D90 or D7000

[Ratpack]

Looking to update from my D50 and was wondering what the consensus is between a D90 and a D7000. Is the D7000 worth the extra money or would I be better going with the D90 and some additional lenses for the same money? I am just the average photographer, far from a pro. Thoughts?

[Evad]

I would like to know this also as I have been pondering an upgrade as well.

[Gianna'sPapa]

I'm not a Nikon shooter, but since the new sensor is very,very similar to the one used in the new Pentax and Sony's, the 7000 does have some distinct advantages of high ISO and low noise, increased fps and resolution (DR). If those things are important to you then, you might consider an upgrade.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/compare_post.asp

[Marlton Mom]

I'm far from being an expert on the advantages and disadvantages between the D90 and the D7000.

I own a D90 and I'm currently working on practicing the operation of all it's features and capabilities so that manipulation of the features becomes instinctive when I shoot.

I will point out this though.... If Video is a consideration:

D90 Video AVI Motion JPEG Movie with sound
HD (1280 x 720 @ 24fps)
VGA 640 x 424 @ 24fps)
QVGA 320 x 216 @ 24fps)
Clip length limited to 5 minutes

D7000 Video
Video Recording Yes
Recording Formats H.264/MPEG-4, MOV
Video Resolution NTSC: 1920 x 1080/24p 1280 x 720/30p 1280 x 720/24p 640 x 424/30p

PAL: 1920 x 1080/24p 1280 x 720/25p 1280 x 720/24p 640 x 424/25p
Video Clip Length Maximum recording time: approximately 20 minutes
Audio Recording Built-in monaural or external stereo microphone recording

I was using the video capabilities of the D90 during Thanksgiving and I thought it did well for what I was trying to do with it. I have not been able to transfer the video out of the camera and into my 'puter as my hard drive is bursting at the seams, so the proof of the pudding will lie there.

Sometimes we tend to focus on particular photography related features of one model over another and you really need to consider all of a particular models features when making a choice. I recommend purchasing your camera based on your future needs and then you should grow into it by fully utilizing all that is has to offer.

Therefore, I think the most important question you can ask when deciding between the two is whether or not you will be using the added features that are included in the D7000 or if you can save some $$$ and the features on the D90 will suit your needs.

I used the D50 intensively for many years and it was an AWESOME camera. My D60 disappointed me tremendously, mainly because of the 3 focus points. My D90 gives me that warm and tingly D50 feeling all over again!

Good luck with your task.

:sunny:

Marlton Mom

[WDWFigment]

The D90 is a great camera, but the D7000 blows it away--from features to dynamic range to ISO performance.

You won't be disappointed if you get the D90, but the D7000 definitely gives you more room to grow.

[Evad]

The D90 is a great camera, but the D7000 blows it away--from features to dynamic range to ISO performance.

You won't be disappointed if you get the D90, but the D7000 definitely gives you more room to grow.

That's what I was afraid of...... :lmao:

Looks like I may have to save up a little bit longer

[Quicklabs]

You do such amazing work with the D80! I've never been able to achieve near what you have with it.
Actually, I'm looking at the D7000 as well....


I would like to know this also as I have been pondering an upgrade as well.

[Gdad]

Paging rossb....paging rossb....

[Evad]

You do such amazing work with the D80! I've never been able to achieve near what you have with it.
Actually, I'm looking at the D7000 as well....

Don't let my wife hear that or I will never be able to upgrade....lol :lmao:

[campinggal]

Paging rossb....paging rossb....


:rotfl: :lmao: :rotfl: :rotfl2:

[Experiment_626]

http://photofocus.com/2010/11/24/2010-camera-of-the-year/

[rossb]

Paging rossb....paging rossb....

I have them both and just got back from WDW with the D7000. I've shot them both side by side, the D7000 has better features on the body but the IQ and ISO performance are both essentially the same as the D90. In some respects the D90 is actually better. Don't upgrade if you are looking for a significant gain in IQ.

http://www.rbartick.com/wdw/IMG_1282_sm.jpg

http://g4.img-dpreview.com/FA8F8B18EB964DC789DE45E5514637A0.jpg

[TinTin]

Is the D7000 worth the extra money or would I be better going with the D90 and some additional lenses for the same money?

