I did run some tests of D7000 video compared to the D90, same scene, same lens, and the D7000 video is considerably better. Still images are not all that different. A few posts ago a new member noted that his D7000 started giving ERR messages three months in use. I do know the repair rate on D7000s are higher. Still, the D7000 looks like the best field rig right now if I buy a DSLR in the next few months.
Should I Buy A D7000, D400 Or A D4, Or Wait For The D800?
(158 posts) (54 voices)-
Posted 1 year ago #
-
If the D800 realy going to have 36 megapixels. Then yes, I am going to get one
If only to shut up my Canon friends who are always claiming, their camera is better than mine (a D700) 'cos its got more mega what nots. A man has just got to have as many mega whatnots as possibleWill I take better photographs? Of course not, but I have been saving up for a D800 and the money is burning a hole in my pocket
Pity it does not have 4000 megapixels, 'cause then, I would more pixels than my mate with his Phase One
Posted 1 year ago # -
300,000 yen = approx. $3900 USD = ouch!!!
This pretty much assures me that the price of the current used D700 wont go down much if at all.Posted 1 year ago # -
I have been saving money for couple of years now to migrate to FX, all my lens except the 35mm 1.8g are FX. So my only major cost is the cost of the new FX body. However, I have not saved as much as 4K and neither do I have a computer that will process all those 36meg files in a reasonable time.
I hope they keep their D700 replacement to 18 or 20 Megapix, and scale up its low light capacity to match the increase in mp. I suspect most D700 upgrade watchers (like me) are hoping for a D700s rather than a D800.
Posted 1 year ago # -
@sevencrossing i think he meant only 36mp, not 3630
Posted 1 year ago # -
-
If the D800 is in fact 36mpx, I hope Nikon didn't pull another Canon knockoff like the p7000 was. Most of the photographers who like the D700 is for its low light noise control and if they possibly switched to canon it was usually for the video. Many photographers are going to be very pissed if the D800 has worse noise levels than my D7000 as many of us are planning to buy one (including me). Also that framerate looks BAD if in fact it is real. 4fps is very slow and with the a77 at 12fps (even with the small buffer) is not competitive in the slightest. However Im going to guess that it will be faster as the new processor in the J1 and V1 (Expeed 3?) has been claimed to be the fastest nikon has...
What would be cool however is if the D400 was Fx and replaced the D300s and D700 simultaneously as the low light king and the D800 addressed the high megapixel 5Dmk2 and a850 in terms of image size. It is possible as the price is almost 4k so a camera at the $2100-$3000 mark would be reasonable. I have a feeling the sensor will be good if it is the same one sony will probably put in the a99 as the tests on the sensor in the a77 show great results (considering the slt loses alot of light in comparison to a traditional shutter...
Posted 1 year ago # -
Not sure if this is the right place to post about it, but it's about upgrades, so I guess so.
Does anyone see a diminish in returns with every body replacement?
A change from a D1 to a D3s was a big difference. But from maybe a D90 to a D7000? If you have the money, sure it's no big deal, but do you absolutely need that upgrade in capabilities?
Any other thoughts and comments on this?
Posted 1 year ago # -
Usually not... It depends on what you do. As a night shooter I can say that if I started with my D80 or D200, the jump to the D90 was necessary, but I started with the D90 so I just learned to avoid needing a second body at night. When that didn't work, I got a D7000 out of necessity. I needed a second night shooting body and the noise levels as well as the dynamic range on the D7000 is eons better than either the D200 or D80 (and is cheaper than the D700 which was impossible to find at the time I needed it anyway) and as I was shooting a black tie event in one of the crappiest light situations I needed that extra punch (Lit like a darkroom with 2700k spotlights and 4500k floorlights)
Posted 1 year ago # -
I really like the idea of having baby d3x. Don't know why ppl have problem with it. Want high iso - get d3s. For my style of photography d800 will be great, finally a nice DX mode for decent price.
Posted 1 year ago # -
adamz said:
I really like the idea of having baby d3x.I seems the D800 might indeed be a reasonable priced replacement for the overpriced D3x
I wonder if Nikon will continue D700. As has been said many times, even when the D800 comes out, the D700 will remain an excellent camera, especially if you do not want , video
Posted 1 year ago # -
adamz said:
I really like the idea of having baby d3x. Don't know why ppl have problem with it. Want high iso - get d3s. For my style of photography d800 will be great, finally a nice DX mode for decent price.I can't disagree, I think some will like a cheaper (Almost 1/2) D3x. If I did more landscape/commercial I would love that resolution.
