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

[waltflanagan]

<p>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.<br>

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonyslta55/page8.asp<br>

If you are happy with all of that then by all means please buy the Sony.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Left, you are kidding, right?</p>

<blockquote>

<li>Autofocus: <strong>39pt</strong> / 9pt / 15 point </li>

<li>Body: <strong>Mg sealed</strong> / Plastic / Plastic </li>

<li>Storage: <strong>Dual SD</strong> / SD / SD & Mem.Stick </li>

</blockquote>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>If anybody wants something cheaper, there is always the D3100.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>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.<br>

<br>

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.<br>

<br>

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.<br>

<br>

Aren't flame wars fun?</p>

[Richard Williams]

<p>'As I said before, the D7000 price is $1200 for the body only, not $1500 as you keep repeating.'</p>

<p>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!</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>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.</p>

[j.art.photo.]

<p>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.<br>

The sb700 also sounds great but I need stroboscopic capabilities and the sb800 suits them perfectly.<br>

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. <br>

As you can see I have my ANS in check.</p>

[marekd]

<p>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... :/</p>

[dan_ded]

<p>Does the prism housing on this camera clear the PC lenses?</p>

[leslie_cheung]

<blockquote>

<p>Left, you are kidding, right?</p>

<li>Autofocus: <strong>39pt</strong> / 9pt / 15 point </li>

<li>Body: <strong>Mg sealed</strong> / Plastic / Plastic </li>

<li>Storage: <strong>Dual SD</strong> / SD / SD & Mem.Stick </li>

<p>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.<br /> 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.<br /> If anybody wants something cheaper, there is always the D3100.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>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...</p>

<p>AF points? tell that to any leica or any medium format users. Again, depends on the user and his work.</p>

<p>Plastic vs. Mag? Plastic is lighter...never heard that plastic broke down during a shoot...</p>

<p>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...)</p>

<p>I hear the d7000, new Pentax and A55 all use the same Sony sensor...true?</p>

[johnw63]

<p>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.</p>

<p>Now, if the D300s gets a price drop, if a replacement comes out, then.... ?</p>

[karenf]

<p>It sure doesn't made the choice between the D7000/D300/D300s/(what?/how much?/when?... if ever) D400 any clearer.</p>

[RaymondC]

<p>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. </p>

<p>If I was on the market I would prefer the cheapest camera with maybe 2 scroll dials but 25MP. </p>

<p>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.</p>

[RaymondC]

<p>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. </p>

<p>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. </p>

<p>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. </p>

[scottelly]

<p>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.<br>

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!<br>

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.<br>

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.<br>

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.</p>

[scottelly]

<p>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).<br>

How much is a GPS kit for a Nikon or Canon?</p>

[Albins images]

<p ><a name="00XISv"></a>[<a href="../photodb/user?user_id=749786">Ray -</a> 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."<br />...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.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >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..</p>

[jose_angel]

<blockquote>

<p>Well Nikon people, I have nothing against Nikon . . . just against their decision to leave off the articulated screen in the new D7000</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I`m not in this product type target, I see you`re not too (although for different reasons).<br /> 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.<br /> 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.<br /> 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...</p>

[bmm]

<p>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.</p>

<p>I'm thinking in terms of shooting RAW. Is there anything that one would save as one of these two User Presets that would <strong>permanently</strong> 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?)</p>

<p>Of course I understand they will be great for JPG shooters who want to set up a couple of shooting 'profiles' of their own.</p>

[Richard Williams]

<p>'...but at least both the big companies are screwing us by the same amount.'</p>

<p>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...</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Scott Kennedy:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>My main gripe is that the D7000 does not have an articulating fold-out screen, like the D5000.<br>

</blockquote>

<blockquote>

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.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>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.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I hear the d7000, new Pentax and A55 all use the same Sony sensor...true?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Leslie, please read the very first bullet item in my opening post that started this thread, concerning the D7000's sensor:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>A Nikon-designed 16.2MP CMOS sensor</p>

</blockquote>

<p>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.</p>

<p>It looks like Nikon has stopped using Sony sensors on their consumer DSLRs since the D3100, announced last month.</p>

[Hector Javkin]

<p>A question I haven't seen answered in the discussion or the specs: does the D7000 have AF Fine-Tune?</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>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: <a href="http://www.dpreview.com/previews/nikond7000/page2.asp">http://www.dpreview.com/previews/nikond7000/page2.asp</a></p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p><em>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.</em></p>

<p>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. <em>On average</em> 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 <em>significantly more compact</em> 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<blockquote>

<p><em>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...</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>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?</p>

<p>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!</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Amid all the negativity here... I'll just say... "Thanks, Nikon!"</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>We always have the question whether Nikon actually reads forums such as this one. I finally got the answer yesterday.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

 

<p>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.</p>

<p>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 <a href="../photodb/user?user_id=19054">Ilkka Nissila</a> who provided some examples in this recent thread: <a href="00XGHM">http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00XGHM</a>. 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.</p>

<p>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: <a href="http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/0085fV">http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/0085fV</a> See the diagram at the end of that thread. I would imagine that the D7000 could easily be $50 cheaper without it.</p>