D7000

[louise1]

<p>I've had a D200 since early 2006. I've held onto it and rather than upgrading every two years, and put some money into glass. Now I'm ready to upgrade. I've been patiently waiting for the next version of the full frame D700 which might have HD video. About half of my lenses will work with full frame. I don't imagine that the D700 replacement will be announced any time soon with the devastation in Japan, and even then, I imagine that the availability will be sparse. <br>

I'm planning a trip in May and I'll want to be photographing a lot. My D200 is in need of a thorough servicing and cleaning. So I'm about ready to go and pick up a D7000 to bring with me so that I will have access to video, but mostly I'll be shooting landscapes. <br>

I recognize that this will be a bit of a step up in technology from my five year old D200, but how much of a step down will it be from the D300s which is also a contender?<br>

I held the D7000 and it seems lighter and smaller in my hand than the D200. I shoot raw and manual only. <br /><br />I imagine some of you made the upgrade from a D200 to either the D7000 or the 300s. Impressions? <br>

Lenses are <br>

50mm 1.4<br />24mm 2.8<br />60mm 2.8<br />18-200mm 3.5/5.6<br />25-105mm 3.5/5.6<br />17-55mm 2.8<br />12-24 mm f4 (tokina)<br /><br /> </p>

[daverhaas]

<p>Despite what Nikon says - the D7000 is not a step down from the D300s. </p>

<p>The D7000 is different in the following ways<br>

1) Smaller / lighter than the D300(S)<br>

2) Uses SD cards - not Compact Flash<br>

3) Uses a new and improved battery<br>

4) has a slightly slower frame rate on C(H)<br>

I'd go for the D7000 in a heartbeat over the D300s. Again - keep in mind that you're going to have to get a new backup battery and new memory cards.</p>

<p>Dave</p>

 

[wpahnelas]

<p>in spite of being a smaller, lighter body, the D7000 is not a "step down" from the D300s so much as a great leap ahead of the D200. you will probably be so overwhelmed by the improvements in image quality and handling that you won't be spending much time thinking about what might have been. the D300s will be superseded at some point, probably later this year, but that's a whole different ballgame -- and not a practical alternative for your travels, at any rate. unless you don't like the form factor of the D7000, i feel almost certain you'll be quite satisfied with upgrading to it.</p>

[louise1]

<p>Thanks for that. The battery was not something I'd thought of! And I hadn't realized about the compact flash not being used. However I have a little canon G10 that uses sd cards, so it's nice to know that those would be interchangeable. Do you find battery drainage an issue? I imagine that with hd video it is. </p>

[elliot1]

<p>While there are improvements in image quality, they are only noticeable/visible under certain shooting circumstances. Tthe D7000 will be vastly improved at higher ISOs. At base or very low ISO, it would probably be difficult to tell any difference between the two. If you are making very large prints or posters, you will see an improvement there as well with the D7000.</p>

<p>While the battery is different, a 2nd battery is affordable if needed. It certainly should not be a deal breaker. I am finding that I am can shoot well in excess of 2000, possibly 2500 shots or more with the D7000 battery. For its size, its performance is amazing. By comparison, the D3 battery is probably 3 times larger or more and gives about the same performance. SD memory cards are also very inexpensive if you don't need the high speed ones.</p>

[alan_bessler]

<p>The D300s is a big upgrade from the D200 for sure I have both. The D7000 is in my opinion a different class of camera from the D300s so I don't think it should really be compared to a D300s. By the way I would not wait too long for upgrades from Nikon with everything going on over there,but thats another story all together.</p>

[photo5]

<p>The D7000 is a step down from the D300s in terms of AF speed and buffer size. The D7000 body is also not built as strongly as the D300s, though that doesn't mean the D7000 is not a well built camera. The D300s is in a bracket above the D7000 in terms of it being marketed more toward pros, the D7000 is marketed more toward advanced amateurs. <br>

I would also buy the D7000 over the D300s if I were in your position. You are going to get a more advanced camera that has better high ISO performance and more pixels which to some means better image quality.</p>

[craig_gillette]

