I bought another D7000 today as waiting for new replacements doesn't cut it when you have subjects we need to work on now. I agree with many of the thoughts for an upgrade. Problem is though when the replacement does come, and it WILL have an Expeed 3 processor which alone will make a huge difference, it will cost more$$. I would have preferred the older style lithium battery too. But for a combo that does good stills and video, it is worth the price now. Check TaoTeJared's list on intros. The D7000 is not new. For what it is worth I still use my D90 the most as it is what seems to get the 70-300VR zoom mostly for use. For fast subjects it is quite good. Sure like to see the 80-400VR redone. That current lens is too slowww. Good luck to all,
DaveyJ

Mike Gunter said:
Hi,

While I would like the articulating screen, too, I don't think I want to lose an iota of weather proofing or build quality - and I would use the articulating screen a lot.

Weather proofing and build quality, in Nikon's eye, likely beefs up the camera more and will make it a better value it the shutter box as well as the body. I guess I'm suggesting that _I think_ it's a trade off for a lot for a little, if the trade off is weather proofing and build quality.

You'd be sacrificing a terrific camera in order to have a so-so camera if you were in a position to make that bargain.

My best,

Mike

True.

MikeWhis said:
Yeah, but I'd totally prefer slightly worse build quality than the loss of the articulating display. I use the articulating display for maybe just less than 5% of the time, but I have yet to need a better build quality compared to my little D5100.
...
EDIT: Like what I said, I don't think there would be a articulating screen in D7000's replacement, but I hope there would be.

Hi,

While I would like the articulating screen, too, I don't think I want to lose an iota of weather proofing or build quality - and I would use the articulating screen a lot.

Weather proofing and build quality, in Nikon's eye, likely beefs up the camera more and will make it a better value it the shutter box as well as the body. I guess I'm suggesting that _I think_ it's a trade off for a lot for a little, if the trade off is weather proofing and build quality.

You'd be sacrificing a terrific camera in order to have a so-so camera if you were in a position to make that bargain.

My best,

Mike

E4tmonkieshyt said:
It would be harder to weather seal the camera if they did put an articulating screen on the d7000 replacement.

Yeah, but I'd totally prefer slightly worse build quality than the loss of the articulating display. I use the articulating display for maybe just less than 5% of the time, but I have yet to need a better build quality compared to my little D5100. All I need is just it to withstand slight rain, snow, dust and sand, which my D5100 have been able to survive in all of those conditions, though I wouldn't wanna risk it that much. IMHO, it's more likely for my lens to die before my body in those conditions. The build quality of entry level lenses I have is not really good, ie the 18-55 and 55-200.

EDIT: Like what I said, I don't think there would be a articulating screen in D7000's replacement, but I hope there would be.

It would be harder to weather seal the camera if they did put an articulating screen on the d7000 replacement.

I predict that D7000's replacement:
1. $100-300 more expensive
2. 24MP sensor
3. 14 bit
4. D800 video
5. Accepts screw mount lenses
6. D300s AF system
7. D4 metering system
8. D4/D800 auto ISO system
9. Slightly larger optical viewfinder
10. D4 LCD
11. Orientation sensor works with AF system
12. Similar or slightly better build quality
13. Same battery
14. Slightly larger body
15. Slightly different button/dial placement at the top and front of the body

I hope:
16. Articulating screen
17. Removal of top LCD

Hi all,

@The Man, you're welcome, and I got the notion that you, like I, many times, are a one-man band playing many instruments.

And you're absolutely right, the trick is setting the levels low enough as not to peak out and over modulate, and just high enough to raise them in post in needed.

The on-cammera mic is nice for 'relatively' close audio captures, but not for all things. It has a 'newsy' feel and sound to it.

@Johnnyapple - In broad strokes, and that's where everything really gets distorted (if we want to stay with a tonal metaphor), using something like the H4N becomes really nice as it allows the use of professional XLR microphones with and also provides phantom power to them. That's nice. Sooner or later in any interview, one will want to set up a microphone on a stand or boom close to the subject, and if one is recording to a device, the device you'll want to record to will have XLR inputs with phantom power. I have other tools that work just as well or better, such as the JuicedLink box that has 4 powered inputs, each with discrete preamps and can mix them all into stereo channels. That's convenient for recording larger sound requirements such as a play or multiple speakers, anything where more microphones are necessary. Of course, it comes at a price that I can't really endorse for the average joe.

Naturally, you can also use a mixer board, I have a Beringer, with 16 inputs, for concerts, that go into another recording device. Again, how many concerts a year does one do for a living?

