I am sort of with Msmoto. I predict rangefinders will come back in DX sensor size. Just need two things: quick/accurate focus and a small highly detailed electronic viewfinder to show you exactly what the sensor sees in real time, like a DSLR does. Electronics should be able to give you the view through the lens while eliminating the flipping mirror and probably even the shutter mechanism (extracting the image from the video stream off the sensor). I don't think relying on viewing through the back LCD, which requires holding the camera out away from your face and dealing with reflections, will replace a viewfinder to the satisfaction of advanced amateurs like most of us here.

I just picked up another Voigtlander Bessa-R2A - this one has the Auto aperture. I love ebay - $275 delivered. My other one was full manual and I don't use it enough to be able to change the settings quick enough. I just like to set my aperture as shallow as possible and fire.

Something about them are fun - and easy to use. I would like to get a Contex G2 but for $2,500 for that system, I would rather have the Fuji X-pro1 or the Oly OMD M5 instead for the convenience.

Many miss the history that SLRs and Nikon in the 60s were groundbreaking as you could see what the camera saw. We take that for granted now and especially with digital. The rangefinder popularity has re-emerged only in the last few years. Different style of shooting for sure and is not for everyone.

I cannot resist....In the next year or two... Nikon will introduce a "rangefinder" style mirrorless APS-C body and it will be exactly what a lot of us want. My last rangefinder was a Canon 7 with an f/2.0 Summicron. About a zillion years ago...

Both Canon and Nikon will come up with their version of Fuji's X-Pro1. Eventually, this will replace the DSLR, but only after the technology allows the almost instant continuous servo focus found on the latest pro bodies...

I'd guess the same Charley

Nikon is in business to make money; the only way to make money selling cameras is to make cameras that LOTS of people WANT, and will BUY.

I'm guessing now, but I think Nikon is perfectly happy making camera models that sell in the thousands, ( and tens of thousands, and possibly hundreds of thousands ), and are just as happy leaving the "dozens of units" market to Leitz, ( or anyone else wishing to attempt to sell "mega-buck" outrageously expensive "gadgets" to people who have more $$$$ than they have common sense.

( Remember, that's just my "guess"; I may be wrong. )

Charley

jonnyapple said:
Like the macbook wheel:

My point exactly. ;-)

Interesting, HotDuckZ. Is this a rumor coming out of production facilities where you are in Asia or did you see it somewhere on the web?

Vall said:
Heard it too. And the camera is going to have one button (shutter release I suppose).

:^) (Niko style)

Like the macbook wheel:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9BnLbv6QYcA

Heard it too. And the camera is going to have one button (shutter release I suppose).

:^) (Niko style)

Was his name Pinocchio? ;)

Really???

I have heard this story from someone.

For a new buyer, just get the D7000. The D90 is now relatively outdated. I own one and use it a lot. The D300 is to me a better camera than the D90. Why, the video on the D90 is a great time waster. It's video is just plain bad. Nice to have video, but......the D90 video just isn't even satisfactory. So get a D7000. There are features on the D7000 that even a still shooter would want. Say a 100% viewfinder. Better weather sealing. If you are so set on buying a camera at a good price and getting good glass to match, then I would look seriously at a D300s. I have seen better results on that Nikon than any Nikon DSLR than any I don't own. I have a D300 and didn't feel the D300s was worth the upgrade. The D300s in my mind only added two cards and video. But the D300s is way more camera than the D90. The D90 as great a consumer camera as it was......is not a good current choice. Too limiting! I'll keep mine as a backup and a loaner camera. But not as a primary camera.

You would benefit much getting a camera with a AF drive motor so you can use older af drive lenses. Both the D90 and D7000 have this. I'm with Adamz - if it is a hobby then I would say the D90 and then focus on glass for a couple of years.

D7k is an extraordinary release of a camera but when it comes down to it many don't need that much horsepower. Hell, 80% of the time my D300 is underutilized. Then again I did buy it for that other 20%.

Obviously this is based upon Nikon's description as I do not have D7000 experience, but the metering system described for the D7000 is much more sophisticated than the D90's which is the same as the D40. That alone would make the decision for me, but the auto-focus is a definite step up and we have not gotten to the sensor yet, which, according to initial reports, is a good one.

All that said, if the D90 price is the determinant, it is still a very capable camera which should provide good service.

If you can wait a little while the price of the D7000 may come down a little bit, but probably will not get close to that of the D90 any time soon.

It depends if you want video. The D7000 HD video is far superior to the D90. I have used the D90 video extensively. It was first DSLR to have video, but it is frustrating and doesn't work well. Given the pricing, I 'd get the D7000. I am waiting For inventories to get normal for D7000 then I am buying one. In terms of just using a Nikon DSLR for still I still use my D300 way more than my D90 as I vastly prefer its features. A very good condition D300 would be a better still DSLR I believe than a D90 with its not so great video and 95% viewfinder and poorer sealing. The D90 is a very good camera. I know quite a few people who started DSLR with one on my advice. But that was before the D7000 was announced. I have shot a lot with D3100 and that is a wonderful, but strictly entry level camera.

if it's Your hobby than go for d90 and some lenses, as You are not gonna benefit too much from d7000 - 16.2MP is nice, but to use it You need extraordinary glass - kit lenses will not deliver, and there is no reason to buy a 16.2MP camera and utilize (effectively) only 12MP, as for other benefits - dual SD card, nice but the question is how many of us really use it, also to make a use from it You gonna need to double the cards You use. manual lenses - huge improvement over d90, as You can input lens data and use all the lenses w/o cpu, although good for pros who use manual glass, or for someone who has a good selection of old glass and wants to play with it, for most of us it's just a gadget. AF tuning, good if You know what You are doing and understand the whole philosophy behind it, I say mostly pros and very advanced users, for rest of us it's a gadget.

so once again, go for d90 and some lenses You will benefit more

LOL! so if you are only keeping up with the Joneses then the D7000 will definitely give you some major Jones "points" and it wont break the bank plus you will get a good kit as a side effect !

photography is just my hobby...the reason why i want to upgrade my camera, the specs of d60 is not enough for me anymore..another reason, i am a member of a group of photographer here and most of their cameras are upgraded.

