Nikon D7000- Should I Do It?

[Athos6]

I guess I just wanted something new.

I know that feeling well 🙂

 

[cope07]

in all fairness, you look just a little bit (nikonians, fredmiranda,etc) a used d700 is about $2000. I understand why it may not be what you want (size, price, no crop reach,etc). I recently went from a D90 to a D700. I also looked at a D7000. The D7000 had a lot of features that I liked over the D90 (lens focus Micro adjust, metal in the body, 2x card slots, etc), but I didn't really feel that the image quality was a big enough jump to justify the cost. I took some shots in the store with both the D7k, and the D700 and the D7k had that same high iso noise I was used to with the D90 and the D700, well, that was different. Much different. So I did a major lens reshuffle (I had a lot of DX glass) and went FX. This is also slightly motivated by the fact that I really liked the Nikon 50 1.4G, and on DX it is a very difficult focal length for me, whereas on FX, it is walkabout.


Anyway....I would really consider why you are upgrading and how much you will use the upgraded features of the D7k. It seems from the chatter that it is also a somewhat more difficult camera (harder on so-so glass,etc). I think the usual advice (and I know it is tough medicine) it to skip a generation of DSLR's. Now obviously that is up to discretion as the D3/D700 is miles ahead of the D2, but I think it applies for these fairly mature crop sensors.

 

[cope07]

another option, get a nice chunk of new glass like the sigma 85 1.4 or something. THAT provides something new and different and will last.

 

[Vincent.G]

Good points all around.. I probably should just stick to my Nikon F and rangefinders..

Your NIKON F is a much more solid camera than the d7000. And the fun factor is so much higher too.

I say cut yourself from reading stuff on the Internet about the d7000 for a week or more. Go use your d90 or film SLR or rangefinders and rediscover their charm. When you have done so, the d7000 will still be available out there but your attitude towards it may change. Don't fall into the trap thinking you could have made wonderful photos if you had the d7000. I believe you had lots of beautiful photos made with your existing gear as well, am I right?

 

[Chinasaur]

I am in same boat. Have a D70 and "want" the D7000, and would only use it a few times a month. Happily, (and thankfully) I'm into film so it's not sucking my brains out as it is yours 🙂

Either way...don't grind on this too much longer. Make a choice. Life is too short. Even mistakes can be fun and are always a learning experience. 🙂

 

[Jamie Pillers]

I have the D7000. I had the D90 for awhile a few years ago. In my opinion, the reason to move up to the D7000 is the greatly improved dynamic range. With the D7000, there's far less chance you'll blow out highlights. All the other upgrades are just window dressing, IMO.

 

[hans voralberg]

Another significant upgrade of the D7000 is its ISO capability, you can whack it over to 12500 and still get pretty nice image with some minimal cleanup

 

[ampguy]

question

question

Jamie, do you use ADR on all the time? and if so, in standard mode, or a custom mode?

Also, lens correction - do you keep that on all the time, or not?

I handled both yesterday and the D7000 setup they had focused faster, but it also had the pricey 18-200 mounted, vs the D5100 with the cheap kit 18-55.

I like how the D5100 lcd flips inwards like the RD1.

I have the D7000. I had the D90 for awhile a few years ago. In my opinion, the reason to move up to the D7000 is the greatly improved dynamic range. With the D7000, there's far less chance you'll blow out highlights. All the other upgrades are just window dressing, IMO.

 

[Vics]

I've been looking at the D7000 for about a week now, reading a lot about it, and it's very tempting... But I can't decide if I should sell my D90 and go for it. I am definitely a film guy and it would probably only be used about once a month, but it sounds amazing! (and new toys are always fun) Give me your thoughts, please! Should I go for it?

Can you rent one for a few days? Maybe just try it out and see. Also, if you can rent, then why buy just to use it once a month?

 

[robert blu]

I m looking for a DSRL for my wife and (occasionally) for myself. D-7000 was a candidate, no doubt about quality an the internal motor is an interesting feature. But than I realized it is too large and heavy for her and planning to buy the D-5100, smaller, lighter and the price allows me to put some spared money in the box for my future M-9...if...maybe....
robert
PS I agree with ampguy, the flipping LCD is interesting

 

[Chris101]

I've looked into DSLRs in the last month. This is the one I recommend and the one I want.

But I don't want it bad enough to spend that much on it cause I HAVE a decent dslr that I don't use that often (D2x.) It's out on loan right now anyway. But I DID tell the person I lent it to to buy a D7000. If se complains about the image, I should tell her the D7000 would fix that (whatever that turns out to be.) Then I will be able to borrow it! 😉

 

[css9450]

I recently bought a D7000 after a few years using a D80; so in the original poster's case (coming from a D90) the difference might not be as noticeable. Compared to the D80, I love the D7000's faster "motor drive", larger buffer size and MUCH better high ISO performance. ISO 3200 on the D7000 looks better than ISO 800 does on my D80. Also the D80 tends to display a lot of "sensor glow" in extremely long night photos; my informal experiments with the 7000 look like its better in that regard too. I need to put it through some paces at night this weekend.

