glen_t

<p>Thanks for posting the shot, Shun--this is helpful. I would say it is underexposed, but not by much. The noise I had seen was more blotchy and random--almost exclusively in the shadows. The noise patterns I observed in the D200 and D7000 are similar. The D200's is just a bit more heavy-handed. I cannot say I have seen this issue in outdoor shots, at least the ones I take. Perhaps there is noise somewhere in those shots, but it certainly does not jump out at me. Likewise, at normal magnifications, my well-lit indoor shots seem pretty nice.</p>

<p>Thanks for the seller suggestions, but I tend to avoid the two you mentioned. If I am going to use a New York (metro area) seller, I prefer Cameta. I think they are in stock there, but I do not know how adequate their stock is.</p>

<p>With regard to discounts, I can remember introductory offers and other promotions, and the stock seemed to better. The D7000 introduction is more typical of the current Nikon approach. Not only was stock a serious issue upon release--and for months if I recall correctly--but I also recall some type of bug or issue with the early production.</p>

<p>I just did a quick search for D600 pricing and availablity, and I see it reflects the typical current Nikon strategy: be sure only a few sellers have it, offer no incentives or discounts, and make sure that useful acessories, such as the battery grip, are hard to find, too. It is very disappointing to see a "1-3 month" wait at Amazon, and only two sellers offering the high-priced MB-D14 (and one has only two units left).</p>

<p>After reviewing the comments here, I am going to give at least some consideration to the D600. Since its introduction, two things have been an obstacle for me with regard to this camera: 1) the price, and 2) the camera's impact on my manual focus lens collection. With regard to lenses, I do not mean here some type of issue with resolution, as my NPK/AI/AI-s collection produces fine results. What I mean is the FX effect on my manual focus lenses. I am concerned about falloff in the corners. If I spend nearly $2,500--that is the price for me, as I do not shoot without a vertical grip--I would not want to start seeing falloff. I just love this aspect of the DX format.</p>

<p>The 1/4000th top ss is also a bit of a downer. Does the camera show both ISO *and* remaining shots in the vf display? This is a "minor" thing that is of importance to me, too.</p>

<p>I appreciate the replies.</p>

<p>Shun: your comparison shots are interesting--thanks. I would never consider a D3200, as Nikon does not offer a vertical grip for it. The aftermarket grips use a goofy wire, too.<br>

<br />With regard to pushing in RAW, I rarely have to adjust by more than a third, plus or minus. Thus, there should be no problem here, and I have yet to notice any problem with noise whatsoever in going up or down a third of a stop.</p>

<p>Elliot: thank you--you have given me the most useful reply here.</p>

<p>Indeed, there are no miracles with these cameras--I could not agree more. Much of the marketing and talk seems to be describing something like a miracle, though.</p>

<p>I have tried to upload photos here, but the size limit is very small, 3mb. Most of my jpg files are 4 mb or more.</p>

<p>I do not want this thread to turn into a D7000 thread, as I am trying to decide between the D300s and D2xs (I have already tried the D7000, too). I will say, though, that I was expecting much more from the D7000. With all of the hype about this "less expensive" DSLR option, I did not see much difference. Going by what people have said, I was expecting to see noise-free shadows at ISO 800, and I did not. I have been shooting for ten years, and the shots I took with the D7000 were not underexposed. And even if they were underexposed, I could easily adjust this, as I shoot RAW and use Capture NX2.</p>

<p>To me, there is too much hype and bragging going on in regard to these newer cameras. Sure, they may be better in some ways, but I have yet to observe the night and day differences that so many have been raving about. The most notable differences I have observed in photography have come as a result of the guy (in my case) behind the camera. There is just no substitute for skill, experience, instinct, and, of course, good lighting. A good--prime--lens can help, too (I do not own a zoom).</p>

<p>My shots at ISO 800 and ISO 1000 are what surprised me. With so much talk of the D7000 being so good at 1600 or even higher, I expected the D7000 to handle 800 and 1000 with ease, with noise free performance at these sensitivities. I said only a "minor" difference because I did not want to insult D7000 owners or stir up trouble. The fact of the matter is that, at 800 and 1000, I really did not observe much of a difference at all. The D7000 was clearly not "clean" or "noise free" at ISO 800 and 1000. All I had to do was look at the shadows. I saw what I saw.</p>

<p>With regard to weight/size/feel, having paid over $1,200 for the D7000 and grip, the D7000 does not feel like the expensive camera it is.</p>

<p>Shun: Thanks...I tried the D7000 recently, but it just was not for me. The body is too small and light. Also, in the test shots I took, I saw only a minor improvement over the D200. My testing was not extensive, but between the size/weight issue and what I saw in the shots I took, it was enough for me to return the D7000...and begin looking for something else.</p>