Ultimately, it's much, much easier if you lay your audio track on your video as you shoot. Always. A few tracks here and there aren't too heinous, but any project of size will take its toil on you in the edit bay.

When possible, attach a feed into the camera. And above all remember this, if the audio is separate to the camera, the camera's audio will be of paramount importance to synchronize the captured audio to the video. Make sure it's loud enough to hear on the camera and cue it with a clap and sync point. You should then be able to see the talent or assistant clap their hands (and hear it on the device's tract) and also match the wave forms on the audio tracks.

My best,

Mike

I have the H4n and my little brother has the H2. Both are extremely capable. I bought it originally to record the reminiscences of my father-in-law, who had never talked much about his childhood until his three kids were moved out of the house.

I had thought to try the built-in mics of the H4n and buy some better microphones if they didn't work out. My main reasons for H4n over the H2 was the phantom power through the XLR inputs and the ability to record 4 tracks simultaneously. Frankly, I was so impressed with the quality of the built-in mics that I never ended up getting any other microphones.

The startup time is the only negative thing about the zoom h4n that I can think of (~10s). For my use, I probably would have been okay with the H2, and haven't tried the H2n, but it looks great, too.

Mike,

Anything that requires 2 people (like boom pole) is beyond my capabilities and would be hard to manage (My subjects know me well enough not to be surprised if my camera rig is absurd but if others are involved they will feel self-conscious as they start to pity : )
I WAS looking at shotgun in hotshoe shock mount for outdoor as you suggest (Rode vs Stennheiser, but will look at AT897 you mention). I planned to use the Zoom indoor close to subject with in-built mikes or with a Lavelier or use it outdoors for ambients.
From what you are saying it seems if I keep the level low enough I can get decent audio with this kind of setup (with some risk due to lack of monitoring).

Thanks! Your advise is very helpful as usual.

Hi all,

@The Man,

I don't know too much about the Zooms, but it all depends upon how you want to use them and what their capabilities are.

If you want to set the up and forget them, you'll want to set a level that is convenient and things fall where they may or let automatic gain (nearly always a bad idea) do it's job.

For strictly amateur 'archival' or fun work, the cheapest should work fine. Even for professional work, it's how you work the tool that matters. For example, the H4N has phantom power that allows a shotgun mic on a boom pole so one could mic a pole and ride the potentiometer on the device and get terrific sound as if it were a top notch rig. It might not be the easiest thing, but it would work and get great sound. However, for casual use, an independent recording device, with the levels set fairly low, and the D7000 inputs also set to a 1 or 2 (you'd want to see how that works for you), would likely work just fine.

One more thing. You might trying to add a short shotgun mic to the D7000 with a shock mount and plug it into the microphone input. I use a AudioTechnia AT897 with a Rode Shock Mount. You can also get a Mic stand to put to your subject. This works fairly well.

I also have a JuicedLink box which is a preamp/mixer and works well.

The real Achilles' heel in any of this is not being able to hear exactly what is going on the video.

Hope this helps and my best,

Mike

Sorry to hijack or revisit this thread, but I was curious what people's thought (Mike for example) on Zoom H2 vs H2N vs H4N in combination with the D7000's mic jack for amateur recordings.

There are some comments on web about H2 low level noise at least with default settings or external mic. Since H2 is VERY cheap, very small; comes with a windscreen, I wonder how much functionality I would lose with that unit vs the more expensive Zooms. To put request in context, I'm mainly interested in documenting family and friend short snapshots for posterity, especially my kids and elderly relatives (both here in US and in India)and during long vacation trips, but my home speakers are very revealing (Ascend Sierra's if anyone's familiar with that brand). I have mainly been using D7000 on Bogen 561B, manually focusing AIS primes or Tokina zooms (116, 535). I am trying to keep additional investment low, so wondering how clean of sound I can expect from the Zoom if I take a little time to set the levels before recording. I am thinking to use the H2 closer to subject for interviews or use it to capture ambient and use a cheap Rode or Steinhauser (sorry if misspelled) probably shotgunon the camera and mix them for stereo or maybe 5.1. Don't expect concert-like volumes MUCH, though I would probably also want to capture street music, temple sounds, trains, other ambients (rain, lightning). Wondering how much I lose with the $100 H2 which I can also use for dictation and work vs. the additional functionality of the close to $300 (with windscreen) H2N/H4N. Again for amateur application.

