Tragedy...busted my D90

[Mr.Photo]

Have fun with the D7000. While it feels similar to the D90 it's a whole different (better) animal. I still own mine and love it. Someday soon I will have me a second one.

 

[Jim Walczak]

Have fun with the D7000. While it feels similar to the D90 it's a whole different (better) animal. I still own mine and love it. Someday soon I will have me a second one.

Thanks! I've already downloaded the user's manual to start acquainting myself with the controls and such. As you say, doesn't look too different...at least not quite as foreign as the borrowed D5300 I used as a backup for my last photo gig (although that "release mode dial" looks interesting). I'm really excited to see how it performs. I also picked up a few older manual lenses recently so I'm itching to get out and give those a work out as well...I particularly want to see how the old 50mm f/2.0 does shooting jelly fish out at the Akron Zoo...with the ISO capabilities of the new camera I have some high expectations

 

[Auslese]

While on a camping/hiking trip this past week, I dropped my Nikon D90 on a LARGE rock, while fussing with my stupid tripod trying to get a waterfall pic. The camera does still seem to be working (for now at least), however the viewfinder and diopter are busted all to hell. I may contact Nikon about a repair, but as the D90 is a bit older anyways, I'm gonna to consider my options here first.

I've seen they made a D40, D60, D70, etc., but after the D90, there doesn't appear to be another immediate successor in this same model line (as the D100, D200, D300 are different types of prosumer cameras as I understand). It's also my understanding that the D3300, D5200 and D5300, etc., can't use the older manual Nikon/Nikkor lenses so that's not really an option...something to do with metering I think (not to mention, at the risk of sounding like a gear snob, they feel kind of "cheap" comparatively speaking).

I've been VERY happy with my D90, so I don't really need any kind of extravagant upgrade (and I can't afford extravagant in any case). Also not concerned about "video" or other bells and whistles. Mainly I just need something with comparable features that will still use my older manual Nikkor lenses. I may even look around for another used D90...again I've been very pleased with this camera.


So to cut to the chase here, what replaced the D90? Is it the D7000?

Thanks!

The best buy for the money is the D7100 at under $800 dollars and it is light years ahead of the D7000 and has 24mp to the 7000 16mp. There are some minor upgrades to the 7100 that make it a 7200 but these are unimportant. Toss the 90 in the trash, or stuff it in your extra bag, as camera technology is eclipsing lens technology. Get a new camera today.

 

[Jim Walczak]

While on a camping/hiking trip this past week, I dropped my Nikon D90 on a LARGE rock, while fussing with my stupid tripod trying to get a waterfall pic. The camera does still seem to be working (for now at least), however the viewfinder and diopter are busted all to hell. I may contact Nikon about a repair, but as the D90 is a bit older anyways, I'm gonna to consider my options here first.

I've seen they made a D40, D60, D70, etc., but after the D90, there doesn't appear to be another immediate successor in this same model line (as the D100, D200, D300 are different types of prosumer cameras as I understand). It's also my understanding that the D3300, D5200 and D5300, etc., can't use the older manual Nikon/Nikkor lenses so that's not really an option...something to do with metering I think (not to mention, at the risk of sounding like a gear snob, they feel kind of "cheap" comparatively speaking).

I've been VERY happy with my D90, so I don't really need any kind of extravagant upgrade (and I can't afford extravagant in any case). Also not concerned about "video" or other bells and whistles. Mainly I just need something with comparable features that will still use my older manual Nikkor lenses. I may even look around for another used D90...again I've been very pleased with this camera.


So to cut to the chase here, what replaced the D90? Is it the D7000?

Thanks!

The best buy for the money is the D7100 at under $800 dollars and it is light years ahead of the D7000 and has 24mp to the 7000 16mp. There are some minor upgrades to the 7100 that make it a 7200 but these are unimportant. Toss the 90 in the trash, or stuff it in your extra bag, as camera technology is eclipsing lens technology. Get a new camera today.

Nothing personal, however perhaps you should have read through the entire thread instead of just the initial post...I've already ordered a D7000 as stated a few comments up. The differences between the 7000 and the 7100 weren't significant enough to warrant the difference in price for me and the 7100 was outside of my budget in any case. -IF- the 7000 and 7100 were more comparatively priced, I -might- have given the 7100 more consideration however as is, there's still a $200+ difference between the 2 on the used market...and that difference knocked the 7100 right out of the running. I simply won't spend that much additional cash on features I simply don't need.

