D7000: does it still make sense to buy one now?

<p>There seem to be good deals out there for the D7000 (B&H $700, Abe's $680), but does it still make sense to buy one this late (3 years after introduction, D7100 already out for a while)? Alternatives would be to do nothing (keep using my D70), find a good deal on a D7100 (at $1100 it's about what I paid for my D70), or try to find a used full-frame (35mm) DSLR, if there are any in this price range.</p>

<p>I'm not really taking all that many pictures anymore with my DSLR, since my phone camera is always at hand, and seems good enough for snapshots in good light, or even documentation at work. My interests used to be climbing and available light music/performance photography. In the latter I would always run into the high ISO limitations (noise) on the D70 (see example pic). The best camera in this respect would probably be a fairly recent model (to get a low noise sensor & electronics) with the largest possible pixels, for good low light performance, but the expense for a recent full frame Nikon seems unaffordable/not justifiable for my needs. The pixel count of the D70 is fine for me. Unfortunately progress (and Nikon's emphasis) has not been completely aligned with my needs, and low light performance has only been improving slowly over the years, with (correct me if I'm wrong) the best 35mm DSLRs maybe 3 stops better than the D70 (I.e. ISO 6400 usable vs. the D70's 800)?</p>

<p>So, I'm debating whether now's the time to take advantage of the (end of life?) deals on the D7000. I have the three old screw drive f2.8 zooms, covering 20 to 200mm, and a few fast manual primes, some of them chipped.</p>

<p>Here are two sample pics, to give you an idea of what I'm interested in, and my limitations.<br>

<img src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-wgNV3JJQLB8/R1XwZ76qK3I/AAAAAAAAJyg/F8mo_k9GSqw/s640/D70-12484.jpg" alt="" /><img src="https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-mRHJI0Y2T9c/SSynEClEiBI/AAAAAAAAJzs/SJOKwTx0jzQ/s640/D70_2-4070.jpg" alt="" /><br>

Added: EXIF data don't seem to show up; the first one is at ISO 1600, 1/50s, f1.4 or 1.2 (I don't remember which lens it was, 35, 50 or 85mm), manual focus, the second at ISO 400, 1/125s, f2.8, 80-200mm/2.8 at 160mm, AF.</p>

<p>I own both cameras and the 7100 is superior in just about every way, especially low light performance. You can argue if the difference in mix. between the two is important but it can't hurt. I still like my 7000 and it is a great backup to the 7100. </p>

<p>I will be interested to see if there are any people out there that would go the other way.</p>

<p>-O</p>

<p>I have both. While the D7000 is a fine camera, the D7100 has much better autofocus, low light performance and ergonomics, in a package of the same size and weight. There are small differences, such as the mode dial, in which the D7000 has it wrong (easy to turn accidentally) and the D71000 has it right (locking, and easy to use when you intend to use it.)</p>

The main question is: do you think the improvements are worth the premium of + 60%? If you come from a D70 all

currently available camera's are huge improvements.

<p>Thanks for the quick responses!<br>

Remco, the D70 has a dxomark low light score of a little over 500 ISO, and the Df a bit over 3200. That's actually less than three stops. <br>

See http://www.dxomark.com/en/Cameras/Ratings/Sports<br>

<br>

I'm interpreting that to mean that to get noise that I would find tolerable (comparable to a well exposed ISO 800 shot with the D70) in a setting similar to the Broetzmann picture above (which is very underexposed), I would still be laboring at the widest openings and barely hand-holdable shutter speeds, even with the latest full frame Nikon.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Alternatives would be to do nothing (keep using my D70)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>For all high-tech electronics, such as computers and digital cameras, my rule of thumb is that as long as keep using what you already have and therefore do nothing is an option, use that option. I would only buy something when what you currently have can no longer deliver or the new products are so much better that you can't stand your old one any more.</p>

<p>The D7000 is still a fine camera. It was my main DX body as recently as 10 months ago, but the D7100 is superior, especially in terms of AF.</p>

