I would find the D7000 inferior to my D90 and hold no interest. The D900 would be very interesting if it had 100% finder accuracy and the same form factor as the D700, although the price would have to decline toward $2,000 to be compelling for me. I still see the D300s as the most attractive for me at this point and I might wait for a D400.

I have a feeling the D7000 will be a downgrade from the D90 so... the D900

For me, the focus motor is a must. Otherwise my Tokina 11-16mm is MF only (which isn't as bad as it sounds). Manual focus on DX is a bag of hurt in my opinion. I always seem to miss it.

The video mode on my D90 is nice I suppose, but truth be told, I've only ever used it once, and that was to learn how to use it. My lady filmed a Christmas video on it. I still, for the life of me, can't figure out why consumers want 1080p so badly. i can't even tell the difference between 1080 and 720 on my televisions unless I watch them side by side.

Swivel screens.... I'm split on this. They definitely add a little bit of bulk and reduce durability, but I also have a tendancy to shoot at ground level from time to time.

12 vs. 14 megapixels spread across 2 dimintions gets you about 8% more resolution... meh.

The D7000 looks like a pass to me unless you are a film profesional. Now if you threw a stop or two of high ISO performance as well... then maybe we can talk.

As for the D900, if it can match the high ISO performance of the D700, then I'd say the extra 12mp are worth the $400 premium over the D700 (IF you print large and IF you don't already have a D700).

I've just recently got to my happy place in terms of my FX lens line-up. So now I can think about this sort of thing.

Yeah, I agree, both are way out of my price range. And are you crazy? A nearly pro DX lens with no focusing motor? That'd be suicide for the pros.

$1200 is about the price of a D300s. Tell me why I shouldn't get a D300s and get the D7000 that you proposed instead? I lose no backwards compatibility with lenses.

For that price the D7000 better handle high ISOs way better than the D3s, because I can't justify that.

Both those cameras lack appeal, IMO.

d900 with 24mpx - if there will be at least 5-6fps

$1999! A new D700 isn't even there shiva and it's already getting replaced. Why would a new model be discounted so much?

Willis I have always been a fan of video, swivel screens, and I don't mind not having AF motor in the body. I prefer the silent and smoother AF-S lenses. I guess I'm old enough to remember when old school always has to graduate to new technology. Purist will always hate auto focus, Polaroids, digital cameras, video, swivel screens, etc. but I love new technology.

I guess it's just my way of staying young :^) Though all the kiddies around me are shooting film!

Neither. . .I'd still sit tight, I'd effectively lose 3 lenses to the D7000 (Tokina 11-16, 24 2.8, 35-70 2.8), and I think my D200 is fairing fine in the DX arena up until ISO 400. . .which leads me to D900 or whatever, which I would wait to come down in more realistic pricing, like around $1999 after a rebate. . .

Niko - What would you find tempting about your D7000?

I can't recall you being much of a fan of video, swivel screens, or lack of auto focus monitors. I suppose you are getting so advanced in your age that you can no longer hoist the camera's viewfinder all the way to eye level. Ha!

Neither Then

Pete

Nope sorry just the choice of either of the above.

I would mostly like to see a Compact FX model, you know that $1500 model

Pete

So which are you more interested in?

Let's say the D900 is FX and 24mp and replaces the D700. Price is around $2799USD.

The D7000 is DX and has a 14mp CMOS sensor and replaces the D90. It has no internal auto focus motor but does have 1080p HD video and a 920k swivel LCD in a slightly smaller, lighter body than todays D90. Price would be around $1200USD.

I think I'd pass on a D900 if all it had was 24mp over the D700 and a few other tweaks. The D7000 would tempt me more but I'd probably still pass on that too :^(