kolja said:
Might also consider a converter for the 75-300mm lens or that Sigma lens spray spray posted about. Will keep you posted....

I do know which 75 -300 you have, but it is unlikely to usable with a teleconverter

http://nikonrumors.com/forum/topic.php?id=12381

I have used the sigma 150-500mm lens, it has had a few good reviews but I was not impressed with it at all

I will be heading down to my local store on Tuesday with my old lenses and make sure I am happy the way I look through that D7000 ;-) Looks like this is the way to go for me as I will end up with 2 bodies and 2 lenses. I can then look towards some new lenses down the line....10-24mm to substitute my prime 20mm from my X700? Might also consider a convertor for the 75-300mm lens or that Sigma lens spraynpray posted about. Will keep you posted....

The only focus issues I have with mine are with lenses that are in poor condition... The viewfinder on the D7000 is not that much brighter but that little bit makes a huge difference. also usind fast lenses will brighten the viewfinder too. I don't know what the viewfinder is optimized for but I think it is for f/2.8 so it will appear brighter on a f/2.8 lens then a f/5.6...

"All in all I still really like my D50. I wish it had more MP's for cropping but it's held up pretty well."

D50?... D50!

seriously the D7000 is miles better than the D50 bmschrad. Even a d70 is better than a D50. Ive used several D7000's (I own one and use it everyday) and have no focus issues with the body. Ive compared it to the D50 before and it focuses much faster and more accurate than the D50 is capable of. It has a toolset that blows the D50 out of the water. Just the ability to use ISO 2500 is a luxury with the D7000.

Take my word. Get a D7000... You will not be disappointed. If none of the options jive with you a used D700 will be lightyears away from what you have...

bmschrad said:Am I being too picky, are these stories way out of wack? I know the internet amplifies problems sometimes but it seems like Nikon's new cameras quality controls are sub par.

Thing is, when people have issues they are on the forums screaming about it. I would bet for every 10 people complaining there are hundreds that are too busy making images to tap away at a keyboard. Seriously. You don't hear much from the people who are happy with the purchase. They have no reason to go online and say anything.

I've owned two D7000's (first was stolen) and both have been fantastic. For the price they are at now, upgrading from a D50 would leave you zero complaints. (other than kicking yourself for not doing it sooner). Some might have had focus issues but I never experienced this. (I thought the second one might have, but it was more from a particular lens or just user error)

I'm in the same boat, I've been holding off with my D50 forever.

Here are my considerations and what is holding me back.

D7000 great camera at a pretty good price right now. The only thing that scares me is all the back focus issues and soft focus pictures people get from it. I'm not sure if this was an issue with older models and has since been fixed. Does anyone have more info?

D600: would buy in a minute, but after all the crazy dust and oil spot stories I've really been turned off. I don't want to practice cleaning a sensor on my new $2000.00 camera. I've yet to have to clean my D50 after 4 years.

D800: A little out of my price range but may just keep saving for the next six months. At least with this camera it seems they have worked out most of the major bugs. Plus if I shoot with crop mode I get the same FPS as the D7000 with the same MP count.

All in all I still really like my D50. I wish it had more MP's for cropping but it's held up pretty well.

Am I being too picky, are these stories way out of wack? I know the internet amplifies problems sometimes but it seems like Nikon's new cameras quality controls are sub par.

I went from the D70s to the D7000. The D7000 has an ever so slightly brighter/larger viewfinder, but not by much. Other than that, it blows the D70s out of the water in every regard. The only advantage the D70s had over any other body is the "unlimited" x-sync.

As far as full frame bodies, I checked out the D600 and the viewfinder is nice but not much bigger/better than that on the D7000. The other full frame bodies with a round eyepiece are much more pleasant to look through.

However, the D600 will use DX lenses in crop and it has an excellent sensor. It has enough resolution that even in DX mode the files will look great. When you step up to full frame glass, all the better.

BTW - I still have and use the 18-70mm. It's still excellent glass. Probably one of the better kit lenses ever made. Hang on to it.

Either way you go, any of the current Nikon lineup will make the D70 seem like a stone age tool in comparison.

kolja said:
Thanks for all the responses so far - your insights have already given me more ideas. I am new to this forum and will have to spend some in-depth time as most of you suggest. I will take my lenses to my local dealer and mount them on a D7000 to see how different the world looks through this camera. I have to confess, I also still shoot slide film through my Minolta X700 as I just get more rewarding shots this way than my D70 but I am ready to make the complete move to digital ;-) I have obviously stumbled onto the right site to do my research! I will still find it hard to part from my 20mm prime though....