<p>DXO do actually define what they measure when they quote their ISO ratings. These are just for the sensor so don't consider the JPEG processing abilities of the camera. The low-light ISO figure is the maximum ISO they consider you can use while maintaining acceptable quality. Just what they mean by that is defined here (and I found it pretty difficult to find!) :-<br>

http://www.dxomark.com/About/Sensor-scores/Use-Case-Scores<br>

Of course DXO's opinion of what is acceptable quality may not be the same as other peoples! Note too that the figures are normalized so that high and low resolution sensors can be compared one with another. Despite what some say, according to DXO, the D7000 and D7100 have pretty much the same sensor performance (1256 vs 1167 ISO for example which is negligible), the D7100 just has higher resolution.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Shun, good point. On the one hand the D70 never could deliver what I wanted (i.e. acceptable noise handheld pics in low light), even though it has been fun trying ( and not all my pics are as underexposed as the shot above), on the other hand it seems a D7000 or D7100 will only do a factor 2.5 or one and a half stops better.</p>

<p>Thanks for linking to the DXO 'low ISO score' definition, Richard. "<em>An SNR value of 30dB means excellent image quality. Thus low-light ISO is the highest ISO setting for a camera that allows it to achieve an SNR of 30dB while keeping a good dynamic range of 9 EVs and a color depth of 18bits.</em>" So I can probably get away with higher ISO settings than the dxo score (which makes sense given my D70 experience), but should still be able to use it to compare cameras.<br /> <br /> <br /> It seems a used D700 would be my best bet (DXO ISO score 2300), but even a bargain rated one at KEH is still $1300. (I have had good experience with bargain rated lenses, but have never bought a used body.)<br>

Edit: a D600 in 'EX' condition can be had for the same price, and has a low light score of 3000! But then there is the oil spraying problem. So that might be one to stay away from?<br>

Also, thinking about the DXO definition: this is a purely pixel based score. If I average several smaller pixels, shouldn't the signal to noise improve with the square root of the number of pixels? So, if what I'm after is the visual impression of a given size print or screen image, maybe a reweighting of the DXO ISO scores is in order? </p>

<p>is a d7000 for $700 new a good deal? you betcha. is a d7100 a better deal? um, not necessarily. besides the fact the d7100 is considerably more expensive, it's 24mp DX sensor is more demanding on lenses. that means you get diffraction-impacted results sooner as you stop down, and some lenses are simply outresolved by that sensor. you also have much bigger files.</p>

<p>coming from a d70, a d7000 would be a major upgrade. and if you're not printing huge, 16mp is more than enough. sure, if you shoot events/action regularly, the better AF of the d7100 is a plus. but if the d70's ISO limit was about 800, you gain about 2 stops w/ a d7000, which is significant.</p>

<p>personally, i would upgrade from a d70 just for the larger LCD. no matter whether you go for d7000 or d7100, i'd also seriously think about the new sigma 18-35/1.8, which gets you more than a stop of aperture latitude over 2.8 zooms.</p>

<p>I have had all three cameras and find the D7100 is superior in every way, the D70 is well...crude in comparison to the D7100, but should you so desire... I have read that a infared converted D70 is quite a good gadget.</p>

<p>I've had all three cameras, starting with a D70, which I used for several years. I purchased a D7000, used it for less than a month and traded it in for a D7100 and I don't regret it. Why did I upgrade? The D7100 is just newer technology and the sensor is simply better. I love 24 mp. Contrary to what people say about 24mp being "demanding on lenses", my experience has been the opposite: even my older AiS manual lenses have never looked better with 24 mp, even better than when I was using film. I use an iso of 3200 as standard when indoors and no flash, and sometimes even 6400. See my people folder here on pnet. I have some shots using the 105 f 2.5 Sonnar (pre-Ai and converted to Ai) at iso 6400. 24mp makes a larger print than I usually need, so I have been downsizing prints to 10x15 in, which compacts the pixels even more, making a "tighter," crisper print and it reduces the grain in the higher iso shots. I find the colors of the D7100 are the most accurate of any digital camera I have used. I do shoot exclusively in raw and I process with PS CC now. I use the kit lens (18-105) quite a bit and find the focusing fast and effective, and very sharp, holding up well to 24mp of detail. All in all I feel the extra few hundred dollars for the D7100 is well worth it. </p>

<p>The dxomark website doesn't render very well on my tablet. Do I understand correctly that their dxomark overall sensor score is normalized to 8MP resolution, but the individual 'use case' scores are not?<br>

I'm trying to figure out how many stops of ISO sensitivity I'm gaining over the D70, and I think their 'sports score' is not normalized, so I need to normalize it by multiplying with the square root of the number of pixels of a given sensor. <br>