Hi, I'm new here, just looking for discounts on Disney tickets.. I see now they don't seem to exist, lol. But after that disappointment, I did see the Photography forum and came across this thread.

To the OP...
Some possible things to consider here are the importance of getting a new lens vs. the upgraded features of the D7000 over the D90.

Some of the new features the D7000 has that the D90 doesn't:
- 16 MP vs. 12 MP
- faster frames per second (6 vs. 4.5),
- better,faster autofocus (39 point vs. 11 point)
- 1080p HD video (D90 is only 720p)
- 30 frames per second video, max. (D90 is 24)
- autofocus WHILE shooting video (D90 doesn't)
- 20 min video at a time (D90 is limited to 5)
- larger viewfinder than D90 (100% vs. 96%)
- ability to meter with old lenses
- longer shutter life
- stronger, more durable body
- slots for 2 memory cards, meaning you can hold twice as many shots -OR- shoot photos on one, video on the other -OR- JPEG on one, RAW on the other -OR- shoot on both at same time for back up.
- ISO capabilites far succeed the D90. Less noise in low light shots, the ability to shoot ISO 100 again (removed from the D90 for some reason, even the D80 shot at 100), higher ISO ability, not just better (lots of comparison testing out there showing these results).

Sorry, first post, not allowed to post links, just copy and paste into your browser...
cameralabs.com/reviews/Nikon_D7000/noise_JPEG.shtml

Scroll down that page for ISO comparisons and remember any color differences may make one look better, but what's important is what the actual colors in the scene were... which we don't know. You can always alter photos to make the colors look this way or that, but you're stuck with much of the noise in the shadows... software can only remove so much before losing details in the photo.

There are more features than those listed but these are the most important ones for the "casual novice".

So you have to ask yourself, do any of these features matter to you? They are just features, they don't make you a better photographer. That said, they can really help you out.
As far as actual IQ, it just depends on your shooting conditions. In low light, the D7000 will give you cleaner photos and in good light outdoors it will give you cleaner skies. Both are good cameras though.

So the lens you would buy with the D90...
I know you said "lenses" but for the price difference I'm not sure you would be able to get more than one... unless buying used. Regardless, what do you already have? what would you want? If you have a decent assortment already then maybe the upgraded camera is the way to go. If, however, there is a lens or 2 you are really wanting, then by all means the D90 should be plenty for you.

In that case, you may want to look at the D3100 and D5000 also, they have many of the same or better features than the D90 (lacking many too) and are quite a bit cheaper. Althought you will need AF-S lenses if you rely on autofocus.

There are a lot more differences between the two but hopefully this covered any of your concerns.

A great place to do your research:
dpreview.com/forums/forum.asp?forum=1034

Hope this helps at least a little...

[KAT4DISNEY]

Hi, I'm new here, just looking for discounts on Disney tickets.. I see now they don't seem to exist, lol. But after that disappointment, I did see the Photography forum and came across this thread.



A little OT but Undercovertourist sells discounted Disney tickets and is reputable. You'll generally save around the amount of sales tax. Disney quotes without sales tax and UT the full price.

If you go to mousesavers.com and find the link to Undercovertourist you might save a couple dollars more.

[Gdad]

http://www.rbartick.com/wdw/IMG_1282_sm.jpg

Don't you know you can get in big trouble taking a tripod to Downtown Disney? Just ask Wbeem.

[Ratpack]

Thanks all for the info, I am not sure which way I will go yet. The lenses I wanted were the 18-105 VR and the 70-300 VR. I could get the D90 with both of those for the same price as the D7000 with just the 18-105 VR. Perhaps I should just go with the D7000 and sell my D50 and the lenses I have on it to get the set up I want. Those lenses are the Tamron 18-270 and the standard 70-300 Nikon non VR.

[Gdad]

For the record I am really liking my D7000 so far. I use it with the 70-300vr also but for a kit I skipped the 18-xxx zoom and went with a 10-24 UWA and just cover the mid range with a couple primes- 35mm and 50mm- and could not be happier.

[WDWFigment]

Thanks all for the info, I am not sure which way I will go yet. The lenses I wanted were the 18-105 VR and the 70-300 VR. I could get the D90 with both of those for the same price as the D7000 with just the 18-105 VR. Perhaps I should just go with the D7000 and sell my D50 and the lenses I have on it to get the set up I want. Those lenses are the Tamron 18-270 and the standard 70-300 Nikon non VR.

