Why shouldn't I buy a Nikon D7000

[ajohnw]

Any thoughts? I have been toying with the idea of upgrading my APS camera for some time and favour buying after the new model aspect has worn off.

I've only read one comment that could be taken care of with exposure compensation. In high contrast situations they tend to over expose as mid grey is too bright.

Merry Xmas all.

John
-

[Mike Buckley]

That particular issue that you mention is common to many Nikon cameras and has to do with with the luminosity of the area where the focus point is located.

What would the D7000 do for you that your current camera doesn't do? If that list isn't long enough or important enough to you, that would be the best reason not to buy one.

[Shadowman]

I think someone other than Cambridge forum members don't want you to buy another camera.

[chauncey]

Mike is right, it boils down to a want/need decision...what will it enable you to do better/faster/whatever than your current body can do for you. FWIW, LuLa has an interesting take on crop sensors...http://www.luminous-landscape.com/es...ame_myth.shtml

[ajohnw]

It would be replacing a 300D (The 1st Rebel) - 6mp that I have owned since they were introduced to the UK. Lenses are film types from the same era. I feel these lenses in real terms are as good as the new ones but ............

It may well replace the 5D as well which I generally only use on a microscope along with a number of problems.

Canon - Nikon. I'm still inclined to feel that Canon have the edge on sensors but then comes micro 4/3. Some nikon screw focus lenses can be used via adapters with difficulty really but .................

My wife always says I will do what I do and nothing she can say will make any difference! Being thoughtful I didn't mention cameras before Xmas.

My son bought a Canon 100D that arrived yesterday - maybe that's catching. He went for compact size and wont touch mirrorless.

John
-

[Shadowman]

Well with all other obstacles out of the way, what price can you get for a three year old camera and is there something else (new) on the market equal in price and functionality?

[Andrew1]

From a very old post....

I'll give you a concept I always use when making expensive hardware purchases whether it be camera, lenses, computers, tools, etc. They are all tools for one reason or another. Ask yourself two questions with the first one being the heavy weighting.

1. Are my skills better than the capabilities of the tool I already have and it's holding me back?
2. Does the new tool do something that I NEED to do often and have no other way of doing it?

When I do buy a new item I always make it the best I can afford at the time. Quality will make it last longer in most cases and also continue to answer NO to questions 1 and 2 for a longer period of time. Emotion and envy still come into the picture but play a much lesser part than the logical questions. There may be times when some of us have the free cash to upgrade our equipment but don't mistake the quality of the gear with knowledge or capabilities.

Listen to yourself honestly and you will make the right decision.

[ajohnw]

Twin VR kit for around £700. I like to spend as little as possible. When I look at the update on this model I can't see any advantages that I need so it sort of chooses itself over all. Dissatisfaction with it's performance as a camera would be the only reason I would sell it so it's likely to be around for a long time. Probably as long as the 300D has been.

Live view is handy on a microscope for focusing providing that is available in manual - speed being set but given the photo conversion lenses dedicated to microscope use 4/3 is looking attractive as well. Most of this sort of kit is old and aimed at 35mm but with the 4/3 sensor there are other alternatives. Pixel counts on microscopes are important. 16mp is adequate for any kit I am likely to own. If I ever spent several £10k's in this area 30 would be better but there is zero chance of that.

John
-

[Manfred M]

I have a slightly different twist from Andrews, but really ends you up at the same place.

1. Does the new tool make enough of a difference for you to notice versus what you are currently using; and

2. Is that difference worth the price you have to pay for it?

[Shadowman]

Twin VR kit for around £700. I like to spend as little as possible. When I look at the update on this model I can't see any advantages that I need so it sort of chooses itself over all. Dissatisfaction with it's performance as a camera would be the only reason I would sell it so it's likely to be around for a long time. Probably as long as the 300D has been.

Live view is handy on a microscope for focusing providing that is available in manual - speed being set but given the photo conversion lenses dedicated to microscope use 4/3 is looking attractive as well. Most of this sort of kit is old and aimed at 35mm but with the 4/3 sensor there are other alternatives. Pixel counts on microscopes are important. 16mp is adequate for any kit I am likely to own. If I ever spent several £10k's in this area 30 would be better but there is zero chance of that.

John
-

I've seen prices at Amazon body only for about $501-$730 euro, $1,050 with 18-200mm lens. So depending on where you are purchasing, what type of warranty can you get?

[mknittle]

Why the change from canon to Nikon?

[Shadowman]

Did you see the D7000s offered on this link provided by Donald on another thread.

http://www.castlecameras.co.uk/cameras-dslr/nikon

[ajohnw]

I wouldn't buy the camera with the zoom that is often offered. Only the 18-55 and 55-300mm VR's. I will probably feel that the 55-300mm could have been optimised in another way but from test results it appears to be adequate. Mixed feelings about the 55mm aspect which is why I suspect 70-300mm is more common. I wouldn't be bothered by a hole between 55 and 70. I've advised my son to go that way with his 100D.

