Nikon D7000 and SB-700

[pdxflint]

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.

Certainly it's both plastic and metal, but I don't think it's "mostly" plastic. I can't tell from this picture whether the bottom is metal or not, but with the top and rear (and possibly the bottom) forming the basic shell with plastic for the "innards" it should be pretty robust. Not as robust as my D300, but a bit stronger than the D90, with a much improved AF system. But the main thing to me is the weatherproofing-- if that's done well, it's a could be a good second camera in the field for detail and wide shots (and supplemental video clips) with my D300 covering the action/telephoto shots. I still think I'd rather get another D300 because of controls/batteries/CF cards, etc. but this is an interesting camera.

 

[Phrasikleia]

Certainly it's both plastic and metal, but I don't think it's "mostly" plastic. I can't tell from this picture whether the bottom is metal or not, but with the top and rear (and possibly the bottom) forming the basic shell with plastic for the "innards" it should be pretty robust. Not as robust as my D300, but a bit stronger than the D90, with a much improved AF system. But the main thing to me is the weatherproofing-- if that's done well, it's a could be a good second camera in the field for detail and wide shots (and supplemental video clips) with my D300 covering the action/telephoto shots. I still think I'd rather get another D300 because of controls/batteries/CF cards, etc. but this is an interesting camera.

Nikon's own press materials make it clear: the metal is on the top and back and nowhere else. It's not on the bottom, nor on the part where the lens mount attaches. It's mostly plastic. And where there is metal, those bits screw into plastic. That's still a whole lot more metal than a lot of cameras have, but it's mostly a plastic camera. It's very different in construction from the D300, for better or for worse.

I'm curious to know why you would see this camera as a good one for covering "wide shots"? Isn't its crop factor identical to the D300?

 

[pdxflint]

My answer is based on the way I might use a D7000 if I added it to my bag.
The reason I figure it would be good for covering wide shots and detail shots is more of a personal thing... just how I'd use it if it were a second camera along with my D300. This is because the D300 is a known commodity for fast AF for sports (cycling, for example) which I'd use my longer lenses on, and also the quicker handling/settings changes (because of more external controls available on the body) while the camera is in action and I'm looking through the viewfinder. For more deliberate shots and wider angle (background shots, behind-the-scenes, detail and environmental portrait type shots) where AF speed isn't as critical, the higher resolution of the D7000 would make it a decent companion body for those kinds of shots. I'd likely use each camera for it's particular strengths in handling.
So, I'd probably keep the 80-200 on the D300 most of the time, and a wide-angle or 17-55 on the D7000. This would result in fewer lens changes, since I'm working right now with only one body in the field...

Having said all that..., given the choice I'd probably stick with a second D300 or D300s for the reasons I mentioned above (controls/batteries/CF cards, etc..) The D7000 controls/configuration is still basically a D90, and I might find it less enjoyable and inconsistent to adjust things on the fly compared to what I'm already used to. It's an interesting camera, nonetheless, because of it's potential IQ performance and 1080p video. If the dust resistance and weatherproofing was equivalent to the D300, it would be a tough call between them since I already have a D300. No contest, however, if I can only use one -- D300 still fills the bill for me, and I wouldn't trade it.

 

[RaceTripper]

My answer is based on the way I might use a D7000 if I added it to my bag.
The reason I figure it would be good for covering wide shots and detail shots is more of a personal thing... just how I'd use it if it were a second camera along with my D300. This is because the D300 is a known commodity for fast AF for sports (cycling, for example) which I'd use my longer lenses on, and also the quicker handling/settings changes (because of more external controls available on the body) while the camera is in action and I'm looking through the viewfinder. For more deliberate shots and wider angle (background shots, behind-the-scenes, detail and environmental portrait type shots) where AF speed isn't as critical, the higher resolution of the D7000 would make it a decent companion body for those kinds of shots. I'd likely use each camera for it's particular strengths in handling.
So, I'd probably keep the 80-200 on the D300 most of the time, and a wide-angle or 17-55 on the D7000. This would result in fewer lens changes, since I'm working right now with only one body in the field...