 

[Frank Petronio]

Keep the D90. I had a D7000 briefly and I wasn't overwhelmed. Oh, I'm sure I could have gotten to know it better, but it just didn't feel as good in the hand as my old D300, a camera that just felt right from the start. The D7000 felt a little crowded and I think the price point (which is great) meant they cut some corners on the build quality that I really noticed. I guess I'd prefer a solid plastic camera (like the D70 that I still have and love) rather than a not-quite-up-to-par semi-metal body. Anyway, for what you'd gain over the D90, I don't think it's worth it and agree with those above...put your resources behind what you tend to use most, especially if that's where your heart and soul are...

I agree with Doug, not worth upgrading. I've had nearly all the DX Nikons now and while it is a nice evolutionary improvement, everything is only incrementally better. When I look back at my portfolio, even ISO 1600 shots from the D80 and D200 hold up well (because of the the CCD sensor) and the D300 was probably the best of the lot... much better build quality than the D7000 and only a tick less image quality. Plus even though I dialed in some exposure compensation, I thought metering was hot on the D7000 and the AF wasn't as good as the D300. I'm not a sports shooter but I shoot people and sometimes you want to shoot a burst and it floundered there too.

I never even try the video, I wish it wasn't cluttering up my cameras....

The D90 and D300 are the best bang for the buck these days, and the D80/D200 are outright steals. Stay a generation back and save your money!

 

[jsrockit]

Can you rent one for a few days? Maybe just try it out and see. Also, if you can rent, then why buy just to use it once a month?

Renting is expensive vs. a relatively cheaper camera. Buying new and then selling used is generally cheaper than renting for a few days on a cheaper item. A two week rental for $200... you may as well just buy it and sell it if you don't like it. Buy it used, it's a wash.

 

[Bobbo]

I have a refurbished D90 from 2 years ago. It was an infinite step up from the D1h and Canon 10D (the power switch was really that camera's Achillies' heel) I was using. Results are excellent. I don't mind boosting up the ISO, switching to black and white and going to the bar with it.

I've even shot a whopping one video with it:
5-13 flooding video

(It's also the first time I've done any video editing since 2006 or so in college, so I was really rusty.)

But the D7000 sure is tempting. I don't shoot enough to warrant it, however. Better build quality would be great, as well as a port for an external mike, if you want to shoot video, but the different battery thing kind of put me off. Maybe next generation, for me🙂.

BTW, KEH sent me an e-mail today about factory refurbished Nikons. $1,057 for a D7000, or $599 for another D90. I think it's $1,250 for a D300s and $2,500 for a D700.

 

[dreilly]

On the AF speed: The tracking 3d autofocus on the D700/D300 cameras is just uncanny. It's the only thing that could handle the dark fast moving action of restaurant kitchens and dining rooms. Never experienced anything like that. To my mind that's Nikon's ace in the hole as a system. The D7000 has a less capable AF system and I didn't find it nearly as useful. If I were in the market for a APS-C sized DSLR, I think I'd lean to the D300 because of build, comfort and AF speed. As long as I can get rid of the chroma noise in Lightroom, that old 12mp sensor does just fine on 3200.

As for Dynamic Range, I know the D7000 represents a jump. But I wasn't really thrilled with the files. I'm interested to see what the D400 offers, though mostly because the D300s prices will drip even further. They hover now around the D7000 if you buy refurbs.

Lots of ways to think it and my analysis won't be everyone else's. The best advice I heard above is to either buy some film or a new lens to get it out of your mind for a while. There will be always be a more capable camera around in one respect or another.

 

[Ronald M]

If you are a film guy, the D90 for accessional use is fine. The big improvement you will see with 7K is at higher ISO or very large prints.

 

[tstermitz]

I have the D7000. I had the D90 for awhile a few years ago. In my opinion, the reason to move up to the D7000 is the greatly improved dynamic range. With the D7000, there's far less chance you'll blow out highlights. All the other upgrades are just window dressing, IMO.

I upgraded from D90 to Pentax K-5, primarily for the increased dynamic range which also gives you good ISO/sensitivity. What this means is that shooting RAW gives you extremely malleable image files. You can more easily extract detail out of the shadows, or recover highlights. You can underexpose a little to get more highlight protection.

I think your night shots with the D7000 sensor is about as good as the D700, meaning city lights and starry nights: Milky way at f1.4, 20s, ISO 1600.

That said, the D90 is a great, lightweight camera.