« A Leica for Your Year? | Main | How To Make A Chapbook (Part II) »

Thursday, 16 September 2010

Comments

According to that Ken guy, the D7000 will also read the aperture ring on AI and AI-S manual-focus Nikkors. I personally find this exciting because I realized a few months ago I have five prime AI and AI-S Nikkors that would work beautifully (I think, anyway) on a D700. The D7000 might get me there for half the price (and 1.5x the field of view), assuming I don't have the patience to wait for reasonably priced used D700s.

Color me cautiously intrigued.

Canon owners owe Nikon a Big Thank You!

Now that Canon's 7D has serious competition I suspect the price will drop for the Holidays.

D7000 raised the bar on specs at sub $1200 price point.

Nikon's D7000 could become the camera that entices some Canon owners, Olympus owners, even Pentax owners to the Dark Side.

Why ?

Admission Price and ability to use plentiful Nikon Ai and AiS mount lenses. Many pro caliber lenses that were made from 1977 and some is still made today. Like 50mm 1.2, 20mm 2.8, 35mm 1.4, ect, all instock, hassle free USA market lenses at B&H.

Nikon D7000 is a game changer.

Interesting that you have said this will nestle between the D90 and the D300... so far everything I have read was touting this as the D90 replacement. There has been some speculation that this camera could replace the D90 and the D300, becoming the new top DX camera- and a sub $2000 FX camera would replace the D300s. Will be interesting to watch the next year and see what happens. You would have to think that this camera will really take a chunk out of D300s sales.

The weather sealing, micro AF adjust, mirror lock-up, metering with AI lenses and dual card slots are huge upgrades from the D70/D80/D90 series and will be enough for me to buy the D7000 as a replacement for my D200.

I find it interesting that the title here says "Counterpunch to Canon's 7D," especially since this is priced closer to the 60D. If this really can compete on the level of the 7D, Nikon is set to shake things up in this space.

This is another showing of Nikon and Canon copying eachother, though this time something went wrong. Canon 'down'graded the x0D line to better match Nikon's D90.
Nikon on the other hand, improved so much with the D7000 it now sits well beyond where the D90 used to be, and is more a match to where Canon's x0D line once was.

Apparently they don't share the same boardroom after all.

Definitely in the WANT!!! category. On the other hand, I was thinking about buying it and found that there are no standard (24-70 mm equivalent) f/2.8 zooms for it that would a) not suck (Sigma 17-50 OS, Tamron 17-50 VC et al.) and/or b) be reasonably priced (Nikkor 17-55 - and one source I trust implicitly, because they're averse to measurebation and pixel peeping tried THREE copies of the lens which all sucked), which for me is a deal breaker. Can anyone please tell me I'm wrong?

One word: Confusion.

I currently use a Nikon D40x and it's getting close to 100k cycles (actuations) and I've been planning on a replacement.

First I considered the Nikon D5000 then comes the Nikon D3100 which in some important ways is better than the D5000. So I think it's the D3100 in my future.

Now we have the Nikon D7000. Yes it's over twice the cost of a D5000 but it looks very nice.

But where does this leave the D5000? Or the D90? Or the D300?

Right now Nikon needs to clarify it's line-up. What's in and what's out. Until then I will wait and see.

Or maybe get that new lens I've been craving.

"Apparently they don't share the same boardroom after all."

Well, guess Nikon has borrowed the boardroom of Pentax this time. Except for the lack of in-body IS, this could (almost) be a re-branded Pentax K5

"Still no body-integral image stabilization. Dominant cameramakers Nikon and Canon make more money adding this feature to individual lenses."

Where's the proof of this? If you want to argue that they charge more for their lenses, I'm with you... to a point. (Olympus has some mighty expensive lenses too). But presumably it also costs Canon and Nikon (and Panasonic and Samsung) money to put that technology in each lens. It's not a cost neutral addition.

I'll go a bit further than most in my reading of the D7000: I think it replaces the D300 and a D400 is not coming any time soon.

