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

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by shuncheung, Sep 14, 2010.

  1. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    Technically, the D7000 is a new class of DSLR priced at $1200, between the D90 and D300S. The D7000 has a lot of advanced features:
    • A Nikon-designed 16.2MP CMOS sensor
    • ISO 100 to 6400 plus Hi 1 and 2
    • A new Multi-CAM 4800 AF module with 39 AF points, including 9 cross type
    • Up to 6 frames/second
    • 100% viewfinder
    • Dual SD memory cards
    • Full 1080p HD video with stereo microphone jacks
    • New EN-EL15 battery
    • New MB-D11 vertical grip
    The D7000 does have a build-in AF motor to work with older AF/AF-D lenses that have no AF motor in the lens. It can also meter with AI/AI-S lenses that have no build-in CPU.

    photo.net has a preview article: http://www.photo.net/equipment/nikon/D7000/preview/
    That link may not be active immediately. Please be patient.
    The SB-700 flash ($329.95) can be a Nikon Creative Lighting System (CLS) master or remote slave. As a CLS master, it can control 2 groups of remote flashes, similar to the pop-up flash on higher-end DSLRs. (The SB-800 and SB-900 can control 3 groups of flashes.)
    I suppose the 35mm/f1.4 AF-S ($1800) and 200mm/f2 AF-S VR2 ($6000) are self explanatory.
    P.S. Today Nikon USA informs us that both the D90 and D300S remain as current cameras. The D7000 is an additional DSLR to Nikon's lineup, not a replacement of any existing model. I would like to make that clear.
     
  2. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

  3. Huh. Interesting that they don't list a vertical grip as an accessory. Formidable specs, though. Definitely a worthy successor to the D90.
     
  4. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    The specs are certainly formidable. Recall that a few weeks ago, some people posted that the D90's successor would have specs perhaps exceeding the D300S, and I dismissed that. It turns out that is probably indeed the case. The D7000 does not have the D300S' AF and frame rate, but it is close and I never expected that Nikon would add metering with AI/AI-S lenses onto a $1200 DSLR.
    There is a vertical grip, the new MB-D11.
    As usual, DPReview has a thorough preview: http://www.dpreview.com/previews/NikonD7000/
     
  5. The D7000 looks like a true upgrade over the D90 and non CPU lens support is very pleasing to see. AF system appears to be a big leap in performance too.
    I must say that I'm very surprised indeed at this stage Nikon's latest announcement is not about a D700 replacement model.
     
  6. Very impressive specs on the D7000. I was hoping to eventually buy a D90 or replacement for the wife while I wait for the D300s replacement to one day appear. With the specs that Nikon has introduced with the D3100 and now the D7000, I'm really curious as to what the eventual D300s replacement specs will be like.
    Nikon good job!
     
  7. EPIC.
    I will be buying the D7000 after the initial rush... I'm glad the base ISO is 100 too.
     
  8. Anyone know if the SB-700 has a SU-4 mode? It doesn't seem to have a PC sync port and if it doesn't have SU-4 then it's not too useful for manual setups.
    The D7000 seems pretty competitive for those looking for new DX bodies.
     
  9. Shun Cheung, the photo.net preview link is not working
     
  10. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    John, I finished the preview a couple of days ago. However, we could not publish it until the Nikon embargo time ended at 00:01 EDT on September 15 in the US. Publishing it requires a photo.net admin, like Hannah Thiem or Josh Root. Unfortunately, there is nothing I can do about that since I don't have permissoin to release the article.
     
  11. Wow, very impressive camera. Gives the D300s successor a real high bar to jump over when it is announced (perhaps soon). I'm very pleased to see Nikon putting in the non-CPU lens metering into the D7000, and 100% viewfinder as well! Construction is first rate, and dual card slots, full HD video, and a stereo external microphone jack. I'll look forward to the dpreview full test to see just how well this new sensor resolves fine details, not that I'm planning to dump my D300. Good job Nikon!!
    But a $1700 35mm f1.4 prime? That's a real head-scratcher.
     
  12. hopefully some people move towards AF now so I can get some MF lenses for a bargain :D
    film of course. the d7000 is nice eh .. but my D70 is still working nicely, haven't clocked 10k yet, had a new shutter put in during warranty. the d2h is nice for action. may even pick up a nice 17-55 DX and a 70-200/2.8 II.
    a small deterrent is that the 35mm lens has a 67mm filter.
     
  13. A nice d200 upgrade though I'm getting sick of all the DX models...
    D7000
    D5000
    d3000
    d3100
    d90
    d300
    d300s
    Not to mention older ones like d40, d40x, d200, d60 etc...
    How do we figure out what model we want? Do we really have to read the specs of every single DX model? The model numbers make no sense anymore...
     
  14. the sb-700 appears to be an sb-600 with some sb-900 features added--it has the same guide # as the 600.
     
  15. Great, now I need to eat my words that one does not need to upgrade cameras often lol.
    I will indeed stick with my D90, but reserve the right to be jealous of anyone with a D7000! Ill wait for the D8000 to come out in 2-3 years! :)
     
  16. @Ray:
    > hopefully some people move towards AF now so I can get some MF lenses for a bargain :D
    You can ! I just bought the Samyang 85mm f/1.4 (available here at 260€, about a tenth of the new Nikon!) and am very satisfied with it! I hope the new D7000 will be able to measure light with it and not only with Nikon Ai lens..
    And Samyang is also going to announce a 35mm f/1.4 very soon, almost at the same time as Nikon.. :)
    BTW, but I love my "modern" 16-85! And also my 105VR! :)
    Cheers,
    Christophe.
     
  17. Very interesting that it has AI meter coupling. That makes me wonder about the future of the high-end DX camera. If a D300s replacement does come out, it's initial price will intersect with that of used D700 prices, which will siphon off some sales.
     
  18. Great news, the classic prime holy trinity has been fully released... now with four lenses (24-35-50-85). It took almost 20 years to the update. The 28/1.4AFD will suffer another big stock market drop, I guess.
    I thought the latest one would be the 85 but it was the 35... intelligent move. Price? We must see if performance is on pair.
    Out of curiosity, like on the 50 and 85 updates one more element has been added, and like on the 24AFS, aspherical glass. I read that is "optimized for edge to edge sharpness". I hope it has a handling feel closer to the usual pro zooms and not to the latest "small time" gold-ringed ones.
     
  19. I fear that i could be candidate for the 35 1.4 AF-S, this lens has been on my virtual wish list for a long time.
    The only surprise for me is the high price.
    With the 85 1.4 price in mind, i feel it is a bit expensive.
     
  20. Jon Porter wondered about "the future of the high-end DX" and I do the same! The AI-support is actually marvellous. As a DX replacement for my D200 this could very well be 'it'. For telelens photography I would still consider DX. ..And now I wait for the new camera that turns my antique AI-d 24/2.8 in eehhh.. exactly that: a 24mm wide angle FX.
     
  21. Hi Shun, nice preview. It's always nice when rumors and reality are better than expectation.
    Some questions though:
    I see a difference in this article and the table in the preview. Will there be metering with older lenses?
    Do you know if the wheather sealing is equivalent to the D300?
    Is there AF focus adjustment like in the D300.
    I like that it has more cross type sensors (something I miss in the D90) and that it has 1/8000s.
    I was wondering, what is missing in the D7000 that the D300s has, do you need it often and is it still worth the extra money. I would like some of the extra 'professional' features of the D300, but the weight is also a lot more. I think the D7000 will sell in huge amounts.
     
  22. bmm

    bmm

    Thanks for the preview Shun - and wow, it seems like they have pulled quite the camera out of the bag. Certainly something a bit more than just the usual incremental upgrades.
    Thrilled also to see the 35/1.4 and I'm with Jose in rejoicing that the 'spine' of an upgraded prime line-up (24-35-50-85) is now in place. We can't forget that we also have the slightly older but very handy AF-S 105VR Micro already there. I wonder if there is one more AF-S prime in the works with a FL between 105 and 200...
    SB700 is interesting too. Do you think it replaces SB600? Or will both exist side-by-side?
    Obviously all this raises expectations about what might be onboard the next FX model (D700 replacement). D3100 and certainly (!) D7000 have been above the mark in terms of meeting what people expected.
     
  23. The new D7000 should fly of the shelves. I love the 1/250th sec flash sync, the dual-card slots. I see no compelling reason for anyone to buy the D300s at this time. Of course, the D90 would be a great buy at this particular time if you don't mind having "only" 12MP and older technology.
    I am still coming to grips as to why we need to have 16-18MP cameras for the APS-C format.
     
  24. I see that UK consumers are being screwed: UK price = US price with dollar signed replaced by £ sign. :(
     
  25. Well... it kills the D300s imho, but not the D90. If the D90 could continue to be offered for 700 or 800 bucks, I wonder if it might still sell. I'm glad I bought the refurb D90 when I did, 'cause I can't put 1200 into a camera at this stage of my life, so if I had waited for today, I'd be buying the D90 anyway.
    That said, it is a very surprising camera. The metering with AI lenses is a total shock. Dual card slots... 6fps... weather sealing...
    There MUST be a D300 replacement coming... either that, or a D700 replacement that is cheaper and replaces both the 700 and the 300...
     
  26. Leif,
    Are not UK consumers always screwed pricewise so far as Nikon is concerned? Might that apply to length of warranties as well?
     
  27. I've been waiting for a while for the upgrade.
    would of liked a flip screen but you can't have everything.
    when is the D7000 expected to be available?
    might as get in early so you have the 2 years before it is replaced.
    should be a MAJOR up from my D40
     
  28. Oooo SB700! I like the new zoom ranges and spread features. Maybe for christmas :3
     
  29. Leif - I'd like to think the UK price is a short-term typo, although WEx are claiming £5300 on the 200 f/2. I still think I'll be looking at the half-price old version, somehow (although if it's magically tack sharp across the whole frame at f/2 I might reconsider - people don't review the exotica enough). Could be worse, they list the new 400 f/2.8 Canon as £11,500 (compared with $11,000) - but then they also recommend a 52mm UV filter for it, which seems singularly pointless as the 400mm's 52mm is a drop-in (non-protective) filter and I believe it comes with a blank anyway. If the prices don't change, I see some US retailers doing some trade.
     
  30. Alvin - if I'm reading it right, the SB700 kills off the last Nikon flash that had film camera support. My backup F5 is the reason I got an SB600 this year instead of an SB900. I know digital is where the money is, but it's a shame to see the compatibility dying for those of us who like film bodies to back up our DSLRs. Of course, if you don't own a film Nikon, there's nothing but good about the SB700, but I'm glad I shopped while I could.
     
  31. Genius. The lens data "full entry" is a JavaScript pop-up which made me change browsers, and the link to the 200mm "sell sheet" is broken because they've spelt http "hhttp". Nothing like making life easy for your customers. Maybe it's a test to see who's worthy of the big glass.
     
  32. Hey Shun,
    Seems like the AF module is in between what the D80/D90 has now and what the D300/300s has. Do you think it's closer to the D300 than the D90 in performance (as in low light AF, and fast AF for sports etc.)? I know you probably haven't tested it out yet, but I am hoping you'd have some more insight than in the reviews/Nikon pages.
    Thank you for the early heads-up!
     
  33. Chase Jarvis has had one for a while. His thoughts and samples.
    http://blog.chasejarvis.com/blog/2010/09/nikon-d7000/
     
  34. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    I see a difference in this article and the table in the preview. Will there be metering with older lenses?​
    There are still a couple of errors in my preview. Unfortunately, I did not receive the information that the D7000 could meter with AI/AI-S lenses in advance. So when the official announcement was out and I found out about that, I was scrambling to update the preview. Again, any update requires a photo.net admin to push out. They are probably still sleeping right now. It is 5am for me on the US West Coast. East Coast is only 8am.
    The only time we were able to get a new camera in advance was when the D3000 was introduced last year. In a way I envy DPReview. They always manage to get a new camera on hand a few days before the official announcement. Once you have a camera, you can figure out a lot more information in an hour or two.
    The SB-700 pretty much takes the former spot for the SB-800. The $330 price tag is about the same as the SB-800 before. The SB-700 has lower guide numbers but can serve as a CLS master; that is the big advantage over the SB-600. However, if the SB-600 is discontinued, the cheapest CLS-capable flash will be the $330 SB-700. (The SB-400 is only i-TTL compatible but not CLS, and the SB-R200 is only a special-purpose flash.)
    At $1200, the D7000 is a very aggressive move for Nikon. Its specifications and capabilities just totally destroys the D2X, which was a $5000 camera 5 years ago; arguably it also beats the $1500 D300S today. Nikon is clearly raising the bar with the D3100 and D7000. It is hard to imagine what the replacement for the D300S will eventually be like. The good news is that digital photography is getting better and cheaper by the day.
    D7000
    D5000
    d3000
    d3100
    d90
    d300
    d300s
    Not to mention older ones like d40, d40x, d200, d60 etc...​
    And a few years ago people kept on telling us that the DX format would "soon" go away. Well, most of those people have stopped saying that in the last couple of years.
     