Having said all that..., given the choice I'd probably stick with a second D300 or D300s for the reasons I mentioned above (controls/batteries/CF cards, etc..) The D7000 controls/configuration is still basically a D90, and I might find it less enjoyable and inconsistent to adjust things on the fly compared to what I'm already used to. It's an interesting camera, nonetheless, because of it's potential IQ performance and 1080p video. If the dust resistance and weatherproofing was equivalent to the D300, it would be a tough call between them since I already have a D300. No contest, however, if I can only use one -- D300 still fills the bill for me, and I wouldn't trade it.

I wonder how fast the autofocus is on the D7000, compared to the D300. If I got one I'd use it with my 70-200VR for shooting cars racing on track, while using my older D200 with a 17-55. I'm still thinking about waiting for a D300s replacement.

 

[pdxflint]

The new D7000 does have a new AF module, and I'd imagine it's probably a pretty good performer, maybe even as good as the AF on the D300/D700 series, but with 39 AF points vs. 51. Actually, I often us my D300 with 21 active points, so that's not that big a deal.

To me the main thing is the configuration and control layout difference between the two, and the compatibility with things like add-on grip, batteries, CF cards, chargers -- there is none. So, a D300 would be better teamed up with a D300s or even a D700 for me in the field, even if the D7000 AF speed was in the same ballpark. Also, the Dxxx series is a "known" quantity for durability and weather resistance.
The two advantages the new camera has are the 1080p video, and the higher resolution sensor, giving additional cropping power, perhaps better high ISO performance by a bit, but less of an issue. When comparing to a D200, the differences might be big enough that I'd more strongly consider a D7000, but still have to compare it to the D300/D300s if you already have a D200 for some of the same reasons I mentioned. It might be a better fit for you.

I'm willing to wait to see if Nikon does come out with a new flagship DX sensor body, which I suspect they will.

 

[RaceTripper]

I don't need to have a new camera before March, when I go to the 12 hours of Sebring. If the D400 (or whatever replaces the D300) is out, I can get that. Otherwise, I'll likely settle for the D7000.

 

[Cliff3]

I wouldn't expect a successor to the D300s until the D4 is released. The D3 was announced simultaneously with the D300 in August. The D2X was announced in September. If the past is any indication, the odds are pretty good for late Summer/early Fall for the new cameras too.

 

[RaceTripper]

I wouldn't expect a successor to the D300s until the D4 is released. The D3 was announced simultaneously with the D300 in August. The D2X was announced in September. If the past is any indication, the odds are pretty good for late Summer/early Fall for the new cameras too.

I don't think anyone outside Nikon has a clue when the D300 successor will come out. You might be right, but you could be totally wrong about your prediction too.

 

[Cliff3]

I don't think anyone outside Nikon has a clue when the D300 successor will come out. You might be right, but you could be totally wrong about your prediction too.

I am certain that no one not bound by a non-disclosure agreement has a clue. However, a discerning person can study and learn from the past and draw some conclusions.

(in any case, my D700 continues to be nearly perfect for my needs and I am not in the market for a camera)

 

[RaceTripper]

I am certain that no one not bound by a non-disclosure agreement has a clue. However, a discerning person can study and learn from the past and draw some conclusions.

(in any case, my D700 continues to be nearly perfect for my needs and I am not in the market for a camera)

Did the D1 and D100 come out together? How about the D2 and D200? If those dates align, then maybe your prediction for D4/D400 has some meat.

Edit: just checked. D1/100 and D2/200 all introduced apart from each other.

 

[Cliff3]

Did the D1 and D100 come out together? How about the D2 and D200? If those dates align, then maybe your prediction for D4/D400 has some meat.

The D200 followed the D2X by a year, but was largely feature aligned. That trend solidified with the D3/D300 release and it is one I would expect to continue. The D1 and D100 are too far in the past and too deep in the infancy of digital imaging to have any meaningful insights to offer today.

FWIW, I bought a D2X because I gave up waiting on the D200. By that point my D100 wasn't doing it for me. At all.