poster said:
Yes, sorry I meant the focus screen. That's great. I less distraction when composing.What about the viewfinder? 100% or no?
Same coverage (100%) and magnification as the D300(s)
[closed]
Nikon D7000 Officially Official!
(224 posts) (48 voices)-
Posted 2 years ago #
-
I'm so getting the D7000!!! It's going to be my first DSLR ever. I'm so excited :)
But I'll have to wait until the price drops a little. When do you guys think the price will be around $1000 for the body?
I have budget around $1,500 for the D7000 and probably nice lenses (35mm or 50mm for portrait and 18-105 or 18-135 for universal shots)
Any suggestions on lenses would be much appreciated too.
Thanks!
Posted 2 years ago # -
Given that this camera will be sold at big retail chains such as best buy, etc. there is a decent chance that you can get some sales in the next months.
but it will probably be bundles(ie: free memory card, battery, camera bag) not simple rebates.
but the base price will not go down untill the demadn normalized, which will not be for at least 6 months, if not a year.
Posted 2 years ago # -
d7000 high iso sample (iso3200)
http://s3.amazonaws.com/chasejarvisblog/20100708_Q750_NIK_09_ZZZ_ZZZ0902.JPG
http://blog.chasejarvis.com/blog/nikon-d7000-preview-images/
f4.0
1/40th
ISO 3200Posted 2 years ago # -
Mike Gunter said:
Hi all,@poster The faster the frame rates, the smoother the video (in general), but the playback is usually fixed at the player's end and often is either in progressive or in fields, e.g., 30p per second or 60i (interlaced fields) per second. I am disappointed that the 1080 is only 24P rather than not including 60p, 30p and possibly 60i, 720 at 60p would have been nice, too. Updating the CODEC to AVCHD (H.264) is a step in the right direction.
Thanks for the explanation Mike!
Do you think that with time Nikon would be capable of updating the firmware to allow faster frame rates? Is it even possible? Or the hardware is limiting it?
I think for my casual use it will be a great start up. I have always wanted to start getting into film making, but never really had the motivation or the tools to do so.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Abhinav said:
d7000 high iso sample (iso3200)http://s3.amazonaws.com/chasejarvisblog/20100708_Q750_NIK_09_ZZZ_ZZZ0902.JPG
http://blog.chasejarvis.com/blog/nikon-d7000-preview-images/
f4.0
1/40th
ISO 3200The one low-light high ISO shot on Jarvis's site is gorgeous... Wish they'd have posted hi1 and hi2 shots too, but the ones that're there are sick...
Posted 2 years ago # -
Just pre-ordered my d7000! Nice upgrade from my d200. When is the MB-D11 going to be available?
Posted 2 years ago # -
I expected a better ISO 3200 performance...
Why do they offer a boosted 25600 if the 3200 looks like this? I wonder what I can do with lightroom for ISO 6400 and 12800 shots.
discuss.
Posted 2 years ago # -
yeah I really hope some more 3200's get posted, as I'm not really sure If I could call that one usable. The van looks fine, but the area behind the van is very very very noisy.
Maybe it's just that photo though. I'm not saying it doesn't look like a great camera, but I'd like to see some other 3200 shots.
Posted 2 years ago # -
foofiebeast said:
yeah I really hope some more 3200's get posted, as I'm not really sure If I could call that one usable. The van looks fine, but the area behind the van is very very very noisy.THAT is what you consider "very very very noisy"?
Chroma noise is just about zero.
Luminance noise is very low, very neutral in distribution, and of a very low amplitude. The blacks are ink.Your eye isn't physically able to register such a SNR. I know of no film which could pull that off.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Definitely looks cleaner than my D300 at 3200. IMO only the FX bodies can do better than this.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Drab said:
THAT is what you consider "very very very noisy"?
Chroma noise is just about zero.
Luminance noise is very low, very neutral in distribution, and of a very low amplitude. The blacks are ink.Your eye isn't physically able to register such a SNR. I know of no film which could pull that off.
Lol, ok remove a few "very"s. My beef with it is claiming that it is usable, as in doesn't really have noise problems, which to me FROM THIS FIRST SAMPLE IMAGE (just want to stress this, as I really am trying to hold off judgement until we see more) is not the case. It's not bad quality by any means, but "usable"? and here is the exact quote:
"ISO is awesome to 3200 and very usable above for photojournalism, weddings, live events, art, etc.
Great low light performance. Holds up for commercial to 1600-3200. Very usable for other applications at 6400. Same league as the D3 line.”
I think the ISO at 3200 looks great, commercial though? I don't think so.
two samples taken from the image:
This second one is the one that troubles me the most, as it's hard to see on here (also photobucket decreased the quality in effect removing some of the glaring noise spots, hah), but download the image off jarvis's site and look at the same area that I've cropped. There are large blue spots of noise, very large, especially in the shadows.
Like I said though, I want to see more examples before I really pass judgement, I just think the iso claims are maybe being stretched a bit so far.
EDIT: I didn't notice that you mentioned the blacks, definitely download the image and check it out for yourself, the shadows have some serious noise problems. Trust me I am as excited about this camera as anyone else, I have been waiting very unpatiently, I just want to make sure we know how it performs unbiasedly.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Seriously, people.. :D
I come from the world of compacts, where that kind of low-light performance is ISO 400 max. ;-) For me, that kind of image quality is superb.
Considering, that after 1-2 months the price will drop to a level of 1000 Euro (i'm in Europe) that camera is just asking to be bought.
Posted 2 years ago # -
I agree with Vall. Seems like a lot of you just can't believe how good the D7000 is and are looking for any little thing just to crap on everyones joy. If you guys want to see some real noise go shoot film!
