Nikon D7000

[Experiment_626]

So, I've looked over some of the specs -- what does the D300s have that the new D7000 does not? There's the ability to auto-bracket nine exposures; as best I can see, the D7000 will only bracket three shots. Anything else?

This makes me wonder when the replacement for the D300s will come down the pike, since I cannot imagine that the D7000 won't hurt sales of the older model. And it also makes me giddy to imagine what the (presumed) D400 might offer ...

 

[handicap18]

I haven't looked enough into it, but from what I've seen thus far, the D7000 is a real winner. We'll have to see How the sensor actually performs and 16MP is REALLY pushing the MP limit. Technology has really come along way in that regard though.

......

Just spend a little more time looking at the features...

WOW

Had this been available 2 years ago instead of the D90, I would have gotten the D7000 over the D300. Can't wait to see what the D300s upgrade is going to bring. WOW

 

[ChiSoxKeith]

Go see images over here....

http://blog.chasejarvis.com/blog/2010/09/nikon-d7000

 

[Experiment_626]

Also crosses my mind that that the D300s has more "hard button" controls, for easier access to settings and adjustments. Still, this significantly ups the ante. I've read speculation on other boards that the D300s may be the last "pro" DX body and that the D7000 may represent the eventual top of the line for that size sensor. Others speculate the D400 will move toward being a full-on pro build, with a D3-like body. I'm not sure what I think yet.

 

[Groucho]

I'm not positive, but I think the D300/D300s has weathersealing and the D7000 doesn't? This is a very nice feature once you're used to it.

As a Pentax shooter, I've been paying some attention to the D7000 but only the sensor output as it should be basically the same as in the K-5 (and the Sony A55.)

 

[MarkBarbieri]

I'm not positive, but I think the D300/D300s has weathersealing and the D7000 doesn't? This is a very nice feature once you're used to it.

If the main difference between the D300s and D7000 is weathersealing, it would be a good example of the diminishing returns I referenced in a recent thread. Having had cameras with varying levels of weather sealing (there is no standard definition for what "weathersealing" means), I agree that I like it. How much is it worth, though? Fewer than .1% of the shots I have taken were in conditions that would benefit from weathersealing and, despite using a significant lack of caution, I've never had water penetration problems on non or lightly sealed bodies.

When confronted with something like a weathersealed or a non-weathersealed body, the question to ask yourself is not whether you want it, but how much it would be worth to you personally. If you do most of your shooting outdoors in Portland, it might be worth a lot. If you do most of your shooting indoors in Phoenix, it might be worth very little. At Disney, it comes in handy for shots on the drop of Splash Mountain and (if you are VERY confident in it) on Kali River rapids.

So how many shots will you miss if you don't have weather sealing and how much are they worth to you?

 

[YEKCIM]

The D7000 *is* weather sealed, with a magnesium alloy body.

 

[Experiment_626]

I've been paying some attention to the D7000 but only the sensor output as it should be basically the same as in the K-5 (and the Sony A55.)

It is strongly rumored that the D7000 uses a home-grown Nikon sensor, not Sony. No final word yet.

 

[Experiment_626]

The D7000 *is* weather sealed, with a magnesium alloy body.

Weather sealed, yes -- but not to the same extent as the D300s, according to reports.

 

[Uncle Greg]

The 300s has more focus points and faster FPS I believe.

 

[Experiment_626]

The 300s has more focus points and faster FPS I believe.

Yes and yes.

 

[Groucho]

If the main difference between the D300s and D7000 is weathersealing, it would be a good example of the diminishing returns I referenced in a recent thread. Having had cameras with varying levels of weather sealing (there is no standard definition for what "weathersealing" means), I agree that I like it. How much is it worth, though? Fewer than .1% of the shots I have taken were in conditions that would benefit from weathersealing and, despite using a significant lack of caution, I've never had water penetration problems on non or lightly sealed bodies.

I find that I get a lot of use out of the weathersealing. It's great to not care if the rain comes when at an outdoor event - examples for me include steam events, outdoor concerts, Reconnaissance festivals, car shows, racetracks, Disney (of course), and countless other places. If you live somewhere where it never rains, that may affect your choices - but my cameras have seen torrential downpours, hail, snow, dust, etc, with no issues whatsoever. Some cameras with little or no weathersealing will do OK in some situations, but I have a level of confidence that the gear can stand up to anything short of dunking underwater - which I don't have with my non-weathersealed DSLRs.

Of course - you have to have a properly weathersealed lens, too.

