I've got several complaints about this thread. I don't have time right now but I'll come back to it and straighten things out.

Thanks for everyone's replies. I know these things can get a bit emotional sometimes but regardless I think everyone has made good points pro and con.

While I wasn't sold on the D7000 per se, it struck me as the most likely DX candidate on the Nikon side of the story. If this studio does jump to DX, they may decide to stay on the Canon side, but I will nonetheless suggest my reasons why I feel the investment in Nikon may be better from an economic and performance perspective.

Considering what they're shooting, I simply don't see FX giving them any advantages. Their typical F is 20, shallow DOF is not desirable at all. The objects are static and artificially lit and don't require the need for rapid fire shooting (the strobes can't recycle that fast anyway LOL).

Fortunately their stable of 28-135mm lenses are also reaching end-of-life (their stabilizers are going wonky and creating double images on some exposures), so suggesting a new arsenal of optics will not be so far fetched. If they did decide to switch to Nikon-only, the 100mm macro Canon would be the only loss (that is a very good lens).

It will be a while yet before their purchase decisions will be made, so there's no rush with this. They may decide to stay with Canon even if they do jump to DX, but at least I will try to give them some perspective otherwise. :-)

In all honesty comparing the D300s to the D7000 is like comparing green apples to red apples...

SquamishPhoto said:
Sounds like he's been smoking the same stuff as DaveyJ. If only taking a photograph was always about just getting one right. In the field shooting wildlife like birds or shooting athletes doing active sports, your buffer can be your saviour.

As a sports photographer I've found buffer to only be a little important. I usually only need a burst of 5 shots to get the shot so buffer isn't an issue. A burst can save you but unless you have 10 objects you are trying to chase or a rapid COMPLEX sequence long bursts aren't often necessary.

It is true that a large buffer can save you sometimes as when Im shooting a set of racers my buffer may fill up before I can shoot the 3rd rider so I do somewhat agree with this point. However even though my D200 has the bigger buffer. My D90 and D7000 can do a much faster fps than the D200 can after the buffer is full. The D7000 can do around 2.5 fps when full while the D200 seems to be every other second...

@Spy Black ...

Don't worry about the arguing going on ... we all love each other really! ;-)

I am employed by my local university (I am a full time paid staff member) and shooting promo and event photos is part of what I and two others do for them.

We used to have access to Nikon FX gear but over the last few years it has got to the point where we are down to one D3 body and even that has some duct tape on it. Last year, the uni purchased a bunch of DX gear and after about 6 months of just about daily use by us staffers and the student body, the D7000's are holding up the best.

I spent $1100 on my own D7k and don't regret it.

The question you asked originally about a D7k working all day every day in a studio is one that I mostly feel confident in answering yes to. It's not as tough as a D3, but then you are going to be setting up a studio shot with care, decent lighting and the camera on a solid support, not getting jostled by a few hundred football fans or bumped about on the seat of a golf cart doing 40MPH downhill to get a mile across campus to some event or other that starts in just 30 seconds.

In my view, it is clearly (for now at least) the best DX body for the price. Who knows, next month we might have something else to drool over, but for now at least.....

SquamishPhoto said:
Easy there. You didn't exactly offer any experience, you just declared that we should "Take it from somebody that uses both the D7K and D700 professionally". You just want us to trust you because you've been paid for some work using the cameras. This isn't as amazing as you seem to believe it is. I've been shooting and getting paid for work the last 6 years using a D50, D300, D700 and now with a D7000 to go with it. I've been shooting with the D700 for nearly two years and in that time I have spent the farm on FF pro nikon glass. All that glass pairs a lot nicer with a full frame body and that reason alone has me using the D700 for 85% of my photography.

But you've got the wrong idea about my feelings about the D7000. I love it. I love that its small and light. I love how much great tech has been put into it and I love the results that I get with it. That doesn't magically make it a better camera than a D700 no matter how much you kick and scream about it. When it comes to sports and wildlife its no comparison. Balance, speed and a big bright viewfinder are a really hard thing to beat. I shoot a lot of stuff in a dark forest, so the ISO performance of the D7000 isn't nearly as effective in those situations. Having both is awesome and you should try and worry less about which one you think is better and just enjoy them both. No one is dragging anything through the mud, but you are most certainly gushing over the camera for reasons that I think are a bit unjustified. It is the D90 replacement after all and just because pro's own them doesn't make it a pro model camera. If it was thats what Nikon would have called it. They didn't. End of story.