The D7000 has the AI meter, Mirror-up mode, a 100% viewfinder, 3D tracking grid AF, a metal body and partial seals. Many of these are really simple things that cost next to nothing to implement and have historically been reserved for higher-end products. Why stop this practice now? Why send a signal to the high-end buyers that it's okay to buy a D7000 and not hold out for the D400?

In my opinion, the D7000 defines the new top-end APS-C body from Nikon. When we see the D400 come out, I would expect it to be FF.

Next week you will have a trio when the Pentax K5 arrives. Looks like it has the same 16MP Sony sensor used in the D7000, but with the Pentax you get inbody AS :)

http://www.crunchgear.com/2010/09/10/pentax-k-5-dslr-pictures-and-specs-leak/

7000? who came up with the names for these cameras ? Are Japanese trying to copy the German Car naming convention of the 70's ? Would the DX-7 be a better name? (end rant)

And don't forget the new Pentax K-5 (now that's a good name) which will come out with similar specs and same CMOS.

The Nikon D7000 has AF micro-adjustement which Canon left out of the 60D while the 50D had it.

Downgrading a camera to protect a higher priced one doesnt always work!

Kevin Schoenmakers got it pretty much right; this isn't quite a counterpunch to the 7D.

But it'll be out any moment now, which makes it imminently obsolete. I think I'll just wait for the replacement, otherwise I'll get laughed at, lumbering 'round with this morning's model.

In-lens IS is widely believed to be more effective for long pro telephotos

Funny that most pros I've seen using long-ass lenses have the IS turned off securely with duct tape. Makes me ask:

1) Why these lenses have IS at all if they're too heavy to hand-hold and are used on monopods or tripods anyway?

2) Why not add IS to the body where it is as effective as in-lens IS at the focal lengths most widely used in everyday photography (18mm - 135mm)?

Both questions share a common answer, and it involves the words money, shareholders and revenue. On the other hand, in the best interest of photographers does not appear in the answer.

this looks like an awesome camera, and this is the first time i've ever looked at a nikon camera release and thought to myself "that's actually a pretty competitive price." i'm also very excited about it metering AI lenses.

kudos to you mike for being one of the few (only) well known photography commentators to chastise canon/nikon for the lack of IBIS. image stabilization would be a wonderful thing to have in the 35-100mm range, especially when shooting a fast 85mm indoors. putting an image stabilizing lens group in a 85/1.4 would be quite an engineering feat (and undoubtedly very expensive), so why not just give us IBIS for short focal lengths? please!!! i'll probably just get a sony when i upgrade to FF because of this.

" I personally find this exciting because I realized a few months ago I have five prime AI and AI-S Nikkors that would work beautifully (I think, anyway) on a D700."

My current kit has evolved to a 28mm f2.8, 50mm f1.4, and an 85mm f2 - all AIS - on a D700. I get slightly sharper or equal pictures to my 35mm f2 AFD, 50mm f1.4 AFS, and 85mm f1.8 AFD - and they're pretty sharp - for a whole lot less weight. The 50mm and 85mm AIS lenses are over 25 years old; the 28 is newly purchased (couldn't use my original 30+ year old 35mm, forgot to get it AIed:( ). Right now my shoulder is worse than my eyesight, and weight is more important to me than AF. But I'll save my AF lenses for when other body parts start to fail;)

We should remember that when Nikon produced these older lenses, they were top of the PJ food chain, and their products weren't too shabby. So far I have not noticed any of the problems created by digital based reflections that I had noticed on some newer lenses.

This looks like one very cool camera. On a side note am I the only one thinking its time for Nikon to thin out its confusing lineup?

Ad duct tape on IS switches:

Funny that, never saw a concert pro who didn't use IS if they had it. In other words, horses for courses. Sports pros (usually) won't use IS lenses because they need short shutter times anyway in order to freeze the action and they tend to be not quite as sharp as their IS counterparts.
On the other hand, wedding pros probably consider IS to be the greatest thing since sliced bread served by (and on) glamour models.

I'm with John Krill. I'm totally baffled at the camera maker's product lineups. I guess I'll have to wait a few weeks for Thom Hogan to start writing up some articles on the Nikon line, which will give me time to find someone who is a Canon aficionado to explain their stuff.

