where there’s smoke there’s forum fire
One of the things always listed when discussing the differences between a pro and a non pro model is the sturdiness of the build and the weather sealing. For those of you that have opted for a camera with the lesser built quality, has it ever been an issue.
I may be wrong, but doesn't the D7000 have a lesser build quality(can't think of a better way of putting this) than a D700? If so, do any of you with the D7000 have any problems in this regard?
No... My D7000 and D90 have been used unprotected in the pouring rain, dust bowls, and muddy situations. Unless you plan to document poison dart frogs for 6 months the D7000 has more than enough weather sealing for most situations... there probably is a thread for this already...
The truth is yes the D300, D700 (same sealing and body sturdiness),D3 (much more) on up do have a better sealing and metal body construction.
kyoshinikon points out another, better truth - today all of Nikon's cameras can take a beating.
Personally I look at the other "build" quality aspects of these systems such as quality control, internal parts used, etc. before ever worrying about weather sealing or sturdiness. And even at that it is just an afterthought to me. I do not think it should be a deciding factor.
If you really, truly need the major sealing - you already know what level of a camera you are going to get.
Not really an issue, unless you prefer metal bodies to plastic ones, then you're limited.
I've taken my D40 out in light rain and snow and it's been fine.
I've even taken it to a botanical garden where there were multiple variations in humidity amongst greenhouses with the kit 18-135 lens. There might have been an issue with dust fusing to the sensor (1 or 2 just won't let go), but it's been fine there too.
no problems with the D7000
it goes fishing on the ocean quite often and I have not had any problems wven with the salt air.
it has never been dropped, but it is solid feeling.
everyone knows how it is made so I will not go there.
Unless you're using it professionally and/or consistently in challenging conditions, how sturdy does any camera need to be? Most cameras, even pocket ones, outlast their technological lifetimes and are usually replaced by the latest new toy, not because it's failed.
I recently took my DX format non-pro gear to a beach type setting with very fine sand (sugar sand along the Florida Gulf coast). No ingress of sand or salt water at all. Everything still running smoothly a week on. My shoes on the other hand are still full of sand... LOL!
My old FTn (built like a tank and will make a D3 look flimsy) also made the trip and apart from me procrastinating about getting the films developed, it also managed to avoid trouble.
vidrazor said:
Unless you're using it professionally and/or consistently in challenging conditions, how sturdy does any camera need to be? Most cameras, even pocket ones, outlast their technological lifetimes and are usually replaced by the latest new toy, not because it's failed.
My Coolpix E3700 from 2003 still works. I can't bring myself to buy a new camera until it dies on me, and it's still my compact macro solution. I've taken it to Quebec in -15 Celsius weather, snow, very light light rain and humid conditions. Still works like a charm.
Other than a not so smooth sounding zoom motor which would probably be where it would fail first, everything is working fine on it.
And it still takes between 150-300 photos per charge, which isn't so bad. But then again, it's on original Nikon batteries and it also has somewhat of a metal body.
The D7000 is very sturdy, actually. I would put it up against a D300s any day. I've shot with the D300s, D700 and D3s and they are all very durable, with the pro D3s being damn-near indestructible. But seriously, the D7000 is fine. It's weather sealing is robust and can handle a lot of abuse(more than 90% of you will ever throw at it). It's especially robust when you add the magnesium grip(Mb-d11). With the grip, the only non-metal body panel is the front.
I have a D200 with the battery pack, and I like the feel/weight. Before that I had an F4s with the battery pack. I love the weight and feel of the heavier cameras. I would love to have a D3s or D700 mainly because of their performance at high ISO, but can't afford either right now, so I was thinking of getting a used D700 when the new cameras arrive.
Lately I've been getting more and more intrigued with the D7000. It's cheaper than the other two, and I'll bet it blows my D200 away at higher ISO's. Just yesterday I saw a video on the Blinkbid website that was shot with the D7000 and was really impressed, so the D7000 is looking like a real strong possibility right now. I like the feel of a heavier weighted camera in my hands, so with a battery/grip attached, the D7000 should feel fine.
The D7000 is a well made camera, may not be quite par with the D300/D700, but it is close enough. If you like the size of the D200 body then the D300 has the same feel, while the D7000 has a smaller grip (still very comfortable though).
The only thing that bothers me about the D7000 is that the front plate is plastic, which could effect the position of the lens mount over time, if/when heavier glass is attached. The one other thing that I wish the D7000 had the the D700/D300s have is the ability to hit the centre button to get a 100% crop in playback, rather than the silly quick access to in camera photo editing.
JDeV said:
One of the things always listed when discussing the differences between a pro and a non pro model is the sturdiness of the build and the weather sealing. For those of you that have opted for a camera with the lesser built quality, has it ever been an issue.I may be wrong, but doesn't the D7000 have a lesser build quality(can't think of a better way of putting this) than a D700? If so, do any of you with the D7000 have any problems in this regard?