<p>I have a D200 and have handled the D7000. I didn't particularly like the feel, from a hand-size standpoint, but expect I could learn to live with it. I don't think the focus system and buffer size issues compared to the D300s will be important if mostly shooting landscapes and even more dynamic subjects, seem likely to be a noticeable step up from the D200. </p>

<p>I've got to think that any follow-ons to any of the cameras will be delayed to some extent and any D300 successor is likely to be scarce for a while anyways, much as the d7000 was selling like hotcakes before even actually available. </p>

[louise1]

<p>More helpful responses. I don't point and shoot, and if I do, my canon G10 does the trick. I was making a living at photography and design for most of the last decade and earlier, but for the past 4 years I have a different career. I am now and then brought back to do a shoot for a client however. I suspect that in the next year - 18 months I'll go back into the design/photo field for work and at that time I'm likely going to invest in what ever the next iteration of the D700 is, and pick up one or two FX lenses. I'd pick one up today, but buying a camera that is 3 years old seems silly. I rented the D300 two summers ago and at the time it didn't seem enough of a leap from the D200 to just upgrade to it, and while the Canon 5D II appealed on so many levels, I have invested in glass that is nikon, so I decided not to be impulsive, and just wait for a full frame nikon with HD video. I'm still waiting of course. <br>

My needs right now for a system are for my own pure shooting pleasure at least for the rest of the year. I know that I could limp along with my D200 for another year, but I'm planning to take a few overseas trips where having a system that does well in low light would be ideal. </p>

 

[ShunCheung]

<p>Louise, I have a D200, a D300, a D7000 and some other bodies. The fact of the matter is that the D7000 is a step up from the D300/D300S in certain ways (newer electroncis, better high-ISO results, much better video) and half a step down from the D300 (weaker AF, slower frame rate, shallower buffer) in certain ways. People debate about that to no end depending on which aspects they are looking at.</p>

<p>If you mainly shoot landscape, you shouldn't care about AF speed and RAW buffer much, and if you are also interested in video, the D7000 is a no brainer. The D7000 currently has the best video capability among all Nikon DSLRs, much better than the D3S and D300S, but even the D7000's video still has a lot of limitations.</p>

<p>Your main issue is that the D7000 uses different memory cards and betteries from the D200. SD cards are dirt cheap nowadays and the price for the EN-EL15 has come down; it used to be around $60 and now it is about $45. In fact, I just ordered a 3rd one. If you are going on a trip, I would have at least 1 spare.</p>

<p>Another issue is that the D7000 is demanding on lenses. You'll likely find that some of your old lenses are not that great on the D7000.</p>

<p>All of these DX DSLRs are made in Nikon Thailand so that the effect from the earthquake is not as serious, but all it takes is the shortage of one part from Japan and that can hold up the entire production line.</p>

[louise1]

<p>Shun, thanks for your response (nice to hear from you). The line that caught my eye here is this<br>

"Another issue is that the D7000 is demanding on lenses. You'll likely find that some of your old lenses are not that great on the D7000." Would you elaborate on this? Given the lens line up below, which ones might I have issues with? I'm taking a trip to the western part of scotland and I'll of course not be taking all of these lenses. I'm leaning on the D7000 purchase based on what I'm reading here. And I usually like to take my 50mm, the 12-24mm and the 17 - 55mm. The 60mm is tack sharp, but I don't usually travel with it. <br>

50mm 1.4<br />24mm 2.8<br />60mm 2.8<br />18-70mm 3.5 - 5.4<br />18-200mm 3.5/5.6<br />25-105mm 3.5/5.6<br />17-55mm 2.8<br />12-24 mm f4 (tokina)"</p>

[kellymjones]

<p>I went from the D200 to the D7000 a few months ago and was at first a little dismayed at the handling of the D7000 compared to the D200. In particular, it was lighter, the controls were different, and I just had this feeling that the D7000 did not handle as well. <br>

Fast forward to today. After using the D7000 exclusively for several months, I decided to take the D200 out for a spin. Guess what, I was a little dismayed at the handling of the D200! It was heavier, the controls were different, etc...<br>

So, my opinion is that the D7000 is a great upgrade from the D200. The shutter is quiet, the shutter release is a little more sensitive (which I like), the LCD is much better, the high ISO quality is great, and I can do a little video if needed. I don't shoot sports, so the smaller buffer (compared to the D300s) is not an issue. The 100% viewfinder is helpful as well.<br>