If I normalize then a D300 would gain about 1 stop, a D90 1.4, a D7000 1.8, a D7100 2.2, a D700 2.6, a Df 3.4, a D600 or 610 3.5, and a D800 3.7. The D3 and D4 yield 2.6 and 3.2 stops, respectively.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>a D300 would gain about 1 stop, a D90 1.4, a D7000 1.8, a D7100 2.2, a D700 2.6, a Df 3.4, a D600 or 610 3.5, and a D800 3.7. The D3 and D4 yield 2.6 and 3.2 stops, respectively.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>sounds about right.</p>

<p>Here is what the D800 does at ISO 6400.<br>

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/17609034-lg.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>Here is one from the D700 at ISO 6400<br>

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/17589715-md.jpg" alt="" width="680" height="452" /></p>

<p>Stefan,<br /> No, no, no, the DXO scores are already normalised!!! The gain in SNR due to downsampling is already taken into account!!!<br /> They do it for a nominal 8 Megapixel but it doesn't matter what for comparison purposes. That is why they say a difference of 1/3 EV is just about noticeable. The difference between the D7000 and D7100 is log-base-2(1256/1167) or 0.11 EV - neglible.<br /> See<br /> http://www.dxomark.com/About/Sensor-scores/Viewing-conditions<br /> and<br /> http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Detailed-computation-of-DxOMark-Sensor-normalization</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Stefan,<br>

You can see the effect of the effect of the normalisation with the DXO 'compare sensors tool'. Choose two cameras to compare, eg D70 and D7000. Choose 'measurements' and then 'dynamic range.' Ensure that the 'print' tab just under ISO sensitivity is selected. Notice the gap between the two curves, somewhat over two EV. Those are the normalised figures. Now click the 'screen' tab and see how the D70 curve gets better and the D7000 curve gets worse. These are the un-normalised per-pixel figures. The direction of motion is because the normalisation is done for 8 Mp, which makes the D7000 get better when normalised and the D70 get worse (6 Mp versus 16 Mp).<br>

If you add in an 8 Mp camera (Canon EOS 350D) you can see that the DR curve does not shift at all since the normalisation has no effect.<br>

Of course the gain when downsampling is only valid if the noise is uncorrelated between adjacent pixels - I don't think DXO point that out and it is clearly not always true since some sensors exhibit low level patterning.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I wouldn't go too much by the (DxO) figures; there is plenty people here with hands-on experience with these bodies, and I'll take their word over DxO points nearly always. For all I see, the D700 and D7000 are about equal in low light (no matter what DxO claims); also what you call "just" 2.5 stops gain over a D70 - that is a lot of gain already. I think you may need to re-adjust your expectations a bit there.<br>

Another thing you shouldn't overlook: if things go darker than what ISO3200/6400 allows you, frequently you're working in light that is too drab, muted and contrast-less to render nice looking photos anyway. Your first example, to me, lack contrast somewhat and suffers from it. Higher ISO here wouldn't solve all of your issues - it would remain a somewhat "muted colour/low contrast" image, lacking a bit of punch and clarity. Good ISO3200 wouldn't solve that. I work quite a lot in low light (night city shots, lots of it hand-held), and I'd worry about getting excellent ISO800 and 1600 performance (retaining dynamic range and good colour response) more than I would about ISO6400 performance.<br>

For what it's worth, I do not like the D700 much at ISO6400; at ISO3200 and below, it really is completely fine. the D7000 about as good or bad as a D700. The newer cameras are all better at ISO6400, in my view (virtue of downsampling their high resolution images). Now, whether it matters: <a href="http://static.photo.net/attachments/bboard/00c/00cGCM-544424584.jpg">this image</a>, for example, is ISO3200 at f/2 in pretty much complete darkness. The camera caught more than I could with the naked eye. Fast lenses solve a lot too ;-)</p>

<p>That all said, a second hand D700 isn't a bad idea - sounds like you have the 50mm f/1.2, and those older ultra-fast primes are a lot nicer on FX. Not in the least because the viewfinder is a lot better making manual focus a whole lot easier.<br>

Overall, given you seem to have a more than decent setup of lenses, I would really first consider whether you prefer to have the DX crop, or not - do you more prefer having additional telelens reach, or are you missing the wider angle? Especially for the standard zoomlens range, many of the older lenses are, in my view, somewhat limiting on DX (lenses as the 17-35), so I'd really start first by aligning the sensorsize to your lens needs, and then start narrowing down the search.</p>