Hi,

@in4fun,

There are plenty of folks more adept than me, just not many older. ;-)

I have done more teaching of post production (Adobe products) for college-level students and professional-materials producing folks, however, now I'm mostly retired.

While I prefer still work (it's how I started as Army photographer in the 60's), motion comes this way occasionally.

Tagging your audio with the Edirol is fine, but not monitoring as you go along is not a terrific idea. Any kind of handling noise, ambient noise - machine from a refrigerator or air conditioner, street or what not - could spoil your day. Depending upon your production, multiple takes will be boorish to sync up in post, too. Running a short or long shotgun to close proximity to the talent on a boom will decrease some of that by the nature of the focus of the envelop of the microphone's pickup. Monitoring it will also reduce the gain to it's best level, reducing the cutoff of unwanted background noise. While the Tascam 100 is small, a sound guy/gal can hold a boom, ride the pots and get good sound independently of the camera. For one scene, and not too many takes, that's not so bad (log "bests" and such). For many takes of an undetermined scene (many, many multiples of start and goes, of many scenes for long interviews), it's godawful.

The Tascam 100 has XLR phantom outputs, which powers the microphone which really helps. I don't know if the Edirol does or not.

In any case, Nikon did add an audio out on the D800, so they are aware that it is the right thing to do and fixed it on that model. I wish that they had used better judgment earlier.

As always, my very best,

Mike

@Mike
Ups, I didn't know you were that deep in the business.

My recommendation was of course not mend for serious pros, since we're talking about the D7000, so please forgive me.
My only experience with Tascam was with the 07 and in direct comparison with the HR-09 the 07 was too strong on the highs for my taste. Especially voices sounded more natural on the 09. Mind you that I only tested the factory settings without tweaking levels, so it's not a fair comparison really.
To lay my cards on the table, I do stuff for websites and such, so my needs are not that sophisticated as on your level and post production is still more fun than getting the job done on time.

Good to know we have guys like you on board in here ;)

Hi,

@in4fun

"If you're serious about audio quality I can highly recommend the 'Edirol R-09HR High-Resolution WAVE/MP3 Recorder' by ROLAND which you can find on amazon here:"

I prefer the Tascam tools, and have both the Tascam 100 and Tascam 07, but Tascam 100 is better for using a hot XLR (powered) on monitored boom to talent so my sound guy can monitor sound and run me a feed.

The trouble is that neither address a boda fide need to attach a monitored audio file to video file in the file.

We just finished a series of interviews for which this wasn't possible. It's a PBS show that involved many, many takes of delicate subjects (elderly folks that tired too soon and that were bothered by the lights) that couldn't be easily redone.

Marrying hundreds of takes in post is not a wise economic choice, especially when those choices are often made by others - meaning that post production choices of editors might be much less experienced. Not knowing whether the audio was perfect or not was a very big and annoying pissy subject for me. There was a lot of money on the table for everyone involved - travel budget is huge and the ex-Presidents are on the interview list, reputations, and big names were at stake, and an itty-bitty 3.5mm audio output wasn't available on a damn camera. So work-arounds seem silly.

Granted, Nikon would say that the camera isn't a professional tool and that I should be using something else for my line of work. (They really have). ;-)

Of course, I've used other tools, too, and the D7000, for its legion of flaws, still isn't bad. Other cameras have flaws, too, and cost 10 times as much and aren't still cameras, too.

As always,

My best,

Mike

Mike Gunter said:
The next D7000 should have audio monitoring (audio jacks out), variable audio inputs

If you're serious about audio quality I can highly recommend the 'Edirol R-09HR High-Resolution WAVE/MP3 Recorder' by ROLAND which you can find on amazon here:

http://www.amazon.com/Edirol-R-09HR-High-Resolution-WAVE-Recorder/dp/B0016MLUKU/ref=sr_1_8?ie=UTF8&qid=1334751515&sr=8-8&tag=acleint-20

It records 24-bit/96kHz linear PCM high-resolution and will give your DSLR movie audio professional studio quality. The already included microphones in this device are breathtaking.
This is also a way better solution than the common ZOOM H2/H4 recorders most people use and it's only $350.

I let the Edirol run completely independent of my cam and merge them in post production (final cut).

Mike Gunter said:
Hi all,

The next D7000 should have audio monitoring (audio jacks out), variable audio inputs, live histograms, 1080P (60, 50, 30, 25, and 24). I'd like to see a wider selection of possibilities in the Picture Control to reduce contrast and sharping and other features, too, as well as be able to save a larger number of presets. It would be nice it the bit rate were higher, and if the clip length were longer, too. Panasonic uses a technique that ties clips together to any length seamlessly, so why not Nikon?

