D40 to D7000-- talk me into it.

[eric_arnold]

<p>elliot, thanks</p>

[elliot1]

<p>I had stated previously that I was noticing some purple fringing in my D7000 images. I have realized that the fringing is appearing when I open RAW files in CS5 - Nikon's software seems to automatically correct this and perhaps other issues. Very interesting.</p><div></div>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Elliot, exactly what are the images you are showing?</p>

<p>The D40 has a 6MP sensor that generates a 3008x2000 image. The D7000 has a 16MP sensor that creates a 4928x3264 image. For example, your D40 image <a rel="nofollow" href="../photo/12709234&size=lg">http://www.photo.net/photo/12709234&size=lg</a> is 1500x997.</p>

<p>Your D7000 image <a rel="nofollow" href="../photo/12709232&size=lg">http://www.photo.net/photo/12709232&size=lg</a><br />is 1500x994. Is that a crop or it has been scaled down? If it is scaled down, it would immediately hide all the flaws from the lens. That is precisly why Leslie Cheung's "test" does not make sense: <a href="00YF1N">Friendly Test for Shun or anybody else... </a></p>

<p>1500x994 is about 1.5MP. From the D7000, you are merging about 10 pixels to 1 and are treating it as a 1.5MP camera. I can understand why you don't see any difference using the 18-200 DX @ 200mm on the D40 and D7000.</p>

<p>P.S. The reason you see chromatic aberration/purple fringing is that different colors of light cannot focus onto the same plane. That is why the 18-200 is soft, especially on its long end. You can use software to treat the symptom, namely removing the color fringing, but you cannot fix the poor focus. In fact, that is a major reason I don't like the 18-200.</p>

[elliot1]

<p>It appears that when the files upload to P.Net, their size is changing. Not sure why and I have no idea how to upload the full sized image without compression. I would be glad to email the originally sized files if anyone want to see them.</p>

<p>And as stated previously, I am seeing a difference with the D7000 image being noticeably superior. What I am not seeing is any degrading of IQ when going from the D40 to the D7000 using the same lens as has been reported by various users. This is based on what I am seeing under extreme magnification in CS5 with the full resolution files. Again, I am not speaking for others, only me. I just don't see it when pixel peeping my images.</p>

<p>As far as treating the purple fringing, I am not doing anything other than opening the file in ViewNX2. Or opening the RAW file in Photoshop. I have noticed this same effect with Nikon's 70-200mm VRII.</p>

<p> </p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>without being an engineer, simple physics will tell you that an 11x zoom will perform better on a 6mp camera than an 16mp one. why? because the sensor far outresolves the lens in the case of the d7000. even DPReview noted the limitations of kit lenses on that high-MP sensor. They didnt put too fine a point on it, probably because they realize the d7000k is bundled with the 18-105, and many new DSLR owners wont have another benchmark of quality with which to judge lens performance. but there are more inherent compromises in an 11x zoom than a 6x zoom. the upshot of this for the OP is if he wants best performance, he may need to upgrade his glass--which is exactly what i said earlier in this thread.</p>

[kk_yu]

<p>i was going to go with the thread and try to convince you to get a d7000, but after reading, the d3100 is actually a very very good suggestion too.<br>

if you do mostly landscape and keep to AF-S glass, then the d3100 is way more economical.<br>

things i'd want the d7000 over a d3100 are for older lens use, sports/action photography, extreme low light, more buttons. but if you stick to landscapes, casual use, family/friends, the d3100 is more than up to it, for much cheaper. it's also much lighter, and smaller too.<br>

personal anecdote: my first DSLR was also a D40; i got it may 2007. i like to carry my cameras everywhere so size is pretty important to me. i had a D90 for a while, but sold it. when i did have it i didn't really like how much bigger it was. the d7000 i understand is a tiny bit beefier than the d90. however its AF ability and low-light ability, combined with fast FPS make me want it as a sports camera.</p>

[philip_tam]

<p>So here's my schpeal with the D3100... I currently have a D3100, D5000, and D7000. Generally speaking, that is the order I like them in, least to most.</p>

<p>The D3100 is nice and light. I actually like the form factor of the D40/d60 better however... the D3100 is kind of pudgier. The D3100 is good in that it has ISO100 base, which is *critical* for me for flash sync speed issues (fill flash) and also long exposures, such as daylight ND grad exposures.</p>