All I've got to go on, is your sarcastic remarks. If you had good things to say about the subject, you would of been better served by stating them clearly.

TaoTeJared said:

Feature/ D300s
File Format Still Images/ TIFF (RGB)
Raw Uncompressed 12/14-bit NEF (RAW) -
NEF (RAW): Lossless Compressed or Compressed 12 or 14 bit
Storage Media/ CompactFlash© (Type I/II, compliant with UDMA)
AF Points/ Number of AF points: 9, 21, 51 and 51 (3D-tracking)
Flash Bracketing/ 2 to 9 frames in steps of 1/3, 1/2, 2/3 or 1 EV
White Balance Bracketing/ 2 to 9 exposures
Timer/ Intervalometer

This list shows me how little time you've actually spent with the D7K.

1. The D7K doesn't shoot .TIFF(who uses this anyway?), but does shoot 12 and 14 bit NEF, Lossless and compressed.

2. While the D7K doesn't support CF, it does have dual SD card slots.

3. Instead of 51 AF points, of has 39. This is actually more than enough. The D7K's AF is just as accurate(in my copies). It's metering has twice the pixels, which means more accurate metering(which is proven in the real-world).

4. While the D7K doesnt support more than 3 shot bracketing, it does allow EV steps up-to 2EV and because the D7K already has 14 stops of DR(@ base ISO) this is actually more than enough for exposure bracketing.

5. The D7K DOES have an intervalometer! I use it regularly. It's actually an improved version over the D300 (more intuitive).

With that said, I wont even go into the features the D7K has that the D300s doesn't.

P.s. The D100 doesn't have scene modes either, but I doubt very seriously you can say it's a better camera than the D7K. Because of the D7K's price point, it does need to have some "auto" features for the amature users. For Nikon to be able to offer such a tremendous value, the scene modes are a small price to pay and really a mute point. Nikon should be praised for this decision. If they removed the scene modes and charged $1600 would you be happy then? No, probably not.

SpringsApproach said:
I used to say the same thing, until I talked to a pro aviation photographer (Tyson Rininger). He made a good point - the buffer doesn't matter when you get it right the first time.
(I'm far from the point of being able to say that but it's a valid argument in the 'pro-level camera or not' debate.)

Sounds like he's been smoking the same stuff as DaveyJ. If only taking a photograph was always about just getting one right. In the field shooting wildlife like birds or shooting athletes doing active sports, your buffer can be your saviour.

CaryTheLabelGuy said:
And your post was useful/helpful? At least I offered real world experience with BOTH bodies, since I actually have experience with them all. My hard-on for the D7000 is based off real experience, not spec sheets and speculation. The D7000 stands on it's own merits, but it's also important for people to understand the facts. Just because a few of you are having a hard-time justifying the fact that the D300s is out-dated and in most ways totally replaced by the D7K, doesn't mean some of you have a right to drag the D7K through the mud every chance they get....I.e. TaoTeJared. Goes both ways fellas.

Easy there. You didn't exactly offer any experience, you just declared that we should "Take it from somebody that uses both the D7K and D700 professionally". You just want us to trust you because you've been paid for some work using the cameras. This isn't as amazing as you seem to believe it is. I've been shooting and getting paid for work the last 6 years using a D50, D300, D700 and now with a D7000 to go with it. I've been shooting with the D700 for nearly two years and in that time I have spent the farm on FF pro nikon glass. All that glass pairs a lot nicer with a full frame body and that reason alone has me using the D700 for 85% of my photography.

But you've got the wrong idea about my feelings about the D7000. I love it. I love that its small and light. I love how much great tech has been put into it and I love the results that I get with it. That doesn't magically make it a better camera than a D700 no matter how much you kick and scream about it. When it comes to sports and wildlife its no comparison. Balance, speed and a big bright viewfinder are a really hard thing to beat. I shoot a lot of stuff in a dark forest, so the ISO performance of the D7000 isn't nearly as effective in those situations. Having both is awesome and you should try and worry less about which one you think is better and just enjoy them both. No one is dragging anything through the mud, but you are most certainly gushing over the camera for reasons that I think are a bit unjustified. It is the D90 replacement after all and just because pro's own them doesn't make it a pro model camera. If it was thats what Nikon would have called it. They didn't. End of story.