<p>Last I saw Cameta.com in Anityville, N.Y. (Long Island) had D7000 refurbished cameras for $599, free ground shipping.</p>

<p>I sent them my check, and the camera is wonderful (my second).</p>

<p>I wouldn't change it for anything except the D7100 refurb at about $950 refurb, if still offered at that (I didn't research today).</p>

<p>Other New York retailers are slightly higher, but not much; Cameta is very picky about where it will ship on a credit card purchase (no private mail boxes, no university housing, no hotels/motels, etc. and don't tell you that and your order languishes with no explanation, so be forewarned if your address is one of those.)</p>

<p>Then you send a bank check and everything's OK.</p>

<p>Adorama.com is a little pricier, but not much, and deals with every so less difficulty. If you shoot even with a $600 refurb D7000 and compare it to anything you've shot before, you'll be stunned. For that matter, almost any NY retailer can sell you a refurb D3200 which will take stunning quality photos with a kit 18~55 f3.5.6 lens for $400, shipping included depending on stock, and the photo qualities will stun you with 24 megapixels and jaw-dropping sensitivity for such an inexpensive camera -- you'll then find out why most photographers just let their D70s die, as Nikon says generally it's not economical to repair them.</p>

<p>But the D70 will still take a stunning photo within its parameters, so if the photo (within parameters) is what you are taking, and your D70 suits your needs, by all means keep it and use it. I did.</p>

<p>john</p>

<p>John (Crosley)</p>

Thanks for all the replies! The pics from Stuart definitely help to get an idea of shadow performance, and Wouter brings up a good question about other differences between DX and FX. I don't mind having the DX crop factor for my 80-200 (I also have a Kenko 2x converter for it), but it's true that all but one of my lenses are for FX, and many would probably be easier to focus. I do use a Katz split-image/microprism screen and the DK21M magnifier on my D70. Ditto for the remark about not expecting too much if the lighting is truly bad (low, low contrast, color bias).

 

I finally dragged out the laptop, and the DXOmark 'sports score' is indeed already normalized to 8MP! It's amazing (or maybe not) how the D70, D7000 and D800 lign up in SNR, tonal range and color sensitivity on a per pixel basis; only the dynamic range seems to have improved somewhat (by 1.5 bit). Maybe that is how Nikon (or the sensor manufacturer) decides on the pixel size for a new camera, by keeping certain per-pixel performance parameters constant.

 

This (DXOmark individual use scores already being normalized) of course changes the ranking in my previous post quite a bit, and makes the gains to be had by switching to a more modern camera quite a bit smaller. At most I could gain 2.6 stops by switching to a Df (yeah, right...), or 2.5 with a D600, but only 1.1 to 1.2 with a D7000 or D7100.

Incidentally, it seems the critical quantity among the three criteria for the 'sports' or 'low-light ISO' score is the signal-to-noise ratio hitting the DXO 30 dB cut, for the cameras I looked at.

A table with the camera low-light ISO score converted to stops (or EVs), and some prices I found online:

 

The table mentioned above:<p>

<img src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-hpzILvnm9VQ/UsHapGuFlRI/AAAAAAAAZDU/8nhs6ZqnOj0/s640/Nikons.jpg"><br>

So, looking at that table, what are the odds of getting a problematic used

D600? Has anybody here bought one from KEH? <br>

And, can one just run 5000 shutter actuations (like, in 15 minutes (*)), clean

the sensor once, and be done with the problem?<br>

I should probably start a new thread for this question.

<p>

(*): More likely a few hours, to allow for recharging the battery.

<p>I hear and read about upgrading from a D7000 to a D7100, but I took some fabulous pictures in Kauai a month ago. I was using my D7000 with a new Nikkor 18-200 VR ll with zoom lock. Needed one lens only on the doors off helicopter charter. Everthing had to be secured, so NO changing lenses. I plan on using the D7000 until the D400 comes out. Then I will upgrade my backup camera from a D5000 to my current prime camera, the D7000. Just me. Duane</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I plan on using the D7000 until the D400 comes out.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Sounds like you will be using the D7000 for a long, looooong time. And then will you be upgrading to a D400 that is an entry-level FX DSLR? :-)</p>