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

<p>Well, a widely discussed fact is that <a href="http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/13/canon-5d-mark-ii-used-to-shoot-entire-house-season-finale-direc/">they shot the season finale of "House"</a> with the 5D mark II, and most people's logic has been that if it's good enough for that, it's probably good enough for a wedding. Additionally there is quite a bit about the video features of the camera on <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_EOS_5D_Mark_II">wikipedia</a>. While the 5D mark II is certainly not without its issues, I agree that the future of HD-video-on-a-budget is going to be through the DSLR. With two of them, you can even do <a href="http://www.engadget.com/2010/09/09/hdr-video-accomplished-using-dual-5d-mark-iis-is-exactly-what-i?icid=sphere_blogsmith_inpage_engadget">HDR video</a>.</p>

<p>I think the future of HD video on a budget won't be the DSLR but dedicated video cameras with large sensors like these two. There will be more coming and they'll have the features and ports (SDI, XLR) that video people actually want.</p>

<p>http://www.dpreview.com/news/1007/10071401sonynexvg10e.asp</p>

<p>http://pro-av.panasonic.net/en/sales_o/news_info/news100913/100913.html</p>

<p>Not to mention better on board audio. I remember one of the first things Zach Arias said during his weekend workshop on Creative Live was how the audio recording on the Canons was horrible. He highly recommended getting an external unit (such as the $100 Zoom) to hook up to your mic. I think dedicated video cameras have much better sound grabbing than the HDSLRs (although I could be wrong).</p>

<p>Cory - having switched from Canon to Nikon, I've been amused about the manual focus compatibility behaviour. Cheap Nikon bodies don't meter (because they don't know the aperture) or don't have matrix metering (because they don't know the focal length). Unless things have changed, Canon's focus confirmation doesn't work without chipping the lens.<br>

<br>

They both seem kind of gratuitous. Well, okay, the matrix meter probably needs to know the focal length, but not metering at all is deliberate crippling - it ought to be possible to stop-down meter (like AI-converted lenses on higher-end cameras), which is all you can do on a Canon if the lens doesn't have an electronic shutter. I can't think why an autofocus sensor should care what kind of lens is attached. Nikon have a lot of AI lenses; Canon's EF mount is easy to adapt third party lenses to, so both issues matter. Canon presumably want you to buy their glass, Nikon seem happy for you to buy a more expensive body. Neither comes across as customer-friendly. Kudos to Nikon for providing a cheaper body with AI support, but I wish there'd been an even cheaper film option that did the same.<br>

<br>

Mind you, the only company with (nearly) 100% lens compatibility is Leica, and there's a reason for that...</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Mind you, the only company with (nearly) 100% lens compatibility is Leica, and there's a reason for that...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Sure, back in 1990 when AF was in its infancy, I asked a Leica rep when they would introduce AF, and he told me that AF wasn't necessary.</p>

<p>That was 20 years ago. Today, Leica's R series and M series still do not have AF. It is very easy to maintain compatibility when you don't need to modernize. Nikon's advantage as well as their problem is that they are more or less maintaining compatibility with the F mount when it was first introduced back in 1959.</p>

<p>I think that this thread may have set the Guiness record for the number of responses. The D7000 is certainly an impressive camera. If I didn't already have a D90, I would most likely buy a D7000. But since I already have a D90 and a D300, which are both more camera than I am a photographer, I will wait an see what the future holds. With the current world of photography, the future gets re-written every 6 months, a far cry from the 10 year life cycle of the Nikon F, F2, F3, etc. This has been a very interesting and informative thread.</p>

<p>I have a D300, which I think is great, but two things I don't like about it that make me want to get a D7000:<br>

- It's size/weight<br>

- I don't use many of the advanced features that it has</p>

<p>So a D7000 has all the features of the D300 that I use while being smaller, lighter, and has video for those few occasions that I want to use it.<br>

