Does it use the same battery as D200?
[closed]
Nikon D7000 Officially Official!
(224 posts) (48 voices)-
Posted 2 years ago #
-
I'm happy for the D7k. I do hope now the D300 and D700 get their respective upgrades. On that note, I'm heading to bed :)
Night all!
Posted 2 years ago # -
Nevermind. I guess not. =[
Posted 2 years ago # -
yeah 1500$ is too much for the kit, I can get the 18-105 for cheaper than 300 definitely. Now time for me to start selling some stuff off so I can buy this baby. And by buying it I mean probably being on a long waitlist and being digitaless for awhile. But that's fine by me :)
Posted 2 years ago # -
Looks like I found my new camera, super happy I wanted on getting that D90 the other day. :)
Posted 2 years ago # -
god nikon's promotional videos are embarrassing...They are so cheezeball.
Posted 2 years ago # -
From Nikon: The resolution of the camera renders a pixel size of 4.78 µm, which allows more light to be gathered, resulting in a correctly exposed image that has less noise and finer grain.
Anyone know the pixel sizes of the other Nikon sensors?
Posted 2 years ago # -
I guess this helps answer my ISO topic that I posted. Used D700s are going for 1800+ on ebay. On the Chase Jarvis blog, his guys are saying that the ISO is equal to the D700. At one point, Scott(Jarvis' assistant) said the ISO is in the D3 line's league. They are saying it's just their opinion. Throw in the 1080 video, and this could be what I really need.
Jon
Posted 2 years ago # -
Nice D90 update, better than I thought it would be. Still going to wait for the D400.
Posted 2 years ago # -
UK pricing seems to be out of kilter with the US - hence the confusion with earlier posts. Here the kit version is £1299, which is the equivalent of just USD2,000 as an earlier poster noted. Body only is £1099, which is the equivalent of USD1,700 (inc taxes), whereas it will be sold in the US for $1199, albeit with taxes on top. How does Nikon account for the USD500 difference? It's not as though they are made there.
For reference, a D90 body can be had for about £630, or USD980. This means that the list price of the D7000 is 75% more than the street price of the D90.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Bridgeblox said:
UK pricing seems to be out of kilter with the US - hence the confusion with earlier posts. Here the kit version is £1299, which is the equivalent of just USD2,000 as an earlier poster noted. Body only is £1099, which is the equivalent of USD1,700 (inc taxes), whereas it will be sold in the US for $1199, albeit with taxes on top. How does Nikon account for the USD500 difference? It's not as though they are made there.For reference, a D90 body can be had for about £630, or USD980. This means that the list price of the D7000 is 75% more than the street price of the D90.
My thoughts exactly, lets hope it gets sorted soon! Also worth noting the D300s body only is listed at £1116 on Amazon. Nikon could have made this much easier!
Posted 2 years ago # -
People, if I wasn't married already, this D7000 would be my new wife ... My god I am officially in love ... Now all I have to do is try and save a little more $$$ and this gorgeous baby is mine ...
P.s.: you can't see it but it took me 20 minutes to type this because I can not stop licking my fingers and I can not stop drooling ... Nikon loves us people!!!
Posted 2 years ago # -
NikoDoby said:
You guys better just start pitching your tents outside B&H now :^)
I seriously think that some of you won't get your hands on this camera until maybe December if not January! I really think it's going to be a hot seller, obviously.Right around the corner from tax refund time!
Posted 2 years ago # -
There is nothing to sort with the prices, it is the way that it has always been.
The US users get pampered more most probably due to the huge market. Canon uses the same pricing policies. Either go over there and bring it over in your backpack or dish out more in Europe, there is no other choice. I really doubt that it will change and if it will, our American comrades will most probably be the ones to suffer a price increase before we see a price decrease in Europe.Back to the main subject, I'm also feeling a huge case of upgrading coming on.
Posted 2 years ago # -
I'm ready for it .let see when it hits Indian grey market shores :)
Posted 2 years ago # -
Oh an I forgot to mention, it is my BIRTHDAY today people ... Can it get any better then this ??? I am one happy man ... and yeah I don't mind waiting a bit longer before I can get my hands on the D7000 ... 1st. it'll be worth the wait ... 2nd. gives me more time to save a little more $$$ lol
Posted 2 years ago # -
Yes, I'm one of those Canon guys lurking around. I was Nikon during my film days. I still have a F3HP and a F5 that I use for film work. Went digital with a pair of 1DMark2's. I've been looking at the 7D but now I'm going for the D7000.
Posted 2 years ago # -
-
CRY CRY CRY CRY
For all the movie fans that were hoping for better frame rates than the D3100, I sympathise with you. All that waiting for nothing!
All I can say Nikon is EPIC FAIL.
I guess I have NO CHOICE (hello Nikon are you listening?) but to shift to Canon, as even the budget models like the EOS 550D blow the Nikon frame rate capabilities out of the water.
Posted 2 years ago # -
So, I WANT the D7000 ... but I need some advice (remember I am a first time DSLR buyer)
Should I go for the kit Nikon D7000 with 18-105 DX VR for $1499.95
or
Nikon D7000 body $1199.95 with the Nikon AF-S Nikkor 35mm f/1.8G DX Lens $192.95 ($1392.90)
Prices are from B&H ... Thank you for any advice people
Posted 2 years ago # -
BlackWolF said:
So, I WANT the D7000 ... but I need some advice (remember I am a first time DSLR buyer)Should I go for the kit Nikon D7000 with 18-105 DX VR for $1499.95
or
Nikon D7000 body $1199.95 with the Nikon AF-S Nikkor 35mm f/1.8G DX Lens $192.95 ($1392.90)
Prices are from B&H ... Thank you for any advice people
The 18-105 is a (general purpose) midrange zoom and more versatile. The 35 f/1.8 is a (specific use/ fixed zoom) prime lens, less versatile, but performs way better in low light. Both are for two very different purposes
Posted 2 years ago # -
NikoDoby said:
Wait until you guys hear what's coming next :^)You know, that might have frightened me 6 months ago, but since I got Lightroom 3 and its noise reduction, I would have been happy for the rest of my life with my D90 and its performance at ISO 1600. Anything better than that is going to be icing on my photographic cake. The D800 (or whatever) will be more camera than I need, just like the D7000 is more camera than I -need-.
Posted 2 years ago # -
truthiness said:
From Nikon: The resolution of the camera renders a pixel size of 4.78 µm, which allows more light to be gathered, resulting in a correctly exposed image that has less noise and finer grain.Anyone know the pixel sizes of the other Nikon sensors?
If I'm not mistaken, the 12MP DX and 24MP FX sensors have about 5.4 or 5.7 µm photosite pitch, and the 12MP FX is more like 8.something µm.
Posted 2 years ago #
Topic Closed
This topic has been closed to new replies.