CaryTheLabelGuy said:
doesn't mean some of you have a right to drag the D7K through the mud every chance they get....I.e. TaoTeJared. Goes both ways fellas.

Hey SquamishPhoto check this one out...

Pro cameras do not have Scene Modes like; Food, Party, Autumn Colors or my favorite, Blossom. ;)- ROTFL

We are all glad you like your purchase Carry. The only thing that matters is that you are confident in the tools you choose.

Spy Black said:
Actually they have an old D70 and some Nikkors (even a PC!) they use there occasionally, but the main cameras are the Canons.

If they decide to stick with FX they'll almost certainly stick with Canon.

We all had to work in DX at one point - there wasn't a choice:)

Spy Black said:
Someone sold them on the idea of FX at some point...

I never thought I would ever hear a statement like that. How much of a gain would you get if they made the switch? ;)

If it is primarily Studio work, most of the advantages the Nikon system fall by the side and it comes down to resolution, color, bracketing, and a few other small things. That is why MedFmt cameras usually only shoot 3 FPS max, if even that. A 36mp Nikon may be up their ally though.

Here is a quick list of the D300s over D7000. I wouldn't suggest a D300s as it is ready for a refresh, but D400/800 would probably be the same. There are some, but not much. The bracketing and the built in timer are two things I use a lot. Some other things like customizable and save-able presets (I think 40 total? - I only use 6) I use all the time and it makes camera set-up much easier so you don't forget a setting. All of it depends on how much you use or would use it. The intervalometer alone is worth $250 if you had to buy the nikon remote. Again, it is what you use.

Feature/ D300s
File Format Still Images/ TIFF (RGB)
Raw Uncompressed 12/14-bit NEF (RAW) -
NEF (RAW): Lossless Compressed or Compressed 12 or 14 bit
Storage Media/ CompactFlash© (Type I/II, compliant with UDMA)
AF Points/ Number of AF points: 9, 21, 51 and 51 (3D-tracking)
Flash Bracketing/ 2 to 9 frames in steps of 1/3, 1/2, 2/3 or 1 EV
White Balance Bracketing/ 2 to 9 exposures
Timer/ Intervalometer

Like you said, it is no skin of your back. Sometimes it comes down to individuals who like the Canon "look" over Nikon. Kyoshinikon laid out a good list of items almost every Nikon has over Canon as well. It has been a while since I used a Canon, but I have always been surprised some of the small things Nikon has or does a bit better.

I find it hard to believe that any Canon shop would switch to Nikon, and any Nikon shop would switch to Canon, considering the amount of energy invested in glass.

I say this because, even if the camera has reached the end of its useful life, i find it doubtful the lenses have.

Oh and BTW, the D700's buffer is not all that much better either. Both the D7K and the D700 slow down after about 15 shots in raw mode...... Not that bad, really. The D7K just hit's the buffer limit faster because it has a faster FPS (6-7fps) compared to the D700 un-gripped( 5fps).

SquamishPhoto said:
This is like saying "with all due respect" and then proceeding to completely deride someone. And by now we're all well aware of your hard-on for your D7000, so its hardly a surprise that you couldn't resist Tao's bait.

One word: buffer.

And your post was useful/helpful? At least I offered real world experience with BOTH bodies, since I actually have experience with them all. My hard-on for the D7000 is based off real experience, not spec sheets and speculation. The D7000 stands on it's own merits, but it's also important for people to understand the facts. Just because a few of you are having a hard-time justifying the fact that the D300s is out-dated and in most ways totally replaced by the D7K, doesn't mean some of you have a right to drag the D7K through the mud every chance they get....I.e. TaoTeJared. Goes both ways fellas.

SquamishPhoto said:
One word: buffer.

I used to say the same thing, until I talked to a pro aviation photographer (Tyson Rininger). He made a good point - the buffer doesn't matter when you get it right the first time.
(I'm far from the point of being able to say that but it's a valid argument in the 'pro-level camera or not' debate.)

CaryTheLabelGuy said:
The D7000 easily makes up for that by having a feature called "easy-ISO", which enables the user to change ISO with the main command dial in A and S modes, rather than hit a button. This is something that I find to be a major flaw in the D700. The D7K is a much better and easier camera to use than the Canons and in some ways, easier to use than the D700(I.e. "easy-ISO").

