Nikon Announces D7000 DSLR, 35mm/f1.4 AF-S, 200mm/f2 AF-S VR2, and SB-700 Flash

<p>Peter, that is the part I meant, doesn't make sense to me.<br>

Must be a mis-print, D90 has no problems, but there are some flash distance info limitations because the lens doesn't send those (Indicated by a -D when the lens does send it)</p>

<p>Bruce - that's just the economics of the business. Really, we're lucky to get manual-focus lens support at all on $1200 camera. Think about this:</p>

<ul>

<li>Nikon makes money selling new lenses, not old manual focus stuff (while they do still offer them new, they are a <em>very</em> small part of their business). They have to balance this profitability motive with not making their existing customer base angry with too much planned obsolescence. This is also why we will never see in-body VR / IS from Nikon / Canon. They would lose too much on new lens sales.</li>

<li>Most people who are still using manual focus lenses are either 'pros', or don't have the ability/willingness to buy new lenses, or they are into old funky photo gear. Since the pros spend money on gear (unlike the other two groups), what they want is what matters to manufacturers. Therefore, compatibility with old lenses is put into 'pro' cameras that have the rest of the specs that 'pros' are after.</li>

<li>Most of the people buying lower-spec'd cameras such as the D3100/D5000 probably are going to be quite content with the kit lens, and will have little interest in manual focus. Remember, most people born after about 1980 are used to having autofocus on almost every camera they've ever used. Today's 30 year olds are the target market for the D3100/D5000 - to take pictures of their newly-born kids etc. - and they are going to get a kit lens or two and be perfectly fine. Besides, manual focus is terrible for shooting fast moving kids and dogs, and that's what sells cheap SLRs.</li>

</ul>

<p>Therefore, the logical business solution is only to put manual focus compatibility on high end cameras, because that's where the work to develop that feature will actually result in increased sales.</p>

<p>I am seriously surprised on the fact that everybody is talking about the d7000, when in my opinion is "just" a good answer to the competition lineup, and considering the fact that is the latest tech but in two years will be out dated just like any other piece of equipment.<br>

Yet no one has paid real attention to what in my opinion was a very long awaited lens, the 35mm 1.4 with a very high price tag and optics that are supposed to be stellar, what is wrong?? am I alone in this boat?? I want to see some pics!</p>

 

<p>Jose, you answered your own question: "very high price tag". Outside of a few pros or lucky people with big budgets, high priced primes don't have the mass appeal of a moderately priced pro-sumer body.</p>

<p>Especially when Nikon makes a 35mm f/1.8 for DX that is pretty darn good, and only costs $200 (11% of the price of the f/1.4 version). For most people, that lens is sufficient for the 35mm focal length. There is also the FX-sized 35mm f/2, which is pretty good as well, and only costs $390 (22% of the price). </p>

<p>Is that extra stop of light and super-high-quality worth an extra $1600 (or $1410)?</p>

<p>There were always several features of cheaper Nikon digital bodies that were deal-breakers for me. Lack of aperture indexing for older lenses; questionable trade-offs on build such as lack of dust and moisture sealing; inferior viewfinders; inferior AF; inferior options for vertical grips; missing support for AF adjustment; and compromises on sensors. All have been resolved in the D7000. The only significant thing it lacks from the bigger bodies is the ten-pin accessory interface. On technical points you also have to shift buttons slightly more to use the screen and the menus, like the D90 and unlike the D300s -- but for me that's more than made up for by speed-ups in the in-use handling like the U1 and U2 recall settings.</p>

<p>I think it will make a fine body for serious photography. Not to mention saving something like 130 grams from a D200 is more than welcome.</p>

<p>I'm curious to see what, if anything, they have in mind for a D400, or if they'll lower the price point for getting into full frame.</p>

<p>I have one technical question; it's not clear to me if there's enough space under the built-in flash overhang to allow proper movement from one of Nikon's tilt-and-shift lenses. There specifically isn't on a D200 but the lenses work fine on a D300.</p>

<p>The 35/1.4 strikes me as overpriced, though. Even Nikon's 24mm lenses are on the high side, both the tilt-and-shift that lacks full movements like its Canon counterpart, and the 1.4 that's just plain pricey never mind its quality, but this 35 is blatant -- a solid $600 too much in my view.</p>