Why would you sell the Tamron 18-270? Everything I've heard about that suggests it's an excellent lens that performs very comparably to the Nikon 18-200 VR (except with 70mm extra). I am considering selling the 18-200 my wife uses to get it, in fact.

My experience with the D7000 thus far has been much more in line with Gdad's (and almost every single review out there thus far) than it has with rossb's. I've noticed gains in high ISO performance and dynamic range. That, plus the litany of added features and controls made it a no-brainer for me.

Then again, I am fairly satisfied with my catalog of lenses. If I were not, I'd probably build that first.

[Groucho]

I can comment on purely sensor issues... I've got the Pentax K-x (same sensor as the D90) and K-5 (same sensor at the D7000) and I think there is a clear difference between the two in terms of IQ.

Not only is there better noise control (and remember, if you're looking at 100% zoom, there's 33% more pixels coming out of the 16mp sensor), but the dynamic range is the big difference. I've seen shot after shot demonstrating the massive recovery that is possible with this Sony Exmoor sensor. Of course, you need to shoot Raw and be willing to tweak in Lightroom to take advantage of the DR, but you'll find amazing things with the Recovery and Fill Light sliders.

One note about video, if you're interested in that, too - my understanding is that all the pre-D7000 Nikon DSLRs with video only recorded audio at 11kHz, and I believe the D7000 records 44kHz like everyone else now. This may be a worthwhile difference when comparing the two.

[rossb]

Don't you know you can get in big trouble taking a tripod to Downtown Disney? Just ask Wbeem.

I carried that rig around for over 3 hours in all three Downtown sections and nobody said anything to me. :)

My wife would was not thrilled with my tripod use so I did not bring it into any parks. I shot handheld at night @ high ISO. :(

Numerous park photographers took our picture with my D7k. The D90 seemed to be standard issue for all of the Disney photographers.

[rossb]

My experience with the D7000 thus far has been much more in line with Gdad's (and almost every single review out there thus far) than it has with rossb's. I've noticed gains in high ISO performance and dynamic range. That, plus the litany of added features and controls made it a no-brainer for me.

I've shot them side by side, tripod mounted, with the same lens and I've yet to see a significant difference which favors the D7k. I've tried low light, bright light, with flash, and without flash. I could take two pics, strip the EXIF, size them the same, post them, and I doubt that most people could consistently pick the D7k over the D90. I've yet to see an online review that performed a side by side test like that with the same lens at the same time. Please post a link if you have one.

That being said, I think that the D7k body is better. It has a better feature set. I've taken over 3000 exposures with mine. One thing I noticed at Disney was that the D7k meter was much more likely to indicate LO when shooting at night. I don't remember seeing my D90 go to LO so quickly. It literally dropped from 1/15 @ ISO 1250 to LO and when I took the shot the camera picked 1/10 (with the meter blinking LO) and the exposure was good. I found this to be annoying when I was shooting handhelds at night. Ken Rockwell said the following about the D7k meter:

The one thing that is broken with the new 2,016-segment meter, is that it no longer can read down to less than moonlight, as just about every other NIkon since the FE has been able to do.

The D7000's meter is more than good enough to shoot in any sort of light in which you can read or see things, but if you like to shoot out in the dark outside at night, the D7000 hits ISO 6,400, and then stops at 1/6 of a second.

This is good enough for shooting under full moonlight, but not in darkness that's darker than this. For shooting in darker darkness, we'll have to dial-in compensation, or, duh, go to manual exposure as I often do anyway.

The D7000 more than meets its specifications to meter down to LV 0; the catch is that we've all gotten used to Nikon's cameras metering down perfectly in darkness many stops darker than specified.

[boBQuincy]

The only review/test I can find that relies on real data instead of subjective "it looks better" is DXOMark's sensor tests. According to the data there is no significant difference in dynamic range between the D7000 and D90 for any ISO they both can use. The D7000 *is* better at ISO 100, which the D90 does not have.
If we choose to ignore the data and prefer to believe the seat-of-the-pants tests that is of course our choice.

One other thing the DXOMark tests show is that Canon has really dropped the ball on dynamic range of their sensors. Even Canon's FF sensors are well behind Nikon's APS-C sensors in this regard.

