Pre-Ordering a Camera Body?

[annnewjerz]

Not to re-vamp an old thread too much...but Jeff, I'm in the market for a 105 f/2.8 AIS if you are ever interested in selling. Just sayin! I was looking on KEH and E-Bay today and there are a handful available, but I'd be more than happy to take yours off your hands.

 

[Gdad]

From Thom Hogans blog today...

If you're waiting for a body-only version, I'd say expect to wait another month, as that's the typical lag between kits and body-only versions for Nikon. If you can't manage to grab one of these first shipments, I'd say expect to wait at least a couple more weeks, maybe more. If you're outside the US, it appears that Nikon is staggering initial deliveries amongst subsidiaries, probably because the Thailand plant hasn't been building D7000's for long, and there's no inventory build-up to ship simultaneously with.

My current estimate is that only about 10,000-12,000 D7000 kits are being distributed in the US by Nikon at the moment. Given that there are a bit over 3000 authorized places that sell Nikon gear in the US, that suggests that the average store is going to get less than half a dozen to sell

 

[rossb]

The D7000 certainly looks very nice, but I can't say that I'd be in a rush to sell my D90 and get one. IMO, it is not much of an upgrade and I doubt that it will result in better images. On the other hand, some people always want to have the latest gear. That means you will need to 'upgrade' every 2 years. I'm waiting for a FF sensor in a D90 sized (and priced) body. That would be a significant upgrade. I already have plenty of FF Nikkor glass.

 

[WDWFigment]

The D7000 certainly looks very nice, but I can't say that I'd be in a rush to sell my D90 and get one. IMO, it is not much of an upgrade and I doubt that it will result in better images. On the other hand, some people always want to have the latest gear. That means you will need to 'upgrade' every 2 years. I'm waiting for a FF sensor in a D90 sized (and priced) body. That would be a significant upgrade. I already have plenty of FF Nikkor glass.

I guess it's all in the eyes of the purchaser. I consider the D7000 to be a substantial upgrade over the D90. What you're asking for, I would consider much more substantial, yes, but I doubt it will happen anytime within the next five years. I wouldn't be surprised if it ever happens, as that would cannibalize a lot of sales from the high end DX line and the FX line. The D7000 will be my 3rd DSLR in 2 years of photography, so I can't say I'd mind upgrading 'only' every 2 years. Granted, I upgraded from the D40 to the D90 because I felt I was starting to hit a wall with the D40, so it wasn't so much an upgrade for the sake of new tech (but rather, new features), but I'm mostly upgrading from the D90 for new tech (and some new features).

 

[rossb]

I guess it's all in the eyes of the purchaser. I consider the D7000 to be a substantial upgrade over the D90.

Three D-SLRs in 2 years is a lot, that sounds like technology chasing. I do not see it as a substantial upgrade. I see one decent upgrade, the dropping of the base ISO to 100 which will effectively increase the flash sync speed. AF fine tune also looks interesting, but I’ve never had a need for it. All of my Nikkor glass focuses fine, including my old FF film lenses. I'd rather spend my money on something that will provide more of a difference and be around longer, like glass. But it is your money and it is all good as long as you will enjoy this new camera. Have fun and report back.

 

[WDWFigment]

It is not a substantial upgrade. 3 D-SLRs in 2 years is pretty crazy, you are chasing technology! This 'upgrade' is not going to improve the quality of your pictures. Personally, I bought 3 SLRs (including a film body) over the past 15 years.

Pretty definitive statements given that only I know in what regards the D90 has 'held me back'. I have many shots in which the IQ has suffered due to high ISO capability. I have shots that I've (slightly) missed the focus on because of the number of AF points on my current camera. I have previously refused to consider a lot of older lenses that couldn't meter with my camera. I have missed shots because of the burst rate on my camera. This list goes on, but I'm sure you get the idea by now. Making a blanket assertion that it's not going to improve the quality of my photos is unfounded. I consider the camera a substantial upgrade. It is for me at least.

I think I provided a decent rationale as to why I've gone through so many bodies in two years. I bought into the hobby cheaply, unsure of whether it would be 'for me.' Once I realized it was, and I started using the more advanced features of the D40, I realized I wanted "more camera" so I upgraded to the D90. Had money allowed, I would've upgraded to the D700, as it had the specs I really wanted. Instead, I settled. So now, when a camera is announced that starts to rival (a bit) the specs of the D700, it is logical for me to make the upgrade. Part of it may be 'chasing technology', but I really don't think that's my main motivation.

Conversely, I could just as easily say that with only 3 bodies in 15 years, you're unreceptive to technology and are suffering because of it. However, I don't know you, your personal shooting style or what's necessary to make such a judgment. Perhaps all of your shots would look exactly the same with a D50 as a D7000. I do know that my shots didn't look the same with a D40 as they did with a D90 (and that wasn't just because I was improving).