  35. I wonder what the kit lens will be. I was hoping for a newer better version of the 18-105 VR, maybe something like an 18-135 VR2. Are there more announcements due this year? I mean they would probably have a D300s successor too, and maybe when they do that, they'll announce an improved kit lens for the D7000.
     
  36. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    The D7000 is available as body only, US$1200 or with the 18-105mm/f3.5-5.6 AF-S VR that was originally introduced with the D90 two years ago, US$1500 with the kit lens.
    As far as I know, the 18-105 is optically fine, but like any other lens with a plastic mount, any small impact can knock some element out of alignment or even "total" the lens. (For our international members, "total" is a term we typically use about cars: that the damage is so serious such that it is no longer economical to repair, and we declare it a "total loss.") For casual use, I am sure it is ok, but if you are spending $1200 on a D7000, I would buy a better lens such as the 16-85mm AF-S VR.
     
  37. Actually the nomenclature is about to get really simple.
    Dxx00 - consumer, higher the number, the better.
    Dx00 - "low end" pro, also, the higher the number the better.
    Dx0 - gone. kaput. outta here. over. bye bye...
    Dx - FX pro on the high end.
     
  38. Interesting spec. Looks like the D7000 does to the D300/300s what the D300 did to the D2Xs (and we never saw a 'single digit' DX SLR again). The official UK launch price matches the current street price of the D300s (it's actually more than I paid for the D300 a few months after it was launched) and is nearly double the street price of the D90! Nice to see a more compact body with these specifications, but even when prices settle down it looks like it will still be substantially more expensive than the D90.
    So, will we see a D300s replacement in short order (the current model is going to be a pretty unattractive purchase from today), or will the D7000 be the new top of the DX range (the sports shooters won't be too impressed with this), or will the D300s go into an extended limbo of low sales, like the D100 when the D70 was launched?
     
  39. I had my D700 stolen recently (I put up another thread about this but didn't get much response) and need to replace it. I shoot a lot of travel photography and I am sure the D7K will match the D700 for this. However, I have recently been shooting a lot of local bands in small clubs where I need to go up to ISO 5000 to capture the natural light. Of course, there is some noise but it is acceptable to me and I don't disturb the performers/crowd with flash. I have been ecsttatic with the low light capability and it is no exaggeration to say that it has revolutionized the way I shoot.
    I understand that moving back to DX would entail some sacrifice (little bit less DOF/bokeh, less wide-angle capability without a new lens) but I am willing to make it in exchange for the incresed resolution (minor point but I do crop a LOT sometimes) and (especially) the $1000 price difference (my 24-70 f2.8 was stolen also. I still have the 70-200 f2.8 but I can use that on DX). The video is a nice addition also. So, my question is: is there a chance that this DX sensor can meet the low light capability of the D700? I am a little leary as I originally had a D300 and was very unsatisfied with the ISO performance but the D700 was wonderful. On the Chase Jarvis blog Shun mentioned, they say in the comments that it equals the D3 and is good for commercial use to ISO 3200 and some applications to ISO 6400. Is this mentioned anywhere else? Have any other reviewers had a chance to see noise levels yet?
     
  40. Well, I bought a new Canon 5D MkII in July, coming from Nikon D1's and a D2Xs and I am very happy with it. I didn't foresee buying a Nikon DSLR for a good long while, but now Nikon spring this D7000 on us! Really, how are we ever going to save any money, what with all these great new cameras and lenses appearing?
     
  41. They had to rethink their naming scheme or the D90 would have been replaced by the D100, a perviously used name. it is a nice looking camera. Is this the digital FM we have been asking for?
     
  42. "Exposure Bracketing: 2 or 3 frames in steps of 1/3, 1/2, 2/3 or 1 EV"
    That's a really odd spec. Bracketing 2 or 3 frames? What does it mean to bracket 'two'? Wouldn't it normally be like 3 or 5 (if not seven?). And possibly steps as large as 2 EV? Seems like a strange way to cripple a feature on an otherwise apparently brilliant body. Not a good thing for HDR enthusiasts.
     
  43. When Nikon rolled out 24f1.4 AFS, I welcome the new lens though it's a little wider than my taste. I was hoping that it was 35mm. But later I could not resist and pull the trigger for 24mm. Now 35f1.4 is on its way, I need to quickly come up a battle plan in case of wife's accusation.
     
  44. With the feature set and price point of this camera, this may be the new "high end" DX body. Predicting lower prices coming on FX, there may not be a market for a D3xxs replacement.
     
  45. Wenhan, do you really think the order in which these are announced is a coincidence? First they announce the stuff that sounds exotic (i.e. 14-24, 24/1.4), lure people into buying it in the absence of what they really need and finally at last produce the most useful tools (i.e. 35/1.4) and again people have to pony up, though this time for something that they can actually make use of. They're very, very clever. It would be nice if marketing people didn't have so much power over these things and Nikon would actually focus on what is useful.
     
  46. Steven Paulsen [​IMG], Sep 15, 2010; 10:15 a.m.
    With the feature set and price point of this camera, this may be the new "high end" DX body. Predicting lower prices coming on FX, there may not be a market for a D3xxs replacement.​

    I was thinking the same thing. Perhaps this is a D90 and D300s replacement. Maybe there won't be a D400 at all, and Nikon will just stick to the D7000 as the top-of-the-line DX camera, and make a few new full-frame cameras.
    On the other hand, wildlife, sports and other telephoto shooters may still buy the D300s/D400 over the D7000 - for just two reasons really. 51 point autofocus, and 8 frames per second shooting with the grip. So maybe there is a market for the D400 after all (especially if it has the same sensor as the D7000 but with faster shooting, such as 10fps or something). Only time will tell I suppose...
    EDIT: WOW, the HD video looks awesome. Really, watch the videos on Chase's website! http://blog.chasejarvis.com/blog/2010/09/nikon-d7000/
     
  47. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    Wenhan, do you really think the order in which these are announced is a coincidence? First they announce the stuff that sounds exotic (i.e. 14-24, 24/1.4), lure people into buying it in the absence of what they really need and finally at last produce the most useful tools (i.e. 35/1.4) and again people have to pony up, though this time for something that they can actually make use of. They're very, very clever. It would be nice if marketing people didn't have so much power over these things and Nikon would actually focus on what is useful.​
    The problem here is that people (in this case Wenhan) buy based on NAS instead of actual needs. Back in 1987 I bought a 35mm/f1.4 AI-S that I still own today. A slightly wide lens is very useful for indoor, hand-held available-light photography, especially during the film era when we were limited to ISO 400 or so. When the 24mm/f1.4 AF-S first came out, I immediately knew that it was not a useful lens to me. It is too wide for shooting people and for a group, those at the two end of the 24mm frame will look very distorted. For landscape, building interior, etc., I shoot from a tripod and don't need f1.4.
    Sorry Wenhan, when you spend $2200 to buy a lens that doesn't quite fit you nicely, I don't think it is Nikon's fault.
    I was thinking the same thing. Perhaps this is a D90 and D300s replacement. Maybe there won't be a D400 at all,​
    Nikon is very clear that the D7000 replaces the D90, although the D7000 is really a higher-end DSLR, as indicated by metering with AI/AI-S lenses and dual memory cards.
    Obviously the technology in the D7000 is 3 years newer than the D300's; the D300 is what the D300S is based on. However, the 51 AF points with 15 cross type and 8 frames/sec with EN-EL4a batteries are still not matched. For sports/action photography, having 8, 9, or 10 frames/sec is still very desirable.
    I am sure that whatever "D400" that replaces the D300S is going to be very advanced. Mose likely that will happen in 2011, and we'll be talking about $2000 or so. The D7000 is going to beat the recently announced Canon 60D ($1099) hands down: http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon/60D/hands-on-preview/ However, the Canon 7D is excellent and is newer than the D300S. The D7000 is not in that same class, although it is a lot cheaper than the 7D.
    Canon and Nikon's consumer DSLRs used to be slightly mis-matched; e.g. the Canon 50D was between the D90 and D300/D300S and was priced between the two. The Canon 7D is a little bit higher than the D300S. Nikon is uping the D3100 and D7000 a bit so that it is now a head-on competition against Canon.
     
  48. Can't wait for 18 months to pass so I can pick one up for $800.00!
     
  49. I am an avid D300 shooter.
    The D300 meets all my needs in combination with my lenses. Not sure I even care about HD video so never needed the D300s...
    I wonder one thing on the D7000, does it have the plastic D90 type body or the Magnesium D300 body?
     
  50. The D7000 has a magnesium body - picture here: http://a.img-dpreview.com/news/1009/nikond7000/D7000_Mgbody_2_l.jpg
     
  51. Shun, I bet the AI/AIS metering is because of video. Since a lot of videographers use prime lenses with low "breathing" characteristics. Makes sense to me. And a huge plus for me.
    Yep, this camera will be mine, has everything I need. My only complaints are buffer and it doesn't use the 10 pin connection from my D200. Minor complaints, and nothing to stop me from buying it.
     
  52. Wow, then I'm now convinced this new D7000 is a replacement for both the D90 and D300s.... with probably no D400 in the works.
    Very interesting....
     
  53. Will the "D400" be DX or perhaps the "low" cost FX camera that many want? Some people prefer the DX crop over FX. Will Nikon continue to put their top of the line AF into a DX body? Of course no one here knows but I can see a scenario that the D7000 is the top DX body and then D400/D800/D4/D4X that are all FX.
     
  54. So, is this a fair comparison between the D300s and the new D7000
    Measure D300s D7000
    Top ISO: 6400 vs 25,600
    AF: EXCEL vs GOOD
    VIDEO AF: FIXED vs ZOOMABLE
    BODY: MAG vs MAG
    FPS: 7 vs 6
    BRACKTNG: GOOD vs POOR
    AF: 51 (3D) vs 39
    what else?
     
  55. One of Chase Jarvis' crew members posted that he felt the D7000 is 1 stop better high ISO than the D90. If true that would mean usable 6400 which is on par with the D700. He did add that the "grain" pattern is a little tighter on the 7000 because of the higher pixel density. Also confirmed on the Nikon site that it has AF microadjustment.
     
  56. Wow, I'm impressed.
     
  57. I looked at the picture of the front of the camera and it looks like the D7000 does not have the M, S, C autofocus mode toggle switch that the D300 camera has. Looks like it just has "M" and "AF".
    so, does that mean it does not continuously autofocus? if so, that kills it for pro sports.
     
  58. Yes, it`s odd. Maybe it`s selectable via menu. The AF-ON mark (or button) is missing, too.
    Otherwise, it has a dedicated Live View button. I`d like to have it on my D700!
     
  59. Wade, by reading the info on the site, sounds like if you use the 3D tracking mode for AF, then it would work the same as continuous. Good question though, and I could be wrong.
     
  60. At the Nikon.com site the specifications list these AF functions:
    • Autofocus (AF): Single-servo AF (AF-S); continuous-servo AF (AF-C); auto AF-S/AF-C selection (AF-A); predictive focus tracking activated automatically according to subject status
    • Manual focus (M): Electronic rangefinder can be used
     
  61. Hey, guys, I never mean to blame Nikon though lesson is leart at a price. But it's not the end of world. I stay with my decision and accept the consequence. In reality, the world is not perfect.
     
  62. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    Sorry Wenhan, I should clarify myself. You certainly did not blame Nikon, but Ilkka did as he always does.
     
  63. Ross - that was my assumption too; it seems to be the same as the 3100 et al. I have to say that the focus selector on the D700 is not in the most accessible place when you're holding a big telephoto in your left hand, so having it in a menu (and "intelligent") isn't such a bad thing. I suspect you still need the lever to make the screw disengage from an AF lens, otherwise it'd need to be moved electrically.

    Is it me, or is $1800 a bit steep for a fairly fast, slightly-wider-than-normal lens? (Compared with, say, the 50mm.) I could understand it of the 24mm and 28mm, but is shouldn't be so hard to design a decent 35mm that Nikon can charge that for it. Mind you, people say the same of Leica. Maybe the performance is stellar; who am I to judge? (The 200 f/2 is also extortionate, but at least that was expected.)
     
  64. I read somehwere that the continuous function is activated by pushing the center button of the Manual/Auto button and then turning a dial on the back.
    If so, that would be a huge relief because I change that damn m/f/c switch on my D700 about five times a night by accident. It's the only thing that really drove me crazy about the camera.
     
  65. Wow! This D7000 looks very interesting. I have a D90 now and was considering getting a D300s to use as a main camera (with the D90 as the back-up since I plan to stick with DX), but this new D7000 is can certainly fit my purposes with its specs.
    The $1800 price tag on the 35mm f/1.4 AF-S is a little out of whack though given the 35mm f/2 AF-D is only $350 or so. Is one stop of light and a silent wave motor worth $1500? I think the price of this lens will drop big time pretty fast...say to around $1400 or so (priced slightly higher than the Canon version).
     
  66. I can be wrong but I don`t expect a 35mm version of the 50AFS... at three times the cost it should be the reference lens, -far from the 50AFS, or from the 35/2-.
     
  67. I think this camera should prove to be a big seller over all. Seems like an excellent introductory time for the Christmas stampede. It will be fun reading the upgrade threads that are to come. I can see the D90's and maybe some D300's going up for sale very soon. I just looked at BHPhoto and it looks like most of the DLSR camera's are out of stock. I suppose they are making the changes needed for the new models that should be coming soon.
     