[WDWFigment]

The only review/test I can find that relies on real data instead of subjective "it looks better" is DXOMark's sensor tests. According to the data there is no significant difference in dynamic range between the D7000 and D90 for any ISO they both can use. The D7000 *is* better at ISO 100, which the D90 does not have.
If we choose to ignore the data and prefer to believe the seat-of-the-pants tests that is of course our choice.

One other thing the DXOMark tests show is that Canon has really dropped the ball on dynamic range of their sensors. Even Canon's FF sensors are well behind Nikon's APS-C sensors in this regard.

Maybe I am a simpleton, but in looking at the DXOMark tests, it appears to me that the D7000 *does* perform better.

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/en/Camera-Sensor/Compare-sensors/%28appareil1%29/439|0/%28appareil2%29/680|0/%28appareil3%29/441|0/%28onglet%29/0/%28brand%29/Nikon/%28brand2%29/Nikon/%28brand3%29/Nikon

Am I looking at the wrong comparison, or interpreting it incorrectly? I see those as marked gains, especially as compared to the D700.

[Ratpack]

Why would you sell the Tamron 18-270? Everything I've heard about that suggests it's an excellent lens that performs very comparably to the Nikon 18-200 VR (except with 70mm extra). I am considering selling the 18-200 my wife uses to get it, in fact.


It is an OK lens, and I have been happy with it on most of the siutations for the year I have had it, but in full zoom on light photos, such as the sky, it has rings in the photo. On darker backgrounds or mixed, it is perfect. Only when taking a photo of say a bird in flight with a blue sky behind it. Also, since the f stop is more than the Nikon, it doesn't do as well IMO when in full zoom and low light situations. Again, it is a good lens, especially for a walk around and not have to change it out, but there are just a couple things that lead me to believe I would be happier with the Nikon 70-300 VR.

[WDWFigment]

It is an OK lens, and I have been happy with it on most of the siutations for the year I have had it, but in full zoom on light photos, such as the sky, it has rings in the photo. On darker backgrounds or mixed, it is perfect. Only when taking a photo of say a bird in flight with a blue sky behind it. Also, since the f stop is more than the Nikon, it doesn't do as well IMO when in full zoom and low light situations. Again, it is a good lens, especially for a walk around and not have to change it out, but there are just a couple things that lead me to believe I would be happier with the Nikon 70-300 VR.

Can't really speak to the 'rings' in the photo (do you have a filter on the lens?), but neither the 70-300 VR nor the 18-105 is going to fare much better in low light situations. If that's what you're looking for, you might want to consider different lenses entirely.

[boBQuincy]

Take a closer look, at the graphs showing dynamic range, SNR, and tonal range. There are many reasons to choose a D7000 over a D90 but dynamic range (at any ISO the D90 covers) is not one of them.

Then compare the dynamic range to a Canon 7D!

[Gdad]

Take a closer look, at the graphs showing dynamic range, SNR, and tonal range. There are many reasons to choose a D7000 over a D90 but dynamic range (at any ISO the D90 covers) is not one of them.

Then compare the dynamic range to a Canon 7D!

That is interesting-

What is up with the D7000 ISO 100 sensitivity? Looks the same as 200.

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/en/Camera-Sensor/Compare-sensors/(appareil1)/619%7C0/(appareil2)/680%7C0/(appareil3)/441%7C0/(onglet)/0/(brand)/Canon/(brand2)/Nikon/(brand3)/Nikon

[Groucho]

The only review/test I can find that relies on real data instead of subjective "it looks better" is DXOMark's sensor tests. According to the data there is no significant difference in dynamic range between the D7000 and D90 for any ISO they both can use. The D7000 *is* better at ISO 100, which the D90 does not have.
If we choose to ignore the data and prefer to believe the seat-of-the-pants tests that is of course our choice.

One other thing the DXOMark tests show is that Canon has really dropped the ball on dynamic range of their sensors. Even Canon's FF sensors are well behind Nikon's APS-C sensors in this regard.

Maybe I am a simpleton, but in looking at the DXOMark tests, it appears to me that the D7000 *does* perform better.

