Is the d7000 really that good?

[ghache]

Yesterday i had the chance to sell my D90 with the grip, couple of memory cards, extra batteries and a slingshot 200 bag. Enough to cover the cost of a brand new gripped d7000 and a couple of extra batteries. With the rebates a friend was able to get me i was able to get it dirt cheap. I am basicly switching over to the d7000 for the cost of the slingshot bag that didnt cost me much


I had the chance to play with the store demo and i deffintly think its a whole lot of camera compared to the d90. The new focus system is really nice and all the added feature compared to the d90 is totally a bonus. The iso performance which is totally clear at 3200 is just amazing on such a low cost body. 6400 seems to be as good as iso 3200 with only one pass of ninja noise with minimal detail lost.

but is ken rockwell is pushing a bit hard when he says its the BEST NIKON camera on the market?
After trying it, i can see where is coming from but comparing it to a d700 and a d3!?
i can deffinetly see the next generation of dXXX and Dx being crazy.

 

[Stradawhovious]

Well, I'm not going to be able to give yo a definitive answer for two reasons. #1, I'm not good enough to give a solid answer. #2, I've not owned or had in depth experience with EVERY Nikon model out there...... But I give as much heed to Rockwells raging hard-on for the D7000 as I give his total damnation of the D3000. As much as people love that guy, I have to take his opinions with a grain of salt.

I will, however, tell you that the D7000 turned my D3000 into a paperweight over night. The camera is simply amazing (well, amazing to a noob anyways). All the features I was drooling over that drew me to it in the first place are flawless, well laid out and extremely user friendly. There are also a handfull of features I didn't even know about or pay much mind to when buying the camera that I will use on a regular basis.... such as the virtual horizon feature and the U1 and U2 settings as well as many many others.

I have been floored and inspired by this camera, but from what I understand the D90 users may want to take a really hard look at it before dropping the money on the upgrade, as there might not be $1,200 worth of difference between the two.

Unless of course their friends can get them a rockstar discount, and they basically get it for free.

ETA..... Gripped? Where are you finding the grip? I haven't been able to locate one for the D7000. I want a grip.

 

[mrpink]

I have been floored and inspired by this camera, but from what I understand the D90 users may want to take a really hard look at it before dropping the money on the upgrade, as there might not be $1,200 worth of difference between the two.

As a current D90 owner, the only upgrade I would ever consider would be to FX.







p!nK

 

[ghache]

I have been floored and inspired by this camera, but from what I understand the D90 users may want to take a really hard look at it before dropping the money on the upgrade, as there might not be $1,200 worth of difference between the two.

As a current D90 owner, the only upgrade I would ever consider would be to FX.







p!nK

Thats what i was saying before trying it:lmao::lmao:

 

[mwcfarms]

I have been floored and inspired by this camera, but from what I understand the D90 users may want to take a really hard look at it before dropping the money on the upgrade, as there might not be $1,200 worth of difference between the two.

As a current D90 owner, the only upgrade I would ever consider would be to FX.

p!nK

+1

 

[David Dvir]

I think the idea here is that for the cost, it's the best current Nikon camera. If that's the case then I'd have to agree. I believe however that when it comes to taking still photographs, the D300s, D700 and the D3s are all way better in that department then the D7000.

 

[mrpink]

I have been floored and inspired by this camera, but from what I understand the D90 users may want to take a really hard look at it before dropping the money on the upgrade, as there might not be $1,200 worth of difference between the two.

As a current D90 owner, the only upgrade I would ever consider would be to FX.







p!nK

Thats what i was saying before trying it:lmao::lmao:

So what was limiting you on the D90 that the D7000 offered?







p!nK

 

[Jcampbelll]

There is nothing huge that the D7000 has over the D90. That is why I went for the D90. Also that is was $500 cheaper was a plus. :mrgreen:

 

[ghache]

As a current D90 owner, the only upgrade I would ever consider would be to FX.







p!nK

Thats what i was saying before trying it:lmao::lmao:

So what was limiting you on the D90 that the D7000 offered?





p!nK

I dont think the D90 was limiting me on anything since i shoot mostly portraiture outdoor and in studio but i think some of the feature of the d7000 will help a bit while i am out shooting all the other things i like to shoot.

considering the 100$ it costed me, the dual card slot and the extra mp, iso performance, extra focus points and the built of the camera itself is totally worth it.

for someone that is buying it full price, i dont know if i would buy the d90 again if this is what you wanted to know only time will tell once i start using it

 

[Blake.Oney]

I think the idea here is that for the cost, it's the best current Nikon camera. If that's the case then I'd have to agree. I believe however that when it comes to taking still photographs, the D300s, D700 and the D3s are all way better in that department then the D7000.

You think so? I mean about the D300s. I'm having internal wars between the D300s and the D7000. I don't care about video.

 

[mrpink]

Thats what i was saying before trying it:lmao::lmao:

So what was limiting you on the D90 that the D7000 offered?





p!nK

I dont think the D90 was limiting me on anything since i shoot mostly portraiture outdoor and in studio but i think some of the feature of the d7000 will help a bit while i am out shooting all the other things i like to shoot.

considering the 100$ it costed me, the dual card slot and the extra mp, iso performance, extra focus points and the built of the camera itself is totally worth it.

for someone that is buying it full price, i dont know if i would buy the d90 again if this is what you wanted to know only time will tell once i start using it

Ok, ok, ok... I would say for $100 I would upgrade- one would be labeled a complete fool to say other wise.

MSRP to MSRP I do not see it being worth it.






p!nK

 

[DVC Mike]

I think the idea here is that for the cost, it's the best current Nikon camera.

:thumbup:

 

[JAFO28]

I think the idea here is that for the cost, it's the best current Nikon camera. If that's the case then I'd have to agree. I believe however that when it comes to taking still photographs, the D300s, D700 and the D3s are all way better in that department then the D7000.

You think so? I mean about the D300s. I'm having internal wars between the D300s and the D7000. I don't care about video.

I know this thread is a little old, that being said i'm having the same problem as you Blake. I don't care one bit about video. I've had a d90 since they came out and have shot a total of three videos with it. My wife has, over the past year, gotten quite interested in photography. It's a hobby we share when we're not having a power struggle over who gets to use the camera. I have saved the money for a new body now I have to decide which one. David I was wondering if you still believe the 300s takes better stills than the d7000? Anybody else have an opinion I would love to here it. Thanks.

 

[Light Artisan]

Having shot the D300s and D7000 side by side for a month, my opinion is that the D7000 comes out on top far more often than not.

I've since traded my beloved D300s for a Nikon 70-200 VR.

 

[Ken Rockwell Fan]

The D7000 is the new D70. Nuff said.