  68. Except for some wildlife and sports DX shooters, it looks to me like the D7000 is squarely a D300/300s killer. I skipped both D300 series cameras, since they weren't the quantum leap that my D200 was from a D70s. My FX is a D700, and it looks like I just found my next DX body. It should be a very brisk seller through the Christmas season. Used-gear buyers ought to be able to get good deals on D5000 and D90's shortly, so everybody wins. Gotta wonder how the D300s replacement will spec out. Canon 7D: Hannibal ad portum! :D
    Glad I skipped the SB600 as well. IMO Nikon's sales text bytes went way over the top by describing the D7000's onboard flash as a Speedlight (talk about sound bytes!), but the SB700 looks great.
    35mm is the perfect urban walk-around lens for me, especially in the evening. The extra stop for shallower DoF and AF-S is exciting, but gotta see how the IQ pans out. If all goes well, maybe in the spring after the price drops a bit.
     
  69. Bill F.,
    I laughed at your comment on accidentally switching the C/S/M autofocus on your camera when you are shooting. I do the same thing and I can't even "feel" it to see which position it is unless I whip the camera and lens around and actually see it.
    Surely they could find a better place to mount that sucker.
     
  70. For DX camera owners, getting this 35 mm 1.4 AF-S does not make any financial sense since the 35 mm 1.8 AF-S is only 200 bucks.
    FX users will probably have better value for it, though it's still on the expensive side by a fair distance.
     
  71. Hmm, I wonder if the various sellers of used gear (Adorama, KEH, B&H etc.) are going to jack up their prices for AI/AI-S lenses now... Really, it still amazes me how much AI/AI-S lenses sell for as it is.
     
  72. AI/AI-S lenses are all manual focus, correct?
     
  73. Yes, they are manual focus. There is a good summary of what the Nikon lens names mean here: http://www.nikonlinks.com/unklbil/nomenclature.htm
     
  74. Ai doesn't indicate manual focus; it refers to the method of aperture information transfer. Many AF Nikkors are also Ai in Nikon's nomenclature.
     
  75. As Ilkka says: it's not that AI lenses aren't AF, it's that all AF lenses are AI (-s). So a lens is AF if it says AF (or AF-I, or AF-S) on it, and if someone says AI then they're making the distinction by not saying AF. I learnt all this one day after buying my D700 and laughing at the claim that all Nikons are compatible with all Nikkors. (Canon threw everything out in 1987, but at least everything since just works. Plus side: I can buy useful Nikkors from the early 1980s. Minus side: so can everyone else, so they're not dirt cheap. As said, maybe AI lenses are about to get pricier, although I suspect the main market will still be film users and high-end DSLR owners who want weird stuff.)

    Wade - I have the opposite problem: I don't knock the focus mode selection on my D700 (my left hand's usually on the lens, too far forward), but I can never find it when I'm feeling for it. I certainly agree that it's hard to feel which position it's in.

    The toggle between M and AF physically moves the screw into and out of the mount, so it has to be on the front of the camera unless the whole thing was electrically operated (or kept the screw attached and had an electric clutch). Putting it under the right pinky would still be hard to see, but at least wouldn't involve moving your hands out of position.

    It's a similar problem to the ISO button - there's no point in giving me shooting controls for my left hand, it's busy holding the lens. It could be worse: Canon keep putting the DoF preview button on that side, and I never worked out what kind of grip you were supposed to have which would have made it possible to press. Actually, I once shot an entire roll of Kodak HIE with a fixed aperture I didn't want, because the button to change aperture in manual mode on an Eos 620 was in the same silly place (where I didn't spot it, after examining the camera for several minutes and even having used it in the past).

    Maybe the people who design camera bodies only ever use them with a normal prime on the front. If you're only testing the body, why carry around a 600 f/4? Well, now we know. It sounds as though Nikon might have listened to recent grumbling about it, though, so credit where it's due - shame it's taken a couple of decades.
     
  76. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    I have just updated the opening post to this thread. Nikon USA reminds us that the D7000 is a new class of DSLR on Nikon's line up. It is not a replacement of the D90 and certainly not a replacement of the D300S. Both the D90 and D300S remain in production as current cameras available for sale.
    Sorry about the confusion.
     
  77. On the photo from the rear I do not see the AF-on dedicated button on Nikon D7000. If it's really missing then D7000 will never find way in my photo bag. The missing AF-on button is also a proof for me that D7000 is not a D300 D300S replacement. I can not imagine Nikon pro body without dedicated AF-on button in the same place as on D2X, D200, D300, D700, D3X etc. I wil have to wait.
    Regards, Marko
     
  78. Wow, if the D7000 is a new model entirely, then the D90, D300, and D700 replacements will have to be pretty incredible!
    That is, for Nikon to release this four-digit (D3100/D5000/D7000) camera now and keep up the other lines must mean they are pretty confident that their upcoming new models for the 3-digit (D300/D700) and two digit (D90) series will be significantly better than the new D7000!
    I mean, it would have to be something like... a 16mp, 10fps D400 with dual image processors? A 24mp, 8fps D800? Wow...
     
  79. Nikon PR statements are next to worthless. The Nikon USA website has a page for the F6. Is Nikon implying that it is still in production? Or just still available for sale new based on inventory built up from 5 years ago? Even if they keep making the D90 and D300s I won't be surprised in the slightest if a year from now no one has them in stock and they just disappear and are never replaced by a D6000 or D400.
    It would be nice to know if a D400 that is better than both the D7000 and D300 is coming but Nikon will deny any new cameras even the day before they are announced because they want to keep selling their existing products and not have people wait.
     
  80. A D90s or D95 would only make sense if it can be brought out at the price that the D90 sells for now, not what it sold for at introduction. Can Nikon do that I wonder?
     
  81. I am particularly interested in seeing Nikon continue improving the controls on these cameras to reduce the number of buttons and the need to press a button/turn a dial in order to change settings for commonly used features. The new D7000 finally gets rid of the useless scene modes on the dial and replace them with something that is far more useful: U1 and U2 (see attached figure), which I assume are user defined settings. The dial has also been redesigned to now also control shooting speed, timer, etc. It would be nice in the future to move ISO and exposure compensation into a single control dial on the right and get rid of the window there.
    00XIHV-281147584.jpg
     
  82. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    Ok, I adjusted my wording a bit. "In production" is confusing terminolody, but at least for now, you can continue to buy new D90 cameras.
    I really don't see the D7000 will ever be a top-of-the-line DX body. Its AF seems to be a step down from the D300S' Multi-CAM 3500 and 6 frames/sec is not sufficient. I regularly shoot the D300 with MB-D10 and EN-EL4 to get 8 frames/sec. Moreover, SD memory cards are fragile. Generally speaking CF cards are still faster for sports and action photography although the D7000 is SDXC compatible.
    What the D7000 implies is that whatever replaces the D300S will get further higher-end and, yes, more expensive. The yen is really strong so that there are numerous semi-hidden price hikes. E.g. the new version 2 of the 200mm/f2 AF-S is quite a bit more expensive than the previous version. I also don't see the D90 being current for much longer. Some people will certainly upgrade. When the market is flooded with used D90 bodies, new ones will have to be deeply discounted and it'll eventually become not profitable to sell. It is a matter of supply and demand.
    If you watch Canon, they added a 7D last year, but it does not replace the 50D. As a result, they need to bring the 60D down a bit to have sufficient difference from the 7D. The 60D now has a plastic body intead of an alloy frame as the 50D used to have, and that is why there is a lot of disappointment about the 60D.
     
  83. I wonder what the D300s replacement will be. The D7000 is already excellent.
    I'd love to see some of its results.
     
  84. Based on the D90 going to the D7000 at $1200, I hope the D400 doesn't increase to $2,000
     
  85. I'd love to see some of its results​
    There are several sample photos with post processing done on them here
    http://blog.chasejarvis.com/blogpics/Nikon-D7000-Photo-Gallery/
    and a few untouched full size photos here
    http://blog.chasejarvis.com/blog/nikon-d7000-preview-images/
     
  86. This preview is much appreciated.
    And it would be nice if photo.net actually reviews this camera at some point. There was never an actual review of the Nikon D90, even though experts like Thom Hogan correctly note that the D90 and its predecessors/replacements are "the critical model(s) in the Nikon DSLR product lineup," i.e., the model(s) that marks the transition to at least a semi-serious amateur DSLR body.

    The absence of a D90 review seemed like an odd omission, given the importance of the product. I asked a photo.net editor about this, and he replied that "sometimes we can't get to everything." I wonder what the criteria are for selecting cameras for review? I sincerely hope that this time Nikon's critical DSLR model gets an actual review on this site. The absence of a D90 review only fuels the perception, correct or not, that there is a Canon bias on this site.
     
  87. Hmm....Chase's 3200 sample leaves a bit to be desired in the noise area. Might be useable, but is kind of pushing my tolerances. Wonder how it does at 1600.
     
  88. "AUTO" & "SCENE" modes on a nice camera like this? Hmm?
     
  89. Well, first off, that ISO 3200 shot was a JPEG, so you might get better results with RAW and post processing. Second, for ISO 3200, that's still very, very good. Maybe not D700 good, but still not shabby by any means. He probably could have shot at ISO 1600 if he had used a larger aperture than f/4...
     
  90. The 3200 ISO sample is quite noisy when viewed at 100%, but does look a little cleaner than the D90 at 3200. The tungsten WB is throwing things off a little. Given the higher MP count in the D7000 sensor (16MP versus 12MP for the D90), we may not see that much noise reduction model to model at equivalent ISO settings.
     
  91. While you can wonder about "auto" and "scene" at least it doesn't have all the scenes taking up space on the dial like the D90. More importantly look at the "U1" and "U2" I'm assuming those are user defined settings banks. My D3 has 4 user defined settings banks but I have to go into the menus to change it. The D7000 lets you do it from a knob. To me that is even more pro-like than the D3.
    I agree that the ISO 3200 looks better than my D90 and that's on top of the 4 extra MP. I'm impressed, I just want to find out how fast the AF is.
     
  92. Well, I never shoot the D200 over 400ISO because it annoys me, so you can see how tight my tolerances are. Given what I see from that sample, I should be able to use 800 no issue, and more than likely 1600.
    And Kenneth is right, in reduction to web/smaller print sizes that noise would vanish, so it could be usable in those instances also.
     
  93. Zach, you'll definitely be able to shoot well above 400 ISO on a D7000 compared to the D200. Even the D90 is very clean at 800 ISO (although I usually linger around ISO 200 for when I'm shooting things I want to print). A friend of mine has a D200 and another has a D80 (I think they have the same sensor) and both of them won't touch any ISO close to or over 800, but when they took a look at some shots from my D90 they were quite impressed with how clean that sensor is at the higher settings. The D7000 should improve upon the D90 performance...especially if you are just sticking to web and small prints. When you get it, crank that puppy up to 1600 and shoot away!
     
  94. Ilkka Nissila [​IMG][​IMG], Sep 15, 2010; 10:18 a.m.
    First they announce the stuff that sounds exotic (i.e. 14-24, 24/1.4), lure people into buying it in the absence of what they really need and finally at last produce the most useful tools (i.e. 35/1.4) and again people have to pony up, though this time for something that they can actually make use of.
    Shun Cheung [​IMG][​IMG][​IMG], Sep 15, 2010; 10:43 a.m.
    Back in 1987 I bought a 35mm/f1.4 AI-S that I still own today. A slightly wide lens is very useful for indoor, hand-held available-light photography, especially during the film era when we were limited to ISO 400 or so. When the 24mm/f1.4 AF-S first came out, I immediately knew that it was not a useful lens to me. It is too wide for shooting people and for a group, those at the two end of the 24mm frame will look very distorted.​
    If I understood you correctly, I agree with you wholeheartedly. In the days of 35mm film we had the 28-35-50mm-etc., and for the vast majority of times I rarely used shorter than 35mm because of perspective distortion. With DX I love using the 24-70mm which gives the FOV of a 36mm on FF. I am always surprised when people mention that the 17-55mm DX (equivalent FOV of 25mm on FF) lens is a must-have, and most mention weddings and events as the application, even though the wide end is least suitable for people photography. You can always switch lenses for creative use of the wide end, but I;d much rather have a lens on the camera with the range that is useful.
     
  95. I don't understand. What the HELL are they thinking?!?
    Sony is going to eat Nikon's lunch for them.
    I've decided not to buy a Nikon replacement for my stolen D5000. Why? Because Canon has just brought out a superior camera for just $300 more, and it has better specs than this new D7000. The only think it lacks that the D7000 has is continuous auto-focus while shooting movies. I doubt that feature will be much good anyway though, because the auto-focus in live-view on my D5000 was just about useless, because it was so inaccurate and slow. No doubt Canon's new 60 D probably has the same problem. Besides, it's $250 more expensive than the Sony A55v, the camera I've decided to get. Since I only have one Nikon lens and two Canon lenses left, I will sell them and buy a Sigma 8-16mm and Sony 16-105mm to go with my new Sony.
    NIKON . . . what ARE you thinking?!? $1,500?!?!? Are you smoking CRACK!!!!???
     