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/en/Camera-Sensor/Compare-sensors/%28appareil1%29/439|0/%28appareil2%29/680|0/%28appareil3%29/441|0/%28onglet%29/0/%28brand%29/Nikon/%28brand2%29/Nikon/%28brand3%29/Nikon

Am I looking at the wrong comparison, or interpreting it incorrectly? I see those as marked gains, especially as compared to the D700.
According to DXOMark, the D90 has a dynamic range of 12.5, the D7000 has 13.9. If you don't care about an extra 1.4 stops of range, that's up to you... ;)

Sensor variation will play into it. For what it's worth, the Pentax K-x, with the same sensor as the D90, also gets 12.5 and the K-5, with the same sensor as the D7000, gets 14.1. (The highest DXOMark has ever tested.) It may have an advantage in that it can go down to 80 ISO, but it may be that their D7000 may have been capable of doing even better, depending on the quality of the particular sensor going into it.

Some other DR numbers, for comparison:
Canon 7D: 11.7
Olympus E3: 10.3
Sony A55: 12.4 (using the same sensor but shooting through a translucent mirror)

So, you can see that it pretty much kills all other APS and 4/3rds sensors. How about FF?

Nikon D700: 12.2
Nikon D3X: 13.7
Canon 5D Mk2: 11.9
Canon 1D Mk4: 12
Nikon D3s: 12
Sony A900: 12.3

Now, of course, there are lies, damn lies, and statistics. But, the point being - the high ISO is terrific on the sensor but the DR is what is really amazing. Try deliberately underexposing a photo - to the point that it's mostly black - and then bring up the exposure in the Raw image with both the 12mp and 16mp sensor. You'll find much more detail retained in the 16mp sensor.

[WDWFigment]

Take a closer look, at the graphs showing dynamic range, SNR, and tonal range. There are many reasons to choose a D7000 over a D90 but dynamic range (at any ISO the D90 covers) is not one of them.

Then compare the dynamic range to a Canon 7D!

Interesting. I didn't click on that link before. At their respective lowest ISOs, it looks like the D7000 has significantly better dynamic range. Since I shoot 75% of my shots at the lowest ISO (broad daylight and nighttime tripod mounted), I view this as pretty important.

Still, not much (if at all) better through the entire spectrum. Just better where it matters most. ;)

[Groucho]

Take a closer look, at the graphs showing dynamic range, SNR, and tonal range. There are many reasons to choose a D7000 over a D90 but dynamic range (at any ISO the D90 covers) is not one of them.

Then compare the dynamic range to a Canon 7D!
"...at any range the D90 covers" is the key word. At ISO 200, the D7000 is beating it by almost half a stop. Drop to ISO 100 and you'll get 13.87 vs 12.52. Again, if you're not interested in almost an extra stop and a half of DR...

[Groucho]

...and again, sensor variation may play into it. Add the K-5, with the same sensor, to the DR graph, and you'll see that it beats the D90 consistently. You'll also find that the D90 significantly overrated its ISO - at 1600, it's actually only 1125 ISO, the D7000 is 1269, and the K-5 is 1417. I would assume those a more a choice of the software rather than the sensor itself.

Anyway, it's quite possibly that they got a particularly good K-5 and a not quite as good D7000 - and maybe a particularly good D90, too. Pull a couple more off the shelf and you might get different numbers.

[boBQuincy]

"...at any range the D90 covers" is the key word. At ISO 200, the D7000 is beating it by almost half a stop. Drop to ISO 100 and you'll get 13.87 vs 12.52. Again, if you're not interested in almost an extra stop and a half of DR...

Oh, I am and would gladly take another 1.5 stops! It's just that it is only available at ISO 100 and for landscape photography on a tripod that is just fine but for most real-world photography I use ISO higher than that. My point is that a lot of well-meaning people on this board quote the hype without explaining the facts behind it and this may mislead those who do not understand enough to actually look up the whole story.

As for the half stop, nice but not really very significant. The bigger question is why the manufacturers won't give us ISO 50, 25, etc. and let us decide if we want to use tripods and get some really good DR numbers.

[Gdad]

But, the point being - the high ISO is terrific on the sensor but the DR is what is really amazing. Try deliberately underexposing a photo - to the point that it's mostly black - and then bring up the exposure in the Raw image with both the 12mp and 16mp sensor. You'll find much more detail retained in the 16mp sensor.