My best,

Mike

Couldn't agree more. I hope Nikon really gets the ball rolling on their video capabilities.

Hi all,

The next D7000 should have audio monitoring (audio jacks out), variable audio inputs, live histograms, 1080P (60, 50, 30, 25, and 24). I'd like to see a wider selection of possibilities in the Picture Control to reduce contrast and sharping and other features, too, as well as be able to save a larger number of presets. It would be nice it the bit rate were higher, and if the clip length were longer, too. Panasonic uses a technique that ties clips together to any length seamlessly, so why not Nikon?

My best,

Mike

I just bought one at the local camera store. I'll be getting the Ikelite housing for underwater use, so there was no point in waiting, because then I would have to wait for a new housing.

Nice that it uses the same batteries and CF cards as the D800. A second D800 is on order to go with this camera for a law enforcement application.

I'm still waiting on the D7000. Seems to be out of stock in a lot of places in the UK unless I'm willing to get the kits lens version, I want body only (some places have stock but I would have to pay an inflated price for body only). Making a jump from a D80 as I need better iso performance.

I agree with in4fun though.., all this waiting for the D7000, I'd hate for something new to come along. I know I'd be happy with D7000 but in a few years time I'll wish I had waited...but then again the D90 is still available to buy..

All this time waiting..I've bought a new lens to compensate ;)

Anaxagoras said:
There will ALWAYS, ALWAYS be a better camera just around the corner.

For me this statement is not true in this particular case.

I want the image quality of a D7000 including proper video functionality. That's all I ask for and it's simply not there (yet).
I don't want a Canon because I don't like the layout, so I have to wait, it's not that I want to wait, but I can afford to.
So I'm betting my money on a D7100 or D400, whatever comes first this year and ticks all my checkmarks.

My wishlist for the D7100:
improved AF system
fixed motion tracking in video and more options in HD
increased buffer for more continuous shots
and if possible a flip-screen (without sacrificing buttons)
as a side note I couldn't care less for a built-in lens motor, so whatever

I'm perfectly fine with handling, MP-count, lowlight performance etc.
Would I buy the D7000 this year, a confident 'no', because I don't want to resell a temporary solution, I want to buy proper stuff and stick with it for the coming years (5+).

+1 Anaxagoras

I can afford the D800, but I'm afraid that the wait will be several months to get one, and I will not buy a camera without actually holding one in my hands first.

I also needed to upgrade my body, so I bought a used D7000 that will keep me going until the D800 backlog is caught up. Who knows? By then they may have announced something else that I'd rather have, or I may be satisfied with the D7K. But this way, I don't have as much invested if I decide to buy a newer body, and in the mean time, I'm still shooting and honing my craft.

The D7K is a great camera. Get out and shoot! Good luck with your decision.

-Rick

Hmmm. Whilst I understand the worry about buying a camera only for a new, better model to be announced tomorrow (I've been there myself), ask yourself the following question:

"Why do I want a camera?"

If the answer is "To take photos" then read the spec sheets and go out and BUY the camera that meets your needs. And USE it.

It doesn't matter a jot when you do this, or what camera you buy. There will ALWAYS, ALWAYS be a better camera just around the corner. That's how progress works.

The thing to remember is that when that replacement, better, shiny new camera does come out, it does not change your existing camera in any way whatsoever. Your pixel count stays the same, the AF works exactly as before, the buffer stays the same size, the lenses continue to fit, the pictures it takes will be every bit as good as they've always been.

And the pictures you have taken with the camera won't fade to oblivion - you get to keep them.

Only 1 issue and for me and it's a dealbreaker. 60 Fps Video. I need my sexy slow speed and may go to Canon to get it.

I know the D800 offers this but realistically I've Sinar and Hasselblad kit which make that would make that camera obsolete in my kit bag.

Now that the D3200 will have a 24mp sensor surely the D7000 upgrade will have more than a 24mp sensor. One would think they would at least need 30 mp for advertising purposes so consumers think they are getting a "better" camera since mp is one way consumers evaluate cameras. It seems if we will be going to 30 mp in DX format the pixel pitch must be even smaller than the D800 and consequently even more detail will be captured.

I'm happy with the D7000 performance but there is one that I wish Nikon would upgrade is the buffer when shooting in RAW. I find it pointless if I have a 6fps if the buffer can't keep up.