. Just a little bit less noisy than the 7D.
I was expecting a little less chroma noise, but at least it's not too patchy.
I can't see there being a considerable difference between the output of the D7000 vs. K-5 when the Pentax samples start coming in. 3200 looks good, but I certainly don't reckon 25600 will be usable.

**ManuH** · 09-16-2010, 06:36 AM

Originally posted by kevinschoenmakers

It depends on whether Sony is reporting the ISO as it truly is, or as it is without the half a stop lost.

I think it compensates automatically: displaying ISO 100 when it's actually using 150. Otherwise it would be strange compared to other cameras. And the sunny f16 rule would become the f13 rule on the A55/A33

kevinschoenmakers · 09-16-2010, 06:38 AM

Chroma noise is really easy to remove these days though. Lightroom 3 had no trouble cleaning it.

kevinschoenmakers · 09-16-2010, 06:43 AM

Originally posted by ManuH

I think it compensates automatically: displaying ISO 100 when it's actually using 150. Otherwise it would be strange compared to other cameras. And the sunny f16 rule would become the f13 rule on the A55/A33

Yes, but then it still is the question whether they would report the base ISO as 100 or 150 in the specs.

They report it as 200, but does that mean the camera is actually using ISO 140, or does that mean the camera is using ISO 200, but reports to the user ISO 280.

Erik · 09-16-2010, 07:25 AM

Originally posted by ogl

Just a bit better than P&S's JPEG. But low noise. SS (sad s***) - like we say in Russian

I agree this doesn't look good but it seems to me there's some crap lens/crap focusing/camera shake going on here. Nothing is sharp in the frame so something is up, and it's not (just) noise reduction.

Erik · 09-16-2010, 07:29 AM

Originally posted by kevinschoenmakers

Yes, but then it still is the question whether they would report the base ISO as 100 or 150 in the specs.

They report it as 200, but does that mean the camera is actually using ISO 140, or does that mean the camera is using ISO 200, but reports to the user ISO 280.

The base ISO of the sensor is 200, therefore the base ISO of the sensor is 200. The sensor is completely oblivious to what the camera decides to display in menus so writing anything other than 200 in the specs would be outright wrong.

melander · 09-16-2010, 08:37 AM

If I can be blunt, now that I have had the chance to look at the picture on something other than my HTC Desire. It dont look any better than my K-X

**jon.partsch** · 09-16-2010, 11:47 AM

I have to admit that I am not at all impressed with that photo. I shot a concert recently at ISO 1600 with my K110D, and did not see the chroma noise in the JPEGs like this. Luminance noise looks high too, but it's more difficult to tell without a direct comparison of this scene with another camera.

yeatzee · 09-16-2010, 12:09 PM

Is all of that blue called chroma (color?) noise?

FullertonImages · 09-16-2010, 12:19 PM

It looks like there quite a bit of NR going on in the photo. Jpegs don't really tell us much. But never the less, I am very optimistic about the high ISO performance we will get from the K-5. I am, however, worried about the low ISO performance. I thought the K-x was a great high ISO performer, but I thought the low ISO was wretched. I only liked that camera above ISO 1600. I hope they will be able to keep more detail and sharpness in the lower ISOs of the K-5.

JohnBee · 09-16-2010, 12:22 PM

Originally posted by FullertonImages

I thought the K-x was a great high ISO performer, but I thought the low ISO was wretched. I only liked that camera above ISO 1600. I hope they will be able to keep more detail and sharpness in the lower ISOs of the K-5.

This seems like more of a JPG processing issue than a sensor one since the RAW files are right in line with other systems(K-7, K20 etc).

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Nikon D7000 pictured	deadwolfbones	Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands	4	10-18-2010 04:19 AM
Nikon D7000 officially announced!	JohnBee	Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands	41	10-04-2010 02:30 PM
K-x Sony Sensor vs K-7 Samsung Sensor	karl79	Video Recording and Processing	9	09-23-2010 09:35 AM
Will the Pentax K5 have 16MP from sony?	Belnan	Pentax News and Rumors	19	09-10-2010 06:06 AM
Does the K10 have a sony sensor or not?	slip	Pentax DSLR Discussion	2	11-23-2006 02:49 PM

09-16-2010, 06:14 AM	#16
kevinschoenmakers Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Shanghai Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,509 Original Poster	Keep in mind the A55 has half a stop of light lost due to its design, which would partially explain the higher native ISO. Also, the K-5 information is just rumors so who knows what its native ISO actually is. Surely though, Nikon didn't just take that sensor out of the package and put it in the D7000 without tweaking it considerably.

09-16-2010, 06:18 AM	#17
ManuH Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Montreal Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,249	Originally posted by RBellavance One thing puzzles me a bit when I look at the specs of the D7000 and those of the A55 and the rumoured K-5: the former's ISO range is listed as 100-6400 with 12800 and 25600 "expanded", while the latter are both specified as 200-12800, with 100 and 25600 "expanded". Good observation. The video specifications don't seem to be the same either. And BTW many people (including the Nikon guru Thom Hogan) think that the D3100 uses a Nikon sensor. It's quite possible that the D7000 also uses a different sensor than the Sony EXMOR. All this will be clarified in the next few weeks when the cameras hit the shelves. If the sensors are not the same it could be a big advantage for Nikon if they realize the same performance advantage they did in the D3s (the undisputed king of low-light according to DXO).