And -NO- the D90 will NOT simply be tossed in the trash...if anything I find that suggestion rather presumptuous, if not rude. I'm NOT one of those people who simply has to have the newest, coolest, bestest toys on the market...that D90 has served me VERY well and I did seriously consider a direct replacement...if anything it was mostly the better video capabilities and better low light capabilities that sold me on the D7000. Either way, I WILL continue to use my D90, both as a back up for still work, as well as for video for as long as the camera continues to function. It's a genuine shame that some people see something that may be "out of date" and consider it to be utterly useless...something you just toss in the trash. Not all of us have the kind of money to spend or that desire to simply be wasteful.

 

[Mr.Photo]

While on a camping/hiking trip this past week, I dropped my Nikon D90 on a LARGE rock, while fussing with my stupid tripod trying to get a waterfall pic. The camera does still seem to be working (for now at least), however the viewfinder and diopter are busted all to hell. I may contact Nikon about a repair, but as the D90 is a bit older anyways, I'm gonna to consider my options here first.

I've seen they made a D40, D60, D70, etc., but after the D90, there doesn't appear to be another immediate successor in this same model line (as the D100, D200, D300 are different types of prosumer cameras as I understand). It's also my understanding that the D3300, D5200 and D5300, etc., can't use the older manual Nikon/Nikkor lenses so that's not really an option...something to do with metering I think (not to mention, at the risk of sounding like a gear snob, they feel kind of "cheap" comparatively speaking).

I've been VERY happy with my D90, so I don't really need any kind of extravagant upgrade (and I can't afford extravagant in any case). Also not concerned about "video" or other bells and whistles. Mainly I just need something with comparable features that will still use my older manual Nikkor lenses. I may even look around for another used D90...again I've been very pleased with this camera.


So to cut to the chase here, what replaced the D90? Is it the D7000?

Thanks!

The best buy for the money is the D7100 at under $800 dollars and it is light years ahead of the D7000 and has 24mp to the 7000 16mp. There are some minor upgrades to the 7100 that make it a 7200 but these are unimportant. Toss the 90 in the trash, or stuff it in your extra bag, as camera technology is eclipsing lens technology. Get a new camera today.

Nothing personal, however perhaps you should have read through the entire thread instead of just the initial post...I've already ordered a D7000 as stated a few comments up. The differences between the 7000 and the 7100 weren't significant enough to warrant the difference in price for me and the 7100 was outside of my budget in any case. -IF- the 7000 and 7100 were more comparatively priced, I -might- have given the 7100 more consideration however as is, there's still a $200+ difference between the 2 on the used market...and that difference knocked the 7100 right out of the running. I simply won't spend that much additional cash on features I simply don't need.

And -NO- the D90 will NOT simply be tossed in the trash...if anything I find that suggestion rather presumptuous, if not rude. I'm NOT one of those people who simply has to have the newest, coolest, bestest toys on the market...that D90 has served me VERY well and I did seriously consider a direct replacement...if anything it was mostly the better video capabilities and better low light capabilities that sold me on the D7000. Either way, I WILL continue to use my D90, both as a back up for still work, as well as for video for as long as the camera continues to function. It's a genuine shame that some people see something that may be "out of date" and consider it to be utterly useless...something you just toss in the trash. Not all of us have the kind of money to spend or that desire to simply be wasteful.

Well said Jim.

I will also add that many of the features of today's camera's are more luxuries than necessities. While the D7100 does improve on a few things over the D7000 like higher ISO capability and the locking mode selector dial (something I do wish my D7000 had), neither of these features are a requirement for me. While I understand camera technology is always evolving you don't have to have the latest and greatest the minute it comes out. My D7000 was nearing the end of it's life cycle when I bought it, but Nikon had not yet announced a replacement and I don't regret getting it one bit. I will continue to use this camera for years to come as I simply know this camera's quirks and am able to work around them to get exactly what I need or want. It is more about the skill of the photographer to use the tools he has available to him/her.

As mentioned above I understand the need for camera technology to evolve, however at this current stage the camera manufacturers are making minor improvements from model to model rather than major leaps. For this reason I will likely have my D7000 for at least a few more years before I consider replacing it as then the upgrade in performance/features to me would be more worth it.