Have a great time on your trip!</p>

[kellymjones]

<p>One more thing. The battery life with the D7000 is GREAT. </p>

[daverhaas]

<p>You will probably have issue with your 18-70, 18-200 and 25-105... There is another thread here already about people complaining that that 18-200 VR I and the D7000 are not a good marriage.</p>

<p>I haven't shot my D7000 with anything other than a 28-70 f2.8 or a 70-200 f2.8 - so I can't comment directly on the softness issues with the 18-200 or 18-70 although I do have both of those lenses.</p>

<p>Dave</p>

 

[ShunCheung]

<p>Louise, we have had a number of threads on the D7000 being demanding on lenses, e.g. those two from this past weekend:<br>

<a href="00YPsY">http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00YPsY</a><br>

<a href="00YOoC">http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00YOoC</a></p>

<p>I don't have most of the lenses you have, but I would suspect that those super zooms and old designs such as the 24mm/f2.8 won't fare very well. It should be fine as long as you reduce the size of your images from the D7000; in other words, you won't be able to take full advantage of the 16MP unless you have excellent optics.</p>

<p>The D7000's battery life (or should I say it is the EN-EL15?) is indeed excellent. Last Sunday I captured about 1200 tennis images with a lot of chimping throughout the day, and I only used like 2 bars on the battery meter. I could have gone thru the whole 2 days with one battery. The weather was hot, though; I am sure that helped battery usage.</p>

<p>If you are leaving on a trip in May, I would get the new camera now so that you have over a month to get familiar with it. It is doubtful that Nikon will introduce anything new in the next few weeks given the situation in Japan.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>The D7000 is a good choice for landscapes; it features ISO 100 with exceptionally good tonality and dynamic range for a DX camera. The D300s would be a better choice for shooting moving subjects like people, sports, etc. I got the D7000 recently and the body ergonomics and AF give me some grief, but for landscape details and macro it's excellent. I will keep the body as my detail camera for the time being but ultimately (i.e. within 2-3 years) I want a high-pixel-density FX camera that will work well for all my photography (I don't need high fps). The D700's successor will likely fit that role while being more compact and less expensive than the D3X. </p>

<p>I would not worry about the lenses; the higher resolution of the sensor just means that you can exploit the optimum aperture of your best lenses to yield better definition of detail, while at the less optimal apertures (i.e. wide open or stopped down to f/11) or with less great lenses the results will just merely be bigger files but no improvement in detail (except possibly at high ISO but that's not relevant to landscape photography). At its best a print from the D7000 is <em>really </em>sharp.</p>

<p>However, I would highly recommend taking your time with the D7000 body and making sure that you're comfortable with its ergonomics. Notice the cost of new SD cards, batteries, and MC-DC2 cable release which are all incompatible with your D200's corresponding accessories. The D300s has full accessory compatibility with your D200 and IMHO better ergonomics; the viewfinder eyepoint is greater and there is more space between the ocular and AF-ON button. On the other hand the live view implementation of the D7000 is superior.</p>

[CvhKaar]

<p>Louise, I think the D7000 and the D300s would both satisfy your needs from what I read.<br>

Just one small unimportant ( maybe) consideration. You say that you might want to go back making money through photography ( if i understood this right that is..).<br>

When you also would want to use Nikon's NPS, the D7000 does not count as a pro body, whereas the D300s does ( at least out here in Europe it does...).</p>

[louise1]

<p>Shun, thank you! I'll read through those posts. If I do go with the D7000 I might pick up an off brand lens (sigma perhaps) that's fast but compatible, one that would be a good stand in for the ones that won't fair well. <br>

CPM, thank you. I meant that when I'm ready to jump back in, I'll go with what ever the next iteration of the D700 is. I got away with the D200 for product shots and some portraiture, and work for our design business. But for what I have in mind I'd upgrade to full frame. <br>

the D7000 is attractive between now and when that next body comes in, and the video will also come in handy I guess. <br>

I see there's a possible announcement in Taiwan tomorrow by Nikon. Who knows, maybe? <br>

I looked carefully through the DPreview comparisons, and I have to say I liked the image quality of the D300s over the D7000. If I was smart I guess I could rent a body for my trip. </p>