For low light, there are 5,200 reasons why a D3s is not an option to most. The D700 put an attainable price on a low light camera for the first time. Now if they have switched directions, it removes that opportunity. If that happens, It will not go over well. More have a need for lower light than mega resolution.
Posted 1 year ago # -
kyoshinikon said:
Usually not... It depends on what you do. As a night shooter I can say that if I started with my D80 or D200, the jump to the D90 was necessary, but I started with the D90 so I just learned to avoid needing a second body at night. When that didn't work, I got a D7000 out of necessity. I needed a second night shooting body and the noise levels as well as the dynamic range on the D7000 is eons better than either the D200 or D80 (and is cheaper than the D700 which was impossible to find at the time I needed it anyway) and as I was shooting a black tie event in one of the crappiest light situations I needed that extra punch (Lit like a darkroom with 2700k spotlights and 4500k floorlights)I don't shoot for anyone, I shoot for myself. I feel like I like the size and weight of a D40. Any larger and I feel as if I may not bring the camera out as often, just because it's more cumbersome and heavy.
But if I think about it, there's no way I'd go for another D3100- it doesn't offer the same control as I want- not enough dials. So the D5100 goes out the window too.
The only option left for me is a D7000 or D300s. A D300s is too heavy and expensive. A D7000 is just right, but still on the more expensive side of things.
Thus, if I were to spend a D7000's price, I may just get a lens instead and keep using the D40.
Just curious, are you shooting commercially or just for yourself?
TaoTeJared said:
I can't disagree, I think some will like a cheaper (Almost 1/2) D3x. If I did more landscape/commercial I would love that resolution.For low light, there are 5,200 reasons why a D3s is not an option to most. The D700 put an attainable price on a low light camera for the first time. Now if they have switched directions, it removes that opportunity. If that happens, It will not go over well. More have a need for lower light than mega resolution.
I feel like Nikon should just release a revised D700 with a D3s sensor and better video options. Besides- Nikon usually doesn't change a product within 1 line- take a look at the D300. The D300 was a big step over the D200, but when it changed to the D300s, it was only a slight change- video, slightly better noise (maybe), and I think slightly better frame rates and buffer.
Even if Sony has a 24mp APS-C sensor, I think a D3s sensored- D700 would be really well recieved, and it might actually capture a few Canon people annoyed about the 5D Mk II replacement.
Posted 1 year ago # -
"To each their own" comes to mind.
NSXType-R said:
I feel like I like the size and weight of a D40. Any larger and I feel as if I may not bring the camera out as often, just because it's more cumbersome and heavy.The D7000 is too small for me. I got to use one again a few weekends ago and I just did not like it for the size. Good images though. I have a D50 converted to IR and can't stand the size. Just me though. :)
I hope we see the D3s sensor in a D700 body. I think that would sell like crazy. Nikon has a winner that it could pump out with not much prep.
Sony's 24mp sensor was tested and did well, but the noise was closer to my D300 than the D700 and 3-4 stops below the D3s. I need 3 stops, not 3x the resolution.
Posted 1 year ago # -
These rumors make me glad that I grabbed a new D700 for $2100 in February. I'd rather have low light than high resolution in most situations, and a price north of $3000 makes the D800 way out of reach for me anyway.
Posted 1 year ago # -
guys You missing the point here, d800 will not be directed towards current d700 users. IMHO, it's something that the market needs and waits for (sure d3s in a smaller body would be nice, but as d3s and d3x are positioned towards different users, d800 will also be).
do I agree with Nikon strategy for launching new product - NO. I would love to see a lot of different lenses and bodies before I see d800, but I was also waiting for d800 kind of camera. d3s is a great camera, but I would love to have the same density that I have on my d300s on a FF. why? because I crop, as all wildlifers do. high iso? well, d300s proved it's possible to have a good 1600 iso with high density, not to mention d7000 with even higher MP count. One can say that this is a perfect camera for wildlife's, unfortunately it's not reliable enough, mostly because of the unpredicted AF. If You have a fraction of a second to nail the shot Your equipment needs to help You with this especially when You spend a lot of time and money to get to the place You want.Posted 1 year ago # -
adamz said:
guys You missing the point here, d800 will not be directed towards current d700 users. IMHO, it's something that the market needs and waits for (sure d3s in a smaller body would be nice, but as d3s and d3x are positioned towards different users, d800 will also be).