<p>I'm beginning to believe that Nikon's confusing nomenclatures with respect to specs and capabilities (and likewise for Canon) is intentional. They will build and sell equipment to their biggest market, which includes a lot of first time dSLR buyers. By making the choices confusing, they will help distribute sales across their entire line of cameras. Otherwise, some cameras would sit in the warehouses, collecting dust. The D700 is the real oddball in the lineup, and I think is is just a test of some kind.<br>

I am a D200 user, and am looking for an excuse to upgrade. Neither the D300 (and D300s) nor the D7000 seem to be a sufficient jump to make me open my wallet. (I believe moving up with either even or odd numbers.)</p>

<p>I doubt the AI mechanism adds $50-100 to the price of the camera. The FM-10, if you can find one, is $300 with a zoom, so that's maybe a $200 AI-compatible body? In any case, I think the retail price of the camera has a lot more to do with what the market will bear (obviously several hundred dollars more than the US where I live!) than the component cost (within reason). They probably set the price before they even designed the camera, then picked features they thought would attract buyers who were prepared to spend that much; it was never going to be any cheaper than this. Adding AI means the 'pro backup' and 'advanced amateur' markets are fully covered - there are arguably no significant missing features, and this (like the magnesium bling and the 'pro' strap eyelets) sends the message the D7000 is a 'serious' camera. Or at least, more serious than this one!:<br>

http://www.fotofabrikas.lt/forumas/viewthread.php?tid=1158</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>(I believe moving up with either even or odd numbers.)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The D300, D700, D7000, etc. all carry even numbers.</p>

<p>I don't see the logic in this Nikon strategy. I think there might be a lot of people (ie. me) that have been looking at the d300s and (possibly the d700) price level that might be enticed to effectively downgrade (moneywise) to the d7000. Why spend more and get less and who knows when the d400 will come. If I did go for the d7000, I doubt I would be ready to upgrade again by the time the d400 comes out, especially if I can just wait for the D8000 to come out, which will probably outspec the d400 again anyway. If only Nikon would reveal their plans for their dslrs.<br /> Either way, I will wait a little longer to see some in-depth reviews to come in and get a hands on feel for the camera.</p>

<p>

<p>

<p>The pro line seems to be set in stone - D1 thru D3, skipping no numbers, but using suffixes like s, d Mark I, Mark II, etc. These cameras, with high capabilities and cost need a long production run to justify their existence.<br>

.<br>

The D3000 through D7000 clearly replace the D40 thru D90. Although Nikon says that the D7000 will fit between the D90 and D300s, I don’t believe it. I can see someone moving up to the D7000 from the D90, but not many moving from the D300s to the D7000. To do so would be to trade some good functions and controls for mega pixels and video.<br>

.</p>

<br>

The D100 thru D300s - my guess is that it’s future is unclear. The D700 is in the D300 class, except for the full sensor, which is more like the D3 - testing to see if there is a market for inexpensive full-frame cameras.. Maybe this series will disappear altogether after a D400, or maybe without one. Maybe there will be two groups, with the transition being a jump from a high end entry model (D7000) to a low end pro model (D700), with no mid range grouping.</p>

</p>

<p>The AI/AIS compatibility is a big deal maker for me. I suspect quite a few photographers started out finding used lenses , at low prices, that were MF versions of the more popular AF and AF-S versions. The cost of trading up to AF lenses would really cost some cash. My most common used MF lenses are :</p>

<p>80-200mm f4.5 ( No direct replacement f2.8 version about $500 , or f4.5-5.6 at $90 )</p>

<p>75-150mm f3.5 ( No direct replacement )</p>

<p>24mm f2.8 ( AF version from KEH, used $265 )</p>

<p>180mm f2.8 ED ( AF version from KEH, used $450-$525 )</p>

<p>I could easily need to spend over $1000 to get AF versions of my favorite lenses. So, is the $50 or even $100 more on the sticker price of the D7000 a hardship ? I think not ! It makes a lot more sense than VIDEO , for me !</p>

<p> </p>

<p>John, a 16MP DX camera is going to be very demanding on the lenses. I just got the new 28-300mm super zoom a week ago. Even 300mm/f5.6 looks decent on the D700. On the D300, it looks a bit soft. I think it is going to be worse on the D7000.</p>