<p>The D3100 however, has crazy shutter lag.</p>

<p>D5000: for all the talk of the D3100 antiquating the D3100, I still like the D5000 a bit better. It has the quietest shutter sound of any SLR I have ever used. I also like the articulated screen for low tripod shots (you ever try to look through a viewfinder with the camera 8in. off the ground?). The shutter is a bit faster than the D3100, and at least some tests say that the D5000 has better dynamic range at low ISO (it has a D90 sensor). The D3100 has better high ISO performance, but dynamic range is underwhelming. My major gripe about the D5000? ISO200 base... same as the D90.</p>

<p>D7000 just beats both cameras. It's faster, more rugged, more responsive (very little shutter lag), faster shot to shot times, better resolution, better dynamic range, etc. etc. It has custom settings, it has depth of field preview, it has a virtual horizon, AI-S support, AF-D support., off-camera flash support, need I go on?<br>

<br />The question is, do you need all of this? I most certainly wanted it. I was waiting for it... a base ISO100 camera, more featured than the D90, and smaller than the D300s. Nikon gave me exactly what I wanted.</p>

<p>If however, my feature list was somewhat less ambitious... I'd be happy with a D90, and the extra $600 in my pocket. Oh how I could spend that $600 in lenses...</p>

[johne37179]

<p>I went from a D70 to the D7000. It is kind of like going from walking to an F-16. I have been a photographer for nearly 60 years, including about a dozen years in advertising photography. The leap represented by the D7000 is revolutionary, not evolutionary. I now have pushed about 2000 images through the camera and continue to have the WOW factor. The thing that impresses me the most is the low noise, high ISO, available light capabilities. There are two other very impressive features -- the camera is incredibly fast. Virtually no lag from finger to capture. In part it is the really short delay to tripping the shutter, but has more to do with the buffer. You simply cannot overload the buffer. It will hold about a hundred NEF images. This means that you can shoot as fast as you can and the camera will never slow down. I have a couple of 27 inch monitors and the image quality is amazing. You are going to want a large monitor and lots of memory because the images are large. at better than 15 MB per image, you need lots of memory for images, backups and to burn them to hard copy. <br>

I bought the battery grip as well and the whole thing has a great feel in my hand. I started digital photography with the D-1. The D7000 is a quantum leap from your D40. Get the camera, it is a no brainer. Plan on spending a lot, and I mean a lot of time learning its capabilities -- they will amaze you.<br>

I worked with Adorama on new lenses as well. I had not ordered from them before and in a shameless plug, let me say they were a delight to work with. They took time on the phone to answer questions and were professional and fully informed from start to finish.</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>I went from a D50 (basically the same as your D40) to a D90 last year. HUGE improvement, so your improvement to a D7000 would be even greater... but...</p>

<p>If you only ever view files on-screen or at 8 x 10 or lower, a well shot photo with a D50 looked the same printed as the D90. The same. Now, low light capability is another story.</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>Elliot, some of your sharpening seems extreme! How do prints work out.</p>

[elliot1]

<p>The attached crops are from the full size sample I posted. The RAW files were opened in ViewNX2, converted to JPGs and then opened in CS5 so I could set up the file as you see it. There was no processing done to them whatsoever.</p>

<p>I see no deterioration in IQ with the D7000 using my 18-200mm lens, and as you can see, there is really only a bit of a difference from 6mp to 16mp - I am not saying there isn't a difference, just that the difference is not huge. Gather from it way you may. I am thrilled with the D7000. Its auto white balance is the best of any Nikon camera I have used. Its shutter is the quietest of any Nikon camera I have used. The ergonomics are excellent. And the image quality is superb. And its high ISO performance is the best of any DX camera currently available.</p>

<p>And if you are not getting good results with all your lenses, including those that don't cost $2000, I don't know what to tell you.</p><div></div>

[steven_ford1]

<p>John, what speed cards are you using on your D7000? My only (minor) gripe with the D7k has been the buffer limit, which I sometime's tap out on while burst shooting birds in flight.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>If you shoot action such as sports and wildlife with the D7000 with RAW files, buffer is definitely an issue. The first time I took my D7000 out to shoot wildlife, I ran into that problem within 15 minutes. Using lossy compressed RAW will help because the D7000 can write those about twice as fast. If you use lossless compressed RAW, it'll be a problem.</p>