Nikon - Canon - yes some trepidation because I feel Nikon is more likely to play the numbers game. Where I look at that sort of thing is the dynamic range in jpg mode. Of late Canon are joining in. On film I was very into Nikon but only as far as a Nikkormat as that offered all that I needed. One thing the 7000 offers is 150k shutter actuations. Must admit I do like the sound of that even though I'm unlikely to make a serious dent in it. Sensor quality in real terms is TBD.

Seeing tools mentioned - I only ever buy when they allow me to do something that is needed and I couldn't do it without them. Well nearly always. They are inclined to build up over the years though. My my lathe and small milling machine are a little different but it's surprising how often they can be useful.

Things that allow people to progress in photography is a difficult area. A camera is a camera. Some say a good photographer can take a good photo with any camera. I would modify that to say that this may be true if conditions are ok for a particular camera. As a for instance compacts of late offer very little scope for pp and generally only produce good results in ideal conditions. They haven't always been like that. Then there is what is a good photo?

John
-

[chauncey]

good photographer can take a good photo with any camera.

You're correct, they can take A good photo with any camera...what they cannot do is take any picture with that same camera. Unless, that camera is high end and the user is skilled in the various genre of photography and...make a large print of that image.

[Glenn NK]

Impossible to give anyone advice about what to buy.

I've been thinking about M43 for about a half year or so; will it improve my skills or results? No, but the small size would be a great benefit in something I've always like doing but felt awkward doing with 35 mm/FF/APS-C: Street photography.

So, often a change in equipment awakes something in one's mind, or forces one to get out of the box so to speak.

I still recall the thrill of my first DSLR - my 30D. Three years ago I added a FF, but it wasn't the same level of excitement.

Perhaps a totally new body will be a game changer for the OP.

It isn't always about image quality or doing the same old thing over and over.

Glenn

[ajohnw]

My EM-5 is still likely to be my main camera.

I don't hold with Chauncey's apparent view at all. How come I can take a shot with an E-PL1 that full frame could produce a print with a diagonal of over 50in. The E-PL1 was Olympus's cheap all plastic compact like control micro 4/3 camera with a 12mp sensor plus it's "kit" lens. Things aren't that simple. It's a combination of pixels, lenses and software and the subject as well. What the real pro end tends to offer is a better inherent tone curve in the actual sensor. The kit lens mentioned happened by design I suspect to be a rather good lens. Nikon appear to be doing the same thing with their Nikon 1 range.

I'd wish any good photographer the best of luck with a Casio QV-10 and a number of others from that period. They would find as with something like a more recent Sony DSC-T5 that moderate shadow in a shot or just black were bad news and have noise problems as well unless there was plenty of light. The Ixus mk1 was the 1st camera that didn't suffer too much from that. Black can be recovered on DSC's - usually. I feel that the 10mp version is worse especially in respect to shadows. Both of these in my view were amongst the best available at the time. They are fine in evenly lit typical shots and can produce decent images on say a 15 in screen. What's lacking if blown up further is real detail. I suspect bigger screens have been giving all camera manufacturers a hard time in recent years. Bigger TV's and HD too.

Even bigger prints? Really big. Have to wait and see but traditionally there is a trade of on pixel size and lens quality. Bigger lenses are harder to get to their best possible performance. So bigger pixels are more suitable for larger formats. Smaller optics helps within limits. Bigger formats need bigger lenses or as in the case of 10x8 plate cameras have to be rather slow or use designs that are extremely difficult to make.

John
-

[chauncey]

I can take a shot with an E-PL1 that full frame could produce a print with a diagonal of over 50in

Okay...can you do that consistently, whether it be a landscape or a water droplet, with a viewing distance governed solely by the length of the viewers nose?

[ajohnw]

No one looks at prints from the end of the nose Chauncey. The metric is usually 300dpi. If a shot is good at a lower dpi it can be up scaled to a higher dpi at the same size.

Water droplets? I photographed a flower bed hoping to be able to crop out a shot that I liked. Not entirely satisfied with the like aspect but this is one of the crops at full E-PL1 resolution ie the whole shot would have a diagonal of 50in and would have to be viewed at 750mm to meet the 300 dpi metric but detail is captured so it could be up sampled to that. If my printer could print a huge image it would up sample to 600dpi. I just couldn't find an area with the right amount of background blur in the right places. Real rain too. That isn't always the case. PP is a bit indifferent.



I don't usually crop landscapes however I just did with this one. Taken with a lens widely known to be soft and no PP at all.



Really this is way of topic and touches on an area that people are inclined to hold a belief on and that's that. There is a web site about that tells people the max size print their camera can produce. The results can be a bit disappointing so there is an option for assuming poorer eyesight. The problem is that it takes no account of how good the lens is nor what happens to pixels as the find their way into an image. The site also dictates that images on a 100dpi monitor are bad. Awful in fact. Yet they aren't - wonder why.

John
-

[GrahamS]

John, If you really want to buy a Nikon D7k, I recommend that you go for a Nikon refurbished one. There were some AF calibration issues on the assembly line, and a refurb model will have had any problems corrected. A new one can be a crap shoot.

[chauncey]

I cannot argue with Graham's premise...the hands-on refurb offers a personal touch.