[bruce_rubenstein]

<p>I've been shooting weddings and B'nai Mitzvahs with a D200 since the end of 2005 and a D80 since 2007, and got a D7000 in January. The D7000 is a substantial improvement over the D200 in terms of metering, AF, battery life and lower image noise. It captures more detail than the D200, but how much more depends on technique and viewing. If you always use a HD tripod, mirror locked up and view your images (preferably resolution charts) at 400% with your nose in the screen there's a difference. Same sort of thing with lenses; the ones you have will work fine. So far as the difference in build quality between the D7000 and the D300 goes...If you're planning on vacationing in downtown Tripoli in the next few weeks, yeah, maybe, but you'd still have to find the right conditions that would break a D7000 but not a D300. </p>

[nsibulo]

I got a new Nikon D7000 this March and I really enjoyed the quality of pictures. I did not have problem

learning it because I still have my Nikon D300. There are some differences in the function button and it

took a while to locate the ISO adjustments. I will use Nikon D7000 as a primary and the Nikon D300 will be

my back up. Both of them are equipped with battery grips and interchangeable lenses. I also enjoyed the

HD 1080 video coverage using only a mono-pad.

[david_ralph1]

<p>Louise,</p>

<p>I have both the D700 and D300. The only thing that I would miss from those two cameras on a D7000 is the ability to quickly bracket shoot, say with a high speed burst, an HDR scene, which I sometimes do for landscapes. Doing an HDR with a sunset, or cloudy sky, can serve the same purpose as having a set of grad filters attached to the camera. I know some photogs who claim they leave the grads in the bag, or at home now.</p>

<p>Outside of that, the D7000 sounds like a better landscape camera than my D300, for many of the reasons set out here and in the other board trails. I, for one, am not ready to give up ripping off fast HDR bursts. Too much fun, and impossible shots become possible. But, most folks are not too concerned with that ability.</p>

<p>I am happy enough with these bodies that I'll wait for the follow up bodies from Nikon. But, mine are working just fine. I suppose for an interim replacement, if I needed a body right now, I'd vote for the D7000. On the same rationale for my preferring the D700 to the D300 -- higher ISO, cleaner shots in more difficult light. You will see that in the D7000 over the D200 in spades.</p>

<p>Then there is Thom Hogan, who always has detailed comparisons of the Nikon bodies, tested to a fair thee well.<br>

http://www.bythom.com/nikond300review.htm<br>

http://www.bythom.com/nikond7000review.htm</p>

<p>Have fun on your trip.</p>

<p>Dave Ralph</p>

[chris_letts]

<p>if you can, wait, wait, wait !<br>

Circumstances permitting, everyone seems to be expecting new Nikons sometime soon (e.g. D400) which might be a more direct D200 replacement.<br>

That's what I'm doing with my D200 waiting .. and waiting......... and taking photos of course</p>

[louise1]

<p>this is all really helpful. I have a D7000 on hold at the store and will pick it up tomorrow morning. What fun! I'lll then look forward to upgrade full frame, what ever that might be, and when it comes out. In the meantime I'll enjoy this system. <br>

I am thinking about picking up a new lens, but am mindful that I want to save my pennies for the fx lenses I will need, so I might just go off label and pick up a sigma. Any suggestions as to what will work well this body? </p>

[bruak]

<p>Wow there have been some great responses to louise's query. I'm also thinking about the D7000 and this has been very helpful.<br>

Louise, if your considering a Sigma you might look into the recent 24-70 HSM. I have one nad have found it to be an excellent lens. Big though, with an 82mm filter.</p>

[CvhKaar]

<blockquote>

<p>I am thinking about picking up a new lens, but am mindful that I want to save my pennies for the fx lenses</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Then louise, why not go for an FX lens straight away, it will perform very good on DX too...<br>

Depending on Budget, and what you want to shoot, there is plenty quality choice among the Nikkors... <br>

Just an example : the new 28-300 which is not cheap but value for money , i think.....<br>

Review : <a href="http://thephototourist.com/2010/09/review-28-300mm-lens.html">http://thephototourist.com/2010/09/review-28-300mm-lens.html</a></p>