I think this sort of camera lineup fiddling is designed to be confusing - to keep us arguing about which set of features is "best" or "the best deal" rather than asking ourselves what we really need. That way, we are tempted to buy the wrong camera for our needs, become dissatisfied, sell it, and buy a different one.

It took a while, but I am comfortable with the fact that I don't fully understand what I "need" to buy next. It's not as though I have a burning need to replace my current DSLR with a new one. I do, however, have a burning need to replace my current DSLR with a small, mirrorless camera.

Nikon has used 4 digits to denote camera bodies for consumer and "prosumer" cameras since the 1980s at least in the US market. Nikon has fairly been consistent. Lower entry level models start with 4,5,6, mid to upper levels 7,8,9. Right now Nikon has a 3000,5000,7000. D300 replacement will probably be called D9000. High Rez full sensor cameras will probably retain the 3 digit names and pro bodies will still carry the one digit name.

Having to Sunny-16 my 1980's Nikkor AIS lenses was the biggest disappointment when I tried out my SO's D90. So if it's true that the new Nikon DSLR will actually, well, work with legacy lenses, that's good news from where I'm standing.

I started to ask, after not finding the answer here. But then I went and researched, and found the answer in the dpreview hands-on preview.

So, if anybody is wondering, the D7000 DOES support autofocus with AF and AF-D lenses, as the D300 does; its autofocus is not limited to only AF-S lenses.

I have to agree with Josh and Olivier. I think that with the D7000, we are looking at the new top of the DX line. It has pretty much everything the D300 has, including support for all of the legacy lenses. And its $1200 price leaves a nice hole in Nikon's line at the $1800 mark. Nikon ought to be able to bring out a consumer FX body at that price point with no problem. (With the 24-120 f/4, they already have the kit lens to go with it.)

Only problem: Now I've got my hopes up for a smaller, lighter, cheaper FX from Nikon.

While I fully agree that a new, affordable 24mm Nikon prime would be bliss, I have to take issue with the folks bemoaning a lack of other prime focal lengths -- Nikon introduced a *very* capable, *very* affordable 35mm prime just last year, and has a stable of fast 50's in a variety of price ranges, starting from the absurdly cheap. I'm still kicking myself for selling a 28mm 2.8D, because even though I made money owning that lens for two years, it's still darn close to the 24 I keep thinking I need, and I already had it. Some day I'm going to learn that lesson... ;)

Counterpunch the 7D?

"The middleweight's taking a beating, send in that young welterweight, at least he's got fresh legs!" Good luck young fella.

I also have to comment on the hobbyhorses being trotted out in the comments section, about the D300 being replaced by a full frame camera within its price category. This is typical wishfulness for enthusiasts who have the mentality, "the biggest-sensored (or film-size) camera I can afford is the one for me." I see a lot of that mentality in the postings around the traps.

Well, wishing for the D300 to make way for a cheaper D700 is not good wishfulness for enthusiasts who share my mentality, being "the smallest-sensored camera I can be satisfied with is the one for me." The size, weight, ever-increasing cost, and telephoto limitations of class glass for full frame cameras is never going to go away, and is something I wouldn't wish on any future D300 or 7D owners.

The compact sensor is a boon. Long may it live! Bring on the lenses!

Actually, Nikon's kit zooms are amazingly sharp lenses. I regularly use a "cheap" 18-135mm Nikkor on my D200 and used together with DxO Optics Pro raw converter the resolution and CA is on par with my Nikkor primes. The thing with Nikon is not that their kit lenses are crap (in fact, they are just the opposite) but that they are simply not very fast -- and Nikon charges an arm and a leg for their fast lenses, which Pros can easily afford. It is a reasonable compromise.

The weather sealing, micro AF adjust, mirror lock-up, metering with AI lenses and dual card slots are huge upgrades from the D70/D80/D90 series and will be enough for me to buy the D7000 as a replacement for my D200.