Also Jim I read your last reply to me and noticed you mention the 50mm f/2. I'm assuming that you have the older manual focus Ai 50mm f/2? If so I have that exact same lens and it is a treat on the D7000 as you now have the ability to get full metering capability with that lens in Aperture Priority and Manual modes. The D7000 has a feature in the menu called "Non CPU Lens Data" and you can store up to nine different lenses. All you have to do is input the lenses focal length and maximum aperture and you will have metering.

 

[Auslese]

While on a camping/hiking trip this past week, I dropped my Nikon D90 on a LARGE rock, while fussing with my stupid tripod trying to get a waterfall pic. The camera does still seem to be working (for now at least), however the viewfinder and diopter are busted all to hell. I may contact Nikon about a repair, but as the D90 is a bit older anyways, I'm gonna to consider my options here first.

I've seen they made a D40, D60, D70, etc., but after the D90, there doesn't appear to be another immediate successor in this same model line (as the D100, D200, D300 are different types of prosumer cameras as I understand). It's also my understanding that the D3300, D5200 and D5300, etc., can't use the older manual Nikon/Nikkor lenses so that's not really an option...something to do with metering I think (not to mention, at the risk of sounding like a gear snob, they feel kind of "cheap" comparatively speaking).

I've been VERY happy with my D90, so I don't really need any kind of extravagant upgrade (and I can't afford extravagant in any case). Also not concerned about "video" or other bells and whistles. Mainly I just need something with comparable features that will still use my older manual Nikkor lenses. I may even look around for another used D90...again I've been very pleased with this camera.


So to cut to the chase here, what replaced the D90? Is it the D7000?

Thanks!

The best buy for the money is the D7100 at under $800 dollars and it is light years ahead of the D7000 and has 24mp to the 7000 16mp. There are some minor upgrades to the 7100 that make it a 7200 but these are unimportant. Toss the 90 in the trash, or stuff it in your extra bag, as camera technology is eclipsing lens technology. Get a new camera today.

Nothing personal, however perhaps you should have read through the entire thread instead of just the initial post...I've already ordered a D7000 as stated a few comments up. The differences between the 7000 and the 7100 weren't significant enough to warrant the difference in price for me and the 7100 was outside of my budget in any case. -IF- the 7000 and 7100 were more comparatively priced, I -might- have given the 7100 more consideration however as is, there's still a $200+ difference between the 2 on the used market...and that difference knocked the 7100 right out of the running. I simply won't spend that much additional cash on features I simply don't need.

And -NO- the D90 will NOT simply be tossed in the trash...if anything I find that suggestion rather presumptuous, if not rude. I'm NOT one of those people who simply has to have the newest, coolest, bestest toys on the market...that D90 has served me VERY well and I did seriously consider a direct replacement...if anything it was mostly the better video capabilities and better low light capabilities that sold me on the D7000. Either way, I WILL continue to use my D90, both as a back up for still work, as well as for video for as long as the camera continues to function. It's a genuine shame that some people see something that may be "out of date" and consider it to be utterly useless...something you just toss in the trash. Not all of us have the kind of money to spend or that desire to simply be wasteful.

I never bought a used camera, and there is really no reason to do this today because unless it is relatively new it is likely obsolete if it is used, and obsolete means it will produce an inferior image. A camera is not like a used car that can be repaired, it's more like the cars ecu, if it goes bad you get a new ecu and pop it in the car. But you have the 16mp camera that you want now right? At 200 dollars difference that means you paid 600 dollars for an obsolete camera, with a used sensor that you have no idea how many shots it has taken, or if the camera will even function. Not for me.

Bye the way, I had a D90, it was obsolete when I replaced it.

 

[Mr.Photo]

I never bought a used camera, and there is really no reason to do this today because unless it is relatively new it is likely obsolete if it is used, and obsolete means it will produce an inferior image. A camera is not like a used car that can be repaired, it's more like the cars ecu, if it goes bad you get a new ecu and pop it in the car. But you have the 16mp camera that you want now right? At 200 dollars difference that means you paid 600 dollars for an obsolete camera, with a used sensor that you have no idea how many shots it has taken, or if the camera will even function. Not for me.

Bye the way, I had a D90, it was obsolete when I replaced it.

