The AF switch on the D7000 lacks the C position. That seems completely gratuitous.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Nikon D7000 and SB-700
- Thread starter OreoCookie
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The AF switch on the D7000 lacks the C position. That seems completely gratuitous.
The D90 is similar - the selector for continuous vs. servo is on a different button. The way the D7000 does it seems a bit awkward to me, but then I haven't used a D90 either.
Ergonomics of the D300/D700 series is almost identical to the D3 series, while the D7000 is virtually the same as the D90. Someone who uses the Dxxx series camera professionally will likely not "downgrade" despite the technical specs of the new D7000, because of handling. I didn't say "absolutely," only "likely." The D7000 looks like a great camera, and I'm expecting another DX flagship body sometime during the next year.
Also, why on earth would most consumers need FX sensors in their cameras? Sometimes it seems the buzzwords have more impact than actual use. FX is great for certain issues, low noise, dynamic range and more limited depth of field. But, with the right lenses, DX sensors can provide ample limited depth of field also, and as the electronics improve the noise characteristics will also improve. The cost difference between DX and FX for what you actually get is considerable. I do want an FX body because I come from a film background and it would bring me home, but I don't think FX is going to make DX go away at all, when DX can continue to be very viable and produce images far better than the average photographer can ever achieve with his/her skill level. FX would just be overkill for the average "amateur" photographer.
Also, why on earth would most consumers need FX sensors in their cameras? Sometimes it seems the buzzwords have more impact than actual use. FX is great for certain issues, low noise, dynamic range and more limited depth of field. But, with the right lenses, DX sensors can provide ample limited depth of field also, and as the electronics improve the noise characteristics will also improve. The cost difference between DX and FX for what you actually get is considerable. I do want an FX body because I come from a film background and it would bring me home, but I don't think FX is going to make DX go away at all, when DX can continue to be very viable and produce images far better than the average photographer can ever achieve with his/her skill level. FX would just be overkill for the average "amateur" photographer.
I agree completely. It was fashionable about a year ago on discussion forums for people to discourage anyone from purchasing DX lenses because "you're going to want to go FX eventually, and as more people do, it will be hard to sell off your DX lenses." That kind of thinking never made any sense to me. DX isn't going away anytime soon, and most enthusiast photographers will never have a need for FX.
I think the sb700 os going to be a pretty big hit. For people like me, who are looking to pick up their first speedlight, the improved interface and features of the sb900 were really appealing over the older models but it is hard to justify the price tag of the flagship strobe for a beginner or light user of flash. The sb700 brings a lot of what users liked most about the sb900 (interface/controls, convenience features like auto WB sensing, etc) in a smaller and cheaper package.
I didn't really want to put money in the sb600 considering it's age and the sb900 is just too much flash and too much money for what i will likely use, the sb700 serves as a great compromise, and it really has me intrigued.
I also kind of like the new design of plastic filters vs gels. They seem more robust and durable vs the gels which would wear out (mainly due to the heat) or get damaged. Will be interesting to see how people like them.
I didn't really want to put money in the sb600 considering it's age and the sb900 is just too much flash and too much money for what i will likely use, the sb700 serves as a great compromise, and it really has me intrigued.
I also kind of like the new design of plastic filters vs gels. They seem more robust and durable vs the gels which would wear out (mainly due to the heat) or get damaged. Will be interesting to see how people like them.
I've been waiting to see if the D400 would ever come out, to add to my D200 so I have two bodies for motorsports shooting. I think I'll get the D7000. That will get my 70-200/2.8 VR and the D200 will have my 17-55/2.8. This should be a decent double rig for shooting races.
Well, as a semi-pro shooter using the D300, it would orphan a lot of my dx lenses, which have been a huge investment for me. Plus, if a different body size was offered, I would have something possibly too heavy for regular (non-studio) use and unable to use the substantial battery pack I have. Sure, this may be the price of progress, but I wonder how many D300(s) shooters would want to make a change. Seeing it's success in the same world as the D700, I am guessing not too many of them.
If a person did not want to put down money into a brand new sb600 s/he could have purchased it as a used item and save some money.
I do like that the sb700 is a bit more curvy looking then the rather boxy looking sb600
This is true but you'd probably still be paying well over a hundred dollars for it: 30-50% of the cost of the SB700 and getting none of the new features. It's more about putting money towards an old flash that was clearly in need of upgrading not buying new vs. used.
So I guess today's revelation is that the D7000 is made mostly of plastic. Its top and rear covers are metal, but those bits are screwed into plastic parts, and the entire body base is plastic (unlike the D300). Does that really bother anybody? Seems to me that the lighter weight plastic brings would be a real bonus for a camera in this class, and today's plastics are quite durable.