<p>I don't have most of the lenses you listed, but the 24mm/f2.8 AF-D is likely to be, at best, mediocre on the D7000.</p>

<p>And we have repeated a few times that manual focusing on these cameras is difficult. IMO getting a KatzEye type split-image focusing screen is a must or you'll have to use live view to fine tune your focus; that is very precise but not practical under a lot of situations.</p>

<p>One thing about the AI/AI-S compatibility issue that no one seems to have mentioned, that jumped right out at me as a MF lens user, is that this is an option already available on Canon cameras that offer full metering on any lens that will mount on their bodies. Seems to me that this is just another instance of trying to stay on equal footing with their largest competitor.</p>

<p>I also happen to think that a manual focus lens (or an AF lens in manual mode, to some degree) would be attractive to some video users who might like the more "cinematic" effect of a slower focus shift that would not be available in AF mode.</p>

<p>As it is, the addition of metering with MF lenses means that the D7000 is now included on my list of "cameras that I would buy if I could afford it." Without that capability I'd still be looking at the D300 as my prime new-camera target. I'm already feeling a bit of NAS now, even though I know that I won't be buying any camera in that price range anytime in the near future. Maybe a bunch of D200 users will start dumping their bodies and I might be able to pick up a good used one of those instead. :-(</p>

<p>People are speculating there will be a D300s replacement, but what if there isn't? What if the camera just below current D700 is a lower priced FX? Nikon hasn't really said, have they? It looks like they are tossing out all kinds of different price points to see which ones are viable. I'm still interested in a top line DX camera, heir to D300. Increasing megapickles at the expense of ISO performance will quickly sour me though.<br>

Kent in SD</p>

<p>Yes, 16mp may be demanding, but the alternative is very expensive glass. To be sharper than what I have, I'll need to be sailing the used PRO glass market. Wouldn't it be prudent to at least TRY out what I have ?</p>

<p>Checking Bjorn's reviews, I get the following ratings</p>

<p>24mm f2.8 is a 4 or 4.5 even on the D3 series.</p>

<p>180mm f2.8 ED gets a 4.5 out of 5 on the D3x</p>

<p>The 80-200mm f4.5 is given a 4 out of 5, but he doesn't state with what body.</p>

<p>The low end 75-150mm f3.5 gets a 4.5-5 out of 5 on the D3x</p>

<p>I also have a 105mm f2.5 which I sometimes use. That gets a 5 of 5 on everything.</p>

<p>So, even though you think that being able to use old lenses us a waste of Nikon's time, on this camera, for me, and MY set of lenses, it is a big plus. I would rather spend a 1000 bucks on a body to find out how tough or easy it may be to use them, than $1500 on a D300s for the same result. If I need a 3rd party focus screen to use them more easily, I have STILL saved $500 over the D300s or what ever might replace it.</p>

<p>I read you seem to lament the $50-$100 cost increase to have this feature, but I would bet there a LOT of photogs out there that would LOVE to be able to use older glass and would have gladly paid that amount to upgrade their D90 or D80 or D70, if it were possible. So, that feature may get a lot pf people to BUY the D7000 that would have held off before.</p>

<p>Does it have focus-priority while tracking in C-AF?<br>

A bit dissappointed by the highest quality jpeg compression of 1/4...not 1/2.7...<br>

Ain't RAW processing decrease sharpness and detailization? (I have always loved RAW in my Olympus)</p>

 

<p>Newbie to the board. Currently I have a Nikon d50 and would like to upgrade to the D90. Since the newer models are coming out to replace the d 40 thru d90, is this a good time to get into the D90? Does anybody have any good place to buy the D90? Suggestions whether to buy refurbished, used or new. My budget is roughly 700 to 800. I want to avoid wholesalers, gray market and preferably want either a refurbished or new D90 with warranty. I have bought off of Adorama & B&H before, but am willing to try any other camera shops. It seems the prices are high at both Adorama & B&H, about 780 for refurbished and close to 900 for new. I found one other camera store (rythercamera.com) offers the D90 for around 700.<br>