I don't think the D7000 has weather sealing and micro AF adjust. I read the specs several times yesterday looking specifically for micro AF adjust, read the DPR review three times and did not see it. Am I missing something?

I do not know if I am missing something in all this talk of Canon vs. Nikon. When I finally replaced my OM4 in 2004, I looked at all the manufacturers and chose what I considered to be the best DSLR I could afford (and that was not HUGE) - the Canon 20D. Since then I have bought a handful of lenses and before moviong to Africa upgraded to a 5D MKII.

I could not imagine the cost of changing system to Nikon (or anyone else) and am sure that the vast majority of amateurs are in the same boat as me. It is great that Cankon keep coming out with ever better bodies and I am sure I will upgrade again in less than ten years (My OM4 lasted 21 and still goes strong). The competition makes for fun new features but I use hardly any of them.

Oh well, it is something to chat about :-)

Greetings from Addis
Andrew

Voigtlander has the 20mm, 40mm, 58mm and 90mm, all chipped albeit manual focus only.

Boyan,

AF finetune and weather sealing are both mentioned on Nikon's D7000 page.

Maggie,

I believe that those AIS lenses will "work" on a D90. No, they won't auto-anything, but you can mount them and make images. I've had great fun using 60's vintage 55 micro on my D5000.

As with others here, I don't see why one would buy a D300 instead of this, maybe the 300 is due for a price cut? D90 is a little different story as it's $300 cheaper, which will be a factor for some people.

"I could not imagine the cost of changing system to Nikon (or anyone else) and am sure that the vast majority of amateurs are in the same boat as me."

if you only buy used lenses the cost of switching systems is pretty much the same as the cost of upgrading to a new camera. unlike modern camera bodies and kit lenses, quality lenses hold there value exceptionally well (there is a bit of price drop between new and like new though). i have never sold a lens for less than i paid for it. because of this, i'm always ready to change systems when my camera starts to wear out - it costs the same thing.

I don't think the D7000 has weather sealing and micro AF adjust. I read the specs several times yesterday looking specifically for micro AF adjust, read the DPR review three times and did not see it. Am I missing something?

The weather sealing and AF Finetuning are on the spec list at Nikon.com and Chase Jarvis has confirmed both on his blog. Additionally, I failed to mention the virtual horizon and 100% viewfinder. This is really looking to be a fantastic camera at the price point, especially if the high ISO noise is as good as rumored.

I've gone from Miranda to Leica + Pentax to Nikon to Olympus to Nikon AF to Nikon digital (admittedly, over 40 years). If your timing is good, and you sell the old equipment carefully, and you keep each system long enough to accumulate various things that didn't work out that you can now sell :-), I find the cost of changing systems isn't that bad. Especially if you're buying used.

Even from 20 years ago, I shudder when I compare today's camera prices to what I paid in 1987. My Olympus system consisted of TWO OM-4T bodies, one winder, 24/2, 35/2, 50/1.8, and 85/2 Olympus prime lenses, Vivitar series 1 28-90, Vivitar Series 1 70-210, and the Olympus 24mm/3.5 shift lens. I ordered it in one lump (from B&H, of course). Cost: $2700, new. Or, roughly what my D700 body cost.

The prong for the manual lenses is there; look at the photo carefully. Nice that Mike used one that shows the lens mount.

I agree with Stephen as well. I've waited for a 12/2.8 and 16/2.8 for like, years already. I think another 2 more years and it'll be a decade.

In the meantime I make do with a variety of 3rd party glass; seriously, it seems they get the APS lenses better than the manufacturers themselves.

I priced a 17-40 or 24-105 + 70-200 f/4 + 60D = ($2600-2800) for a great deal less than a comparable model D7000 + 80-200 + 24-120 = ($3600). That overshadows any claims for 39 AF points any day. In fact the 80-200 is the old model with what screw driven auto focus. Who wants to buy that? It may be good. But who wants it when u can get ring USM? I don't think Nikon lenses are worth the money they ask. And all Nikon does is spend money on ads. They must have bought up every zine to convince us of their superiority. Go buy one if you like it.

The comments to this entry are closed.