Who needs 24 MP. I know I for one am perfectly happy with the 16MP files I have right now. This is exactly what I was explaining in my previous post. Camera technology is only making small advancements right now with exception to Megapixel count. The camera companies hype megapixels like gold and have people believing that a higher megapixel image is better. I have a 24x36" print on my wall from my "lowly 16MP" D7000 right now and it is fantastic. Besides most people aren't printing that large very ofter (if ever) and a 12-16 MP image is more than enough for most people. Yes having more megapixels can be beneficial if you're cropping a lot, but I have been extremely impressed at the amount of cropping capability I have even with my 16MP images.

You can keep right no buying your expensive latest and greatest when it hits the shelf, and I'll keep right on buying the lightly used bodies that get sold when people upgrade.

 

[Auslese]

I never bought a used camera, and there is really no reason to do this today because unless it is relatively new it is likely obsolete if it is used, and obsolete means it will produce an inferior image. A camera is not like a used car that can be repaired, it's more like the cars ecu, if it goes bad you get a new ecu and pop it in the car. But you have the 16mp camera that you want now right? At 200 dollars difference that means you paid 600 dollars for an obsolete camera, with a used sensor that you have no idea how many shots it has taken, or if the camera will even function. Not for me.

Bye the way, I had a D90, it was obsolete when I replaced it.

Who needs 24 MP. I know I for one am perfectly happy with the 16MP files I have right now. This is exactly what I was explaining in my previous post. Camera technology is only making small advancements right now with exception to Megapixel count. The camera companies hype megapixels like gold and have people believing that a higher megapixel image is better. I have a 24x36" print on my wall from my "lowly 16MP" D7000 right now and it is fantastic. Besides most people aren't printing that large very ofter (if ever) and a 12-16 MP image is more than enough for most people. Yes having more megapixels can be beneficial if you're cropping a lot, but I have been extremely impressed at the amount of cropping capability I have even with my 16MP images.

You can keep right no buying your expensive latest and greatest when it hits the shelf, and I'll keep right on buying the lightly used bodies that get sold when people upgrade.

 

[Auslese]

The MP count is the biggest and most important part of a digital camera the new Nikons are 36mp not 16mp like the 7000, this is well over twice the clarity, though they are expensive. In my opinion buying a used 7000 for 600 dollars instead of paying 800 for a new 7100 with 24mp is a mistake. I would return the used camera and go for the 7100, but buy a new one at full price, and make sure it's not refurbished. With the extra mp you can zoom in the computer making a 200mm image well over a thousand,mm provided the mp count is high enough. You have overlooked the most important part of the digital camera, which is pixel count.

 

[Mr.Photo]

The MP count is the biggest and most important part of a digital camera the new Nikons are 36mp not 16mp like the 7000, this is well over twice the clarity, though they are expensive. In my opinion buying a used 7000 for 600 dollars instead of paying 800 for a new 7100 with 24mp is a mistake. I would return the used camera and go for the 7100, but buy a new one at full price, and make sure it's not refurbished. With the extra mp you can zoom in the computer making a 200mm image well over a thousand,mm provided the mp count is high enough. You have overlooked the most important part of the digital camera, which is pixel count.

The OP didn't spend $600 for his used D7000. If you had read the entire thread you might have figured that out. Second as I mentioned MP count isn't the end all be all in photo clarity. As I mentioned I have a 24x36" print on my wall that is virtually every bit as clear after enlarging as it was when it came out of the camera. Unless you're blowing the image up or trying to crop an image to make a shot with a 35mm lens look like it was taken with a 300mm lens (which comes with other problems) then there is no need to have that many megapixels. Besides I shoot in RAW and keep all my files for possible future edits. I don't want to keep blowing money on larger and larger storage drives every year just to be able to store these increasingly larger and larger files.

However marketing will continue to hype the fact that more megapixels equates to better pictures and because of this people will continue to buy the latest thing when it comes out believing that it's the camera that makes the pictures better and not the photographer.

 

[Jim Walczak]

The MP count is the biggest and most important part of a digital camera the new Nikons are 36mp not 16mp like the 7000, this is well over twice the clarity, though they are expensive. In my opinion buying a used 7000 for 600 dollars instead of paying 800 for a new 7100 with 24mp is a mistake. I would return the used camera and go for the 7100, but buy a new one at full price, and make sure it's not refurbished. With the extra mp you can zoom in the computer making a 200mm image well over a thousand,mm provided the mp count is high enough. You have overlooked the most important part of the digital camera, which is pixel count.