I'll probably take a ~$300 hit to swap it out, but now I'll have a camera that I will use more often because of it's size, weight, and video capability.</p>

<p>I'll probably get a used/refurbed D700 to complement the D7000.<br>

John</p>

<p>what's going to make or break the d7000 IMO isnt the MP rating--and shun makes a good point that older lenses, especially those designed for film, may not be able to keep up with the sensor--but the AF compared to the d300/d300s.</p>

<p>the d90's AF is one of its weak points compared to the d300. granted, this really only comes into play when you are shooting action in low-light environments, which for some of us is not that often.</p>

<p>if the d7000's new 39-pt AF module can hang with this kind of demanding usage, then there seems to be very little reason to get a d300s at this point, except perhaps to save a few bucks buying used. nikon's tech specs don't specify whether the new multicam 4800 DX module has 4-channel output (like the 3500 used on the d300s) or not, and it's possible they held this back. it's also possible that the d7000 will have the same AF module as the d400, assuming there is a d400.</p>

<p>at this point, its hard to think of what nikon could do to make a better DX camera than the d7000, other than maybe upgrade the video and fps. the d7000 intro also raises a lot of questions about the future of FX and what the d700's replacement is gonna look like, assuming there is one. the d300/d700/d3/d3s/d3x lineup made sense before, but now we're entering the realm of wait-and-see. i'm fairly sure we're going to see more MP in an FX body, probably 16 mp if nikon is now manufacturing its own sensors. which casts the future of both the d3s and d3x sensors into doubt.</p>

 

<blockquote>

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

</blockquote>

<p>Feel free to question it, but having tested the Zeiss 50/2 at long distances against 50/1.4, 50/1.2, 50/1.8 (both AI-S and AF-D) and I don't remember what, I can confidently say that the image quality is superior. At close range the Zeiss is superb, I'm not going to bother testing there. The thread you mention didn't seem to make a mention about this lens. Generalizations are dangerous, there might be more exceptions than what one expects.</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?<br /><br /></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Sure, the quality is great with some small caveats. A lot of funky things can be done with these new toys; while Stanley Kubrick acquired a 50/0.7 lens to shoot candlelight scenes in Barry Lyndon (or as a gearhead he probably got the lens first and then found the use...), but now a basic 50/1.2 and a modern DSLR could do the same thing even better. New video cameras are coming out, such as the Panasonic one with micro-4/3 mount, that have all the improvements that one might need (e.g. proper audio connections), so the developments in this area are exciting.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>at this point, its hard to think of what nikon could do to make a better DX camera than the d7000, other than maybe upgrade the video and fps.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>What about:</p>

<ul>

<li>Faster FPS both stills and video</li>

<li>Larger buffer</li>

<li>Better bracketing</li>

<li>Better High ISO performance a la D3S</li>

<li>More dynamic range</li>

<li>More battery life -> higher power flash & longer movies w/ VR On</li>

<li>Articulated Screen</li>

<li>Better microphone (stereo?)</li>

<li>Built in VR so we get VR on all lenses</li>

<li>Fast Live View shooting</li>

<li>Auto-merge-to-HDR with RAW or JPG</li>

<li>Uncompressed Video with Auto HDR</li>

<li>Wireless / Bluetooth / GSM+CDMA networking & tethering</li>

<li>Customizable touch screen or more buttons for various controls</li>

<li>Built in GPS</li>

<li>Voice Memo</li>

<li>More megapixels (gasp! I said it)</li>

<li>Lower price</li>

</ul>

<p>I'm sure I could think of more things. I'm not critizising the D7000 - it's awesome and really impressive - I'm just saying there's always more to be done, always room for improvement, so I refuse to think that things can't be better. If people had said that 30 years ago, we'd never even had autofocus, much less digital photography in general.</p>

<p>I have a D300, which I think is great, but two things I don't like about it that make me want to get a D7000:<br>