I have to ask: are you planning on dribbling the camera like a ball? My D200 has been bounced (in a backpack) along King Street in Toronto along with me and my Marinoni. It's been drowned in saltwater waves, and a couple of freak sandstorms. Now, none of those accidents were good, and none of them killed the D200, and none are everyday occurrences. In fact, I've not dropped or flipped, or washed the camera since 2008.
And I don't plan to do that ever again.
A D7000 should be more than anyone else ever needs unless they are as careless or unlucky as me, in which case, even a 'professional' camera could break. The D7000 is very impressive.
JDeV said:
I may be wrong, but doesn't the D7000 have a lesser build quality(can't think of a better way of putting this) than a D700? If so, do any of you with the D7000 have any problems in this regard?
No problems with build quality here either. In fact I've bumped it against thresholds while entering rooms and the camera will leave a dent on the threshold, not the other way around. It also had a hard landing on our dining room table...hope my wife doesn't see that dent.
On a recent vacation my brother-in-law wanted to keep shooting pictures with my D7000 as it started to rain. Normally I'd kinda panic and cover the camera but I trusted it enough to let him continue shooting. The raindrops weren't small either. After we got out of the rain I just wiped the camera and lens off (24-70mm) and tucked it away. Functioned perfectly after that.
I meant to add; In addition to shooting the D300s, D700 and D3s, I own 2 D7000s. I've shot with both D7000s in a good driving rain. Both D7Ks have been totally soaked many times and there hasn't been a single issues. As a matter of fact, I'm totally confident in this cameras abilities to be used professionally in all circumstances. It is very impressive, especially for a body that costs $1200.
As for the front body panel being plastic? I seriously wouldn't worry. I regularly ise our D7Ks with some massive super telephoto lenses and do it hand-held. The F-Mount doesn't budge. The mount is still mounted to a metal inner frame, which is probably why Nikon left the front panel plastic, as it is not weight bearing. The camera feels just as solid as any d300s or D700. The body is just slightly smaller. I trust our D7Ks in any situation.
I'm not saying the D7k isn't a well constructed camera, but to say it feels as solid as the D700 or D3s is a little much. I wasn't saying that the mount would flex noticeably if you put heavy lenses on it, I know it doesn't (I have a D700 and D7k). I too feel confident to shoot with both in the rain, but I feel more confident in the reliability of D700 that's all.
shigzeo said:
I have to ask: are you planning on dribbling the camera like a ball? My D200 has been bounced (in a backpack) along King Street in Toronto along with me and my Marinoni. It's been drowned in saltwater waves, and a couple of freak sandstorms. Now, none of those accidents were good, and none of them killed the D200, and none are everyday occurrences. In fact, I've not dropped or flipped, or washed the camera since 2008.And I don't plan to do that ever again.
A D7000 should be more than anyone else ever needs unless they are as careless or unlucky as me, in which case, even a 'professional' camera could break. The D7000 is very impressive.
I know accidents can happen, but like I said, I never abuse my equipment.
Well you all sold me on durability...now for ISO. My D200 is fantastic up to ISO 800 and then you start to see the noise. I know the D3s is the best, and then comes the D700. On the D7000, where's the noise start to show up.
Someone posted a link last year to a site that showed ISO comparisons of all the Nikon cameras. Does anyone have that link? Also, I'm not sure if the D7000 was available when I saw that link, but hopefully it gets up-dated.
One last thought. My son has a D50 and a D80. How would the D7000compare in size/weight to either of those. I find the D50 feels too small in my hands, the the D80 is fine...my D200/battery is perfect.
The grip on the D7000 is slightly bigger than the D50/D80 (which are basically the same), but smaller than the D200/D300 (same grip size). The D7000 also weights about 100g more than the D80, but still just over 100g less than the D200 or D300.
JDeV - I don't want to be mean, but it seems like your real question is ... "Should I get a D7000?" - isn't that what you are trying to get at?
To be honest the D7000 and D700 have almost the same image quality.
The next real question is video - yes or no important to you? I didn't see any video on your site, so I'm guessing no. (nice images by the way!)
So given basically the same IQ, and if video isn't something you care about or you use a separate system... it really does come down to the extra built in features that are in a D700 (D300 same).
I have not used the D200 for a very long time but if I remember correctly, it has a-lot more than the D80 your son has. The D300/700 added more to that set. The D80 feature set is almost the same as the D7000. I use a D300 and when I picked up a D7000, all the features that I use regularly, it does not have. (please don't ask what the are - it's second nature to me and every time I asked "where the F is the X", the sales guy said it was only on the D300 on up.) It was so frustrating for me to be missing those, I will wait for the D400 or D800.
If the feature set doesn't matter at all...Than it is price.
All of this comes down to your personal preference and only you can know if you go to a store and try one out. I find the D7000 almost two small for me - but that is just me. What it is too you - only you know. 90% of your questions would be answered by trying one out.
One thing is for sure, coming from your D200/D80, it will blow your mind what either camera can do.