This is true- even when you accidentally underexpose. ;)

And interesting when compared to the D700- since that full frame sensor seems to be particularly gifted at pulling highlights back from oblivion. I am finding the D7000 a little prone to blowing out unrecoverable highlights and usually shoot it a little pulled back -.3 or -.7 ev just because I know I can push the raw file easily if needed. I don't know if that is the sensor or just how they have the camera and metering setup- but the two cameras definitely use their respective dynamic range differently.

[Gdad]

The bigger question is why the manufacturers won't give us ISO 50, 25, etc. and let us decide

I agree 100%- I wish they were pushing the low end the way they do the high end. Never mind the ND filter- I'll take ISO 25- or 10 or 6- why not?

[Groucho]

This is true- even when you accidentally underexpose. ;)

And interesting when compared to the D700- since that full frame sensor seems to be particularly gifted at pulling highlights back from oblivion. I am finding the D7000 a little prone to blowing out unrecoverable highlights and usually shoot it a little pulled back -.3 or -.7 ev just because I know I can push the raw file easily if needed. I don't know if that is the sensor or just how they have the camera and metering setup- but the two cameras definitely use their respective dynamic range differently.
I can say that with the wedding I shot, I left the camera at -.3 EV for most of it (or maybe even -.7) because I've been paranoid over time about blowing highlights... I'm going through the photos now (almost 1,100, so it's taking a little while!) and I am just astounded by the sensor. Most of the church photos were at 3200 ISO and I can bring up the exposure, do some fill light to bring out detail in the black suits, etc, and do little to no noise reduction even in the darkest areas. I love my K-7 but its Samsung sensor would have not been able to do nearly as well in this environment. I probably would have ended up using the K-x for much of the darker shooting.

In the limited testing I've done, and the church photos with the stained glass windows in the background, I've been able to pull back a good amount of detail from the highlights but it's definitely easier to pull it from the blacks.

Did I mention that I think that this is a really amazing sensor? :lmao: Hats off to Sony. (Of course, Nikon won't admit that it's a Sony sensor but I don't think there's much question that it is...)

[WDWFigment]

Oh, I am and would gladly take another 1.5 stops! It's just that it is only available at ISO 100 and for landscape photography on a tripod that is just fine but for most real-world photography I use ISO higher than that. My point is that a lot of well-meaning people on this board quote the hype without explaining the facts behind it and this may mislead those who do not understand enough to actually look up the whole story.

As for the half stop, nice but not really very significant. The bigger question is why the manufacturers won't give us ISO 50, 25, etc. and let us decide if we want to use tripods and get some really good DR numbers.

I guess I must use the camera differently than you (obviously everyone has their own uses), but I am on the minimum ISO, like I said, 75% of the time. Oddly, I am at the other end of the spectrum the other 20% of the time. I would say I'm at ISO 400-1250 for only around 5% of my shots.

I guess it's a YMMV, but for me the logical comparison is between ISO 100 on the D7000 and ISO 200 on the D90. Why compare ISO 200 on both if you will, in actual shooting, be using ISO 100 on one of them?

This is true- even when you accidentally underexpose. ;)

And interesting when compared to the D700- since that full frame sensor seems to be particularly gifted at pulling highlights back from oblivion. I am finding the D7000 a little prone to blowing out unrecoverable highlights and usually shoot it a little pulled back -.3 or -.7 ev just because I know I can push the raw file easily if needed. I don't know if that is the sensor or just how they have the camera and metering setup- but the two cameras definitely use their respective dynamic range differently.

With both the D90 and D7000 I always underexpose by -.7. On bright, cloudy days, sometimes I go all the day down to -1. Even metering the sky, I get highlights I can't recover (easier to increase exposure than recover highlights, anyway).

[KAT4DISNEY]

Did I mention that I think that this is a really amazing sensor? :lmao: Hats off to Sony. (Of course, Nikon won't admit that it's a Sony sensor but I don't think there's much question that it is...)

:faint:

Glad you like your new camera!

:rotfl:

[Quicklabs]

Looks like Santa is going to come through for me (I've been SUCH a good girl) and I'll have it in plenty of time to be able to get to know and love it before my trip to WDW at the end of January.
Available fom Roberts Imaging in Indianapolis--I've used them before for my 24-70 and was very pleased. Plus, if any problems, my sister lives in Indy and I can have her handle any issues personally. THey must have just gotten the shipment in. They were out of stock this morning.

[DVC Mike]

Looks like Santa is going to come through for me (I've been SUCH a good girl) and I'll have it in plenty of time to be able to get to know and love it before my trip to WDW at the end of January.


