Sunday, March 31, 2013

High ISO comparison: D7100 vs. D7000, D600 and D700

Among the people considering the D7100, some of the most common competition I hear about is either the D7000 or the D600.  Using the DPReview raw studio samples, I compared the D7100 against the D7000 and D600 at higher ISOs (1600 and above).  I also compared the D7100 against the D700, which in some areas is available used for not much more than the D7100.  In the case of the D7000 and D700, I compared the samples at the same viewing sizes in Photoshop.  I did not change any of my default settings.  Here are my observations. (Note: in this post I'm only comparing high ISO performance.)


In all of these comparisons, the D7100 is on the left while the competing camera is on the right.  You can see the file name at the top left of each picture, where I indicated the camera name and ISO.  Click on the thumbnails below to see the full resolution screen capture.

NIKON D7100 VS. NIKON D7000
Viewing samples at 100%, the D7100 and D7000 look similar to me (DXO gives the D7100 about a 1/10th stop edge).  However, I viewed the samples in Photoshop (which has a continuous zoom) at about the same viewing size (with the D7100 at around 80% zoom).  I found that at ISO 25,600, the D7100 had a significantly better appearance than the D7000.

ISO 25600
The D7100's noise looked much less objectionable (partly because the grain appears finer at the same viewing size), and the D7100 preserved more details than the D7000.  So much so that when I compared the D7100 at 12,800 to the D7000 6,400, the D7100 looked about as good.

D7100 @ 12,800 vs. D7000 @ 6,400
At lower ISOs, it seems to me that the D7100's noise advantage over the D7000 decreased as the ISO decreased, although the D7100 looked better because of the finer grain of the noise.
ISO 6400

ISO 3200

ISO 1600

NIKON D7100 VS. NIKON D600
As expected, the D7100's high ISO performance is not as good as that of the D600.

Even when I compared the D7100 to the D600 at one stop higher, the D600 still came out slightly ahead.  I would estimate that the D600 is about 1.5 stops better than the D7100 at high ISOs.
D7100 @ 12800 vs. D600 @ 25600

D7100 @ 6400 vs. D600 @ 12800

D7100 @ 3200 vs. D600 @ 6400

D7100 @ 1600 vs. D600 @ 3200


NIKON D7100 VS. NIKON D700

At ISO 25,600, viewed at the same size (the D7100 is zoomed to approximately 66%), the D7100 looks just as good as the D700.  In fact, you can even make the argument that the D7100 looks a little better because the grain of the luminance noise is finer, and in addition, the D7100 preserved some details better.  With the Umberto medal in the middle, the lines around the bust are better preserved with the D7100 than the D700.
ISO 25,600

The same pattern holds true at ISO 12,800, 6,400, 3,200 and 1,600.
ISO 12,800

ISO 6,400

ISO 3,200

ISO 1600

The fact that the D7100 samples look about as good as the D700 samples at the same viewing size is really incredible.  The D700's full frame sensor, the same as that of the Nikon D3, has about twice the surface area as the D7100's APS-C sensor, and the D700 was well-regarded for its low noise for many years (indeed, even today).

In fact, the D7100 seems to preserve the smallest details a little better than the D700.  For example, if you look at the medal in the top left of these samples (near the red and white cross), there is a blue hatching pattern, which looks more accurate on the D7100 than on the D700.  If you look at the Umberto medal as well, in the inscription Milano 1881, the number 8 is legible as such, whereas on the D700 the number 8 looks illegible.

CONCLUSION
The D7100's high ISO performance does not seem very remarkable when viewed against competing cameras at 100%.  However, at the same size viewing size, the D7100 shines and can actually offer the same (or even slightly better) performance as the full-frame D700.  I invite you to download samples from DPReview (using their studio comparison tool) to draw your own conclusions.

Please note also that this was a studio scene comparison.  I noted that the D7100's shadow recovery is not as good as that of the D7000 or D600.  It is possible that if the samples required significant shadow recovery, these observations might be different.


RELATED POSTS
Nikon D7100 Hands-On Real World User Review
Importing D7100 Raw Files Into Lightroom
Nikon D7100 Low Light Teaser
Nikon D7100 FAQ and Helpful Links
Nikon D7100 Shadow Recovery
Nikon D7100 Real World Dynamic Range
Nikon D5200 and D7100 Band-Aid: Solutions for Banding
Sample of D7100 banding in a real world shot

13 comments:

  1. Hi Mic,
    some days ago I got a bargain for an used D300 and I got it ad it has less than 1.000 shots, so at the moment I'm not considering to buy anything else but your review seems to confirm my impressions I wrote you on you post here (http://betterfamilyphotos.blogspot.com/2013/03/nikon-d7100-vs-nikon-d600-low-light_20.html?showComment=1364052943717#c3005614062880735923)

    :)
    It seems to me D700 is more usable but it's really an excellent news to know we can then suppose D700 has only less than 0.5 stop High ISO noise gain over D7100.