PB PM said:
I'm not saying the D7k isn't a well constructed camera, but to say it feels as solid as the D700 or D3s is a little much. I wasn't saying that the mount would flex noticeably if you put heavy lenses on it, I know it doesn't (I have a D700 and D7k). I too feel confident to shoot with both in the rain, but I feel more confident in the reliability of D700 that's all.
I never said the D7K was comparable to the D3s, please read my comment again. I do feel that the D7K is every bit comparable to the build quality of the D300s/D700. I don't feel any less confident with my D7K than I do the D700. Just because one camera is bigger/heavier, doesn't mean it can take any more abuse. A lot of you just don't understand how durable these cameras are, even the all plastic d60 can take an amazing amount of abuse.
JDeV said:
Well you all sold me on durability...now for ISO. My D200 is fantastic up to ISO 800 and then you start to see the noise. I know the D3s is the best, and then comes the D700. On the D7000, where's the noise start to show up.Someone posted a link last year to a site that showed ISO comparisons of all the Nikon cameras. Does anyone have that link? Also, I'm not sure if the D7000 was available when I saw that link, but hopefully it gets up-dated.
One last thought. My son has a D50 and a D80. How would the D7000compare in size/weight to either of those. I find the D50 feels too small in my hands, the the D80 is fine...my D200/battery is perfect.
The D7000 and D700 are very close in image quality. The D7000 has better Dynamic Range. The D7K and D700 have very similar Signal-to-noise ratios, with a slight edge(very slight) to the D700. This means decently clean Iso-3200. I use ISO-6400 all the time, with great results. Because of the quality of noise, high ISO handling all the way to 6400 can be usuable, because it's easy to de-noise. There is zero banding, as well. I really can't tell the difference between the D700 and D7000, it's that close(especially at high ISOs). The D7K is an amazing machine, really.
While the D7K is smaller than the D300s, it is larger than a D80/D90. If you grip the D7K, it's actually very comfortable for me(and I have very large hands).
You wont be dissapointed with the D7K.
TaoTeJared said:
JDeV - I don't want to be mean, but it seems like your real question is ... "Should I get a D7000?" - isn't that what you are trying to get at?To be honest the D7000 and D700 have almost the same image quality.
The next real question is video - yes or no important to you? I didn't see any video on your site, so I'm guessing no. (nice images by the way!)
So given basically the same IQ, and if video isn't something you care about or you use a separate system... it really does come down to the extra built in features that are in a D700 (D300 same).
I have not used the D200 for a very long time but if I remember correctly, it has a-lot more than the D80 your son has. The D300/700 added more to that set. The D80 feature set is almost the same as the D7000. I use a D300 and when I picked up a D7000, all the features that I use regularly, it does not have. (please don't ask what the are - it's second nature to me and every time I asked "where the F is the X", the sales guy said it was only on the D300 on up.) It was so frustrating for me to be missing those, I will wait for the D400 or D800.
If the feature set doesn't matter at all...Than it is price.
All of this comes down to your personal preference and only you can know if you go to a store and try one out. I find the D7000 almost two small for me - but that is just me. What it is too you - only you know. 90% of your questions would be answered by trying one out.
One thing is for sure, coming from your D200/D80, it will blow your mind what either camera can do.
Tao, thanks for the nice comment. Video was not important in the past, but other professionals I talk to say that they are getting more and more requests for a simple video, so I'm thinking of getting into that. I'm also a creature of habit, so having a different feature set would probably drive me crazy...I should really check out that issue...I take my son's D80 as a back-up, but I've never had to use it, so I was unaware of any major differences...not being able to use something that I normally use would drive me crazy, especially on a job!
If I could get my head around the feature set differences, and the weight/feel is close, and the ISO is better, and the price is better(recent medical bills make this one really important), I'm beginning to lean towards the D7000. Now if a big paying job comes walking in the door, I could be waiting along with you for the new cameras to arrive.
Hi all,
I have put the older Nikons through hell. The cameras held up pretty well.
I would be hesitant to 'let' a camera get wet if there was any way I could avoid it. I've spent weeks outside in a monsoon, so there's times I haven't been able to avoid the moisture - those cameras didn't do well in the end.
If you're really hard on cameras, you can break them, but they are pretty tough.
Depending upon what you do, prudence seems to be the path to take.
My best to all,
Mike
Lets keep the discussion to a single topic, pro versus amateur build quality. There are enough D7000 topics that cover image quality versus other cameras.
NSXType-R said:
My Coolpix E3700 from 2003 still works. I can't bring myself to buy a new camera until it dies on me
Whoa !! I couldn't live by that rule - I can still use my Zeiss Ikon builtmore than 70 years ago. I have to occasionally update my equipment, even tho the old stuff still works.
As to quality - Pro vs Prosumer - as noted above, most will outlive their technology design life if treated with reasonable respect. If you know you're going extreme, then maybe the extra build quality is needed.
You must log in to post.