Looking through your lens on a D7000 is the same as your D70 in terms of crop factor (any small difference will be down to the viewfinder not the image size). If your dealer has a full frame (D700/D3/D3x/D3s/D800/D600/D4) that you can do the same with, then you will see the difference as there will be 2/3rds of the magnification you get with the D70. As kyoshi said, your lenses will vignette on the full frame (the corners of the picture go black).

I still love my x700 and occasionally take it out for fun... However anything you listed has a better viewfinder than the D70. The lenses you have will work on any nikon digital body but will vignette on fx bodies. In addition Nikon makes a really nice 80-400mm which is much lighter than the canon counterpart and no worse in optical design or function. Many for some odd reason dislike the lens so there are many other options out there including a 70-200mm with a TC as msmoto suggested...

Thanks for all the responses so far - your insights have already given me more ideas. I am new to this forum and will have to spend some in-depth time as most of you suggest. I will take my lenses to my local dealer and mount them on a D7000 to see how different the world looks through this camera. I have to confess, I also still shoot slide film through my Minolta X700 as I just get more rewarding shots this way than my D70 but I am ready to make the complete move to digital ;-) I have obviously stumbled onto the right site to do my research! I will still find it hard to part from my 20mm prime though....

Thanks for all the responses so far - your insights have already given me more ideas. I am new to this forum and will have to spend some in-depth time as most of you suggest. I will take my lenses to my local dealer and mount them on a D7000 to see how different the world looks through this camera. I have to confess, I also still shoot slide film through my Minolta X700 as I just get more rewarding shots this way than my D70 but I am ready to make the complete move to digital ;-) I have obviously stumbled onto the right site to do my research! I will still find it hard to part from my 20mm prime though....

spraynpray said:
Says severn crossing from the safety of his house in England! South African wildlife deserves more respect (in this case subject to camera distance) than English or American wildlife does!

Ok may be he needs the 800mm f 5.5 and (and a D4)

kolja, we love to spend the people's money at NR

@ kolja

Welcome.....my suggestion would be to read some of the comments on the Forum....maybe for a few weeks at least. Then decide if you want to move to full frame, D600 or others, or remain with a crop sensor.

One thought about a cropped sensor is if one is shooting with a long lens, the smaller sensor gives a 1.5 magnification factor. Now, with a full sized sensor like the D600, one can shoot and crop, although I am a believer that shooting and cropping is not as effective as using a crop sensor initially.

Do a forum search and you will gain a lot of information. Many folks do not like Nikon's 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6VR lens, but I do. There are actual comparisons on the forum if one looks.

And, another idea with long lenses is the possibility of a 70-200 and teleconverter...

So, hang around, listen and ask questions, you will find there is a lot of good info here (along with some less valuable small talk :-))

sevencrossing said:

Wildlife is about field craft, rather than lenses

Says sevencrossing from the safety of his house in England! South African wildlife deserves more respect (in this case subject to camera distance) than English or American wildlife does!

Hi kolja, welcome to the NR forum.

When it comes to bangs for your bucks, the D7000 is hard to beat

but if you want a decent sized view finder, the D600 is a clear winner

the D600 has bigger tonal range than the D7000 so it would be much better for landscape

Wildlife is about field craft, rather than lenses

that said the two top lenses for wildlife are

200-400 f4 for mammals

400mm f 2.8 plus one or two converters for birds

both are mega expensive and IHMO would be wasted on a D7000

If you do get the D600 I would start with the 24 -120 f4 Nikon's best, do everything, lens

Hi kolja, welcome to the NR forum.

One thing to consider is (I don't know if you have 'lurked' here for a while or just discovered us) if you look around you will become aware that there is some risk to going straight for a new body like the D600 whereas the D7000 is a well established (possibly next to be replaced) body and so is less likely to give you any problems.

If you look at the PAD (Picture A Day) thread, you will see a guy called coastalconn who shoots birds VERY successfully using a Sigma 100 or 150-500mm lens and because the D7000 is available at a good discount, I would recommend that pairing. Don't forget the crop factor of the D70/D7000 means that 500mm is actually 750mm which is something you lose with the full frame D600.