Congrats!

[Groucho]

:faint:

Glad you like your new camera!

:rotfl:
I've never said anything bad about their sensors. (At least, their APS sensors!) Their bodies... well, if I were a Sony shooter, I'd be pretty peeved that after a few years, there's still not an A700 replacement, especially one with this sensor functioning at full capacity, not through a mirror. But that's a topic for a different discussion. :teeth:

[MarkBarbieri]

Gdad, you can just get the educational version for $90 or so with your kid's names. I've seen them holding cameras; it's legit. :thumbsup2

IMHO LR3 is well worth the upgrade. The noise reduction features are much improved and the new processing engine is nice.

That's not really pertinent if he's already using PS CS5. He already has the new features in ACR. So the question for a CS5 user that didn't find LR2 compelling is what has changed in the parts of LR outside of the Develop module.

Off the top of my head, I can think of a few. The changed the import interface to make it easier for newbies. They significantly improved the ability to work with photo hosting sites and social networking sites. Anything else?

I still don't think I will use LR all that much.

Then the on-demand trial version is probably the right version for you. It even works with the D7000, which, of course, is why I replied here.

[Groucho]

That's not really pertinent if he's already using PS CS5. He already has the new features in ACR. So the question for a CS5 user that didn't find LR2 compelling is what has changed in the parts of LR outside of the Develop module.

Off the top of my head, I can think of a few. The changed the import interface to make it easier for newbies. They significantly improved the ability to work with photo hosting sites and social networking sites. Anything else?
I thought Gdad was using LR2? Maybe not. After using LR for a few years now, I can't imagine using anything else - trying to organize the photos any other way would be an exercise in frustration. Anyway, it is pertinent because he said that he might have considered it for $125, when he can already get it for $90.

As for the changes you mention - I hate the new Import interface (OK - I hate that it defaults to the memory card; I'll copy the damn files to the PC myself, thank you very much) and I don't care about exporting directly to Facebook. Maybe I should try them, but the current ways work fine for me. I already export my photos at 1024x768 (for my website) and 1920x1080 (for my PS3) so I have no desire to run another slow export. For Flickr, I have been using my PS3 versions. They're big enough to show a lot of detail without being over-the-top huge.

It's the processing engine, noise engine, and lens correction functionality that I like about LR3. Actually, there's probably more but I've been using it long enough that I have totally forgotten what was missing in LR2.

[KAT4DISNEY]

I've never said anything bad about their sensors. (At least, their APS sensors!) Their bodies... well, if I were a Sony shooter, I'd be pretty peeved that after a few years, there's still not an A700 replacement, especially one with this sensor functioning at full capacity, not through a mirror. But that's a topic for a different discussion. :teeth:

Patience does seem to be required for the higher end camera's. Although the A580 has this sensor and has just been released in the US. But I know what your talking about - not on the A7xx level. It does make me chuckle a bit when the complaints come up when thinking back to SLR days. I only ever had one body. Ever. :rotfl: Different world and different technology now though.

And - my full frame sony sensor A850 is working perfectly well too. But I think we've been thru that before in another discussion. :teeth: :teeth:

As for the changes you mention - I hate the new Import interface (OK - I hate that it defaults to the memory card; I'll copy the damn files to the PC myself, thank you very much) and I don't care about exporting directly to Facebook. Maybe I should try them, but the current ways work fine for me. I already export my photos at 1024x768 (for my website) and 1920x1080 (for my PS3) so I have no desire to run another slow export. For Flickr, I have been using my PS3 versions. They're big enough to show a lot of detail without being over-the-top huge.


Since LR3 was brought up I've had one thing I can't get to work - the auto import. It sounds like you may not use it but if you do has it functioned correctly in LR3 for you? I have it turned on but it still doesn't run - at least not like it did in LR2. I haven't researched the problem but your post reminded me about it so I thought I'd ask.

[Groucho]

Patience does seem to be required for the higher end camera's. Although the A580 has this sensor and has just been released in the US. But I know what your talking about - not on the A7xx level. It does make me chuckle a bit when the complaints come up when thinking back to SLR days. I only ever had one body. Ever. :rotfl: Different world and different technology now though.
Yup, I still use my old K1000 - and I have no interest in a film camera with autofocus, autoexposure, etc. (Heck, I used two K1000s for the wedding I recently shot, along with the K-5.) They appeal for different reasons than modern DSLRs, just like I like having old manual-focus lenses as well as modern AF ones.