  96. $1500 is with the 18-105 lens. You can preorder the body only from Amazon right now at $1200. You are free to do whatever you want but many of us will be quite happy to spend $1200 for the D7000.
     
  97. well, i'm definitely getting one...a d7000 that is. i recently had my d300 stolen, and as much as i love that body's feel, a mag-alloy frame, in a d90 size, with better AF than d90, and arguably better features than d300 (except AF) is too hard to pass up.
    besides the U1/U2 settings the d7000 also addresses one of the d300's major design flaws: the easily-moveable C/S/M switch. now it's a button which requires a push and a turn of the rear dial...instead of getting a used d300--which should be plentiful once this camera ships--i may just wait for the d400.
     
  98. It still has one big drawback, it's DX.
     
  99. Oh, and if anyone is wondering where I am coming from with what I said above, here is a quick comparison of the 2 Canons I have been considering, the Sony A55v, and the Nikon D7000:
    I've sorted the list by price.
    Canon 7 D - $1,700 - 18 megapixel - no continuous auto-focus in movie mode - 8 fps
    Nikon D7000 - $1,500 - 16 megapixel - no continuous auto-focus in movie mode - 6 fps
    Canon 60 D - $1,000 - 18 megapixel - has continuous auto-focus in movie mode - 6 fps
    Sony A55v - $750 - 16 megapixel - has continuous auto-focus in movie mode - 10 fps
    By continuous focusing I am referring to the ability to continually focus while shooting movies.
    Now does anyone else see how the Sony kicks everyone else's ass?
     
  100. While his point is made rather rudely, Scott does have a point. The Sony a55 is pretty competitive with the Nikon and Canon. And really competitive when you look at the price.
    Nikon D7000 / Canon 60D / Sony a55
    • MP: 16.2 / 18.0 /16.7
    • ISO Range: 100-6400 (25600) / 100-6400 (12800) / 100-6400 (25600 w/ multishot)
    • FPS: 6 / 5.3 / 6 (10fps if you want to make some compromises)
    • Autofocus: 39pt / 9pt / 15 point
    • Body: Mg sealed / Plastic / Plastic
    • Storage: Dual SD / SD / SD & Mem.Stick
    • Viewfinder: 100% .94x / 96% .95x / 100% 1.1x electronic
    • LCD: 3" fixed / 3" articulated / 3" articulated
    • LCD resolution: 640x480 / 720x480 / 640x480
    • Max Video Mode: 1080p 24fps / 1080p 30fps / 1080p 30fps
    • GPS built in: No / No / Yes
    • Price (body only): $1199 / $1099 / $749
    And, well, if you want fast live view autofocus, you pretty much have to go with Sony regardless...
     
  101. As I said before, the D7000 price is $1200 for the body only, not $1500 as you keep repeating. I personally have zero use for movie mode. I do use the burst mode all the time for action shots. Cameras are more than spec sheets. To me usability is far more important. The 10 fps of the Sony may be true but the dpreview review exposes how it actually works (or doesn't) The EVF shows the last image taken not what you are actually pointing at. After finishing a burst the camera freezes and the EVF and LCD black out for 20-50 seconds.
    http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonyslta55/page8.asp
    If you are happy with all of that then by all means please buy the Sony.
     
  102. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    Left, you are kidding, right?
    • Autofocus: 39pt / 9pt / 15 point
    • Body: Mg sealed / Plastic / Plastic
    • Storage: Dual SD / SD / SD & Mem.Stick
    Those three items make a huge difference between higher-end and low-end DSLRs. The D7000 can also meter with Nikon AI/AI-S lenses; that is also a higher-end feature. Whether you can take advantage of it is another matter.
    The notion that 18MP is "better" than 16MP is also silly, and ISO ranges are just a wash. Nikon's Hi 1 is never very useable and just forget about Hi 2.
    If anybody wants something cheaper, there is always the D3100.
     
  103. Scott: you are in the enviable position of being, presumably, an experienced photographer who has, I hope, enough insurance money provided to buy a new system from scratch. Canon and Nikon have leapfrogged each other for years - a couple of years ago Canon were well behind, now they may or may not be ahead depending on what you're looking for. I jumped from Canon to Nikon because Nikon had some specific features I wanted (or thought I wanted) at the exact time I needed to buy new kit (before a big holiday), just before I considered buying my first expensive Canon glass. I may or may not have made a different decision a year later. Nonetheless, the difference between the systems is relatively small, and negligible compared to the cost of maintaining a quality range of lenses in both formats.

    You may be right about the video (Canon are an electronics company, no surprise they have a head start) and the megapixel count; I've never had a great desire to shoot video on a DSLR (although I acknowledge some do), and the difference between 18 and 16MP is minor. I suspect Nikon has build and handling advantages. If the 60D meets your requirements - and it took a long time to come out, after the 7D and 550D - I can't argue that it may suit you better, but I doubt Nikon are really pricing themselves out of the market in this way (if you want to argue price, grumble that there's no D700x to compete with the 5D2). All any of us can do is buy the best system that suits our needs at any given point; wait for the perfect camera and we'll be waiting indefinitely.

    As for Sony, of course they're cheaper: they have a relatively tiny range of lenses and a less exhaustive range of accessories. If Sony weren't pushing their manufacturing might behind making their cameras the budget option, nobody would consider them. In review after review, they come behind the big two in image quality and handling (don't even talk about the NEX series) except when price is considered. They still make nice kit and people - some friends of mine - are very happy with them, but there's a reason they've not stolen the market with their pricing structure.

    Aren't flame wars fun?
     
  104. 'As I said before, the D7000 price is $1200 for the body only, not $1500 as you keep repeating.'
    Unless you're unfortunate enough to be buying in the UK, where you'll pay the equivalent of $1719 USD after VAT ('only' $1463 before the government takes its cut). Thanks Nikon!
     
  105. Richard: Warehouse Express list both the D7000 and the 60D as £1099, body only. Of course, they also think the new EF 400 f/2.8 is worth £11,500 and needs a bundled UV filter, but at least both the big companies are screwing us by the same amount.
     
  106. Ok now, as for the d7000 I think its a good move on nikon's side as an answer to canon's line up, don't see it as a replacement to the d300s, more like an step up from the d90, lets see how long it takes for Nikon to stop production for the already 2 year old model although they claim the d7000 its a total different class, (good marketing move, but in reality hmmm I pretty much think it's a d90's replacement). it seems to be a great camera but the AF system and the burst rate would make me steer away from it.
    The sb700 also sounds great but I need stroboscopic capabilities and the sb800 suits them perfectly.
    Now!! the 35mm 1.4 that is something I would really, really, I mean REALLY need, Finally they come out with it, unfortunately at a price tag $1400 dollars over the sigma 30mm 1.4, must have some optics out of this world.... would LOVE to see some photos to find a reason not to want it.
    As you can see I have my ANS in check.
     
  107. Is anyone else "bugged" by the fact that Nikon did not put a sample image at f/1.4 from the new 35 1.4 on their website? I hope that doesn't mean what I think it does... :/
     
  108. Does the prism housing on this camera clear the PC lenses?
     
  109. Left, you are kidding, right?
    • Autofocus: 39pt / 9pt / 15 point
    • Body: Mg sealed / Plastic / Plastic
    • Storage: Dual SD / SD / SD & Mem.Stick
    Those three items make a huge difference between higher-end and low-end DSLRs. The D7000 can also meter with Nikon AI/AI-S lenses; that is also a higher-end feature. Whether you can take advantage of it is another matter.
    The notion that 18MP is "better" than 16MP is also silly, and ISO ranges are just a wash. Nikon's Hi 1 is never very useable and just forget about Hi 2.
    If anybody wants something cheaper, there is always the D3100.​
    It just depends, Shun. Dual cards is a pretty new concept relatively. Remember film days? or D1/2x days? Sure, it's nice to have but vital? Not really...
    AF points? tell that to any leica or any medium format users. Again, depends on the user and his work.
    Plastic vs. Mag? Plastic is lighter...never heard that plastic broke down during a shoot...
    Anyways, Sony and Nikon are polar opposite companies in regard to cameras. Nikon is conservative and Sony is innovative, sure, much have to do with their market position, granted. I have nikon dslrs but I'm waaay more interested in the A55/NEX (new technologies) than the d3100/7000 (another incremental advance...)
    I hear the d7000, new Pentax and A55 all use the same Sony sensor...true?
     
  110. Very cool. A camera body that can still use AIS/AI manual lenses for about $1000, rather than the $1500 for the D300s. I still like some of the D300 features, but not for $500 more.
    Now, if the D300s gets a price drop, if a replacement comes out, then.... ?
     
  111. It sure doesn't made the choice between the D7000/D300/D300s/(what?/how much?/when?... if ever) D400 any clearer.
     
  112. On Leslie's note, I still have my D70 which I am happy with, I do landscapes so 99% of the images I don't really need other features. Most times I would happy with a 256MB card.
    If I was on the market I would prefer the cheapest camera with maybe 2 scroll dials but 25MP.
    I don't shoot low light at all, if any it's off a tripod, 99% of my imges are on tripod. For the maybe overseas trips I do I would like a FX camera for handheld photography just cos tripod is not suited. Not sure if I had a FX I would use that at home thou b/c I am so comfortable with a DX. Perhaps good for family portraits of the 20 frames I do yearly. Which of the reasons manual focus and larger formats is something I am considering and maybe abandoning film on the Nikons.
     
  113. I am not sure if AIS/AI compatibility is a deal breaker anymore for the any significant customers. If people are lured to the latest bodies they are probably lured to modern AFS lenses.
    Despite what I said before for the primes. I love to get a 28 or 24 f/2 for my FM2N, I enjoy film just b/c there is no computer at all, no PP, grab slides from lab and you are done, while you are walking out of the lab just lift it to the sky. There's none of that learning curve and the over 1 million things you can do in PP software and the so many adjustments, in film there were discrete warming / cooling filters, now you could literally adjust it down to 1 kelvin (!). You can buy and get free plugins and other software to further enhance images. With slides, get some Velvia and you could be the next Galen Rowell.
    I'll prob get the fast manual primes, but I think I will end up getting primes I not already have for AF. Highly doubt I will replace my current 50/1.8 AFD and my 85/1.8 AFD. Quite possibly I would get the 24/1.4 and the 35/1.4. Call me a noob.
     
  114. Hey, I didn't mean to be RUDE, but it just seems very frustrating to me that Nikon would introduce a camera that is so expensive compared to their competition, though I guess if they consider Canon to be their only competition, they are probably pricing it to be competitive to the new 60 D. The problem there is an articulating screen on the Canon and NOT on the Nikon.
    My main gripe is that the D7000 does not have an articulating fold-out screen, like the D5000. For the same price if it had that feature, I would say it is more expensive than the Sony and Canon, but has the Nikon lens system behind it, so it's probably worth more than the others. Now though, the only Nikon with a fold-out screen is one that's inferior in my opinion to the new Canon and Sony cameras. Maybe Nikon will be introducing a new version of the D5000 (D5100 maybe?) which has most of the features I'd like (faster shooting speed, better constant auto-focus in live view mode, and quicker response time in live view). Don't get me wrong, I LOVED my D5000, and one reason I bought it is because I wanted to be able to use the amazing Nikon lenses, but Sony has been introducing lens after lens (and so has Zeiss), and the system of lenses available for Sony these days is MUCH more impressive than it used to be like a year ago. I was at a Sony Style store today, and those lenses feel as good as Canon L glass. From what I've read about them they are very good quality (in reliability and image quality too). With image stabilization in the bodies, Sony can afford to make superior lenses without image stabilization. I think it's a win-win combination that Nikon and Canon need to explore!
    It's a shame that I will be missing the ability to use the Nikon range of lenses, but I can only afford (and carry) three or four lenses anyway. The Sony 16-35 f2.8, Sony 28-75 f2.8, and Sony 70-400 f3.5-5.6 will be my lenses in the future, and when I can afford the Zeiss 24-70 f2.8 and an A900 then I'll get those beauties to compliment my kit too.
    I just wish I could afford a Nikon D3x and comparable lenses in the Nikon range. Oh, and I wish Nikon would make a better camera with an articulating fold-out screen. With my D5000 I used that thing to compose shots ALL THE TIME (seriously, like 30% of the time - like at every sunrise at the beach and at almost every model shoot). There are other really cool features in the Nikon D5000, which I'm sure the D7000 has, like the ability to set up my camera on a tripod and have it shoot a photo every 6 or 11 or 25 seconds for an hour or two (or even all night), so I could make an HD (or even super HD) time-lapse movie, or the self-timer feature that lets me set the camera to shoot three or four or more (up to nine) shots after I press the shutter release button once (1 shot every 2 or 5 or 10 or 20 seconds) - very cool. I LOVE the ability to check the histograms for specific parts of a picture (like can be done in a Leica R9). I hope the Sony A55v can do that.
    Well Nikon people, I have nothing against Nikon . . . just against their decision to leave off the articulated screen in the new D7000. That's just a total deal-breaker for me. I do see that they want to offer something between the D90 and the D300s though, and the D7000 does sit perfectly between the two, with just the right features to give people a step up if they've got the budget. In that respect, the D7000 is a very good move.
     