Posted 2 years ago # -
I don't know I am on D200 right now, and to think that I can get an image like THAT at 3200 ISO is pretty fantastic for me. But then again I don't mind grain when I post process them to BW.
I never found myself seriously needing to go beyond 1600 on my D200 which by the way looks atrocious.
Posted 2 years ago # -
D40 user here... ISO 400 would be fine for commercial, but anything above that is not good for anything other than personal use. Can't wait till I get the cash for a D7000... Gonna be SWEET.
Posted 2 years ago # -
poster said:
Do you think that with time Nikon would be capable of updating the firmware to allow faster frame rates? Is it even possible? Or the hardware is limiting it?
Beats me if they made it possible, but Canon did it, so I hope Nikon did.
As for the automatic focusing and all, that's nice for casual movies, which is what most folks make, but if one is into moviemaking, a manual lens is what one would need, and really, one want a prime for that anyway, likely one one or two, so it wouldn't break the bank to lens a movie with older primes that aren't AF'd.
The real problem with the D90 was a thing called pixel binning and the jello effect that has to do with the speed in which the CMOS reads the information of the sensor. Canon has technology that does these things better - period. I would like Nikon to either buy, lease, or steal technology that does equally as well, but until they do, or if the D3100 or D7K has it, it's with us still, and that's our loss.
I am a video guy, too, and would really appreciate the value of a APS-C sensor moviemaking machine in the D7K. I have tools to use for video, but I would like to decrease the DOF in some of my productions, and besides, the D7K sort of promises video. ;-)
We'll see how well it delivers.
My best,
Mike
Posted 2 years ago # -
foofiebeast said:
My beef with it is claiming that it is usable ...Hey foo, I'm with you. ;-)
It's not at all that it looks like poo, it's a real question of what is, well, "usable". It might be one man's trash, another man's treasure, but there's also a sense of keeping claims honest.
I don't much like to go over ISO 320 in my D90 and yet I see that folks claim to go to ISO 1250 routinely. Well you can argue and say what you will - it doesn't matter a bit to me - but I say I won't use an ISO that high with my customers.
My real interest is what ISO can I happily use the camera routinely?
Unfortunately, I haven't seen anything that answers that question at all.
My best,
Mike
Posted 2 years ago # -
Mike Gunter said:
Beats me if they made it possible, but Canon did it, so I hope Nikon did.As for the automatic focusing and all, that's nice for casual movies, which is what most folks make, but if one is into moviemaking, a manual lens is what one would need, and really, one want a prime for that anyway, likely one one or two, so it wouldn't break the bank to lens a movie with older primes that aren't AF'd.
The real problem with the D90 was a thing called pixel binning and the jello effect that has to do with the speed in which the CMOS reads the information of the sensor. Canon has technology that does these things better - period. I would like Nikon to either buy, lease, or steal technology that does equally as well, but until they do, or if the D3100 or D7K has it, it's with us still, and that's our loss.
I am a video guy, too, and would really appreciate the value of a APS-C sensor moviemaking machine in the D7K. I have tools to use for video, but I would like to decrease the DOF in some of my productions, and besides, the D7K sort of promises video. ;-)
We'll see how well it delivers.
My best,
Mike
That's what's the most appealing factor to me, using Nikkor primes. I would never use crappy zoom. But I would love to see a video made with Tokina 11-16mm 2.8. That's gonna be the first lens I wanna see used in my video "career" lol.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Haha thanks mike I'm glad someone finally understands what I'm trying to say here.
I look forward to seeing some iso tests, see what this baby is capable of!
Posted 2 years ago # -
foofiebeast said:
Haha thanks mike I'm glad someone finally understands what I'm trying to say here.I look forward to seeing some iso tests, see what this baby is capable of!
My disagreement is not a failure to "understand" nor a failure to view the photos full size, both unappreciated remarks.
My disagreement is with your expectations. Based off that one photo there appears to be a ~one stop improvement in noise levels over the 12MP CMOS sensors (DX) and about twice that over the 10MP CCD sensors. There also appears to be a significant improvement in the character of the noise (especially vs the CCD sensors) (a change I find rather pleasing).
I did notice the random spots which appear to be hot pixels, and am curious if that is something which will be addressed. Hot pixels showing up at such short exposures is something I haven't seen since the D100. Even then I had to have the camera physically warmer than normal. Perhaps there is another explanation, but it is only one photo.
Posted 2 years ago # -
right but my initial comment was about it being "usable" which is the claim that was made with the initial photo, and as I've repeatedly said I am witholding final judgment until we see some more shots.
You also said the "blacks are ink", but now you say you noticed those hot spots all along, so forgive me for trying to point out something that you seemed to have not noticed. I'm not trying to pick a fight with you, I am trying to fully understand what this camera is capable of and to what extent it is capable of performing those capabilties :) hah.
Posted 2 years ago # -
foofiebeast said:
You also said the "blacks are ink", but now you say you noticed those hot spots all alongI see no chroma or luminance noise in the blacks. I see a few (again I'll stress what appear to be) hot pixels. Those are easily corrected without losing detail, unlike the other two primary forms of ISO noise.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Geez... people depends on what kind of photography you do. Some commercial types don't require for the picture to be free of noise. Moreover, if you have seen Jarvis' photos and the post processing he does on them you would know why it might be usable in commercial photography from his point of view.
If you do landscapes or cityscapes, and you can't have any noise or wherever than obviously you won't use this camera.
Posted 2 years ago # -
kind of off topic a bit, but does anyone know of any other image sources? I have to think more people got to test this camera out. Perhaps they have legal issues binding them till Photokina is over. Thoughts?
Posted 2 years ago #
Topic Closed
This topic has been closed to new replies.
