[kmanlaker]

for starters I do own both --- I was playing around tonite comparing the noise levels between these two ( specifically iso 1600 and 3200 ). Parameters ---- same scene ( low light tungsten i.e. one 100 watt bulb ) both cams set on program. Please do not give me any grieve on the set-up, I am not going to shoot these test files in RAW and spend 2-3 hours tweeking the files, those days are over for me, so I shot jpg. My observations straight out of the gate ---- the D90 killed the K7, however I then started to mess with the settings on the K7. Specifically the white balance was re-set to tungsten which helped and also I dialed in +1 exp comp. The K7 was underexposing in this particular lighting. Conclusion - after messing with these settings the results seemed better for the K7 but still a little bit short of the Nikon. I know there will be those who will say that my methods are not scientific and not to be too blunt, but I really do not care. My theory is that if you set all of these tests up and try to get everything "perfect" you end up shooting in a manner that is not a real world scenario. My next trick will be to do some more unscientific tests with both of these DSLR's when I get some free time. It may be tomorrow or could be 2 months from now.

let the bullets fly ( hey some idiot had to do this first silly comparometer test and why not me )

oh --- and I am thrilled with the K7 it is not going back because I do love my DA Limited primes and coming from my K10 ( which I still have ) it is one sweet DSLR.

the sky is not falling yet but the economy is ( for those of you who take this stuff to serious please disregard this post )

kman

[Torphoto]

I'll agree that in hi iso the K7 still falls short, the sensor noise is still an issue I think they should have addressed more, as for the rest of the camera, the K7 kills the d90 in every other aspect.

Oh and like the K20D, just dial in + 1/3 stop and the K7 is fine

[cloudswimmer]

Would you happen to have any pictures we could look at shot with both cameras?

[kmanlaker]

Would you happen to have any pictures we could look at shot with both cameras?

yes I do --- but that would require work on my part to get them off the cameras and on the web, and if i am going to do that I will probably shoot something more intersting than the lamp in my bedroom. What can i say the wife was gone and I was just playing around with these cameras. I will see what I can do - one problem I have is that i think i will have to go to the exif info to see what is what.
If I do upload these where should I put them??? any suggestions??

thankyou
Kman

[xhanatos]

If I do upload these where should I put them??? any suggestions??
thankyou
Kman

easiest would be ImageShack® - Image Hosting. You just have to be wary that you grab the correct URL link (full size photo) after you have uploaded the test shots.

otherwise, set up a free flickr account.

[cloudswimmer]

Yeah I would just do a Flickr account.I've been paying for a pbase account for years, but about 5 months ago I tried the free Flickr thing and like it enough that next year when it comes time to renew pbase I won't.

[kmanlaker]

http://www.flickr.com/photos/40289225@N04/3706263518/
this is k7 at ISO 3200

http://www.flickr.com/photos/40289225@N04/3705452303/
this is K7 at ISO 1600

http://www.flickr.com/photos/40289225@N04/3705449345/
this is D90 at ISO 3200

http://www.flickr.com/photos/40289225@N04/3705447963/
this is D90 at ISO 1600

I hope I got all of the info correct
and I think I had noise reduction turned on the k7 maybe someone can verify this

here are links --- upon further review I think the k7 got trounced
i would like to hear from the forum members any comments ---except those regarding compostion and subject matter LOL

kman

---

Last edited by kmanlaker; 07-09-2009 at 08:30 PM. Reason: oops -- the flickr folks reduced these files --- sorry let me figure this out

[nostatic]

So what's your point? You want comment on low rez in-camera jpgs?

About the only thing I can see is a wb difference.

I guess if you use the camera as a point and shoot then this is an important test. If you shoot raw and pay attention then I'm not sure what we're supposed to learn.

[cloudswimmer]

Yep the Nikon looks better.How about some base ISO comparisons.Personally if low light (hand held) photography was my thing, I think I'd invest in a D700 or 5DII, but I always use a tripod, so I'm interested in base ISO.BTW does that D90 have MLU?

[kmanlaker]

So what's your point? You want comment on low rez in-camera jpgs?

About the only thing I can see is a wb difference.

I guess if you use the camera as a point and shoot then this is an important test. If you shoot raw and pay attention then I'm not sure what we're supposed to learn.

oh you are a funny man indeed --- actually i am the retard --- i do not upload images much to these forums ( actually never have, first time for me ) I am having trouble figuring out how to create a link from flickr to this forum for the high resolution images --- any tips would be great and any sarcasim will be treated with more idiot remarks by myself as the alcohol starts to set in

unsigned because i have no point

[nostatic]

I'm not trying to be a jerk. I just don't understand what your point is. I don't see how you can say the K7 got "trounced" given what you've shown. And you're basically doing a quick and dirty point and shoot experiment, so how can one draw any real conclusions no matter what files you link to?

[cloudswimmer]

And you're basically doing a quick and dirty point and shoot experiment, so how can one draw any real conclusions no matter what files you link to?

I guess we can conclude the D90 is a better point and shoot?

[nostatic]

I guess we can conclude the D90 is a better point and shoot?

I can accept the conclusion based on the experiment at hand. Good answer - take two virgins out of petty cash.

Then again, I'll bet that my DLux4 would outperform the D90 under these carefully controlled conditions depending on the lens on the Nikon.

[cloudswimmer]

I am having trouble figuring out how to create a link from flickr to this forum for the high resolution images --- any tips would be great

Ok its easy, when you post here do this:

[IMG]your flicker link here[/IMG]

So for instance when I go to my flickr account and click on a picture, I see at the top all sizes, I click on that and then choose the size image I want and click on it, then below it I see http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3373/3484160831_e2be405512_o.jpg
When I stick it between [IMG] and [/IMG] in a post here I get this

[kmanlaker]

I'm not trying to be a jerk. I just don't understand what your point is. I don't see how you can say the K7 got "trounced" given what you've shown. And you're basically doing a quick and dirty point and shoot experiment, so how can one draw any real conclusions no matter what files you link to?

you are correct about the point and shoot mentality and my points are as follows


#1 - i cannot figure out how to get the large jpg files to link correctly
#2 - if you could actually "see" them you would see the trounceing
#3 - i should never have posted this jibberish
#4 - myself and others do somtimes use expensive cams as point and shoots
#5 - you are not a jerk
#6 - believe it or not I actually shoot product photos with studio strobes -- so none of the high iso stuff amounts to hill of beans for the most part to me
#7 - i need to go crawl back into my hole
#8 - will someone please get me another beer???
#9 - can i shut up? yes i can