  115. Oh, I think we all forgot to mention the fact that the Sony A55v comes with a built-in GPS. I think that might make a difference to some people. I now that means I don't have to buy that accessory, if I ever want to use that type of thing. I suspect it might be one of those things that I'll wonder how I ever lived without it (after using it for a year or two).
    How much is a GPS kit for a Nikon or Canon?
     
  116. [Ray - Sep 16, 2010; 12:32 a.m. wrote:] "I am not sure if AIS/AI compatibility is a deal breaker anymore for the any significant customers. If people are lured to the latest bodies they are probably lured to modern AFS lenses."
    ...It is a deal breaker for me (as I stated somewhere above). But that might just as well prove your point, as I might not fit the "any significant customers" profile anymore.
    But look at it this way: the moment people want to seriously do micro photography with their camera. Using Nikon (!!!) extension rings, maybe reversing lenses, etc. That's when they discover that a bit of old-school compatibility comes in handy. I know there are workable workarounds, but still..
     
  117. Well Nikon people, I have nothing against Nikon . . . just against their decision to leave off the articulated screen in the new D7000​
    I`m not in this product type target, I see you`re not too (although for different reasons).
    There are photogs who work with viewfinders and find articulated screens pretty useless. Their priority is to have stills, not videos at all, but like that capability.
    They only use the rear screen for previews, Live View and hystogram checks; an articulated screen will be bulk, wasted sophistication, more parts, higher cost. Same for GPS.
    Anyway, I think some products (if not all) are transitional and used for testing the market as well, maybe this is one of them; I remember an article written years ago (many) about the "near" end of the still photography, and then, the leadership of Sony...
     
  118. bmm

    bmm

    Can I just come back to the User Defined selectable modes (U1 and U2) which at a basic level I think are a great improvement, as is the overall ergonomics of that new 2-layered control knob.
    I'm thinking in terms of shooting RAW. Is there anything that one would save as one of these two User Presets that would permanently affect a RAW? Or can all the same changes/settings be done in post? (and therefore are U1 and U2 just useful to get you to a better 'starting point' in post, if you use NX2 that is which recognises in-camera settings?)
    Of course I understand they will be great for JPG shooters who want to set up a couple of shooting 'profiles' of their own.
     
  119. '...but at least both the big companies are screwing us by the same amount.'
    Also at Warehouse Express, the new 35 f/1.4 for pre-order at £1699, $850 more than the US price after VAT. But let me extend my thanks to Canon and indeed to much of the photography and consumer electronics market. Apple seem to have lost their currency converter altogether (maybe the App Store rejected it?) - the new Apple TV is 'just $99' in the US, but 'just £99' over here. And don't get me started on Adobe...
     
  120. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    Scott Kennedy:
    My main gripe is that the D7000 does not have an articulating fold-out screen, like the D5000.
    Oh, I think we all forgot to mention the fact that the Sony A55v comes with a built-in GPS. I think that might make a difference to some people.​
    The $8000 Nikon D3X has neither a swivel LCD screen nor a built-in GPS, nor many high-end DSLRs. I happen to think that both features can be useful. Since those are your main purchase criteria, it sounds like the Sony A55 is taylor-made for you.
    I hear the d7000, new Pentax and A55 all use the same Sony sensor...true?​
    Leslie, please read the very first bullet item in my opening post that started this thread, concerning the D7000's sensor:
    A Nikon-designed 16.2MP CMOS sensor​
    I explicitely checked with Nikon last week about the origin of the sensor. The Sony A55 captures a 4912x3264 image. The D7000's sensor is 4928x3264. The only thing in common is that they are both specified as 16.2MP CMOS.
    It looks like Nikon has stopped using Sony sensors on their consumer DSLRs since the D3100, announced last month.
     
  121. A question I haven't seen answered in the discussion or the specs: does the D7000 have AF Fine-Tune?
     
  122. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    Hector, the D7000 has AF fine tune. For those things, it is hard to beat DPReview, since they managed to get a D7000 in advance for some hands-on checking. Please check the AF section on this page over there: http://www.dpreview.com/previews/nikond7000/page2.asp
     
  123. I am not sure if AIS/AI compatibility is a deal breaker anymore for the any significant customers. If people are lured to the latest bodies they are probably lured to modern AFS lenses.
    You might be surprised to learn how important this is to many of Nikon's best customers, i.e. those who have bought a lot of lenses over the years. Also students often use manual focus lenses due to not being able to afford the latest adequately performing lenses. These people will often use an FX body because it's a practical requirement if one is to make the most out of older lenses. There are many special-purpose optics which were never made in autofocus, and in a few cases MF lenses actually produce better results for a fraction of the cost of the newest. On average the latest high-end lenses are optically better than old lenses, but this is not the case in all cases, and affordability isn't really their strongest suit. Before I could afford autofocus tele primes, I used several manual focus lenses which were significantly more compact than the AF versions and produced better results than those autofocus lenses which I could afford at the time. I.e. 28mm Ai-S, 135/2.8 Ai, 200/4 Ai-S. On the photo.net Nikon forum, manual focus is often disparaged to the point where formely active posters who use and prefer manual focus have expressed privately to me that they felt forced to leave the forum because of the atmosphere. In the real world, surprisingly many professional photographers and advanced amateurs who work on non-action subjects prefer to work in manual focus. I know several high-end wedding photographers who mostly use manual focus on their full-frame and 1.3X crop cameras because of limitations in AF when working with fast wide angles. MF is not just talk of old photographers, either, but many photography students also.
    One of the reasons Nikon doesn't take online forums as a key input for which features are important to include in their pro equipment is because their professional contacts basically tell them they do not visit online forums. This was written out in Nikon's European customer magazine where Nikon's management often respond to frequent questions. It's always good to keep in mind that though internet access is available to almost everyone in developed countries, the content doesn't represent everyone.
     
  124. One of the reasons Nikon doesn't take online forums as a key input for which features are important to include in their pro equipment is because their professional contacts basically tell them they do not visit online forums...
    However, does Nikon make most of its money from pros? Or amateurs? What is the difference between the number of D3s and D700s sold vs. D5000s, D3000s, D90s? The difference between the number of 18-55 lenses out there vs. 24-70s?
    I have a feeling that Nikon is indeed listening very hard to its amateur base, and the D7000, frankly, is evidence of that. A dream camera for most of us, imho. Those who say this or that is a deal-breaker I think miss the point of creating a camera that can appeal to D90 AND D300 users at a price right in-between... Sheer genius!
    I continue to be mystified by the new 200 (which, tellingly, almost nobody on this thread has mentioned they're going to run out and buy, was the old one really in need of an update?) and the price of the new 35mm f1.4, not to mention the recent 85mm f3.5 DX micro, which I understand is languishing on dealer shelves, and the lack of a true wide-angle DX prime lens that so many want... but overall, their improvements to their product line over the past few years seems just as great for us rank amateurs as the pros and wanna-be pros and folks who can buy pro gear even though they don't make money on it.
    Amid all the negativity here... I'll just say... "Thanks, Nikon!"
     
  125. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    We always have the question whether Nikon actually reads forums such as this one. I finally got the answer yesterday.
    Nikon sent an e-mail photo.net citing this very thread; in fact, the specified the URL to this thread. Their concern was that initially I mentioned that the D7000 replaces the D90 while in fact the D7000 is a new entry, and the D90 remains as a current camera and continues to be aviailable.
    At least in this case they do pay some attention to this forum and correct some wrong information (unfortunately from me). That was why I sent out the correction.
    I think it is wrong to equate manual focus and AI/AI-S lenses. I use manual focus in some occasions when critical focusing is important, such as testing lenses, and I advocate using live view to fine tune focus. However, my favorite manual focus lens is the 24mm PC-E. My macro lenses are both AF (105mm/f2.8 AF, pre-D and 200mm/f4 AF-D) while I usually switch off AF on them.
    It makes sense to add metering with AI/AI-S lenses to FX bodies and perhaps higher-end DX bodies such as the D300 class. The problem with AI lenses is that their focal lengths frequently do not work very well on the DX format, and some of the old classics are no longer that great optically, as none other than Ilkka Nissila who provided some examples in this recent thread: http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00XGHM. My old 35mm/f1.4 Ai-S now shows fairly serious chromatic aberration on DSLRs, probably as bad as the 35mm/f1.8 DX AF-S when I compared them side by side.
    IMO, Nikon would have been better off leaving out metering with AI/AI-S lenses on the D7000. That feature requires a complex mechanism as demonstrated in the following thread from 2004: http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/0085fV See the diagram at the end of that thread. I would imagine that the D7000 could easily be $50 cheaper without it.
     
  126. Hector, the D7000 has AF fine tune.​
    Thanks Shun, for answering my question, pointing me to dpreview, and for everything else on this announcement.
    On whether Nikon pays attention to online forums, I remember when the D3 and D300 came out, they invited Ellis and Bjorn to Japan for the festivities. Bjorn has his own very visible site, but Ellis, as fine a photographer as he is, was most visible to photographers because of all the teaching he was doing here.
     
  127. This great news and a very well spec'd camera. Still, I do not regret recently buying my wife a D90 refurb for her needs.
    Very glad to see mirror lock-up, that is my main beef with her d90 as makes it less useful to me for some macro shooting I do. I would miss the AF-On on this camera vs. my D300 and that looks to be about all I would miss which is quite a nice surprise from Nikon. While AE lock can be used as AF-ON, I much prefer having both as exposure lock is a useful tool.
    Exciting to see Nikon pushing much further than I expected with the body at this price-point.
     
  128. bmm

    bmm

    Does anyone have a view to the 'User Defined' settings (U1 and U2) question that I asked in my earlier post? Its still something that I'm thinking and wondering about...
     
  129. I continue to be mystified by the new 200 (which, tellingly, almost nobody on this thread has mentioned they're going to run out and buy, was the old one really in need of an update?) and the price of the new 35mm f1.4, not to mention the recent 85mm f3.5 DX micro, which I understand is languishing on dealer shelves, and the lack of a true wide-angle DX prime lens that so many want... but overall, their improvements to their product line over the past few years seems just as great for us rank amateurs as the pros and wanna-be pros and folks who can buy pro gear even though they don't make money on it​
    Peter, the problem with the 200mm is that it's the "same old" lens with nanocoating, VR2, and an additional switch position for AF. Maybe that is the reason why it isn't talked about. On the other hand, that lens is almost apochromatic, actually f/1.86 (t/2!) and the MTF curves point to amazing sharpness. Of course, that was also the case with the old one. Photozone complained about flare issues with the "old" one, so that aspect has possibly improved with the addition of nanocoating.
    Sometimes, however, Nikon goes bonkers. The price of the 35mm seems to be one of those cases. That lens costs 5 times the 35mm f/2, and about 400$/€/£ more than the equivalent Canon. And yeah, the 85mm macro seems to be another of those cases. As "big and heavy" as the 60mm f/2.8G, DX only, 2/3 stops slower and, to top it all, almost identical price. I'm sure it's an excellent macro lens, but I have a hard time understanding why a DX budget user would buy that lens when the aperture apparently makes it unsuitable for portraits. This seems to be a common secondary use of macro lenses.
    Finally, the exchange rate with both € and £ is a bit on the crook side, even when considering taxes in europe. At least it isn't like HP, who love charging more € than $ for equivalent machines.
    Oh, and by the way, does anybody know if the D7000 can use the PC-E lenses with the electronic shutter? I thought those lenses were only compatible with D300(s)/D700/D3(s,x).
     
  130. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    Oh, and by the way, does anybody know if the D7000 can use the PC-E lenses with the electronic shutter?​
    For that type of details, I guess we'll just have to try it. Since Nikon adds metering with AI/AI-S to the D7000, I would imagine that it can work with PC-E lenses. But again, as far as I am concerned, my 24mm PC-E is not very useful on the D300 (DX format); it is just not wide enough for my typical architecture and landscape work.
    Another issue is that I once tried to mount the 24mm PC-E on a D3000, and the viewfinder overhang would block one of the knobs (the one directly facing us in the image below) on the PC-E lens so that you cannot mount it. The D200's viewfinder prevents the full amount of shift movement from the 24mm PC-E. So there are all sorts of issues to check out. I would like to think that Nikon has considered all of those issue when they designed the D7000.
    00XIcP-281391584.jpg
     
  131. It is interesting though, that they left out the articulated screen. After the D5000, I assumed that all of Nikon's '000' level cameras would have one. But I guess until Nikon can speed up shooting in Live View, maybe it doesn't matter as much.
    After about a year now with my Sony a500, it would be hard to imagine using a camera without an articulated screen for one main reason - my knees. Anyone who has knee problems knows what a pain it is to constantly go from standing to crouching and back, but with an articulated screen and fast live view shooting, I can 'shoot from the hip' as it were for a different perspective.
    Not only that, but I can compose pictures at the ground level, without actually lying on the ground. I can compose from above my head without getting something to stand on. The articulated screen is hugely useful for macro photography - I can put the camera into the middle of a plant, pointed straight down, to take a picture of a flower, without contorting my body and getting my whole head inside the plant to look at the screen/viewfinder. Additionally, I can take self portraits in the mirror without having the camera show up in the picture because it's off to the side and I can see the composition on the tilted screen. If my camera had a video feature, there would be many other uses of the articulated screen when shooting video.
    If you've never used a camera that has an articulated screen for an extended period, and you're still poo-pooing it as an 'amateur feature that a pro would never need' or other such dismissals (i'm not saying anyone here is doing this, but IF you are), you need to go out and try it for a while before you knock it. Your knees may thank you for it.
    EDIT: also, Nikon lists lens compatibility on their website for the D7000 (I'm not sure what all of these mean exactly - F3AF?)
    • Type G or D AF NIKKOR: All functions supported
    • IX Nikkor lenses cannot be used
    • DX AF NIKKOR: All functions possible
    • AF-NIKKOR for F3AF not supported
    • Other AF NIKKOR: All functions supported except autofocus and 3D color matrix metering II
    • AI-P NIKKOR: All functions supported except 3D color matrix metering II
    • PC Micro-NIKKOR does not support some functions
    • Non-CPU: Can be used in modes A and M; color matrix metering and aperture value display supported if user provides lens data (AI lenses only)
    • Electronic rangefinder can be used if maximum aperture is f/5.6 or faster
     
  132. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    In the 1980's, there was a specific AF version of the F3 body called F3-AF, and Nikon had two AF lenses made specially for the F3-AF: 80mm/f2.8 and 200mm/f3.5. Those two lenses cannot be used on most (all?) other Nikon bodies: http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/nikonf3ver2/f3afbasic/index.htm
    They are very rare. In fact, I have never seen them myself. Essentially that is an issue 99.999% of us don't need to worry about, but Nikon always has that listed for the sake of completeness.
     
