paul_g9

<blockquote>

<p>Elliot - I did look at the D7000 when it came out. But it just does not have the pro features I've got used to. For example battery life - admittedly I do over shoot but I can end up with almost 1000 images after a 20min show, and then its running to the next venue to shoot again, on the busiest days 9 shows a day.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Concerning the battery life in a D7000, I get easily over 1,500 shots with a LOT of chimping on a single charge. I've managed to push it over 2,000 once. So with a grip and spare battery you're looking at well over 3,500 shots and maybe as high as 4,000. </p>

<p>I'd say the biggest downside of a D7000 for you would probably be the buffer size. In raw it starts to slow down around 11-12 shots which sounds too limiting for you.</p>

 

<p>FYI, the bird is a Peregrine Falcon which by many accounts is the fastest bird in the world. (If it's not, it's not off by much.) I believe there is a resident pair right near the big ferris wheel on Coney Island.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Jamie, looking at your last comment I'd suggest you do some searching on this board and elsewhere about wedding photography. I've never done it (and don't ever plan to), but I've read enough comments from people who do it professionally to know that you should probably expect to need two cameras, two zooms (one longer, one wider), and at least one good flash preferably with an external battery pack. So maybe you should consider getting a D7000 now along with one of the lenses you'll need plus a flash with the thought that you'll need a second body (D800?) to do this professionally. Hopefully some of the wedding pros can weigh in with first-hand experience.</p>

<p>Jamie, I can second David's comments about battery life. I've only managed to drain the battery in my grip and roll over to the in camera battery once, and it took about 1,800 shots to do it plus a fair amount of chimping. For the D7000 you buy the grip for balance and vertical shooting, not because you need more battery.</p>

 

<p>Robert, here's <a href="http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=1135477&l=9ea85c62e6&id=100000074584928">a link to a photo I put up on Facebook</a>. It's a shot of a bat taken after sunset in Texas using the D7000 this past April. It was shot at ISO 6400. It's not great, but I only applied noise reduction using Aperture 3, not any of the higher-end noise tools. The photo isn't killer, but I was thrilled by the fact that I managed to get a reasonable shot at all. FYI, that tiny little tail hanging out there is why they're called Free-tailed Bats.<br>

<br /><br>

<br /></p>

<p>Robert, from all I've read I believe your analogy is a little faulty. It might be better to say that with a standard video source, the two 50" TV images will look about the same. If, however, your put that standard video source on a 72" HDTV, the flaws in the signal might now become more apparent and look worse than on the 50" TVs.</p>

<p>So if you're happy with your D90 images in the size that you use them (web size, 8x10" prints, etc.), you will be at least as happy with the D7000 image. If you crank up the size because you now have four more megapixels, lens flaws might become apparent.</p>

 

<p><em>"I’m interested in the D7000 over the D90 for one reason, less noise at higher ISO, which I need for birds in flight with slower lenses."</em></p>

<p>I upgraded from the D90 to the D7000 for bird photography, and am very happy I did it. The reasons I did it were, in decreasing importance:</p>

<ul>

<li>Better autofocus (definitely better than the D90)</li>

<li>Higher ISO (I'll go 2/3-1 stop higher than the D90)</li>

<li>6 fps (extra frame rate is nice for BIF)</li>

<li>More MP (for cropping reasons rather than full sized image quality)</li>

<li>Dual SD cards (only needed it twice, but it was nice to have it)</li>

<li>100% viewfinder (has come in handy a few times)</li>

</ul>

<p>As many explained above, the images from the D7000 have never seemed "worse" to me than those from the D90 and often look better. I shoot mostly with the Nikon 300mm f/4 (w/ and w/o a TC1.4) but also the 70-300mm, 18-200mm, 18-105mm, and the new 35mm f/1.8. One thing to keep in mind, however, is that the D7000 apparently has a strong filter and requires more sharpening. I use Aperture 3 and I increase Apple's initial image sharpening for the D7000. I also tend to sharpen more at the end. </p>

<p>I'm really happy with the results over the D90, though I would not have upgraded just for that amount of image quality improvement. I really got it for the features.</p>

 

<p>B&H has the 8GB Extreme Pro SDHC for $37, 16GB for $69, and 32GB for $139. </p>

<p>They also have a 128GB 100MB/s Sandisk Extreme Pro Compact Flash card for $1,150. That's pretty much the cost of my D7000 body!</p>

 

<p>Shun, thanks for that very informative link. </p>

<p>I own PNY Class 6, SandDisk Extreme III, and SandDisk Extreme Pro cards. I find the difference in the buffer clear time when shooting raw bursts on the D7000 between my old PNY cards and my new SandDisk Extreme Pro cards to be really noticeable. From the chart provided, my SandDisk Extreme IIIs are nearly twice as fast as the PNYs. The SandDisk ExtremeIII is labeled as 30MB/s and the new SandDisk Extreme Pro is labeled as 45MB/s, so the difference should be noticeably larger.</p>

 