- It's size/weight<br>

- I don't use many of the advanced features that it has</p>

<p>So a D7000 has all the features of the D300 that I use while being smaller, lighter, and has video for those few occasions that I want to use it.<br>

I'll probably take a ~$300 hit to swap it out, but now I'll have a camera that I will use more often because of it's size, weight, and video capability.</p>

<p>I'll probably get a used/refurbed D700 to complement the D7000.<br>

John</p>

<p>Left, your list is exhaustive (you forgot ice cream maker, though) but do you really want more MPs in a DX format? i was personally pretty happy with the d300's 12. 16 might even be pushing it; any more, you'd probably want a FF camera, especially if improved high-ISO performance is a critical need.</p>

<p>Shun - thanks for taking the bait. :-) Even Leica don't have complete compatibility - they had an EOS-style change of format when the M3 was introduced and there are lenses that don't meter properly because they stick in so far they block the shutter. Some time they'll probably get around to fitting contrast autofocus to a digital one, especially if they can do it by moving the mount around and relying on the whole lens moving as part of the focus mechanism. Don't get me wrong, I'm very grateful for the lens compatibility that we've got: Canon's is "compatible with everything back to 1987; before that, forget it"; Nikon's is "possibly compatible with everything from the 1970s, but read the small print". It's the incompatibilities that seem to be driven by marketing rather than technology that bug me. Although I could argue that Nikon could get away with only making their low-end lenses "G", and charge the extra few dollars for an aperture ring on big glass - sure I wanted my 28-200 to be cheap, but once I've shelled out so much for a 14-24, it wouldn't have hurt to be able to use it on an FM as a back-up body.<br>

<br>

Left - there are plenty of niggles that I have about my D700, and I'm sure a D7000 would still have most of them. Hopefully Nikon will get around to them at some point, but I agree with you that there's plenty more development to go.<br>

<br>

As for the doom and gloom about lenses not being able to keep up with the sensor, people said exactly the same thing about the 7D when it came out - and the 1Ds3, and the D3x, and the 60MP medium format backs. Some glass could do with an update, some will need careful handling, but we're a way from needing a new class of lenses just yet. When we do, I look forward to someone making a normal prime that's as sharp wide open as the supertelephotos are.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Feel free to question it, but having tested the Zeiss 50/2 at long distances against 50/1.4, 50/1.2, 50/1.8 (both AI-S and AF-D) and I don't remember what, I can confidently say that the image quality is superior. At close range the Zeiss is superb,</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Oskar, you are making a similar comparison as Ilkka did on the other thread: comparing some old and much cheaper Nikon lenses against a very recent Zeiss lens that is a lot more expensive. The Zeiss 50mm/f2 ZF was introduced recently and is a $1000 macro lens. Macro lenses tend to be much sharper anyway. All of those AI-S and AF-D Nikon lenses are designs from 2, 3 decades years ago. The 50mm/f1.8 AF-D is just over $100 and is frequently recommended here since it is so cheap; the 50mm/f1.4 AF-D has been around $250 or so.</p>

<p>Better comparisons are between Nikon's 50mm/f1.4 AF-S and Zeiss's 50mm/f1.4 ZF, the respective 85mm/f1.4 (AF-D or AF-S from Nikon) and the up-coming 35mm/f1.4 from both brands. In that case equivalent lenses from both brands are priced much closer.</p>

<p>Am I the only person that wants ISO 50? All this focus on high ISO and seems people have forgotten some of the cool things you can do with slower ISOs. </p>

<p>So, my list of improvements:<br>

- Same ISO range as D3s, but shifted one stop slower to get me ISO 50<br>

- Larger bufer<br>

- Faster FPS<br>

- Single shot 32-bit "RAW"<br>

- Raw video<br>

- Faster video options (60fps +) at 1080P<br>

- Full pro body (ala D3)<br>

- larger pentaprism<br>

- easily replaced focusing screens (split prism FTW!)<br>

- Dual CF slots for faster data transfer<br>

- Faster data transfer to the memory cards<br>

- more MP, if the lenses can keep up<br>

- built in GPS<br>

- touch screen with live view focus on touch</p>

 