So I guess today's revelation is that the D7000 is made mostly of plastic. Its top and rear covers are metal, but those bits are screwed into plastic parts, and the entire body base is plastic (unlike the D300). Does that really bother anybody? Seems to me that the lighter weight plastic brings would be a real bonus for a camera in this class, and today's plastics are quite durable.
I'm not so sure lighter is necessarily better. I may not like the balance of it when using my 70-200 VR, which is the lens that will be used almost 100% if I get the D7000.
I'm still using my trusty D80 as I skipped the D90 altogether. I was really hoping that by now Nikon would have realised that geolocation shouldn't require some clunky piece of junk stuck on the top, when GPS can be built into small devices like phones nowadays, but oh well. There are enough improvements over the D80 to make it worth considering anyway.
I tried to once, but I fell asleep and dropped my camera.I assume you don't shoot NASCAR?
So that's why you need a metal body :lol:I tried to once, but I fell asleep and dropped my camera.
Not to mention, Nikon's own GPS receiver is an overpriced POS. My wife got me one as a present once, and I stood in my backyard fro 20 mins. waiting for it to get a GPS lock. We returned it and I got the Promote GPS attachment. It works great and is $100 less.
The weight of this body is between the D90 and D300, so it's not exactly a lightweight. The material used to construct a body really doesn't much matter to me. The use of plastic does help keep the costs down which matters a lot in a consumer/prosumer camera.
So I've heard. I've been using a small device that just clips to the camera bag and works very well. Unfortunately the camera would not fit in the bag with the Nikon GPS attached, and I'm not going to buy a new bag or keep removing/refitting it so that's out of the question. I maybe need to reinvestigate iPhone GPS loggers now we have multitasking, although the GPS in the iPhone is rather weak. Also I don't want anything that needs data, since the pictures I care about geotagging are usually abroad where data costs a small fortune.
If Nikon had simply added GPS capability into the camera body, it would probably only have added $10-20 to the manufacturing cost. It probably costs more to add the inbuilt flash which I never use.
I agree completely. It would make life easier.
I suspect they don't because the GPS is an extra drain on battery while it is active. Navigon kills my iPhone battery very quickly if I navigate without plugging to charging power. I know if I'm not careful when using my Promote GPS I can find my battery completely drained unexpectedly.
Not really a revelation as it was mentioned from the start that the rear and top that was mag-alloy... but that picture from the front certainly is new to me, so thanks for sharing.
Sure I'd prefer if it was 100% mag-alloy, but even the all plastic Nikons felt pretty damn robust (unlike the Canon's which alway felt lightweight - one of the reasons I went Nikon) so a combination of the two won't give me any sleepless nights. Plus factor in that this one is weather sealed and I'm not concerned at all.
Put my pre-order in last night for the D7000 and kit lens. The lens will go to my housemate as an upgrade to her 18-55mm VR, and I'll use my 18-200mm until the temptation of moving to the 17-55mm becomes too much
Crap. It's not up to much? I was seriously considering picking this up seeing as I'll be overseas a lot over the next year. I was looking at the Phottix Geo One which is a carbon copy of the GP-1 but is half the price and provides a corded remote too... less waste of money potentially I guess?
Well, I don't really buy that for a number of reasons. Their own GP-1 also uses the camera battery. The one I currently use manages a few days of travels on a single AA battery. The Coolpix 6000 does have built in GPS. And there's no reason why the user couldn't turn the GPS off if they are concerned about the battery life, and not using it.
Well we can Canon vs Nikon till the cows come home. I have always used bought Canon. I started with the match needle FTb, and the Original F1, both of which I still have/use, and I did purchase a Canon P&S SD900 which I use as well. I find I am in the market for a DSLR and I really like the Canon 7D, AND the Nikon D7000. I think I am about to own my FIRST Nikon
Regarding GPS, that's definitely something that's 1000x more enticing to me than a monitor I can swivel or some dumb movie mode. I have an external GPS logger, but half of the time I forget it, a quarter of the time it eventually runs out of battery after 7~8 hours (and many of my treks take longer than that) and in the rest of the cases, it works fine I wish I could get an external GPS logger for my D80
*or have it built into my next camera
I wish I could get an external GPS logger for my D80
*or have it built into my next camera Regarding GPS, that's definitely something that's 1000x more enticing to me than a monitor I can swivel or some dumb movie mode. I have an external GPS logger, but half of the time I forget it, a quarter of the time it eventually runs out of battery after 7~8 hours (and many of my treks take longer than that) and in the rest of the cases, it works fine
I was hoping the D7000 would get inbuilt GPS, but once the P7000 was announced and the GPS had been ditched from the prior model, I knew it was never going to happen with the D7000.
I may well get the Geo One and see if it's up to much. The reviews (well, review) seem favourable, so may pick one up before the first trip away...
There are a few reviews of the Phottix Geo One on the Internet actually if you google. Given that it's half the price of the Nikon one, I might give it a try if I go ahead and get the D7000.