  133. Peter - I've been specifically waiting for the new 200 f/2. Even more specifically, I've been waiting for it to make the older version slightly cheaper so I can buy one. I can't say I'd hate it if there was a lot of interest from people dumping their old 200s on the market, though.

    As for the AI metering mechanism, it's interesting to see it on a cheaper body, but it's not cheap enough to make it a trivial back-up purchase for me! I'd really like a low-end and light film body with the AI ring and full electronic support; sadly, Nikon never made one, which is why my back-up is an F5. I certainly factor lens compatibility into my purchasing decisions, whatever Nikon thinks, in part because I know I can already use AI lenses on my D700 and F5. (Frankly, if they'd take pre-AI lenses, I'd have some - it's not worth my getting the F5 ring adapted for as long as the D700's can't be, sadly.)
     
  134. I was happy and thrilled to read Ilkka's comments about manual focus lenses and Nikon's decision to provided the ability to meter with them on the D 7000. My thoughts echo his. Even if it is true what Shun says about their lack of optical quality on a DX sensor, the fact that you already own them and want to use them may override this and other factors. I often use my mf lenses on m D 300 just to slow me down so I forced to think about what I am doing. Yes, I often use my AFS lenses in manual mode for the same reasons. Joe Smith
     
  135. Hi everyone. I hope Nikon reconsiders their present selection of kit lens and adds an alternate kit lens, the 16-85. I can't understand why they would offer a kit lens with a plastic mount for a higher-end camera.
     
  136. What's puzzling is Nikon's insistence that the D7000 is not a D90 replacement. Just what does that mean here? Will they release a D90 replacement then? With lower specs to the D7000 but higher specs to the D90? Or will they just end the D90 line without a direct successor?
    Or are they just saying this to make sure that their remaining stock of D90s do sell out. Maybe they want to delay the inevitable price-drop they'd have to do on the D90 stock?
     
  137. What's puzzling is Nikon's insistence that the D7000 is not a D90 replacement. Just what does that mean here? Will they release a D90 replacement then? With lower specs to the D7000 but higher specs to the D90? Or will they just end the D90 line without a direct successor?​
    I too am curious ... Where will the Nikon mirror-less camera fit in in all of these? The D7000 is more of a traditional Nikon dSLR where one can expect super fast and smooth shooting. It seems that both D7000 and D3100 already out-spec D90 on paper. What Nikon does not have is something similar to the Sony A-55 or Panasonic GH1 that lost weights by either modifying the mirror or getting rid of it all together. Perhaps we will see a D90 "replacement" to lose the mirror as well with much better video capacity than other Nikon cameras and is much lighter than D7000. After all, D90 was the first dSLRs that has video.
     
  138. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    Diane, the D7000 is available as body only or with the 18-105mm DX kit lens. Potentially they may add other kit combinations laster on, e.g. with the 18-200 DX, etc. As long as you can buy the body only, it shouldn't be an issue. The problem is with the D3000 before and the D3100, which are only sold with the 18-55mm DX VR kit lens. They don't sell the body alone so that if you don't want the 18-55, it'll be some hassle to either find a dealer who is willing to somehow break up the kit or re-sell the lens to someone else.
    Nish, if a camera replaces an older model, the implication is that the old model is immediately discontinued. The specs for the D7000 is a lot stronger than the D90 and is also priced higher. What Nikon is saying is that the D90 is not yet discontinued at this time and continues to occupy the $800 to $1000 space for now. But of course it does not change the fact that the D90 is now a 2+ year old design and if you read this thread, it is clearly surpassed not only by the D7000 but also by a number of new DSLRs from other brands.
    Most likely, Nikon will add another model, positioned between the D3100 ($700 w/ the 18-55 kit lens) and D7000 ($1200, body only), at around $800 to $900, and the D90 as well as D5000 will be discontinued. The D90 and D5000 use the same Sony sensor and share a lot of the electronics; Nikon seems to be phasing that out now.
     
  139. I think that lens compatibility list is not exactly accurate.
    I am pretty sure my (non-D) push-pull 80-200 will autofocus on the D7000. Following this list it would fall in the 'other AF Nikkor' category where it says it will not autofocus.
    Camera looks like an absolute winner though, love some of the added features and I think a direct comparison to anything else will be decided on handling it and not on specs. I will try at the photokina ;-)
    But I think I won't have the budget in the next half year to upgrade.
     
  140. I think people keep ignoring me when I mention one of the key reasons that AI compatibility aimed at manual focus lenses is there. Video. Higher end manual lenses for video (i.e. Zeiss CP2) need this ability. And with such an emphasis on video in DSLRs now, Nikon would be committing suicide to release their first Pro body that is squarely aimed at other pro bodies used primarily for video without this ability.
    And Sjoerd, by my understanding, the screw drive autofocus is there, so you should be fine.
     
  141. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

  142. After about a year now with my Sony a500, it would be hard to imagine using a camera without an articulated screen for one main reason - my knees. Anyone who has knee problems knows what a pain it is to constantly go from standing to crouching and back, but with an articulated screen and fast live view shooting, I can 'shoot from the hip' as it were for a different perspective.​
    Yeah, I was a bit surprised too. I find it incredibly useful on the D5000, mounted on a tripod low to the ground. Before Live View & Articulated screens, I used to have to sit, squat, sometimes physically lie down in the dirt to compose shots. There's a bunch of pictures that my friend took of me in ridiculous poses, WHILE I took other pictures.
    Nikon makes some odd decisions: the D3100 has a cable shutter release, but no wireless shutter release. The D60 has the reverse.
    That said, the most disappointing thing for me with the D5000 & D90 is the ISO200 base. Low 1 & Low 2 just didn't cut it for long exposures or shooting with fill flash in bright sunlight. I'm already slapping on ND filters at ISO 100 to slow things down on other cameras.
    I'm very pleased to see base ISO's returning to 100 while high ISO capability is retained... this is by far the biggest perk in the D7000/D3100 for me.
     
  143. I am pretty sure my (non-D) push-pull 80-200 will autofocus on the D7000. Following this list it would fall in the 'other AF Nikkor' category where it says it will not autofocus.
    Why not? It has a screwdriver mechanism, right?
     
  144. Shun, you sure on that one? I hear of people using those kinds of lenses with 7D and 5DmkII, so if this camera captures video as well as those two, why wouldn't they?
    It sounds like Nikon might be better in the case of rolling shutter/jello issues, by my understanding.
    But the CP2 aside, they could still be using the more consumer friendly Zeiss lenses that breath better than 99% of the zooms on the market.
     
  145. Hi Peter and Zach,
    As I said I think it will focus, I thought it was weird that the list would suggest it will not. Dpreview clearly shows the screwdrive coupling.
     
  146. I was happy and thrilled to read Ilkka's comments about manual focus lenses and Nikon's decision to provided the ability to meter with them on the D 7000. My thoughts echo his. Even if it is true what Shun says about their lack of optical quality on a DX sensor, the fact that you already own them and want to use them may override this and other factors. I often use my mf lenses on m D 300 just to slow me down so I forced to think about what I am doing. Yes, I often use my AFS lenses in manual mode for the same reasons. Joe Smith​
    Well, Shun did not say that ALL MF lenses lacked optical quality on a DX sensor, but some certainly do. Heck many AF-D and AFS lenses lack optical quality on a DX sensor. It's really on a lens-by-lens basis independent from if it's a MF lens or not. I have some AI and AIS lenses that still need more sensor resolution than my D300 can provide.
    John
     
  147. Sjoerd,
    If you're talking about this...
    Other AF NIKKOR: All functions supported except autofocus and 3D color matrix metering II​
    ... looks like a mis-print to me. Perhaps not? I don't own any non-D AF lenses... Don't they AF just fine with any screwdriver-equipped Nikon body?
     
  148. Does anyone know if it has the "electronic rangefinder" capability that the D60 has? I.e., it uses the exposure meter as a focus indicator to supplement the less useful green dot.
    Thanks - John
     
  149. Nice to see Nikon still supporting AI lenses, but I SURE wish they'd go ahead and move that support down into a lower price bracket. My dream dSLR would still be something approximately as capable (and as lowcost) as my old D50, with AI metering. And no a D40/D3100/D5000 wouldn't cut it 'cause they don't have a focus motor, which means my AF-D lenses wouldn't be AF'ing :).
     
  150. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    I hope people realize that any product design involves a lot of trade offs. I would imagine that the complex mechanism to add metering with AI/AI-S lense easily adds $50 to the cost of the D7000, perhaps $100. That is a choice I wouldn't have made; if the D7000 were $1100 instead of $1200, it would have been even more competitive on the market.
    The same is true for the swivel screen. That kind of screen will take up more room on the back, e.g. the D5000 has a 2.7" LCD instead of 3" on the D3000 and D90. Moreover, there has to be a hinge somewhere. Take a look at this image on DPReview.com about the back side of the new Canon 60D: http://a.img-dpreview.com/previews/CanonEOS60D/images/backclosed.jpg
    You'll notice that there are very few buttons because there is simply no room for them, especially to the left of the LCD. I am sure a lot of controls have to go to the menu, making the camera harder to use.
    For comparison, you'll find an image of the back side of the D7000 here: http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/11627066-lg.jpg
    If you don't like the way Nikon designs the D7000, there are many other choices out there.
     
  151. Peter, that is the part I meant, doesn't make sense to me.
    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)
     
  152. 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:
    • Nikon makes money selling new lenses, not old manual focus stuff (while they do still offer them new, they are a very 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.
    • 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.
    • 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.
    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.
     
  153. 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.
    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!
     
  154. 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.
     
  155. 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).
    Is that extra stop of light and super-high-quality worth an extra $1600 (or $1410)?
     
  156. 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.
    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.
    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.
    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.
    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.
     
  157. 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.
    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.)
     
  158. 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!:
    http://www.fotofabrikas.lt/forumas/viewthread.php?tid=1158
     
  159. (I believe moving up with either even or odd numbers.)​
    The D300, D700, D7000, etc. all carry even numbers.
     
  160. 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.
    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.
     
  161. 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.
    .
    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.
    .

    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.
     
  162. 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 :
    80-200mm f4.5 ( No direct replacement f2.8 version about $500 , or f4.5-5.6 at $90 )
    75-150mm f3.5 ( No direct replacement )
    24mm f2.8 ( AF version from KEH, used $265 )
    180mm f2.8 ED ( AF version from KEH, used $450-$525 )
    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 !
     
  163. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    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.
    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.
    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.
     
  164. 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.
    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.
    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. :-(
     
  165. 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.
    Kent in SD
     
  166. 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 ?
    Checking Bjorn's reviews, I get the following ratings
    24mm f2.8 is a 4 or 4.5 even on the D3 series.
    180mm f2.8 ED gets a 4.5 out of 5 on the D3x
    The 80-200mm f4.5 is given a 4 out of 5, but he doesn't state with what body.
    The low end 75-150mm f3.5 gets a 4.5-5 out of 5 on the D3x
    I also have a 105mm f2.5 which I sometimes use. That gets a 5 of 5 on everything.
    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.
    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.
     
  167. Does it have focus-priority while tracking in C-AF?
    A bit dissappointed by the highest quality jpeg compression of 1/4...not 1/2.7...
    Ain't RAW processing decrease sharpness and detailization? (I have always loved RAW in my Olympus)
     
  168. 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.
    I appreciate any and all help you can provide.
     
  169. I wonder if it can do autofocus while shooting video?!
     
  170. 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.
    Shun said the D7000 is a upper model than the D90 and does not replace it.
    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.
    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.
     