I appreciate any and all help you can provide.</p>

<p>I wonder if it can do autofocus while shooting video?!</p>

<p>I was speaking in terms of the "majority" in re: to AI/AIS compatibility. There might some some sig fraction of customers but not the majority. The D7000 is cheaper than the D300 AFAIK and it's there, yay but it is more $$ than the D90 or the D90 replacement down the road.</p>

<p>Shun said the D7000 is a upper model than the D90 and does not replace it.</p>

<p>By far most customers would be happy with a D90 or a cheaper camera and IMO there will be more customers who buy high ended bodies and just use AFS than customers who use AI/AIS.</p>

<p>At the end of the day for AI/AIS compatibility, it's there, congrats, you may not pay as much as the D300 but you are paying more than a D90 for it. I wasn't the one who lament $50-100. I personally would just save a bit longer and get AFS, or shoot a manual film body and shoot AI/AIS. </p>

<p>Well I broke down and placed my order<br>

I'm upgrading from a D40 so of course the D7000 is going to be a major upgrade<br>

The major points that attracted me were<br>

16 Mp up from 6 I realize the MP myth but I plan on using more for being able to crop<br>

internal motor I'll finally be able to use my 50 1.8 with focusing<br>

lower light sensitivity with the D40 anything above 800 is pretty much useless<br>

100 ISO the lowest that the D40 would do is 200<br>

a top screen<br>

bracketing<br>

larger rear screen<br>

magnesium body parts<br>

live view<br>

dual SD cards<br>

I'll probably use the fish eye effect at least a couple of times<br>

I might use the video feature once in a while<br>

dual spin dial controls<br>

better weather sealing<br>

I'm sure that there are many more features that I will love but it will take me a long time to figure them out<br>

things that I wish were there and aren't<br>

articulated rear screen<br>

a utility package that includes tethering capabilities included<br>

the test shots that I have seen are OK but I would like to see the type of pictures that could be taken by somebody who take the picture of the month for photo.net or some of the top photographers on this web site and do some side by side comparisions with D90 D300/s D700 etc<br>

now I need to go check out e-bay for a remote controlled helicopter ;^)</p>

<p>A lot of video pros now use Canon 5D mark II. To compete in that segment Nikon needs to have video. MF is really the choice for high quality video productions, one never knows where the AF is going to go next and the focusing feel is very good with high quality MF lenses. Zeiss' video lenses have long focus throws to facilitate very smooth focusing.<br>

AI support is a nice convenience feature, definitely more useful for me than e.g. pop-up flash.<br>

Mind you, some of my MF lenses are very high in image quality, e.g. Zeiss 50/2, easily surpassing Nikon's AF offerings.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Mind you, some of my MF lenses are very high in image quality, e.g. Zeiss 50/2, easily surpassing Nikon's AF offerings.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That is a somewhat questionable statement, as we discussed in this recent thread: <a href="00XGHM">http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00XGHM</a> I am saying that as an owner of two Zeiss lenses myself.</p>

<p>But even Zeiss has finally come to their senses and added CPU chips into version 2 of their ZF lenses so that the cumbersome AI follower tab mechanism is no longer necessary for metering; you also don't need to manually enter lens data into the camera to get matrix metering. Adding CPU to manual-focus lenses is a practice Nikon has been doing since 1988 on the 500mm/f4 P (I owned that lens for several years back in the 1990's), the more recent 45mm/f2.8 P, and all PC-E lenses. Why Zeiss didn't put CPUs into their ZF lenses from the beginning when they introduced them in 2005 really puzzles me.</p>

<p>It is mainly the old AI/AI-S lenses (and unfortunately also version 1 of the ZF lenses) that require that mechanical AI follower tab. Given the demanding 16MP DX sensor on the D7000, I am not eager to mount those old lenses onto it. Modern manual-focus lenses from Zeiss (ZF version 2), Cosina (Voigtländer brand) and Nikon no longer require that mechanical linkage.</p>

<p>John, I agree with you. That was one of the points I was making in my earlier post about manual focus lenses. If you already have them, getting a D 7000 vs a D 90 is a plus other things being equal. At least you can try them out and see if they get the job done before you rush out and buy a new lens that you might use only occasionally. Joe Smith</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>"A lot of video pros now use Canon 5D mark II... "</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Out of curiosity... Have the MkII (or others) an acceptable video quality level, enough to substitute the video cameras used by wedding pros?</p>