09-16-2010, 06:20 AM	#18
ManuH Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Montreal Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,249	Originally posted by kevinschoenmakers Keep in mind the A55 has half a stop of light lost due to its design, which would partially explain the higher native ISO. In this case it would start lower not higher to compensate for the half stop lost.

09-16-2010, 06:27 AM	#19
kevinschoenmakers Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Shanghai Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,509 Original Poster	Originally posted by ManuH In this case it would start lower not higher to compensate for the half stop lost. It depends on whether Sony is reporting the ISO as it truly is, or as it is without the half a stop lost. I seem to recall it's the latter. Not that it matters because it still wouldn't really change anything. We can be sure the D7000 sensor isn't vanilla Sony, and that the K-5 sensor won't be vanilla Sony either. That's all we know until next week However, if it's anywhere near Nikon's version that would already be a big improvement over the K-7 (not to mention over my K10D ).

09-16-2010, 06:35 AM	#20
Spongefingers Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: UK Photos: Gallery Posts: 237	That ISO 3200 sample looks pretty good. Nice film-grainy luma noise and minimal banding. Just a little bit less noisy than the 7D. I was expecting a little less chroma noise, but at least it's not too patchy. I can't see there being a considerable difference between the output of the D7000 vs. K-5 when the Pentax samples start coming in. 3200 looks good, but I certainly don't reckon 25600 will be usable.

09-16-2010, 06:36 AM	#21
ManuH Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Montreal Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,249	Originally posted by kevinschoenmakers It depends on whether Sony is reporting the ISO as it truly is, or as it is without the half a stop lost. I think it compensates automatically: displaying ISO 100 when it's actually using 150. Otherwise it would be strange compared to other cameras. And the sunny f16 rule would become the f13 rule on the A55/A33

09-16-2010, 06:38 AM	#22
kevinschoenmakers Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Shanghai Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,509 Original Poster	Chroma noise is really easy to remove these days though. Lightroom 3 had no trouble cleaning it.

09-16-2010, 06:43 AM	#23
kevinschoenmakers Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Shanghai Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,509 Original Poster	Originally posted by ManuH I think it compensates automatically: displaying ISO 100 when it's actually using 150. Otherwise it would be strange compared to other cameras. And the sunny f16 rule would become the f13 rule on the A55/A33 Yes, but then it still is the question whether they would report the base ISO as 100 or 150 in the specs. They report it as 200, but does that mean the camera is actually using ISO 140, or does that mean the camera is using ISO 200, but reports to the user ISO 280.

09-16-2010, 07:25 AM	#24
Erik Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Umeå, Sweden Posts: 755	Originally posted by ogl Just a bit better than P&S's JPEG. But low noise. SS (sad s***) - like we say in Russian I agree this doesn't look good but it seems to me there's some crap lens/crap focusing/camera shake going on here. Nothing is sharp in the frame so something is up, and it's not (just) noise reduction.

09-16-2010, 07:29 AM	#25
Erik Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Umeå, Sweden Posts: 755	Originally posted by kevinschoenmakers Yes, but then it still is the question whether they would report the base ISO as 100 or 150 in the specs. They report it as 200, but does that mean the camera is actually using ISO 140, or does that mean the camera is using ISO 200, but reports to the user ISO 280. The base ISO of the sensor is 200, therefore the base ISO of the sensor is 200. The sensor is completely oblivious to what the camera decides to display in menus so writing anything other than 200 in the specs would be outright wrong.

09-16-2010, 08:37 AM	#26
melander Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Sweden, Umea Posts: 876	If I can be blunt, now that I have had the chance to look at the picture on something other than my HTC Desire. It dont look any better than my K-X

09-16-2010, 11:47 AM	#27
jon.partsch Site Supporter Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Northern California Posts: 442	I have to admit that I am not at all impressed with that photo. I shot a concert recently at ISO 1600 with my K110D, and did not see the chroma noise in the JPEGs like this. Luminance noise looks high too, but it's more difficult to tell without a direct comparison of this scene with another camera.

09-16-2010, 12:09 PM	#28
yeatzee Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Temecula Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,675	Is all of that blue called chroma (color?) noise?

09-16-2010, 12:19 PM	#29
FullertonImages Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Boulder, CO Posts: 883	It looks like there quite a bit of NR going on in the photo. Jpegs don't really tell us much. But never the less, I am very optimistic about the high ISO performance we will get from the K-5. I am, however, worried about the low ISO performance. I thought the K-x was a great high ISO performer, but I thought the low ISO was wretched. I only liked that camera above ISO 1600. I hope they will be able to keep more detail and sharpness in the lower ISOs of the K-5.

09-16-2010, 12:22 PM	#30
JohnBee Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Newrfoundland Photos: Albums Posts: 4,667	Originally posted by FullertonImages I thought the K-x was a great high ISO performer, but I thought the low ISO was wretched. I only liked that camera above ISO 1600. I hope they will be able to keep more detail and sharpness in the lower ISOs of the K-5. This seems like more of a JPG processing issue than a sensor one since the RAW files are right in line with other systems(K-7, K20 etc).