<p>I have a D7000 and on a recent trip had I filled my SandDisk Extreme Pro cards. I had to use my older PNY class 4 cards. When filling the buffer (easy to do with birds in flight on that camera), the write time to the PNY was painfully noticeable. If you're going to shoot action where you'll be pushing your buffer often, I'd suggest going as fast as possible. If not, feel free to save yourself some money and go a bit slower.</p>

 

<p><em>"Paul, as long as we all understand that lenses such as the 70-300mm AF-S VR and 80-400mm VR have much slower AF than the more expensive AF-S lenses, it is all fine."</em></p>

<p>Thanks for validating my initial point that a limiter switch isn't necessarily "a old way to solve a problem when technology wasn't up to it a couple of decades ago" but rather a useful tool for consumer priced lenses like "the 70-300mm" which "is a f5.6 at 300mm" since "you have a lot less light entering the AF module." Man, I do with that 70-300mm had a limiter switch.</p>

<p>As to much faster AF on more expensive lenses, I take your word for it.</p>

 

<p><em>"Paul, I wonder you have experience with the big AF-S teles such as the 500mm/f4 AF-S, 300mm/f2.8 AF-S, 200-400mm/f4 AF-S, etc."</em></p>

<p>Nope. As I said, I'm located firmly in the consumer price range of lenses. It appears that the OP is in the same boat. For those of us buying lenses in the sub-$2,000 range, limiters can be great. Discussion about lenses at the $6,000 or above range isn't really meaningful to this post. Maybe one day I'll get a chance to own one. The 300mm f/2.8 in particular seems like a very sweet piece of glass that would fit my needs well.</p>

<p><em>"Two years later when the 80-400 VR came on the scene, I already had two years of experience with AF-S lenses and of course the 80-400 compares very unfavorably."</em></p>

<p>I can believe that, but again it's not really germane to the original post or the usefulness of a limiter switch on a consumer priced lens.</p>

<p><em>"When Nikon updates the D300 and merges the advantages from the D300 and D7000, I am sure that my choice will change again."</em></p>

<p>From what I've heard from multiple bird photographers who shoot Nikon, you are hardly alone. It seems like a "D400" can't get here soon enough. I may have to consider it myself as I've read opinions that the AF on the older D300s is still better than the D7000. Not sure if it's true or not, but the expectation certainly seems to be that the "D400" AF will definitely exceed the D7000. The other upgrade I'd like is that bigger buffer. At 6fps, I hit it sometimes especially when photographing seabirds.</p>

 

<p><em>"Frequently I am no more than 10, 15 feet from the hummingbrids and they move around very rapidly. Focusing range limiting is the last thing I want because those birds will certainly go in and out of any zone over and over."</em></p>

<p>Note that in my post I explicitly said "when one is shooting songbirds in nearby vegetation or at some type of setup, the switch goes off." Hummingbird photography is done at flowers or feeders, i.e. a setup. So you pretty much just made one of my points for me. As I said before, it's a setting just like every other setting.</p>

<p><em>"If you take pictures mainly for bird ID purposes, the requirements are definitely very different."</em></p>

<p>Not just for ID purposes (though I have had the need for extremely long distance ID shots), but rather using the consumer end of the Nikon lineup. You say you shoot the 300mm f/2.8 and 200-400mm f/4 and then say the limiter switch is archaic, but the fact is that the AF response time is expected to be better in lenses in that price class. At least I would hope so for that kind of coin.</p>

<p>I think you're saying that if the AF speed of the consumer grade lenses was just as good as the pro level, then you wouldn't need a limiter. Do you think the 70-300mm is as fast as your 300mm f/2.8? If so, I'll continue to disagree with you. I've wanted a limiter on my 70-300mm so many times I've lost count. When the 70-300mm comes flying back to its minimum 5' or so focus, the target is completely lost. On BIF, that's unacceptable. I have to find it again as the AF moves back out. On the 80-400mm the AF is slower, but I don't lose my subject as easily since I can usually at least see the shape. Ditto for the 300mm. Busy backgrounds and other birds can easily cause loss of focus. The less searching the AF has to do to get back on track, the better.</p>

<p>Perhaps if I was shooting with a pro body and lens I might feel differently, but since I and the OP are not in that situation it doesn't really matter for this conversation. For the two lenses I use the most, the limiter works perfectly if you know how and when to use it. For my 70-300mm on either my D90 or D7000, it's a lack and sometimes a glaring one. If the other lenses are updated with similar AF speed to the 70-300mm, I'll take a limiter in a heartbeat.</p>

 

<p>To get the 1/200 sync speed you have to be in S or M mode. It makes sense when you think about it. Aperture priority mode is used to set aperture over shutter speed. When you start pushing shutter speed up to 1/200 while setting aperture you're getting close to manual setting mode anyway.</p>