<p>John, et. al.: Your comment about torque is interesting. Many users like the focusing performance of the 300s. Is there anything to consider with regard to manual focus lenses? I have a nice collection of NPK and AI/AI-s glass, and getting that "in focus" dot to light more easily and more quickly would be great. Again, the D200 is not bad, but I would like better performance here.</p>

<p>I have two Nikon D200s, and am still considering adding a body. The one thing that would be nice to have would be better focusing performance (both AF and MF) in low light. The D200 is not bad, but it could be better. Thus, I am considering the D300s and D2xs, as both are in my price range (used), and they are known to have solid AF performance. Which is better?</p>

<p>Some extra ISO performance would be nice, too...and I gather the D300s may get the nod there. I usually shoot up to ISO 800 or so.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Kent: my experience is similar to yours. Over the past ten years I have experimented with virtually every 35mm brand there is. I liked Nikon for most things, but other brands clearly had their good qualities, too. I wanted to experiment with medium format, but never got that far. Indeed, the Canon gear is tempting. The Pentax K-5 is also tempting. However, I like lager bodies, and the K-5 is one of the smallest on the market.<br>

Regards,<br>

Glen</p>

 

<p>Kent: I, too, have been considering Canon recently. My problem, though, is that I have a nice selection of Nikkor MF glass. </p>

<p>The 7D (and its replacement?) interest me. From what I can tell of my D7000 and its accessories, Nikon is increasing its China production. I see my D7000 is made in Thailand, but the MB-D11 and other items indicate "Made in China." I have also noted that many of Nikon's newer G lenses--even the more expensive primes--are made in China. Interestingly, Canon's 7D is made in Japan, and Canon's new G15 ($499) is also made in Japan, while Nikon's competing camera, the P7700 (also $499) is made in China. It seems that perhaps a pattern is emerging for Nikon. </p>

<p>I have a D7000 arriving today. Nikon's prices are pretty fixed. The D7000's list is $1,199, and it currently sells on-line for $996.95 (after having been just below $1,100 a few moths ago). I have found no particular "deal" on these cameras, and thus $996.95-$999 is the current retail price range (in the US).</p>

<p>Once I have it, I can get back to you with some initial impressions. I have been using Nikon equipment for years, and so I think my initial thoughts should be useful.</p>

<p>In terms of what may be coming down the pipeline, I respond: who knows? Some users have been waiting about three years (!) for a Nikon "D400." With FX being so popular, I doubt we will see such a camera.</p>

<p>No, I do not have a calibrating device yet. I am fairly new to digital, with about ten years of film photography experience. I use Nikon equipment and Capture NX2. Which calibrating device and/or software do you recommend? Also, the printer I have in my is the Epson R2000.</p>

<p>Thanks for the responses. I shoot RAW, and use Capture NX2. I try to keep things simple and natural.</p>

<p>I finally broke down and bought a Nikon D7000 and MB-D11 grip. I had handled the D7000 and grip in the past, and had thought it too small and light. However, the D7000 seems to be the best, most cost-effective way to "upgrade" from my D200. I am not parting with my D200; I just wanted another, more current body. </p>

<p>The skin tone rendering has been my other concern. The D200 seems to excel in this area. How does the D7000 perform? I tend to like a more natural look to my subjects--and not like the fake, over-saturated look that some films or sensors create.</p>

<p>Lisa B: you state the case for the D200, and its features and price point, better than I.</p>

<p>I cannot disagree with you, Michael, as better things do cost more money. In reviewing all of the comments here, including my own, I would have to say that, in comparison to other companies, Nikon may perhaps be the least guilty of any type of price hiking. I do not have any further information on this, and so I will leave it at that.</p>

<p>I suppose I, and some others here, are a bit jolted by what would seem to be a fast increase in DSLR prices. Your point about the F5 is interesting, especially in that the price quickly dropped from 3K to 2K. Today, I have not observed that trend. In fact, I have been expecting the D300s to drop with the introduction of the D600, and that has not happened--still basically list price if you want this rather "dated" design. Even with the advent of other competing cameras, various older Nikon DSLRs that are "discontinued," but still being sold new, maintain their lofty price points.</p>

<p>Please reread my post--I cite "better" photographic equipment. Throughout my commentary here, I have identified various features normally associated with semi-pro gear: superior build quality, real MLU, vertical grip/vertical release, better AF performance, and there are a number of others. Sure, the D3100 has a nice sensor and is a good entry-level or consumer-level DSLR. I am not discussing this matter, though.</p>