To each his own.

 

[Gdad]

I can see good reasons for moving from a D40 to a D90- and likewise on to a D7000. Just being able to meter AIS lenses would be enough reason for me- I went from a D80 to a D300 for the same reason. I don't think two upgrades in two years is anything out of the ordinary. Of course I just did a quick count and came up with about 20 cameras I have bought in the last 4-5 years (more film than digital- but still).....I may be a little biased.

 

[Gdad]

Now, you'll see silly debates between model loyalists. People who own a lower model or an older camera in the same model line wax poetic about how awesome the new camera looks. People having recently purchased a camera in the same model line make lots of comments on how it is a trivial upgrade and even a bit of a step backwards because they made the pixels smaller or removed some trivial feature.

What???

 

[annnewjerz]

Honestly, I think the D7000 sounds like a nice upgrade for someone who is looking to stay with a DX camera and get as close to the "benefits" of FX as possible. I don't have the money to make the jump right now, but considering about half of my glass is DX and half is FX, once I get the cash I'd consider it in lieu of an upgrade to the D700.

The higher ISO will be nice (although I remember when th D90 came out everyone talked about how great the high ISO for a DX was, and I still think it does wonderfully), the extra AF points would make a huge difference for me (3 was brutal, 11 is better, I can only imagine even more would be spectacular), the ability to meter with AIS lenses would be an added benefit since I have a few and I like the feel of the non-plastic dSLR bodies better.

If it were me, I'd probably just buy the kit with the 18-105 from Best Buy and get it sooner rather than later...but I'm impatient and I like new toys.

 

[rossb]

Conversely, I could just as easily say that with only 3 bodies in 15 years, you're unreceptive to technology and are suffering because of it.

Absolutely not. Running out to buy the latest gear does not make anyone a better photographer. What did Ansel Adams use?

My original Nikon 'F' still works great. I'm pretty sure it is older than you.

I have two DSLRs, a D50 and a D90.

 

[MarkBarbieri]

What???

Sorry, I was off in left field. Nothing like that would ever happen here.

 

[WDWFigment]

Absolutely not. Running out to buy the latest gear does not make anyone a better photographer. What did Ansel Adams use?

My original Nikon 'F' still works great. I'm pretty sure it is older than you.

I have two DSLRs, a D50 and a D90.

Did you not read the sentence immediately after the one you quoted? My implication was that blanket statements about others' style of photography are ignorant because you don't know what makes a good or bad photo for them.

In the context of photography discussions, Ansel Adams must have Godwin's Law status. Sure, Adams took great pictures, but so do a lot of contemporaries. Could Adams do some of the things with his camera that Trey Ratcliff does? Could Adams get a clean shot of the helmsman on Pirates of the Caribbean? I wholly agree that the biggest 'difference maker' in good photography is the eye behind the lens, but I think it's ignorant to be wholly dismissive of the role technology plays in some people's hands.

Sorry, I was off in left field. Nothing like that would ever happen here.

Haha.

 

[MarkBarbieri]

Haha.

Sorry, I just find the debate amusing because it is so rare here.

Ross, Tom is one the most creative and innovative photographers I've seen here, with some ultra-wide night shots that leave me drooling with envy. I could see mashing on him if he was some hack gear head that uses the Canon section from the B&H catalog as his packing list for day trips and still comes back with boring junk. Heck, even if he was some old granddad that took great shots but seemed to change switch bodies or lenses as often as he posted it would make sense. It just doesn't seem to fit in this case.

 

[rossb]

I could see mashing on him if he was some hack gear head that uses the Canon section from the B&H catalog as his packing list for day trips and still comes back with boring junk.

I don't think I really mashed on him. I look forward to his results with the new cam.

 

[MarkBarbieri]

 

[Gdad]

If it were me, I'd probably just buy the kit with the 18-105 from Best Buy and get it sooner rather than later...but I'm impatient and I like new toys.

I was actually at Best Buy this afternoon...

and they actually had two of them in stock...

I have to admit I was very tempted but I just can't bring myself to pay that much extra for a kit lens I don't need. What they did NOT have was one out on display that I could look at- which is what I was hoping for.

 

[GvilleDisneyDad]

I've already sold the 18-105mm lens from the D7000 kit. At the end of the day, I paid just a bit less than I would have from the Amazon preorder and I actually have the camera in hand.

 

[WDWFigment]

I've already sold the 18-105mm lens from the D7000 kit. At the end of the day, I paid just a bit less than I would have from the Amazon preorder and I actually have the camera in hand.

Dang! Either you live in a state with low/no sales tax or you sold that 18-105 for a lot. Congrats!

 

[Gdad]

My thoughts exactly- for me the tax would have been $105- doubt I could have got even close to $400 for the lens.

 

[rossb]

Tom - I just read 2 of your trip reports and browsed through many of your Flickr pictures. Great work, very impressive!