<p>Sorry Elliot, I do see sharpness problems in your images, especially the upsized D40 one, but that is expected. There are also issues in your RAW processing workflow as you described; that confuses the results. I always feel that different criteria to evaluate quality and sharpness is the real reason why you are happy with certain lenses that a lot of photographers and reviewers dismiss.</p>

<p>I should apologize to Brian Chambers, the OP here. He is merely asking about upgrading from a D40 to D7000. This thread is not meant to be the continuation of the discussion about the D7000 requiring higher-quality optics started by Craig Supplee a few days earlier: <a href="http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00YCJ8">Poor IQ from Nikkor18-200 3.5/5.6 VR on D7000 </a></p>

[donholmes]

<p>I started with Nikon film cameras......have since owned and still own (2) D50's, a D80, a D90; and my<br>

son presently owns a D7000......from my and my son's experience, I would highly recommend<br>

the D7000.....unless you would rather wait for the D300/300s replacement...</p>

[johne37179]

<p>Shun: The D7000 has a 100 MB buffer and writes very fast. I shoot fast, but not continuous and do shoot RAW files (without the .jpg backup to the second drive). I have yet to run into a buffer problem. Every other camera I have owned did have a buffer issue after about a dozen images or less. Maybe my 70 year old finger isn't as fast as it used to be. But short of using continuous shooting in some sports settings, i find it hard to imagine that you would run up against a buffer limitation.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>John, fast and slow is all relative. To begin with, the D7000 uses SD memory cards, which are slower than the fastest CF.</p>

<p>I used to have buffer full issues occasionally when I was using the D2X back in 2005 to 2007. In late 2007 I switched to the D300 which is UDMA compatible and can write 1 lossless compressed RAW filter per second with a 15-frame buffer. In 3+ years of using the D300 @ 8 frames/sec, I have yet to run into buffer full even once. For full-time sports photographers, the much deeper D3S buffer would likely be a plus.</p>

<p>As I said, in the first day I took my D7000 out to shoot wildlife, I ran into buffer full several times. That same afternoon I shot surfing and ran into that same problem some more times. Since then I have switched to lossy compressed RAW that cuts the file size in half, but I still shoot in the 14-bit mode. I find that switching to the 12-bit mode does not help much. On the D300/D300S, I have to use 12-bit since the 14-bit mode tops at 2.5 frames/sec.</p>

<p>If you are coming from a D70, D80, or D90, I am sure the D7000 will feel fast, but for those who are familiar with the D3/D3S, D700, and D300/D300S, the D7000 is a step backward.</p>

<p>Since the OP is a landscape photography, buffer write speed is probably a completely moot point.</p>

[brian_chambers2]

<p>No need to apologize and I appreciate all of the input.  I think I am going to go ahead and get the D7000. It seems like lots of people are pretty impressed with the camera. If I am disappointed in the image improvement I guess I could always return it.  I didn't mention it in my original post but I am doing a bit of sports including our town's soccer league wants me to take action shots of the games to post on the web.  So I think the D7000 might work better for that than the D3100.  Again thanks for the help and all of the thoughtful replies.  Brian</p>

[zack_zoll]

<p>Brian-</p>

<p>I know I'm the perenial party pooper, but in the future I'd go with the 'if you need to be talked into it than you don't need it' theory. Shopping with my own wallet - and you may have a crazy supply of disposable income that I do not - there are so many things that you could potentially need to improve your work that it isn't worth worrying about the things you aren't finding any fault with.</p>

<p>For my personal work, I mostly shoot a Hasselblad, even though I have been a loyal Nikon user for 21 years. My lenses are all old, some of them with coatings that are at best mediocre by today's standards. I could afford to upgrade them to the modern ones, but despite the worse coatings I notice no loss in performance for what I'm using them for. Instead, I use that money on props, costumes, etc.</p>

<p>I'm not saying don't get the D7000. It is a much better camera, and I'll be buying one myself soon. But I wouldn't go buying new lenses for sports or anything just because people on this board post photos that X is better than Y. If you're practicing and striving for improvement, than by all means buy whatever tools you need to take the photos that you want. But if you're perfectly content with the pictures you're getting, don't throw money down the drain.</p>

<p>Take a vacation or something instead. Or use the money for a guided tour of a wilderness park. You'll take infinitely better photos actually taking photos than you will letting people talk you into more gear that ties up money.</p>