If that 18-70 is OK for your landscapes etc., stick with that but I would ditch your 70-300 (non-VR I assume) and get the Sigma - it is outstanding 'bang for the buck'.

Hello,
I own a Nikon D70 with 2 lenses: 75-300mm and 18-70mm. I have always been frustrated with the tiny viewfinder and need to upgrade my kit.

I am considering:
Nikon D7000 (so that I can use my existing lenses)
Nikon D600 (to get a full view finder - this means my lenses need to be replaced as I believe they are not compatible with a D7000)
Canon 7D (only due to a 'cheaper' 100-400mm lens)

I primarily use the camera for daytime shots: Landscapes, wildlife (I live in South Africa), kids. Due to the wildlife trips, I like to invest in a decent long lens such as the 100-400m lens and this is the reason I am considering the Canon switch at all. I think that the D7000 switch would make the most sense as I have 2 existing lenses but the 75-300mm lens is a tad short. But perhaps I should start fresh?

Budget: I prefer the price of the D7000 obviously but if there is a serious case to upgrade and save for the big lens, then I will consider this.

I know it isn't an easy question but appreciate any comments/advice.

Gentoo said:
This is true and I think Nikon tries to maintain a balance. I for one am all for improved low light, there are situations when I'm under the canopy of trees on cloudy days when high ISO's are a must. However as you also said, the higher MP's are also good for us bird shooters as usually we need to crop. It will be interesting to see what the replacement of the D300/D300s offers in terms of this compromise.

Yup, I think the next generation Nikon DX bodies will host 14-18MP sensors, and that the noise control will be similar or better than it is now. That would be a nice bump, and like you, when I'm shooting birds, the lens is never long enough, cropping is often required.

Yeah that is really cool.
But if you look at it Canon 1Ds Mk III and 5D Mk II have almost the same mark (Resolution is NOT factored into the DxOMark Sensor) as D3 or D700. But they are 21 Mpix cameras compared to 12 Mpix. Sony Alpha 850 and 900 too, and at 24 Mpix.
To be honest 7D is just a bit lower (64.9 to 69.8) at 18 compared to 12 Mpix D300s. And it amazes me how D5000 and D90 are better then D300 when D300 gives better images at least in my view.
I doubt this will have any implication on the fact then Canon DSLR sales are stable while Nikon DSLR sales are going down. And I really hope Nikon will surprise us as Hiroshi Takashima General Manger of Imaging Division at Nikon claims, but not with a new Coolpix S220 he regards so high (crappiest P&S of all times, most current mobile phones are making better images than this failure) but with something with better quality and better line-up of cameras.

PB PM said:
Yes, the Nikon DSLRs do better in low light, but there are situations when you want more MP, although I can only think of a few.

This is true and I think Nikon tries to maintain a balance. I for one am all for improved low light, there are situations when I'm under the canopy of trees on cloudy days when high ISO's are a must. However as you also said, the higher MP's are also good for us bird shooters as usually we need to crop. It will be interesting to see what the replacement of the D300/D300s offers in terms of this compromise.

haha, so I did a comparo with my D200. . .has the same SNR, lol!

That's no good - a brand new "gen 3" camera as pooey in noise control, color, DR as a 2005 Nikon. . .if that's the rate Canon's going, then. . .

woah. . .not totally unexpected, until a camera manufacturer can start using different materials to help mitigate noise, adding MORE MP's to a CCD/CMOS sensor will get you a 7D. . .or something equivalent. . .

Film is natively at about 25 mpx.

Honestly, with 10mp, I've NEVER had issues blowing things up to sizes I can AFFORD to print at. . .and clients RARELY even want things printed outside of a album (max 8X10), so not sure why Canon is wrapped up in this, but I'm sure the smart consumer will realize the limitations. . .

Canon fanboys are going to go wild!

I have used the new 7D and in GOOD light, I think it's superior to the D300 and D90, but once you start pushing the low-light issue, the lower MP Nikon's do much better.

For some the 7D is better because they won't push the light envelope. I'm 100% Nikon, but don't underestimate the Canons. They are fine cameras.

Cheers

I really do hope that you are taking the DXO comparisons with a pinch of Cayenne pepper. They've been known to contain some pretty wild results that contradict the visual outcome (i.e. images).

Yes, the Nikon DSLRs do better in low light, but there are situations when you want more MP, although I can only think of a few.