Since LR3 was brought up I've had one thing I can't get to work - the auto import. It sounds like you may not use it but if you do has it functioned correctly in LR3 for you? I have it turned on but it still doesn't run - at least not like it did in LR2. I haven't researched the problem but your post reminded me about it so I thought I'd ask.
I haven't tried auto-import. I've thought about trying to let LR handle my imports but I don't think it would work with my system. My problem is that I tend to take forever to process my photos... and I want to keep the ones to process separate from the ones that are done. What I do is that whenever I dump pictures on the PC, I put them all in a new numbered "process" folder - so, for example, "Pentax K-5\process3", then "process4" next, etc. I import that folder into Lightroom. When I've processed the photos, I'll moved the photos into groups of a thousand raws, like "02001-03000". When you move them, LR3 puts a little question mark next to the thumbnail. Click on it and point it to the new folder and it will automatically move all the photos. (This is different than the process in LR2; it took me a little while to figure out the trick.)

It sounds complicated, but it's actually very straightforward and makes it trivial to see what still needs to be processed. (Unfortunately, that includes photos all the way back from the K20D!) I haven't tried to duplicate this process with LR3. Perhaps if I had it dump things into a folder with that day's date on it, then I later move them into the groups of a thousand later, that could work... but really, I want to get the pics off as quickly as possible; I'm not always interested in putting them into LR3 that second.

Sorry for the tangent, folks. :)

I didn't see it mentioned here, but DPReview has posted their D7000 review.

[KAT4DISNEY]

I haven't tried auto-import. I've thought about trying to let LR handle my imports but I don't think it would work with my system. My problem is that I tend to take forever to process my photos... and I want to keep the ones to process separate from the ones that are done. What I do is that whenever I dump pictures on the PC, I put them all in a new numbered "process" folder - so, for example, "Pentax K-5\process3", then "process4" next, etc. I import that folder into Lightroom. When I've processed the photos, I'll moved the photos into groups of a thousand raws, like "02001-03000". When you move them, LR3 puts a little question mark next to the thumbnail. Click on it and point it to the new folder and it will automatically move all the photos. (This is different than the process in LR2; it took me a little while to figure out the trick.)

It sounds complicated, but it's actually very straightforward and makes it trivial to see what still needs to be processed. (Unfortunately, that includes photos all the way back from the K20D!) I haven't tried to duplicate this process with LR3. Perhaps if I had it dump things into a folder with that day's date on it, then I later move them into the groups of a thousand later, that could work... but really, I want to get the pics off as quickly as possible; I'm not always interested in putting them into LR3 that second.

Sorry for the tangent, folks. :)

I didn't see it mentioned here, but DPReview has posted their D7000 review.

Thanks Groucho. It sounds like we work at about the same speed - my Process folder would be HUGE!! :rotfl:

[Marlton Mom]

thought I'd post this here in case y'all haven't heard:

http://www.dpreview.com/news/1012/10120305nikonnoticed7000.asp

~ Marlton Mom

[rossb]

Cameralabs just posted their review and they compared it to a D90:

http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Nikon_D7000/outdoor_resolution.shtml

I just sold my D90 so I can't do anymore comparisons of my own.

[123ll]

I am also interested in D90..

[TinTin]

As for the half stop, nice but not really very significant.

But add that increase in DR to the fact that it shoots 100 ISO (since it was removed from the D90 for some reason, when it's predecessor, the D80, had it and performed well)... along with it's ability to shoot high ISO at at least 1 stop better... and at 16 MP over 12... I think that's a pretty successful upgrade.


The bigger question is why the manufacturers won't give us ISO 50, 25, etc. and let us decide if we want to use tripods and get some really good DR numbers.

Because the market is always wanting better noise performance at higher and higher ISOs... and sensor ranges are limited and don't allow for both improvements at the high end, while also lowering the low end.

If a manufacturer came out with a camera that shot (well) at ISO 25, 50, or 64... the market would just say... "oh, neat".

I shoot low ISO all the time, and would love a good performing camera that shoots 25 ISO if it did in fact perform the same as 25 ASA film... but sensors just don't.