Well first and foremost here, I must absolutely question your psychic abilities since you have REPEATEDLY stated I payed $600 when I didn't. Again you've chose to read ONLY PART of the comments here...I did clearly state I only payed $380 for this camera and that it's in excellent condition. You also suggest that I don't know how many clicks are on the shutter...that was one of the FIRST questions I asked, as I was in fact considering 4 different used D7000's...the shutter count was a factor regarding my purchase. You've also made the suggestion that I don't even know if the camera will function when in fact I've even gotten a warranty with this purchase. It's rather interesting that you think you know so much about a purchase I made when wow...you weren't even there!

I also find it rather interesting that you seem to believe you have ANY awareness at all of what my budget was as to suggest whether or not my purchase was "a mistake"...however again we see here that your psychic powers are again clearly malfunctioning as I never actually stated my budget.

I must question your psychic abilities yet again as you also seem to suggest I have "over-looked the pixel count"...I haven't. Not sure who's mind you thought you were reading or who you were channeling, but it wasn't me. Had you of bothered to actually read my earlier comments instead of just jumping to conclusions again as you have now done repeatedly, you should have surmised this. As I've already stated, I was in fact quite happy with my D90...it was a great camera until the accident. Had I not have busted this camera, I would -NOT- have been considering another purchase/upgrade for some time. For the work I do both for myself and my clients, that 12.4 mp was quite sufficient, so the 16.2 of the D7000 is just icing on the cake for me.

And your earlier comment saying "obsolete means it will produce an inferior image"...that's not only wrong, it's rather insulting! With that sentence alone you have made the insinuation that any photographer (including myself) who has ever shot with 10 or 12 mp camera has simply produced "inferior" pictures....I know MANY people who would take a great deal of offense to that! MANY people have produced some truly outstanding images using cameras with 10mp or less...if you are unable to recognize this, you CLEARLY don't know nearly as much about photography as you think you do!

You seem to be under the horribly misguided impression that more megapixels are somehow "better"...and any photographer worth his/her salt can tell you that's not really the case. While I doubt you'll understand, let alone agree with this, more megapixels does NOT automatically mean better images. The fact of the matter is that it's not the number of megapixels, it's the QUALITY of the pixels. The more megapixels you cram onto a sensor of a given size class, the smaller those pixels have to be and this typically means the lens for each pixel is going to be of a lower quality as well (if not the pixel itself). In other words, all other things being equal (which is seldom the case), a 16 mp camera with higher quality pixels is going to produce BETTER images than a 24 mp camera with lower quality pixels...this is a fact. This is the same problem that compacts and cell phones suffer from...because those sensors are sooooo small and have sooooo many pixels jammed on to them, the image quality suffers every time. Again I just can't see how you can suggest I "over-looked this issue" when it appears I've given it a good deal more thought you you apparently have. At the risk of being horribly blunt, dude...you're being anal about the WRONG thing.

Likewise you seem to have an equal misconception about cropping your images...if you have to crop your images THAT much on a computer, you're doing something SERIOUSLY wrong on the camera end! Either get yourself a longer lens or simply move closer to your subject...regardless of the cameras mp count, a severe crop will NEVER make up for the skills (or lack there of) regarding a poor photographer who can't properly frame the shot.

I also have to feel incredibly sorry for you regarding your utter paranoia regarding used and refurbished equipment. I have in fact purchased both many times over the years with little or no problem at all...and I certainly won't hesitate to do so again. And -no-...it's not just a matter of luck. I do my homework and I know the products I'm considering so I can make good decisions on used or refurbished equipment (whether it's photography gear or otherwise...I also buy A LOT of used music gear as well). In fact the ONLY camera I ever purchased brand new was my Canon D40...payed close to $1000 around the time those bodies came out and that is the ONLY camera I've ever had fail (for anything other than my own short comings that is). In fact, while I seriously doubt you'd understand this, it could be argued that refurbished has the ADVANTAGE of having already failed...whatever was going to go wrong already did...and it's been gone over a second time by the factory! Let me be clear on this; there is a GREAT difference between caution and paranoia.