@ ry_ka : It depends on what type of photography you do and what you feel you are missing with your D60 and why you think you need to upgrade. What lenses do you have? Tell us more about yourself then we can provide a better recommendation. Not knowing you and your circumstances a D3X could be the best camera for you !! :-) the D90 is still a seriously good camera.

The D7000 is a substancal upgrade of the D90. I puts it on par even slightly than the D300s. My D90 has served me well in the last 1 1/2 years I've had it. It will continue to do so as my second body when I get my D7000. As for your choice I'd go with the D7000, for the prise differance it is worth it.

It definetely is if you're planning on going a little deeper into photography. It adds a lot of features that more advanced users want/need.

On the other hand if you're not planning to make photography one of your bigger hobbies (or even try earning some money on it), then I suppose you'd be better off with D90, or even D3100.

The differences arre very nicely listed on dpreview:
http://dpreview.com/previews/nikond7000/

basically what you get more is: (quoted dpreview)

# Higher resolution sensor (16.2MP vs. 12.3MP)
# Choice of 12-bit or 14-bit NEF (RAW)
# 1080p HD movie mode
# Limited movie editing functionality
# AF possible during video shooting (but we're not over-optimistic on this score)
# Live View switch (basically the same as D3100)
# Faster AF in live view mode.
# Twin SD card slots
# Non-CPU lens data function (allows registration of up to 9 non-G lenses with manual apertures)
# Magnesium alloy body shell
# Wider ISO span (100-25,600 including 'H1' and 'H2')
# Newly developed 39-point AF system
# 'Quiet' single frame advance mode
# 'Proper' mirror lock-up (as distinct from 'exposure delay mode')
# Lockable drive mode dial
# Higher maximum frame rate (6fps) with a Continuous Lo shooting option (1-5fps)
# 100% viewfinder
# Choice of 12-bit or 14-bit NEF (RAW) recording in compressed or lossless compressed formats
# Up to 9 'non-CPU' lenses can be registered (same as D300s/D3s/D3X)
# New EN-EL15 lithium-ion battery
# New MB-D11 battery pack (magnesium alloy construction)

If you don't understand, or need some of the changes, than I believe it's not worth for you to pay more. Instead, get a prime lens, or a better zoom for the price. :-)

thnx vall..i know that price will matter..but i need a little info of the difference between the two camera...is it worth the price?

If you can afford D7k, it's certainly a better choice. If money is the problem however, D90 is still a wonderful camera (and I suppose will even go down a bit).

hi guys,
we all know that d7000 was officially announced. i had a d60 model and i want to buy a new nikon camera. im confused what to buy, d7000 or d90...pls help..i need advices guys. i want a good choice guys so that no regrets in the end..

It would be dumb if Nikon made a QV mount EVIL camera and why would anyone want a B&W only EVIL camera? QV mount was never sold to the public. I think there were only two lenses for the QV camera (the two clillja mentions) and the rest of the QV lenses were just "concepts" and never made. The QV camera was only used by the press in Japan and less than 100 cameras were ever made.

The QV1000C was a video camera that captured digital still images and saved them to floppy disk. It had a crop factor of 4 so thats why they could get that f1.4 with such a small sensor. The 10-40mm lens was actually 40-160mm. The camera was black & white only because back then (1980s) it was faster to transmit B&W images and also the image quality wasn't that good but good enough for newspapers.

NSXType-R said:
That's my issue- if I want a small camera, I don't want to be worrying about lenses, I want it to be as damn small as possible. So I really am not interested in EVIL because it would mean I need to invest in more lenses. Not my cup of tea, but it could be yours. If it's a fast compact with a shorter focal length range but a fast one, I'm willing to compromise. I prefer the wider end anyway.

It's not just that the lenses and bodies are small, it's that the sensors are so much bigger than a typical point&shoot. The new Sony NEX EVIL cameras will have the same sized sensor as your D40 or D300 but in a very small body! This EVIL cameras also allow you to use all sorts of different lenses on them with adapters. Just look at the Leica lens on the Panasonic I posted above. I've seen full sized Nikon lenses mounted to the Olympus E-P1 cameras lots of times.

So you wouldn't have to buy new lenses. Maybe just an adapter and that's it. Imagine if you could mount everyone's favorite lens, the 35mm f1.8, on a point&shoot with a D90's sensor!

Samsung currently makes the TL500 point&shoot which has a 3inch swivel AMOLED LCD screen, metal body, and an 24-72mm f1.8 lens! However it doesn't shoot HD video otherwise I would have bought one.

QV = 2/3" sensor = 11mm - so maybe not without some expansion. But by the time Nikon gets in the game they're going need to something with a little 'wow' factor to make a dent... an f1.4 zoom would get some attention.... or a dedicated monochrome version - something to set them apart...