<p>I have to disagree with Shun on two points. First, I've found the 80-400mm to be quite sharp. And although the focus is certainly slower than my 300mm f/4, I've managed to shoot some very nice birds in flight. Would it be nicer to have a $5K+ lens? Maybe, but of course then hand-holding may be out and you may be forced to use a tripod due to the weight. Depending upon the type of photography you do, that can be an enormous drawback. I do a lot of pelagic birding and tripods are worse than useless on a pelagic trip, they are a nuisance and a danger to other people.</p>

<p>Second, as far as I'm concerned a limiter switch should be included on every lens of 300mm or more. I don't really know Shun's photography style or needs, but in bird photography the case he's mentioning where an opportunity might suddenly pop up inside the limited range is a huge minority case as compared to missing shots because the lens focuses all the way back before going back out. The frequency between the two isn't even within an order of magnitude.</p>

<p>When one is shooting songbirds in nearby vegetation or at some type of setup, the switch goes off. When shooting ducks, herons, hawks, seabirds, larger songbirds, songbirds in trees, feeders where you know your distance, and most other birding situations, the limiter is on. It's a setting and like any other setting you have to know how to use it. BTW, the limiter sets minimum range to 16.4', hardly a range that birds get inside of very often unless you're at a setup in which case, as I mentioned, you turn the switch off.</p>

<p>If you're doing wildlife photography, particularly birds, don't ignore your limiter switch. It's a great tool.</p>

 

<p>I own both the Nikon 70-300mm and 80-400mm and like both. For general knocking around, you'll probably be happier with the 70-300mm since it's much lighter and more compact. You add a lot of weight with the 80-400mm, but if you need additional reach then it's really the way to go (unless you head for the 300mm f/4 and 1.4x TC which is an awesome bird photography combo).</p>

<p>I disagree with those who say that an extra 100mm doesn't make a big difference, especially on a DX camera. Racked all the way out, you're going from roughly 6X to 9X, or about a 33% increase in magnification. Ask an experienced birder if there's a difference between a 7x and a 10x binocular. There is, and it's big.</p>

 

<p>Bruce, like Elliot I also purchased two D7000s, one for me and one for my wife. They've been perfect for us as well. I was wondering what issues you had with yours that warranted a return.</p>

 

<p>I mostly shoot birds, so I either use single point AF-S for static subjects or 11 point AF-C for BIF. In fact, one of my user modes is set for BIF. It's set like this:</p>

<ul>

<li>AF-C</li>

<li>11 point</li>

<li>Auto-ISO with base 400, top 1600, and min. SS of 1/1000</li>

<li>EV +1.0 (starting point when shooting against the sky)</li>

</ul>

<p>That works pretty well for me.</p>

 

<p>Richard, does that mean that I would be able to buy just the $100 LC-A10 collar and there's a 1/4" threaded hole? The web site says it requires LCF-10 foot replacement, but I'm in the same boat as Raymond.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Nikon does not have data for:</p>

<ul>

<li>D7000 -- I assume it matches D5100. I can borrow a D7000 from a friend and measure it.</li>

</ul>

</blockquote>

<p>I have a D7000 and it goes to 11 ... just like in Spinal Tap.</p>

 

<p>John, I only wanted more megapixels because I do bird photography and sometimes I just have to crop more than I'd like to. I can afford a D7000, but a 600mm lens is out of the question!</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>It looks like there are other Nikon lens price increases. The 35mm/f1.8 AF-S DX is now $250 and still out of stock:</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The 35mm f/1.8 is<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-35mm-AF-S-Digital-Cameras/dp/B001S2PPT0/ref=sr_1_1?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1301594708&sr=1-1"> in stock on the Amazon site</a> from a retailer named Portable Guy for $349.95. The estimated selling price on Nikon's web site is still $199.95. Ouch!</p>

 

<p>Best site in New England is Stellwagen Bank because it's a marine sanctuary. The herring and mackerel are protected from commercial fishing, so there's nothing anywhere else in the area that comes close. Look for boats out of Gloucester, MA or Provincetown, MA. I don't have a specific boat to recommend, but one site does private small boat charters as well as the normal big boat trips. Here's the link to the charter info:<br>

<a href="http://www.seethewhales.com/general.htm#Additional%20Trips%20Available">http://www.seethewhales.com/general.htm#Additional%20Trips%20Available</a></p>

<p>I've only seen the aurora twice, but it moved quickly enough that a 30 second exposure would be nothing but color. Of course, YMMV. I suspect that you need a fast lens, good high ISO performance, and a slow aurora to get clean images.</p>

 

<p>I second (or third or whatever) the Nikkor 70-300mm as a light but overall very nice lens. If you want extra reach and if fast AF isn't a concern, I also love my Nikkor 80-400mm. It's a sharp lens, particularly if stopped down a little, and I've gotten good images all the way out to 400mm.</p>

<p>That being said, I now have the 300mm f/4 and the TC14-II. I'm shooting mostly birds and this is a killer combo. It's very sharp even wide open (f/4 bare, f/5.6 with the TC on) and has fast AF. If the zoom isn't that important to you, I'd suggest looking into it.</p>