I could in fact continue here, however you strike me as someone who is unlikely to see reason...you've made up your mind that you think you know what your talking about (even though as we've seen repeatedly, you don't) and I suspect that anything I say will simply be disregarded despite any degree of pragmatism or common sense I try to employ. You are of course, welcome to your own opinion, however based on your comments here (and elsewhere), I can't help but feel that you come off sounding like a gear snob more than anything else. You like to blow LOTS of money on toys and have no understanding why others would be less than inclined to do the same REGARDLESS of their own specific needs. Seriously...if the images you captured with your own D90 were "inferior" all because you feel the camera is "obsolete", dude...perhaps it's time to take up another hobby...maybe basket weaving or knitting.

 

[astroNikon]

I never bought a used camera, and there is really no reason to do this today because unless it is relatively new it is likely obsolete if it is used, and obsolete means it will produce an inferior image. A camera is not like a used car that can be repaired, it's more like the cars ecu, if it goes bad you get a new ecu and pop it in the car. But you have the 16mp camera that you want now right? At 200 dollars difference that means you paid 600 dollars for an obsolete camera, with a used sensor that you have no idea how many shots it has taken, or if the camera will even function. Not for me.

Bye the way, I had a D90, it was obsolete when I replaced it.

Just because it's an older camera does not mean it produces obsolete images. If you use AUTO all the time then that could be a fair statement. But proper exposure is up to the photographer; if you use AUTO and leave it up to the camera then you get what you get.

"you have no idea how many shots it has taken" ==> actually it is very easy to determine that. Take a photograph with full EXIF and read the EXIF data and it will list the amount of shutter activations. There's also many websites where you upload a photo and it will tell you this too.

A d7000 is a great camera. Yes it's now an older 16mp body. But most Nikons are 24 or higher and most Canons are 20 or higher. Does that mean most Canons, even current models, are obsolete ? I don't think so.

 

[Jim Walczak]

For those interested, the new camera is here and so far, everything it looking GREAT! As promised by my sales rep, the camera only has 57xx clicks on the shutter and it's in absolutely pristine condition. In fact if not for the shutter count, I'd swear the damn thing was new...not so much as a scratch on it (not to mention it still has that "new camera smell", LOL!!!!! j/k). I'm still working thru all the details and learning what's been changed/moved...took me a bit to realize there's a setting on that second mode dial to allow the use of the ir remote (had to break down and read the manual for that one, LOL) and I've had to go into the menus and change quite a few things from the previous owner to suit my own shooting style, but so far I'm very pleased with the purchase. So far the ONLY nit I'm seeing is that it looks like the video shooting time is limited to only 20 minutes (not sure if that can be changed yet or not)...I'll have to keep an eye on that as I do plan to use the camera at some point to shoot some vid of band gigs and such (our average set goes for about an hour). I was a bit surprised the ir remote is sooooooooo small...I'm gonna have to find someplace in my bag to stash that sucker so I don't loose it.

Anyways, it's gonna be a few days at least before I can give the camera a good, full work out...the pup had her surgery Monday, so I'm gonna have to sit on her for a few days at least (not to mention the weather here in Ohio is gonna suck for a few days thanks to the remnants of Patricia), but I'll get some pics posted as soon as I have a few hours to get out the door...hopefully this coming weekend some time.

Anyways, thanks again to all those who made positive contributions...looks like that D7000 is gonna be a great camera! It's a good step up from the D90 and it saved me some serious cash...looks like a win/win all the way around .

 

[sm4him]

Congratulations on the "new to you" camera! I still have my 7000, even though I've moved up to FF.

Even though I have, and like, my D7000, I would probably have been on the "get the D7100" bandwagon. But your reasoning makes sense, and of course, the best thing is, you're really not out much money anyway--so if you DO decide to upgrade again in a year or two, you'll have gotten your money's worth from the 7000.
P.S. Yes, the dual card slots are the Bomb! That one feature ruined me for being any camera that doesn't have it.

I never bought a used camera, and there is really no reason to do this today because unless it is relatively new it is likely obsolete if it is used, and obsolete means it will produce an inferior image.

I do not think that word means what you think it means.

 

[astroNikon]

I loved my d7000. I sold it the other month with a OEM grip and 18-105 kit lens for $550ish range. The new owner put it to immediate use and hasn't stopped. Sounds like you'll do the same with your d7000.