do I agree with Nikon strategy for launching new product - NO. I would love to see a lot of different lenses and bodies before I see d800, but I was also waiting for d800 kind of camera. d3s is a great camera, but I would love to have the same density that I have on my d300s on a FF. why? because I crop, as all wildlifers do. high iso? well, d300s proved it's possible to have a good 1600 iso with high density, not to mention d7000 with even higher MP count. One can say that this is a perfect camera for wildlife's, unfortunately it's not reliable enough, mostly because of the unpredicted AF. If You have a fraction of a second to nail the shot Your equipment needs to help You with this especially when You spend a lot of time and money to get to the place You want.My D7000's AF is just as accurate as this D700 i have. Not sure why people are saying the D7K doesn't have accurate AF. It's bang-on on both my D7K bodies. In some ways, I actually prefer the D7K over the D700. I have plenty of experience with both to back that up.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Did this thread split into 2 or something?
Im still guessing that the D400 will be Fx and replace the D300s and D700 simultaneously as the low light king while the D800 addresses the high megapixel 5Dmk2 and a850 in terms of image size. It is possible as the price is almost 4k so a camera at the $2100-$3000 mark would be possible. Still I have a feeling the sensor will be pretty good if it is the same one sony will probably put in the a99...
That Fps still is horrible seeing as the a77 (I know a SLT) has 12 fps (even if the buffer is small) but like the assumption of the D400 (D9000?) if they put a similar processor to the one in the J1 V1 (Expeed 3?) or the Mbd-800 ups it(new battery right?) it wont be so slow or bad. I just hope they don't copy the 5Dmk2 in terms of tools as it has a crappy toolset...
Posted 1 year ago # -
CaryTheLabelGuy said:
My D7000's AF is just as accurate as this D700 i have. Not sure why people are saying the D7K doesn't have accurate AF. It's bang-on on both my D7K bodies. In some ways, I actually prefer the D7K over the D700. I have plenty of experience with both to back that up.I was more than pleased with the AF speed and accuracy of my D7000. Like you I even found it to be even a touch snappier and preferable to that of my 700. Its buffer is the real let down, though.
Posted 1 year ago # -
I see 2 models coming as many others. I don't think Nikon will willingly give up the High iso, low noise champ. D400? More of a consumer level, fewer pixel.
This leak is way to directed for a very specific style of shooter. (Shooters, Like say...eh-hem Adamz) Then again maybe they only heard what they wanted too.
The game changer is that with 36mp for under $4-grand. This is going to start spooking Pentax and Mamiya/Leaf at the low end of the MF cameras.
I don't think it spooks anyone else except for the shooter this may leave behind though.
Posted 1 year ago # -
TaoTeJared said:
I see 2 models coming as many others. I don't think Nikon will willingly give up the High iso, low noise champ. D400? More of a consumer level, fewer pixel.This leak is way to directed for a very specific style of shooter. (Shooters, Like say...eh-hem Adamz) Then again maybe they only heard what they wanted too.
The game changer is that with 36mp for under $4-grand. This is going to start spooking Pentax and Mamiya/Leaf at the low end of the MF cameras.
I don't think it spooks anyone else except for the shooter this may leave behind though.
Totally agree. This is going to get interesting, for sure.
Posted 1 year ago # -
SquamishPhoto said:
I was more than pleased with the AF speed and accuracy of my D7000. Like you I even found it to be even a touch snappier and preferable to that of my 700. Its buffer is the real let down, though.I find the D7000 to have a decent AF system, but I find it hunts for focus more often than the D700 does in low light.
Posted 1 year ago # -
@Tao - maybe I hear what I want to hear, personally I don't care about video mode (I don't shoot videos) nor high iso (have d3s for that), what I care about to have a smaller FX body with high density with a pro build quality, sth. of the size and buid of f100, which I could take with me as a backup body and in all other situations where I need density: crop, landscapes and occasionally shooting sessions in the field.
I agree with You that it's gonna be a competition for medium format cameras.Posted 1 year ago # -
Namely the Leica S2
Posted 1 year ago # -
PB PM said:
I find the D7000 to have a decent AF system, but I find it hunts for focus more often than the D700 does in low light.I ALWAYS use a cross-type AF point(usually the center one) for all my low-light photography and have the same AF failure rate on both the D700 and D7K. Never have a problem.
Posted 1 year ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