<p>Lisa B: Again, I agree. The additional markup on such things is not always proportional--or justified--in regard to the actual cost for producing such a technology. I suppose what we are really discussing here is buccaneer capitalism, which extends far beyond the realm of Nikon. At least Nikon still employs people in its native Japan, and has not completely sold out to China.</p>

<p>Yes, Shun, I have considered contacting the source. I just figured that since there are so many experienced Nikon DSLR users here, that perhaps there may be some that may be able to offer some experiential information or even an actual comparison (i.e. comparison photos).</p>

<p>I do not think my listing is "silly," as all of the cameras I have mentioned are available to be purchased new.</p>

<p>I have given serious consideration to the D7000. While it has many good features, it still seems like a toy of a camera. In the decade or so that I have been into photography, the D7000 is the only camera that I have ever dropped. It is quite small and light, and, upon close inspection, has quite a bit of plastic. From a slight fall, there was a crack in the plastic along the bottom edge of the grip. I do not have large hands, and yet I found the D7000 too small for me, even with the grip attached. Thus, am I willing to pay $1,200+ for the D7000 and corresponding grip? I would have to answer that such a purchase would be a half-hearted one.</p>

<p>I found the review. Here is the link:</p>

<p><a href="http://imaging-resource.com/PRODS/D2XS/D2XSIMATEST.HTM">http://imaging-resource.com/PRODS/D2XS/D2XSIMATEST.HTM</a></p>

<p>If you scroll down, you will see the curious words:</p>

<p>"...In the other direction, I was quite surprised to see the Nikon D2x place as low on the listings as it did, given that we found that camera's shadow detail to be little short of amazing. (The D2Xs does well in that area too, but not nearly to the level reached by the original D2x.)"</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Interesting points, Shun...</p>

<p>However, if you want to split hairs over pricing (though I had ranking more in mind), then the new and expensive D600 is rather way down the line. Not only is there the D4 at $5,999, but there is the mega-expensive D3x at $7,999, the D800E at $3,299, the D800 at $2,999, and the D700 at $2,699, all higher in cost to that of the D600, at $2,099.</p>

<p>I understand your prespective in terms of technology and cost, and even applaud Nikon for not moving its production completely to China (as many electronics outfits have). My point regards more of a "social" concern--how ordinary people are being fastly priced out of the realm of better photographic equipment. Basically, our only choice is used gear of the previous generation, and then, when we buy it and like something about it--and perhaps produce some good results with it--we are then told that we are neophytes because we use "obsolete" equipment.</p>

<p>Kent: if I understand you correctly, what you say is almost my point exactly. I was not trying to get into some complicated comparison involving cameras of differing formats, DX and FX. All I was trying to point out is that, in prior years, Nikon's semi-pro or "second down" camera was not a $2,000+ proposition (i.e. the D200 being second from the top, the D2 series). Now, one looks at the lineup and sees the third or fourth down, the new D600, at $2,100 (without grip...and tax, if one buys locally). The D4 and D800/E, at least, are ahead of the new D600. Some may even put the D700 ahead of the D600, thus making it fourth down...at $2,100.</p>

<p>Someone also suggests the purchase of a D7000 and MB-D11 grip, at about $1,400. In plain terms, anything much beyond the $1,000 price point is simply unapproachable for a middle class buyer. Further, the D7000 is not a true semi-pro camera, as it is not built to the standard of the D200 (again, once second down in Nikon's lineup). The D7000 is a decent choice, but it is not at the level of a D200--when the D200 was introduced.</p>

<p>Thanks, Shun...</p>

<p>I will look for that review. Again, I was surprised by the comment on dynmaic range. To my knowledge, what you have indicated above accurately sums up the main differences.</p>

<p>I agree with Lisa B. The price to enter Nikon's semi-pro realm goes up a bit with each technological iteration. I, too, left 35mm film in a "kicking and screaming" manner, and I am dismayed by the fact that, if I want pro features--rugged build, true MLU, vertical release, good AF performance, a true ISO 100, etc.--I currently have to spend about $2,400 to acheive this (Nikon D600 plus grip). This is a great deal of money. Even the now-surpassed D300s runs $1,696--not counting $200+ for the grip.</p>

<p>Thus, all I could afford is the "obsolete" D200. At ISO 100, it is an excellent performer, and thus I cannot see spending double or tripe the price for a D300s, which does not even offer a true ISO 100. I have heard higher ISOs are better on the 300s, but by how much?...and for how much of an investment? One D200/D300s comparison I have seen puts the high ISO difference at 0.4 stops.</p>

<p>I had read in a review somewhere that the dynamic range of the D2x is better than that of the later D2xs. To me, this does not make sense. Does anyone have any information on or experience with this matter? </p>