He's right, as a side note the D3s has it also (CSM f8), but I'm not sure why this would be an important consideration for controlled studio work? For what it's worth, go on then, I'll throw my hat in the ring and say I would have thought the D7000 would be perfectly adequate for the task, however I also agree with the comments made by others who have said it is very unusual for someone to want to move from FX to DX. (The type of photography you're doing staying the same of course).

TaoTeJared said:
D300 or the D400 if they come out with it. I know this is peeve some off, but I really don't see the D7000 as a pro camera at all. I see pros use it for the video since it seems to be the best Nikon has at the moment or those who are waiting for the D400. If image quality was the only measure, maybe. The menu options, controls, even size that it lacks keeps me from considering it anything more than an advanced camera marketed at amateurs. It is an extraordinarily capable camera and pros do use them, but when the D800 and D400 come out, I think the shine will start to ware off quickly and people will pine switch to those. That happens with every new camera release with most people focusing on the IQ only. Some I know who have dropped from a D300 to a D7000 grumble quite a bit for the features they lost and I know they will dump it as soon as a D400 or D800 comes out. Now how those features equate to a Canon? I have no clue. Maybe it plays a factor, maybe not.

Not trying to P in your Cheerios but just to be realistic - You may have one hell of an uphill battle - if they have 5Ds & 5D Mark IIs - you are really looking at a D800 or D3x not a D7000. I really wouldn't say the 5D Mark II is at it's end of it's useful life either. Trying to suggest a drop in resolution or going backward to DX to people who have been at that level for years rarely works. Add to the cost of switching accessories like pocket wizards, strobes, batteries and grips, cords, and then lenses, filters and every little thing one forgets about, it gets very expensive. When is the last time you heard people desiring to move to DX or loose resolution?

Add brand loyalty to the mix and all I have to say is - Tread lightly my friend.

As a post loyal Canut I can say that the D7000 does a great job at keeping up with even canon's full frame bodies. Instead of pushing paper I've actually used these cameras side by side and in all sorts of situations (as a sidenote I almost shoot exclusively manual so I'm not using it as an oversize P&S)... To start the D7000 actually is better than the 5Dmk 2 in many aspects. That is not to overlook the obvious advantages of the 5D...

To the 5Dmk2's credit it is full frame so your DOF narrows by a stop. Also it is bigger, has a PC sync (not a necessity if you use pocketwizards, and a much bigger buffer.

So what does the D7000 have over it?

First of all the viewfinder is 100% and it is brighter (even though the 5D is FF). While smaller, it can put up with just as much if not more abuse than a 5Dmk2 (regardless on how it looks on paper). Its AF is much faster and more accurate than the 5Dmk2 (I will admit though the D3s trumps the AF in the D7000 though so it is reasonable). It seems to handle colors better and unlike the 5Dmk2 (or 7D), resolves sharp images nicely wide open from most of the system lenses. Its menu options trump all of the canons and are comparable to the D300s with things such as lens finetuning, remembering manual images, and embedded copyright. While the 5Dmk2 has a larger buffer the framerate of 3.9fps is really slow. The D7000 does 6fps. The D7000's low light is very comparable to the 5Dmk2 and is sharper. The same rule for video. The one thing I do miss is the AF array selector switch that higher end nikons have. It also has more AF points as a whole (but less than the pro bodies). Unlike nikons, canons tend to be menu driven so you actually are gaining body controls going from a 5Dmk2 to a D7000 and oddly menu options.

So why the 5Dmk2 still? Many find the light handling of FF to be worth it. I think it is a fantastic camera but it is overhyped. It works well in real life situations but the D7000 does too and being the kind of photog who can log 3000 shots on one body a day the D7000 has proved to be reliable just like the D70, D90, D200, D300(s), and every Fx nikon I've used as well as most canons and pentaxes I've used too... The one canon I would never trust is a 7D. Had too many break on me and they are just glitchy too...

SquamishPhoto said:

One word: buffer.

Yes, it's important to have a huge buffer, 51 point AF and a fast processor when shooting un-moving antiques in a studio.

:)

If they already have a d70 and equipment, use it. For small web images you don't need much and the d70's image quality really wasn't all that bad. I suggest a dx00 body to a dx0 body because of the viewfinder (I seem to remember it being ridiculously small on the d70). Like I said before, I'll always own a d300. When my current one breaks, I'll buy another used one. I find it to be perfect for what I do.