  171. Well I broke down and placed my order
    I'm upgrading from a D40 so of course the D7000 is going to be a major upgrade
    The major points that attracted me were
    16 Mp up from 6 I realize the MP myth but I plan on using more for being able to crop
    internal motor I'll finally be able to use my 50 1.8 with focusing
    lower light sensitivity with the D40 anything above 800 is pretty much useless
    100 ISO the lowest that the D40 would do is 200
    a top screen
    bracketing
    larger rear screen
    magnesium body parts
    live view
    dual SD cards
    I'll probably use the fish eye effect at least a couple of times
    I might use the video feature once in a while
    dual spin dial controls
    better weather sealing
    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
    things that I wish were there and aren't
    articulated rear screen
    a utility package that includes tethering capabilities included
    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
    now I need to go check out e-bay for a remote controlled helicopter ;^)
     
  172. 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.
    AI support is a nice convenience feature, definitely more useful for me than e.g. pop-up flash.
    Mind you, some of my MF lenses are very high in image quality, e.g. Zeiss 50/2, easily surpassing Nikon's AF offerings.
     
  173. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    Mind you, some of my MF lenses are very high in image quality, e.g. Zeiss 50/2, easily surpassing Nikon's AF offerings.​
    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.
    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.
    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.
     
  174. 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
     
  175. "A lot of video pros now use Canon 5D mark II... "
    Out of curiosity... Have the MkII (or others) an acceptable video quality level, enough to substitute the video cameras used by wedding pros?
     
  176. Well, a widely discussed fact is that they shot the season finale of "House" 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 wikipedia. 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 HDR video.
     
  177. 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.
    http://www.dpreview.com/news/1007/10071401sonynexvg10e.asp
    http://pro-av.panasonic.net/en/sales_o/news_info/news100913/100913.html
     
  178. 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).
     
  179. 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.

    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.

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

    ShunCheung Administrator

    Mind you, the only company with (nearly) 100% lens compatibility is Leica, and there's a reason for that...​
    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.
    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.
     
  181. 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.
     
  182. 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:
    - It's size/weight
    - I don't use many of the advanced features that it has
    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.
    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.
    I'll probably get a used/refurbed D700 to complement the D7000.
    John
     
  183. 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.
    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.
    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.
    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.
     
  184. 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.
    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.
    Out of curiosity... Have the MkII (or others) an acceptable video quality level, enough to substitute the video cameras used by wedding pros?
    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.
     
  185. 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.​
    What about:
    • Faster FPS both stills and video
    • Larger buffer
    • Better bracketing
    • Better High ISO performance a la D3S
    • More dynamic range
    • More battery life -> higher power flash & longer movies w/ VR On
    • Articulated Screen
    • Better microphone (stereo?)
    • Built in VR so we get VR on all lenses
    • Fast Live View shooting
    • Auto-merge-to-HDR with RAW or JPG
    • Uncompressed Video with Auto HDR
    • Wireless / Bluetooth / GSM+CDMA networking & tethering
    • Customizable touch screen or more buttons for various controls
    • Built in GPS
    • Voice Memo
    • More megapixels (gasp! I said it)
    • Lower price
    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.
     
  186. 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:
    - It's size/weight
    - I don't use many of the advanced features that it has
    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.
    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.
    I'll probably get a used/refurbed D700 to complement the D7000.
    John
     
  187. 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.
     
  188. 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.

    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.

    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.
     
  189. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    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,​
    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.
    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.
     
  190. 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.
    So, my list of improvements:
    - Same ISO range as D3s, but shifted one stop slower to get me ISO 50
    - Larger bufer
    - Faster FPS
    - Single shot 32-bit "RAW"
    - Raw video
    - Faster video options (60fps +) at 1080P
    - Full pro body (ala D3)
    - larger pentaprism
    - easily replaced focusing screens (split prism FTW!)
    - Dual CF slots for faster data transfer
    - Faster data transfer to the memory cards
    - more MP, if the lenses can keep up
    - built in GPS
    - touch screen with live view focus on touch
     
  191. '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.'
    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).
     
  192. 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.
     
  193. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    Richard, check out DPReview: http://www.dpreview.com/previews/nikond7000/page3.asp
    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.
    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.
     
  194. 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.
    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...
    Macro lenses tend to be much sharper anyway.​
    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.
    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.​
    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.
     
  195. 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?).
     
  196. My guess would be that the D300 replacement will get a new super sensor based on the D3s to distinguish it from the D7000.
     
  197. I've been waiting to see what this D7000 would be. And Nikon definitely peaked my interest with what they put into this camera.
    • 16MP = I like it.
    • Ai/Ais meter coupling = BIG, BIG, BIG interest.
    • DX = I was hoping for FX in a cheaper body, but I can live with this.
    • 1080HD Video = Not necessary, but this is amended as outlined below.
    • AF Fine tune = BIG interest.
    • 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.
    • MB-D11 Grip = Thank you!
    • Dual Memory Cards = I haven't experienced the benefits yet.
    • Dual Command Dials = Nice.
    • 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).
    • 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.
    I'm very interested in this new body...
     
  198. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    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.
    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.
    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.
    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.
     
  199. Shun,
    "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."
    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.
    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.
     
  200. "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."
    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?
     
  201. While I can only speak for myself, I have been reasonably satisfied with my poor experiments of MF nikkors on an old D100. Are these MF lenses practical to use? imho, absolutely not, but when I use these lenses I'm going for a specific effect and in reality, I think I'm using a digital camera as more of a 'digital back' as opposed to using it as an AF digital camera. How I wish Nikon made an amateur digital camera that would accept an old-fashioned split-circle focusing screen. I know I lose AF, but that was kind of my goal anyway. Give me a digital camera that has current matrix metering, and TTL, but the ability to completely shut off the AF and use a split-circle focusing screen. I could really use something like that...
     
  202. How I wish Nikon made an amateur digital camera that would accept an old-fashioned split-circle focusing screen.
    You can get split-image screens for most DX format Nikon DSLRs from Katz Eye Optics (as well as a few other manufacturers). They work nicely on those viewfinders which are based on an actual prism (rather than mirrors). The D100 viewfinder is quite bad; for manual focusing I would get a newer (and a little higher-end) camera; D80, D90, D200, D300(s), D2X, D3 series, or D700 should work fine with a replacement screen. The problem with the D100 is the small viewfinder size. The lower-end models (i.e. D70, D50, D5000 etc.) have a pentamirror "prism" which doesn't give a clear image. I find that the D700 with Katz Eye screen works fine and makes manual focus lenses a joy to use, though not quite the same as an F3HP or FM3A.
     
  203. I looked at the Katz Eye website, and don't really understand what they are selling. Is it a replacement prism? Does it actually split the image when not in focus (like the old cameras)? Or is it just a brighter screen?
     
  204. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    Katz Eye sells a replacement focusing screen. It works the same way focusing screens used to work in the 1970's and 1980's (and the recent FM3a also).
     
  205. It's a replacement focusing screen, not a prism. Their screens have the split image in the center, and some of their screens also have a microprism collar around the split image, which can also be used to focus. The "brightness" of the screen image is not necessarily what you want to be able to manual focus (with fast lenses), but rather a clear visual contrast between in- and out of focus areas. Nikon screens are quite good for f/2.8 - f/4 lenses, but the Katz Eye screens are (in my opinion) better for faster lenses.
     
  206. Interesting to read the wish lists. I would want an internal polarizer that I could "rotate" with either control wheel, or turn completely off.
    As for some other items, I current have a camera that can provide an ISO of 8, a shutter speed of 1/50,000, provides a live histogram in record mode, and can tell me the temperature of the CCD (noise goes up with temperature). It also gives me the zoom setting on the LCD in 35mm equiv terms, and when using live view, can be set to make the blown highlights blink when in record mode. It can also be set to be in "record when motion detected" mode, can play video games, and in an emergency, make the LCD into a flashlight.
    No, it is not a cell phone, although my Droid has a 5 meg camera with flash, still or movie mode.
     
  207. Does anyone know if the D7000 will offer a replaceable focusing screen system like Nikon's pro equipment ( F series, N90(s) ), or will it require dis-assembly like many of the consumer grade equipment?
    Right now, I'm kind of torn between a D2Xs, or a D300(s) ... the D700, or a used D3 is what I want, but they are just too far out of my price range, right now...
    And now, Nikon pulls out the D7000 with full AF HD video, external mic input, Ai/Ais coupling...
    This is not an easy time to make a buying decision...
     
  208. With my D300, which is pretty demanding on lens sharpness, my 16/3.5 AI, 28/2 AI, 40/2 CV, 50/1.2 AIS, 105/2.5 AIS, 200/4 AIS, and 80-200/2.8AFS (below 150mm), and 70-300AFS (below 250mm) all seem to be pixel sharp when stopped down a bit, so they could certainly use a higher resolution sensor, especially if it had a weaker AA filter.
    Some of my other lenses, like my 24/2.8 AIS, 20/2.8 AF-D, 50/1.8 AF-D, 85/1.8 AF-D, 135/2 AIS, and 180/2.8D seem like they kind have met their limit on a D300. Some additional pixels for over-sampling would not hurt though.
    So it really is a case-by case basis as to which lenses are sharp enough.
    John
     
  209. Oskar, Left, Walt, Zach, thanks for your answer.
    I`m impressed with that "House" chapter. Looks astounding. Not in amateurs hands, thought.
     
  210. I have a question - what is difference between the matrix and 3D color matrix II ?
    I was just comparing the specs of D7000 with D300s and found that D300s has 3d color matrix whereas for D7000 it is only 'MATRIX'. In what way does it affect ?
     
  211. "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."

    John - the issue is pixel density; while there are more sample sites on a D3x, they're still larger and spread over a larger area. A lens that can resolve at the size of the sensor sites in the D3x might still struggle with the smaller sites of the D7000. It may still be producing a lovely image outside the bounds of the D7000's sensor, but that information is wasted. The sensor sites on a D3x are larger than on a D300 (double the resolution in 2.25x the sensor area), let alone a D7000.

    "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?"

    Tempest - I believe (and I've only read about it, I'm not a lens designer) that there's a trade-off between resolution and contrast with fine detail. If a lens is designed for maximum contrast with a 12MP sensor, it'll be less good at resolving details finer than that; alternatively, if a lens is designed to resolve 18MP detail as well as possible, it'll have less contrast in the coarser detail - and hence look worse at the limit of a 12MP sensor. Film has the benefit that resolution tails off fairly smoothly, so you can argue how many megapixels a 35mm slide has according to how much contrast difference you call a pixel; digital sensors, by contrast, will resolve anything up to their pixel count and absolutely nothing beyond it. The other benefit of film is that people don't tend to make too many 40" prints from a 35mm film frame (if for no other reason than that it's hard to scan and the grain is enormous), whereas people do tend to look at digital crops at 1:1 on a computer screen.

    Anand - the 3D part of the Nikon metering system is, I believe, that it uses information from the autofocus sensors and lens distance information to tell it what kind of scene it's looking at and where to prioritise the meter setting - which is why you can't matrix meter on an F5 with a manual lens that provides no distance information. I'm sure the D7000 still does this. However, it's interesting (and I'd failed to notice, when I first read the announcements) that the meter has been upgraded and has more sensor sites - the F5, F6, D3, D700, D300 etc. all made do with a 1005-point system, so I'll be interested to see if it's actually an improvement. I certainly doubt it'll be a step backwards, but Nikon's metering system has always been very well-considered, so I'd not lose too much sleep over having the old version. HTH.
     
  212. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    There are different types of challenges on lenses. A DX sensor with dense pixels, such as this 16MP D7000, challenges the resolving power of lenses. An FX sensor challenges the edge performance. Of course the most challenging cameras are the FX ones with a lot of pixels. For example, I have tried the 24mm/f2.8 AF-D on the 24MP D3X, and corner performance is terrible. (The 24mm AF-D is a "current" lens but shares the same optical design since the 1977 24mm/f2.8 AI, which I used to own back then.)
    Even the 12MP D5000, D90, and D300/D300S have denser pixels than the 24MP D3X. The 16.2MP D7000 is even denser although the increase is not that big. We'll have to test how the D7000 works with all sorts of lenses.
     
  213. Andrew - I havn't used F5 and neither do I have any manual lens, so couldn't think of 3D part in matrix. thanQ for that clarification comparing with F5. Also, I hope as well as think that there won't be any step backwords. However, note that for D300s - it is 3D Color Matrix II, Center-weigehted Average and Spot whereas for for D7000 it is said only to be Matrix. I can think of using matrix instead of center weighted average, however, spot metering is something you can't get away with. Wonder why center weighted average and spot is not mentioned for D7000....
     
  214. Where are you looking for your information? The D7000 has (per DPReview):
    TTL exposure metering using 2016-pixel RGB sensor*
    • Matrix :3D color matrix metering II (type G and D lenses); color matrix metering II (other CPU lenses)
    • Center-weighted: Weight of 75% given to 8-mm circle in center of frame; diameter of circle can be changed to 6, 10 or 13 mm, or weighting can be based on average of entire frame (fixed at 8 mm when non-CPU lens is used)
    • Spot: Meters 3.5 mm circle (about 2.5% of frame) centered on active focus area (on center focus point when non-CPU lens is used)
     
  215. Andrew,
    Does this mean that an otherwise fine lens on the D70 (6 Meg) could actually produce worse results on the D90 (12 Meg)? I don't dispute that a lens could prevent a a high resolution sensor from reaching its potential. There are also issues with the angle that light from a lens hits a sensor. But could a lens actually produce bad results merely because the sensor has a higher resolution? And if so how will we ever know until we buy what combinations of lens and sensor are good?
     
