What do the pro's think?

[RockstarPhotography]

I've been looking at the d7000 for some time now. That consumer body is really what is driving me toward another d300. Just wondering if some of the more avid shooters on here actually think the d7000 is a pro-grade camera. I'm not talking about full frame here, believe it or not, there are plenty of pros that don't shoot with the full frames. I am just wondering, for those of you that shoot with a 300 or 300s, if something happened to your body you have now, would you buy another 300 or go with the 7000.

 

[Formatted]

d7000 is a pro-grade camera

Lacks weather sealing and for thats a deal breaker.

If you want to shoot in a studio why get the D7000 get the D700. So no I don't think the D7000 is a "pro-grade" camera.

Having said that why does it matter? The D7000 is a good camera, some would call it a great camera. It takes pictures and the person behind it is more important...

 

[cnutco]

I think I would replace my D300 with a D300s if needed soon. Although, I am waiting to replace my D90 with Nikon's new release...

I guess it depends on what they release...

 

[KmH]

d7000 is a pro-grade camera

Lacks weather sealing and for thats a deal breaker.

From NikonUSA.com: D7000 from Nikon

Compact but durable with magnesium-alloy top and rear covers, superior weather and dust seals, and a 150,000 cycle-rated shutter system providing reliable operation

The D7000 is redefining the top of the entry-level market segment, but is still an entry-level camera, not pro.

There will be other new Nikon's launched this year like the D400(?), the D800(?), and the D4.

Cameras launched a couple years or more back, cannot be compared with cameras launched recently. The technological improvements just advance to quickly.

 

[flea77]

Formatted is right, it is what you do with the camera that matters. The D7000 is light years better in performance than a D2, and it was a "pro" camera. It has better features for me than a D300 or D300s (low light primarily). Get the camera that 1) you can afford, 2) does the job you need it to do, the rest is all a bunch of people yapping on message boards.

Allan

 

[RockstarPhotography]

My biggest dilemma is that I busted my d300 so i'm using my backup d3000 and the lowlight performance in that camera is horrible. I like the 7000 from what i've read but the non weather sealed body scares me away. I did like my 300, but since nikon may be releasing a replacement for it I hate to pull the trigger on a new one, but I can't keep shooting with my backup in these low light conditions. Soooooooo.....:gah:

 

[flea77]

Ummmm, look up dude, Keith quoted from the Nikon website showing you the D7000 HAS weatherseals.

Allan

 

[RockstarPhotography]

Ummmm, look up dude, Keith quoted from the Nikon website showing you the D7000 HAS weatherseals.

Allan

I know, it's not just the weathersealing (thats just what I say). Its the whole magnesium (i think thats right), larger body. I'm 6'2" and 200lbs. I can easily palm a basketball, The larger body feels much nicer in my hands.

But I shoot in sooooooo much low light!!!!

I'm thinking of trying to pick up a used d300 until nikon releases the replacement, but even used ones are going for the price of 7000's, plus I need a grip with my large banana hands.

 

[flea77]

The D7000 has a mg body as well. True, it is slightly smaller than the D300. If you really do that much low light why not pick up a D7000, then when you get the D400 or whatever sell the D300 and move the D7000 to the backup body?

Allan

 

[RockstarPhotography]

I don't have a d300 anymore, it committed suicide off a 3rd story balcony. Funds are going to be tight to buy one body then another one, but I'll probably have to go that route. I appreciate the input.

 

[KmH]

The D7000 has a mg body as well....

The D7000 does not have a Mg alloy body. It only has a Mg alloy top and rear panel. Most of the body is plastic, like where the lens mount attaches.

Here is a couple photos of it:
http://scr3.golem.de/screenshots/1009/Nikon-D7000/thumb480/D7000_Mgbody_1.jpg

http://scr3.golem.de/screenshots/1009/Nikon-D7000/thumb480/D7000_Mgbody_2.jpg

 

[flea77]

Funny, you say it does not have a mg body, yet your links point to images titled Mgbody_1.jpg and Mgbody_2.jpg. If you go to the Nikon site and look at the pictures of the D300s body, you will note that it is not 100% mg either, although it has more than the D7000. So since the D300s is not 100% mg, do we say it does not have a mg body?

Next you say that "most of the body is plastic". Yet looking at the images you provided 100% of the top and back are mg, as well as part of the frame for the front (note in picture 2 that you can see the front main piece through the hole for the screen, on picture 1 you can see part of it to the left of the lens mount area). I would say this is a substantial amount of the frame. As much as the D300s? No. But at exactly what percentage of mg does a camera have to have before it "has a mg body"?

This is like the whole weathersealed argument. Is the D7000 AS weathersealed as the D300s? No. Does it HAVE weathersealing? Yes. Then again the D300s is not AS weathersealed as a D3s, which is not AS weathersealed as a Nikonos.

Allan

 

[KmH]

I didn't name the image files.

Way more than 1/2, and the lens mount needs to be metal too, like the D300/D300s.

 

[flea77]

Well we will have to agree to disagree then. To me, 100% of the top, 100% of the rear, and a front plate is way more than half since that only leaves part of the front and the bottom. The lens mount is metal then plastic then metal, which until my lens falls off is fine with me.

Allan

 

[Formatted]

Don't forget that the platforms that hold the camera parts inside the camera are not magnesium in the D7000. Where as in my D700 and D3s they are.

So the D7000 does not have a full mg body. KMH is right.