If you're working in a studio, I'd keep the current camera system (whichever has the best lenses) or maybe purchase a used d300 and upgrade the lighting. If you can get your lights powerful enough to always be shooting at f8 or better, you won't have as much of a problem with your crappy lenses.

Why do they feel the need to upgrade their current camera system? I think that might help everyone answer your question.

CaryTheLabelGuy said:
I'm not going to go into the typical "D7000 is not a pro body" battle. But, I will say this - the D7K is used professionally by many top photographers.... Take it from somebody that uses both the D7K and D700 professionally.

This is like saying "with all due respect" and then proceeding to completely deride someone. And by now we're all well aware of your hard-on for your D7000, so its hardly a surprise that you couldn't resist Tao's bait.

One word: buffer.

TaoTeJared said:
Not trying to P in your Cheerios

.
.
.
I love it

I'm not going to go into the typical "D7000 is not a pro body" battle. But, I will say this - the D7K is used professionally by many top photographers. I don't see a single issue with the D7K, compared to a D300s or the D700. I currently have two D7ks and a D700 and I prefer the D7K in some ways. The AF is just as fast and accurate and the image quality trumps the D300s in every way. The only feature the D7K is really missing is being able to bracket more than 3 shots, but easily makes up for that by having a feature called "easy-ISO", which enables the user to change ISO with the main command dial in A and S modes, rather than hit a button. This is something that I find to be a major flaw in the D700. The D7K's build quality is on-par with a semi-pro - pro grade body, especially when using the Mb-d11 magnesium grip. The D7K is a great camera and in most ways, better than the antique 5DMkII. For those complaining about ergonomics, the D7K is a much better and easier camera to use than the Canons and in some ways, easier to use than the D700(I.e. "easy-ISO"). Take it from somebody that uses both the D7K and D700 professionally.

" Add to the cost of switching accessories like pocket wizards, strobes, batteries and grips, cords, and then lenses, filters and every little thing one forgets about, it gets very expensive. When is the last time you heard people desiring to move to DX or loose resolution?
Add brand loyalty to the mix and all I have to say is - Tread lightly my friend."

It'll be no sweat off my back to make the suggestion. They'll either take it or leave it.

Actually they have an old D70 and some Nikkors (even a PC!) they use there occasionally, but the main cameras are the Canons. Someone sold them on the idea of FX at some point, but it's obvious they already did work in DX in the past, so it's not a stretch to go DX or switch to Nikon.

All their existing radio and lighting gear will work with any DX body, whether they would consider Nikon or go with Canon DX.

If they decide to stick with FX they'll almost certainly stick with Canon.

D300 or the D400 if they come out with it. I know this is peeve some off, but I really don't see the D7000 as a pro camera at all. I see pros use it for the video since it seems to be the best Nikon has at the moment or those who are waiting for the D400. If image quality was the only measure, maybe. The menu options, controls, even size that it lacks keeps me from considering it anything more than an advanced camera marketed at amateurs. It is an extraordinarily capable camera and pros do use them, but when the D800 and D400 come out, I think the shine will start to ware off quickly and people will pine switch to those. That happens with every new camera release with most people focusing on the IQ only. Some I know who have dropped from a D300 to a D7000 grumble quite a bit for the features they lost and I know they will dump it as soon as a D400 or D800 comes out. Now how those features equate to a Canon? I have no clue. Maybe it plays a factor, maybe not.

Not trying to P in your Cheerios but just to be realistic - You may have one hell of an uphill battle - if they have 5Ds & 5D Mark IIs - you are really looking at a D800 or D3x not a D7000. I really wouldn't say the 5D Mark II is at it's end of it's useful life either. Trying to suggest a drop in resolution or going backward to DX to people who have been at that level for years rarely works. Add to the cost of switching accessories like pocket wizards, strobes, batteries and grips, cords, and then lenses, filters and every little thing one forgets about, it gets very expensive. When is the last time you heard people desiring to move to DX or loose resolution?

Add brand loyalty to the mix and all I have to say is - Tread lightly my friend.

If it was sports shooting I would say look at the D300s for the larger buffer and (slightly) better AF.

For studio work the D7000 is more than enough. (invest in a good hot shoe PC sync adapter like the Nikon a15...)

It plays well with almost any Nikon glass including some stunning older AIS lenses.

Believe me the D7000 can handle pro grade shooting as the D90 D80 and D70 could...

Essentially the only 3 things that would make the d7000 more pro are the af array selector body control, a pc symnc port, and 51 af points...