  216. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    Anand, as far as I am concerned, whatever 3D color matrix metering are meaningless marketing jargons from Nikon. Back in the late 1970's when I was using the Nikon FE with only center weighted metering and I was shooting slide film with a limited dynamic range, I never had any serious metering issues. Later on when spot metering became available, it really helped some tough lighting conditions such as snow scenes, back-lit situations, etc.
    In 2001 I bought a Contax 645 camera that only has center weighted and spot metering, no matrix or evaluative metering in Canon terminology. I quickly found out that center weighted and in some difficult cases spot are all I need as it was back in the 1970's, and once again I was shooting mainly slide film such as Velvia.
    With instant feedback and histograms on digital cameras, metering has never been easier. I doubt that Nikon is going backward in terms of metering capability on the D7000, where they even include an AF motor and the Aperture Follower Tab to meter with AI/AI-S lenses that have no CPU. But one way or another, it should not be a concern.
    One down side with those marketing jargons is that once you leave out one of those terms, it'll make some people wonder whether a feature is missing.
     
  217. I agree with Sun that the 3D metering is probably irrelevant most of the time - but it's still interesting from a technical perspective to know how it works, if only so we know when to expect it go get confused. (I actually took some shots yesterday with my D700 and thought the matrix meter hadn't done very well with the light behind the subject, but then remembered I was using an AI lens and it was dropping back to non-3D mode.) Just to clarify, I brought the F5 up because it has a matrix meter, but no way to tell it about AI lenses, so with an AI lens it won't matrix meter at all. With the digital cameras and the F6 you can tell them about the lens so you still get matrix metering, although without the 3D bit.

    Tempest - don't worry, it's just that a lens optimised for maximum contrast on a 6MP sensor likely won't be good at resolving fine detail (with decent contrast) at 12MP, but the lower-resolution detail will appear the same both sensors. As you put it, it just won't help the higher-resolution sensor meet its potential - but images at the same size from each sensor (and with smaller pixels on the higher-resolution sensor) won't look any worse for the sensor upgrade.
     
  218. hmmmm - that's strange. I was comparing the specifications on B&H website and just now checked once again - it says only Matrix. I wonder where do they get their specifications from ..
     
  219. hmmmm - that's strange. I was comparing the specifications on B&H website and just now checked once again - it says only Matrix. I wonder where do they get their specifications from ..​
    Relax, no doubt it's an early typo/mess-up. Do you really think that Nikon would "dumb down" the metering on a 1200-dollar camera?
     
  220. Will it be a joy when we are able to consider comprehensive test reports involving use of all lenses from the early ai to the most recent announcements? Or will there then be another 200 postings?
     
  221. Since AF mode selection was discussed earlier in this thread and I've only just noticed, I see (from AP's preview and from actually reading DPReview's preview) that the details of the AF mode are selected by pressing a button on the side of the AF/M switch. The good news is that at least you should be able to feel the difference between AF and M, and see the rest on the screen (feeling the difference between AF-C, AF-S and M is tricky on a D700); the bad news is that it's still where you can't easily get at it if you're holding a big lens in your left hand. It strikes me that maybe tripod users can actually get at these controls while shooting, and my allegations against Nikon's usability testing may only apply to big stabilised telephotos used hand-held (still, my hand's busy holding the lens even with a 14-24). As for a separate AF button, it appears it's the AF-L/AE-L button or nothing.
     
  222. Long thread for another camera just like all the rest.
     
  223. Ross, I think the long thread reflects the excitement over the D7000, which seems to be a camera a lot of people are interested in! I enjoyed reading all of the comments, and it was nice of Shun to hang out in this thread too. All that is left now is for someone to post their results!
     
  224. Based on the interest, I would suggest this is NOT a camera, just like all the rest. If it was, would the thread be this long ?
    It may be my faulty memory, but is it that common for a camera to sell for $500 less than the next step up, but surpass that more costly camera in so many ways ? Some said we would NEVER see a $1000 Nikon that supports AI/AIS lenses, yet, there it is. It has lots of features that were only on more expensive cameras. It's a pretty cool package.
     
  225. Long thread for another camera just like all the rest.​
    +1
    While the d7000 is a nice, decent camera...the Fuji X100, Sony A55/33 and NEX are waaay more excting than the d7000...and I'm a Nikon dslr user. Come on, Nikon, show me a $1600 FF d40/FM3A and I'll buy the 35mm f1.4 as a bonus:)
     
  226. +1
    While the d7000 is a nice, decent camera...the Fuji X100, Sony A55/33 and NEX are waaay more excting than the d7000...and I'm a Nikon dslr user. Come on, Nikon, show me a $1600 FF d40/FM3A and I'll buy the 35mm f1.4 as a bonus:)
    Cannot help but feel the same thing. The D7000 will no doubt be a great camera; however, it is still a traditional dSLR with the same set of basic pros and cons. Indeed in terms of innovations, the micro 4/3, NEX, and Sony's translucent cameras (A33/55) have broken the traditional mode and come up with smaller and lighter cameras with IQ and performance that are comparable to many dSLRs. One would hope that Nikon is taking its time to incorporate these innovations into a new next gen camera and I am confident that when it finally arrives, it will blow these other cameras out of the water ...
     
  227. What about:
    • Faster FPS both stills and video - Sony A55 has that
    • Larger buffer - Sony A55 has that
    • Better bracketing
    • Better High ISO performance a la D3S
    • More dynamic range
    • More battery life -> higher power flash & longer movies w/ VR On
    • Articulated Screen - Sony A55 has that
    • Better microphone (stereo?)
    • Built in VR so we get VR on all lenses - Sony A55 has that
    • Fast Live View shooting - Sony A55 has that
    • Auto-merge-to-HDR with RAW or JPG - Sony A55 has that
    • Uncompressed Video with Auto HDR
    • Wireless / Bluetooth / GSM+CDMA networking & tethering
    • Customizable touch screen or more buttons for various controls
    • Built in GPS - Sony A55 has that
    • Voice Memo
    • More megapixels (gasp! I said it)
    • Lower price - Sony A55 has that
    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.
    I hope Nikon makes a new, even better camera than the D7000. I hope it has some of the features that will blow away the Canon 60 D, while giving the 7 D a run for its money.
    If Nikon introduces a D9000 for $1,499 that has a 3" articulating screen and faster FPS (8 fps maybe), Built-in GPS, a larger shooting buffer (20 full-sized RAW frames at least), and all the rest of the features the D7000 has, I will buy it, so I can have compatibility with the Nikon range of lenses. I will continue to use my Sony A55 for some things, but I will not continue down the Sony road if Nikon brings out such a camera, because frankly I want to eventually buy the Nikon D3s or its replacement, and I don't believe Sony is going to make such a camera any time soon (though if I am wrong, and Sony makes a lens like the 14-24mm f2.8 and some tilt-shift lenses, I may reconsider this train of thought). One of the things that is going to bring me to the table to buy the Nikon is the Sigma 10-17mm zooming fish-eye. That lens is one of my dream lenses (along with the Nikon 14-24mm), and it is not available in the Sony/Minolta mount.
    I like the D7000, and I would have chosen it over the superior Sony, even though it costs more, because I want Nikon and Nikon-compatible lenses! The darn fold-out screen is just a deal-breaker for me though. I have become used to it from using it on my Sony R1 and subsequently on my Nikon D5000, which I would replace, but it just is not a usable as I believe the Sony A55 will be. Because I have become so used to the fold-out screen, I can only compare the D5000 against its competition, and I am not convinced about switching back to Canon, because frankly, the Canon 60 D just doesn't compare that well against the Sony A55. If Nikon had a camera that was better than the Canon 60 D though, even if it isn't as good as the Sony A55, I would buy it.
    PLEASE Nikon, make a D9000 or even a D5100 or D6000 with better capabilities than the D5000. Slightly faster shooting, quicker AF in live view, faster shooting response in live view, and a bigger buffer (for shooting RAW - bigger than the little 6 frame buffer in the D5000 - even 10 frames would be nice!). I don't really want to buy into the Sony world. I want to buy a Nikon!
     
  228. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    I have played around with the Sony NEX at my local Fry's Electronics. The (relatively) huge lens on a small camera is kind of weird. I think those mirrorless cameras are great for consumers who want convenience. However, I don't think the current LCD technology is good enough for precise focusing and composition (unless you lock down the camera on a tripod and magnify the live view, but the tripod defeats the small camera advantage); the time lag also makes it difficult for sports and action photography. I happen to be nearsighted so that it is very easy for me to view an LCD that is a few inches in front of me, but that is still not at all a stable way to hold a camera.
    The semi-transparant mirror is a tried and mostly failed concept; Canon has had a few SLRs that use that type of fixed mirror. It can be great for sports photography due to the extremely high frame rate when there is no mechanical mirror to move back and forth. However, we pay a lot of money on fast lenses; it is silly to permanently lose speed that way. That semi-transparant mirror is also hard to clean, even though it may not degrade the image in any meaninfgul manner. (Plenty of people don't even want to put a high-grade UV filter in front of their lenses. It is hard to convince them to put a semi-transparant mirror between lens and sensor.)
    Digital cameras are not going to stay the way cameras have been for decades; things will definitely change, but not all of those "innovations" are good ideas.
     
  229. If I had NO lenses to use, the Sony might be worth a look, however, one benefit of ANY Nikon DSLR is that I can use my current collection of Nikon glass. The Sony A55 doesn't do that. That makes it more expensive than it's sticker price.
    As for some of the other needs... it does have to have them. Faster frame rate on a consumer level DSLR ? Real sports shooters wouldn't be using the D7000. They would be up at least a notch , and then get that faster FPS. The same goes for some of the other wishes. If Nikon stuff all those features in THIS camera, why sell more expensive ones ? The feature set and price is sort of dictated by where they want it to fall in their product line.
     
  230. Well, I think their product like could use a Canon 7 D killer . . . a $1,500 body that , while it might be awfully close to the D300s, it would be cheaper than the Canon 7 D, and it would offer something that the Canon doesn't offer - a fold-out screen. I used a Canon 5 D for years, with expensive L glass (70-200 f2.8 L IS). The fold-out screen on the D5000 was PLENTY sturdy. If Nikon is afraid that their users will be worried about it's sturdiness, they can make it a little sturdier with Titanium or carbon fiber or something (add $100 if need be). With the innovations in the D7000 and a fold-out screen like the 60 D has, an 8 fps D9000 could indeed be a Canon 7 D killer, just as the D7000 is supposed to be an answer to the 60 D.
    Innovations? Well, the D5000 is the most innovative camera Nikon has come out with in a long time, if you ask me. Sure, the D3 is very innovative too, but the D5000 has features that ONLY Sony would add to their cameras. Nikon took a page from Sony's book and upped the ante. Now we see Canon and Sony following suit. Before long, almost EVERY digital SLR will have a fold-out screen, just like the way things happened with the video camera market. The fold-out screen makes the screen more protected, when not in use, and it offers benefits in many many situations (like when reviewing images), not just while shooting in live-view mode. We didn't see fold-out screens on digital SLR cameras previously, because we didn't have live-view. Now we do, and many photographers are using it. We now have video capabilities too, and many photographers are using that too (me included). And while I realize that some photographers couldn't be bothered, many more would like to have that feature he sees other photographers using, and it will play a part in his next camera buying decision. Believe me, we have not seen the last of the fold-out screen on the digital SLR. They work. They are not too flimsy (did you ever see a fold-out screen fall off of or get knocked off of a video camera?), and they aren't very expensive (plenty of video cameras that sell for under $300 have them).
    The electronic viewfinder is just getting started. Wait until they incorporate night-vision (like a starlight scope has). Nobody will say they can't see well enough through one at night anymore. Personally, I really love the fact that the viewfinder shows how my image will be exposed BEFORE I press the shutter button. It's really great for shooting in manual exposure mode (like I do all the time). That's something I really missed when shooting with my Nikon D5000 and Canon 5 D. Now I will have that feature back, if I go ahead and buy the Sony. Hey! The more I think about it, the more I convince myself to go the Sony route. Hmmmm...
     
  231. Scott, you hit on my sympathies exactly. I used Minolta film cameras until hurricane Katrina took them from me. Even before the hurricane, I was looking seriously at the Canon 30D. In early 2006, when I was replacing my camera gear, I was about to buy the 30D, but Nikon came out with the D200, and I really liked the specs (and I really liked the camera, too).

    Now, however, when it’s time to upgrade, everything I am looking for has been on the Canon, and coming up short on the Nikon releases. The 7D seems to be the camera to beat, and I really thought that Nikon would release a good competitive model to butt against the 7D, but all we got was the D7000. I’ll wait until spring, but I can see me switching if they can’t do it.
     

Share This Page