"Halfway" weathersealing (like on some mid-level DSLRs and potentially what the D7000 has) is as good as none IMHO. Sorry, but that's the way I feel.

It is strongly rumored that the D7000 uses a home-grown Nikon sensor, not Sony. No final word yet.

Ehhhhhhhh - I doubt it! That sounds more like marketing speak. It's their own circuitry talking to the sensor most likely, but I'm going to bet than it's the same ol' Sony sensor, and the differences are in the implementation, not the sensor. The Pentax version goes to 51,200 ISO but I suspect it's just back in the days of the 6mp Sony sensor, which went to 3,200 in the Pentaxes and 1,600 in the Nikons. Of course, none of their will easily admit who makes it, but in terms of APS sensors, I think there's only Sony, Samsung, and Canon. I'd be willing to bet that the new Fuji X100 uses the same 12mp Sony sensor as found in the D90/K-x. I also am not convinced that Nikon alone designed their full-frame sensors.

 

[Experiment_626]

Ehhhhhhhh - I doubt it! That sounds more like marketing speak. It's their own circuitry talking to the sensor most likely, but I'm going to bet than it's the same ol' Sony sensor

According to Thom Hogan and other sources I found, the sensors in Nikon's D3100 and D700 are both different from the "equivalent" Sony sensors in several ways, including physical size, which is a pretty strong argument for them not being the same.

See http://bythom.com/ and the entries under "The Puzzle" and "Further Comments on the D3100."

 

[MarkBarbieri]

I find that I get a lot of use out of the weathersealing. It's great to not care if the rain comes when at an outdoor event - examples for me include steam events, outdoor concerts, Reconnaissance festivals, car shows, racetracks, Disney (of course), and countless other places. If you live somewhere where it never rains, that may affect your choices - but my cameras have seen torrential downpours, hail, snow, dust, etc, with no issues whatsoever. Some cameras with little or no weathersealing will do OK in some situations, but I have a level of confidence that the gear can stand up to anything short of dunking underwater - which I don't have with my non-weathersealed DSLRs.

Of course - you have to have a properly weathersealed lens, too.

"Halfway" weathersealing (like on some mid-level DSLRs and potentially what the D7000 has) is as good as none IMHO. Sorry, but that's the way I feel.

We can debate the relative merits of weathersealing if you'd like. Given that there are no standards and, to my knowledge, no independent tests, we'll just be arguing over marketing literature and anecdotal experience, so it should be a good shout. In my personal experience, I've never known someone that has lost a camera to weather. I've read about cases online, but I haven't actually seen it happen. I think most people are overprotective. Heck, my wife has dropped multiple cell phones in the pool and they have all come out working just fine when properly dried.

My point, however, was that the returns on money spent on weathersealing are lower (diminished) than the returns spent on the core of the camera. Let's assume that weathersealing adds 5% to the cost of a camera. It's hard to judge the true incremental cost because weathersealing is never sold as a separate option. Using that assumption, you would need to get at least a 5% increase in the number and/or quality of your shots for the value of the weathersealing not be lower than the value spent on the rest of the camera. Since very few people take 5% of their shots in severely inclement weather, most people will see a diminished return on the money they spend on weathersealing.

That doesn't mean that weathersealing is a bad thing, a rip off, or something that you shouldn't pay for. My point is that once you get to the cost of the most basic DSLR, each additional dollar you spent will probably bring you less value than the earlier dollars. If the value of those additional shots or quality improvements is worth more to you than the cost, then it is still a good idea to spend the money.

I often hear people complain that camera X is not twice as good as camera Y, despite costing twice as much. It doesn't need to be to still be a good value. Even though the price may increase by 100% and the improvement in number of shots or quality of shots may increase by only 10%, it could still be a bargain to buy the more expensive camera. It depends on how much that 10% improvement is worth to you.

 

[Groucho]

According to Thom Hogan and other sources I found, the sensors in Nikon's D3100 and D700 are both different from the "equivalent" Sony sensors in several ways, including physical size, which is a pretty strong argument for them not being the same.

See http://bythom.com/ and the entries under "The Puzzle" and "Further Comments on the D3100."

Without doing in-depth investigating, I'm still skeptical. First, of course, is that no one else uses a 12mp FF sensor, so there is nothing to compare the D700 to. That's the one that seems most likely to be a Nikon design.

