D90 or D7000

[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.

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.

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. 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.

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. 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!!

 

[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.