    I think D7100 could be an excellent upgrade if you want to save money and stay in Dx.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Congratulations my friend! The D300 is a great camera. I was very happy with mine for many years. I am sure it will serve you well. It has everything you need.

      Yes your observations were correct. I'm sorry I didn't respond previously. That time I had not done the tests yet so I don't know what to say. But yes my observations are similar to yours.

      Thanks again and let me know how it goes with the D300!

      Best regards,
      Mic

      Delete
    2. Thank you Mic!
      Don't worry, you are always a kind with all of us who follow your blog, and a great photohrapher .. and have also done some tests for me with 28-105, I asked you ;)

      Having got the D300 I'm now using the "saved money" for better lenses. The more Fx lenses I can get the more money I think I'll save .. but I have a budget, my friend, and I cannot afford all Fx best lenses. I'm only an enthusiast photographer ..

      So I'm planning to buy a Nikon 80-200 f/2.8 "push-pull" D type, and stay with it until the new Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 VC will be available at a lower price than initial.
      The push-pull will replace my "slow" nikkor 80-200 f/4.5-5.6.

      Also, as I like to overlap lenses on their focal ranges, I think I'll keep my 18-35 IF ED Nikkor and add a Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 Dx.
      If I'll change to Fx I'll sell the new Tokina and 18-35, and buy a better Tokina 16-28 f/2.8 Fx or Nikon 16-35 Vr.

      Thanks for your tips, bye
      Sebastiano

      Delete
    3. Hi Seb. About the 80-200 I have heard it is a good lens, but personally I find it difficult to use a telephoto lens (especially a large one) in low light without VR. The Sigma 50-150 non-OS is sharp enough but in low light when I need a slower shutter speed to get sufficient exposure, I find it difficult to get a sharp shot without flash (and sometimes it's not feasible to use flash). What do you think of the Nikon 85 1.8G? I will be posting samples of the 85 1.8G on a DX camera soon.

      Best regards,
      Mic

      Delete
  2. Nice article, the image comparisons were useful.
    Too bad no D4 comparison though : P

    ReplyDelete
  3. Ever wonder why D7000 shots appears brighter? Because you ignored the fact that the D7100 is about 1/3 stop less sensitive than D7000. D7000 shots actually taken at higher ISO than D7000's.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You're right that the D7000 is 1/3 stop more sensitive than the indicated ISO whereas the D7100 ISO is accurate. However, FYI, the test shots here were from DPReview's studio tests. I was not the one who took them, and I did not edit them.

      Best regards,
      Mic

      Delete
    2. My point is that at pixel level, D7k is at least as good if not better than D7100. I am not impressed at all despite D7100's images pack 1.5 times pixels as D7000's. Nikon could have just kept the same pixel count but improve real high ISO performance instead. Thanks for doing the comparisons, Mic!

      Delete
    3. Hi there! You are right that at the pixel level, the D7000 and D7100 are about the same (DXO says D7100 is 1/10th stop better). Like you, I would have preferred better high ISO performance than an increase in resolution. I really don't need 24mp. The good news for us is that if the D7100 image is viewed at the same size as the D7000 image, it does appear to have less noise. In addition, noise reduction is more effective (you can reduce the noise better while retaining detail). If you haven't done so yet, you can try it out with a high ISO raw file from the D7100.

      Best regards,
      Mic

      Delete
  4. Mic, this is an interesting review.
    One problem I have with it, is that low light noise usually is most pronounced in the dark areas and not the bright ones. I understand you were looking at the label as it has a lot of details and so can be used to pass judgement on detail preservation in low light.
    Do you think it would be possible to incorporate dark areas into the test as well?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi. Sorry for the delayed reply. Just to clarify, I did not take these test shots. They are from the DPReview samples. You can compare dark areas using their comparison tool.

      Best regards,
      Mic

      Delete
  5. Can you do a comparison of OOC jpg? Most people don't shoot raw all the time. Thank you.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi. Sorry for the delayed reply. Just to clarify, I did not take these test shots. They are from the DPReview samples. You can compare JPEGs using their comparison tool.

      Best regards,
      Mic

      Delete

Thanks for your comment. It will be published as soon as we get a chance to review it, sorry for that, but we get lots of spam with malicious links.