The D3100 and D7000 are, of course, too new to say for sure. But spec-wise, the D7000 sensor sure seems pretty comparable to the that in the Sony A55 and Pentax K-5. Who makes what sensor is so secretive that it's hard to say for sure - only Sony, Canon, and Samsung can seem to say with certainty that they're using their own sensors in their DSLRs! Even if the size is slightly different (and even then, I am somewhat skeptical without someone physically cracking the cameras open and measuring them), the sensors roll off a big single wafer and are then cut into smaller pieces - it could be the same wafer, just cut slightly smaller.

I find the whole thing somewhat interesting from a cloak and dagger prospective. It will be interesting to see how they compare, especially as the A55 is handicapped by shooting through a mirror (I've heard mentions of about a 1/3rd stop loss of light.) Even with that, the A55 had pretty solid high ISO performance and maybe as importantly, very good dynamic range. If the D7000 and K-5 perform as they might, Nikon's going to need to do something about the D700 sensor - amazing as it is, the APS sensors are catching up in terms of ISO and DR very quickly.

 

[Groucho]

My point, however, was that the returns on money spent on weathersealing are lower (diminished) than the returns spent on the core of the camera. Let's assume that weathersealing adds 5% to the cost of a camera. It's hard to judge the true incremental cost because weathersealing is never sold as a separate option. Using that assumption, you would need to get at least a 5% increase in the number and/or quality of your shots for the value of the weathersealing not be lower than the value spent on the rest of the camera. Since very few people take 5% of their shots in severely inclement weather, most people will see a diminished return on the money they spend on weathersealing.

You're thinking about this issue much more deeply than I am.

It boils down to this: if I have a camera with full weathersealing - every possible opening on the camera and the lens fully sealed - and I will happily shoot in any weather. No waiting for it to dry, no toweling off, just worry-free shooting.

If I have a camera with no seals or with only minimal sealing around the lens mount or whatnot, then the camera goes away in inclement weather.

Use or not use. Very binary.

From my own personal experience, it has been very, very useful having that feature, and I have been in situations where I have been using the non-sealed camera for whatever reason and had to stop shooting. For me, it is an extremely useful feature, and I like seeing it included whenever possible and I don't like the "minimal" seals that make it into some cameras. Lest anyone think I am on a pro-Pentax kick here, I am disappointed that the K-x and K-r are not weathersealed, after the K200D seemed to indicate that all their upcoming cameras would be fully sealed. My point here is that if I was shooting Nikon and the D7000 didn't have full sealing and the D300s did, I would wait for the D300s replacement rather than buy the D7000. That's how important it is to me.

 

[Groucho]

According to Thom Hogan and other sources I found, the sensors in Nikon's D3100 and D700 are both different from the "equivalent" Sony sensors in several ways, including physical size, which is a pretty strong argument for them not being the same.

See http://bythom.com/ and the entries under "The Puzzle" and "Further Comments on the D3100."

One more comment on thing - Hogan is talking about the 3100 only when talking about the sensor size, Nikon's own spec sheet on their website says that the D7000 sensor is 23.6x15.6mm - just like the Sony 16mp sensor. Is it a Sony? Isn't it? This is the stuff that internet forum discussions are made of.

 

[Experiment_626]

One more comment on thing - Hogan is talking about the 3100 only when talking about the sensor size, Nikon's own spec sheet on their website says that the D7000 sensor is 23.6x15.6mm - just like the Sony 16mp sensor. Is it a Sony? Isn't it? This is the stuff that internet forum discussions are made of.

Indeed. I had elsewhere read something that indicated a slightly smaller size for the D7000's sensor as well, but it wasn't from a source I'd consider as reliable as Hogan. I'm waiting to see what he might say about it now. His last blog entry came before the D7000 was officially announced, and he had (in "The Puzzle") seemed to expect the D7000 to have an in-house sensor. He's at the time of year where he posts very infrequently, so it may take a few more days before he addresses the newest camera.

 

[Gdad]

One more comment on thing - Hogan is talking about the 3100 only when talking about the sensor size, Nikon's own spec sheet on their website says that the D7000 sensor is 23.6x15.6mm - just like the Sony 16mp sensor. Is it a Sony? Isn't it? This is the stuff that internet forum discussions are made of.

Why does it matter? Is the Sony sensor good or bad?

 

[MarkBarbieri]

If I recall, the Nikon D3x and the Sony A900 had the same sensor and the former had significantly better performance in terms of noise and dynamic range even comparing RAW files. I can't claim to know what else in the system makes them different, but having the same sensors doesn't guarantee that you'll have comparable performance.