<p>'if the d7000's new 39-pt AF module can hang with this kind of demanding usage, then there seems to be very little reason to get a d300s at this point, except perhaps to save a few bucks buying used.'</p>

<p>I guess we won't know until the tests are in, but it certainly sounds promising. 39 in total is less than 51, of course, but I often use only 21 on the D300, and the D7000 has a similar mode. Crucially, 9 of the 39 are cross-type, which is I think the first time any Nikon dSLR 'below' the D300 has had more than one. I wonder how they're spread out in the D7000? - the x-sensors are rather too centrally bunched in the D300 (even more so in the FX cameras).</p>

<p>It is no accident that the prices on AIS/AF/AF-D lenses have been going up recently! It seems that someone leaked and the word got around to some people.</p>

<p>Richard, check out DPReview: <a href="http://www.dpreview.com/previews/nikond7000/page3.asp">http://www.dpreview.com/previews/nikond7000/page3.asp</a><br>

They have a diagram of the positions of the Multi-CAM 4800's 39 AF points. It is shaped similar to the Multi-CAM 3500 but with fewer rows of tehm. The center 9 are the cross types.</p>

<p>The F5, F100 and the D1 family use the same AF module that has 3 cross type out of 5. The D2 family and F6 use the Multi-CAM 2000 that has 9 cross type out of 11.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Oskar, you are making a similar comparison as Ilkka did on the other thread: comparing some old and much cheaper Nikon lenses against a very recent Zeiss lens that is a lot more expensive. The Zeiss 50mm/f2 ZF was introduced recently and is a $1000 macro lens.<br /><br /></p>

</blockquote>

<p>THe 24-70/2.8 AF-S is worse at 50 mm. So is the 50/1.4 AF-S. We're running out of lenses from Nikon to compare to... Expensive or not, the comparison must be to actual lenses that are available. That does remain me though that at some point I should dig up a 60/2.8 AF-S to compare to...</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Macro lenses tend to be much sharper anyway.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>At close-up yes, but not at a distance. It's pretty hard to make a lens that's good at both close-up and distance.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Better comparisons are between Nikon's 50mm/f1.4 AF-S and Zeiss's 50mm/f1.4 ZF, the respective 85mm/f1.4 (AF-D or AF-S from Nikon) and the up-coming 35mm/f1.4 from both brands. In that case equivalent lenses from both brands are priced much closer.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>My point was not to compare Zeiss and Nikon; reread my post. The point was that there are perfectly good MF lenses that people might want to use for their perfomance. The old 55/3.5 micro Nikkor I have is a very good performer. The 35/1.4 AI-S has excellent resolution in the center of the frame. The Zeiss 50/2 was just an easy pick since its performance is so strong that I expected no one who has actually tried that lens to question it's abilities.</p>

 

<p>Thanks Shun. Will you be getting a review camera before they're in the shops? It'll be interesting to see how this compares with the 3500 in practice. It seems a shame there's not a wider spread of x-type sensors, but that said the 3500 seems to make better use of the peripheral line sensors than some earlier modules (maybe some clever integration of the input of multiple sensors, or just better contrast detection & processing in general?).</p>

<p>My guess would be that the D300 replacement will get a new super sensor based on the D3s to distinguish it from the D7000.</p>

<p>I've been waiting to see what this D7000 would be. And Nikon definitely peaked my interest with what they put into this camera.</p>

<ul>

<li>16MP = I like it.</li>

<li>Ai/Ais meter coupling = BIG, BIG, BIG interest.</li>

<li>DX = I was hoping for FX in a cheaper body, but I can live with this.</li>

<li>1080HD Video = Not necessary, but this is amended as outlined below.</li>

<li>AF Fine tune = BIG interest.</li>

<li>External (Stereo?!) microphone input = BIG interest given that it has AF 1080HD Video. That eliminates my curiosity to get a cheap camcorder. VERY, VERY smart move, imho.</li>

