Upgrade?

[Evaneh]

Lately I have been very interested in the Nikon D7000. Why? It just looks like a budget friendly camera that performs extremely well. I already own a Panasonic GH2 which I use for mostly video, which after doing plenty of research I notice to be one of, if not the best in HDSLR video. (Even though it isn't a DSLR) However, I've been thinking about the Nikon simply for photo reasons. I think it should excel in that area while the GH2 excels in video.

My question is what do any of you think about it? Is buying the D7000 a good idea and keeping the GH2? Buying an older version of something that still excels in photos? Or perhaps just buying a micro four thirds to nikon adapter for my GH2 so I have more lens options? Although I hear that disables the ability to use autofocus on your camera.

Any input is appreciated. Thanks

 

[Nikon_Josh]

I'm not sure it would be worth the extra investment as the GH2 does give good photographic results!

But my personal view is that I much prefer DSLR's to the micro four thirds cameras for photography! My dad has a G1 and I find the ergonomics weak, I'm not a fan of the lens options for four thirds, I really really don't like electronic view finders or live view for photography purposes. I much prefer the beauty of my Nikon's optical view finder! I also prefer the beauty of my Nikon glass. I think high ISO is another weakness of Micro four thirds, the G1 gets very noisy at ISO 800.

My Nikon D90 does not and bare in mind that the new D7000 has even better High ISO performance than the D90 does, so it's a sure winner! Not to the mention the dynamic range is superior to Micro four thirds.

I think the new Micro four thirds generation of camera is brilliant for photography, as they provide 'GOOD' results in a smaller size. I personally though will never trade my DSLR for one, I just love the ergonomics and feel of a bigger camera. I don't want to fiddle with tiny cameras or buttons or for that matter use the god forsaken live view all the time to compose photographs! This to me is simply... NO FUN!!

For me the DSLR will never die and It really irritated when all the reviewers came out and told everyone the DSLR was dead when M43 was released, as the M43's in my opinion fall far short of being proper work man tools for photography. Sorry for the overly long, biased reply (I'm a Nikon DSLR fan if you hadn't guessed haha). But its a subject I feel passionate about! If you have the cash get the d7000 and sample some of the beautiful budget primes Nikon produces.

 

[Evaneh]

No worries! I appreciate the reply and actually agree with you on many points. I am not a big fan of the EVF. Also for me it does feel very small (I've got some large hands hah) Like I said my main purpose in buying the GH2 was for video reasons. While the D7000 also has HD video, the GH2 has a faster and more consistent AF while in video mode. I've also seen tests showing the GH2 beating out the 5D in resolution tests. So video wise, I like the GH2. For photos, I'd much rather have a DSLR.

So I'm just kind of wondering if the D7000 is worth the buy or maybe an older model would work well for me?

 

[Nikon_Josh]

This is funny actually! Cos I am intrigued by video and am considering the GH2 for video in the future if Nikon don't get there act together. I hear it is better than any Canon's for this purpose. I actually think Panasonic have been underrated in this area aswell, all this praise being heaped on the 5D Mark 2 AND the GH2 walks all over it in terms of video. And ofcourse, the live view is perfect for video capture. I know the d7000 provides 24fps HD and I have seen some great results from this cam in terms of video but Panasonic just makes life so much easier for the video maker as you already stated.

It depends really on your budget whether the D7000 is worth it, the price of lenses needs to considered aswell. I myself would prefer to have a D7000 to my D90, as the D7000 seems to be a real babe of a camera and is better than my D90. But at same time, I'm focussing on building up my lenses at the moment and other equipment. This is generally considered more important than the body you are using, as lenses last for 10-20 years and bodies come and go.

If you don't have the budget for the D7000, then I think a D90 could be a great buy. I know in Uk some places are still selling them! I do love my D90. Obviously you don't particularly need the video features of the D7000 as you have your great GH2 as a video cam. So perhaps the D90 is an option for you.

What sort of lenses were you thinking of getting? Nikon do provide quality lenses at good price points. The 1.8 primes are great value, the 70-300 VR is a fantastic telephoto lens for the price despite being slow. And if you want a CHEAP wide angle the Sigma 10-20 is highly regarded. Although there are better options if you have the budget. Personally, I'm not a fan of the do it all zooms like the 18-200 etc.. I prefer lenses for specific purposes.

 

[Evaneh]

Yes, the GH2 is very good when it comes to video. It has been awesome for me and continues to perform. The autofocus is usable and is rather quick. I've only had it lose focus and have to readjust once or twice. It is very nice HD camera. Pictures are still nice for the camera, but I am looking for something a bit more.

So video isn't something I'm looking for in a camera now, maybe the D90 is something that would work out a little better for me so I could spend more money in lenses rather than a body. I would definitely be buying a few prime lenses, much of the lenses you listed I have already looked at.