<li>MB-D11 Grip = Thank you!</li>

<li>Dual Memory Cards = I haven't experienced the benefits yet.</li>

<li>Dual Command Dials = Nice.</li>

<li>No PC socket = not necessary to me anymore, plus AS-15 makes a smarter choice since I don't have to worry about losing the cap for a built in PC socket (which I never use anyway).</li>

<li>Price = Very reasonable given the AI/AIS, and robust HD video modes. ~24FPS is fine for hobby video and that saves me money on buying a camcorder that I would only rarely use.</li>

</ul>

<p>I'm very interested in this new body...</p>

<p>Oskar, if you want to compare, compare apples to apples, like new macro lenses against new macro lenses. I don't doubt for a second that ZF lenses are excellent optically, my Zeiss lenses (medium-format ones, not ZF) certainly are, but so are many higher-end, modern Nikon lenses.</p>

<p>But my point is that manual focus does not at all imply that you need the aperture follower tab. Nikon started adding a CPU onto new manual-focus lenses in 1988; that was 22 years ago, although most of the lenses Nikon has introduced since 1988 are AF. It is merely Zeiss' own poor choice that version 1 of the ZF lenses from 2005 do not have a build-in CPU. At least they came up with version 2 w/ CPU within a few years and for all practical purposes admited that they made a very stupid mistake.</p>

<p>What I question is how well those old AI/AI-S lenses from 30 years ago (including those older optical designs repackaged into AF/AF-D) will perform on a 16MP DX DSLR. I have the 35mm/f1.4 AI-S that I bought in 1987, and it shows quite serious chromatic aberration. I prefer my 17-55mm/f2.8 DX @ 35mm on my D300, but the zoom doesn't have f1.4, of course. I am sure a few individual old lenses are still fine today, but most of them are not. Those who expect a lot from old lenses on the D7000 will likely be disappointed.</p>

<p>One thing I envy about DPReview is that they always seem to be able to get a new camera before the official release. You can learn a lot just playing around with a camera for a few hours. The D7000 is affordable enough that I am planning to buy one myself when it becomes available so that I get to keep it in the long run. I think it is such a landmark "prosumer" DSLR that it is nice to have one around as I am sure there will be a lot of questions about it in the next 2, 3 years. I also need a DSLR that can capture video.</p>

<p>Shun,<br>

"I am sure a few individual old lenses are still fine today, but most of them are not. Those who expect a lot from old lenses on the D7000 will likely be disappointed."</p>

<p>Until Nikon makes affordable equivalents, those of us with a collection of MF lenses have not much choice. I know plenty of posters spend thousands on lenses at a blink of an eye, but that's not everyone. A good number were hoping that the f4 range of lenses would fit that bill, but ...how about a 24-120mm f4 for $1300 ? How about the 200mm f4 for $1800 ? The other end is no better. The "kit" lenses are given poor marks most of the time, when the subject of sharper photos comes up. Especially, in less than bright lighting.</p>

<p>From my perspective, if a lens gets good marks on the 24Mp D3x from a reviewer most of use agree with, I don't see how the same lenses will be sent to the unusable bin on a 16mp D7000.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>"I am sure a few individual old lenses are still fine today, but most of them are not. Those who expect a lot from old lenses on the D7000 will likely be disappointed."<br>

I hear this often, but do not fully understand. Can you help me understand--disappointed in what way? I use a 35mm f/2 Ais on the D90, and I am quite happy with it. It is no worse on the D90 than on film. I would expect the new AFS 35/1.4 to be better in some ways, but does that translate into the 35mm f2 being not very good because a high resolution sensor can show its flaws (probably only the pixel level) whereas film could not?</p>