# FullFrame Sensor in D7000 body?



## RRRoger (Oct 1, 2011)

Do you think Nikon will come out with a D7000fx?
Using mostly off the shelf parts, my dream camera would be:

1. The D7000 is the perfect size camera for me. 
2. I would like an affordable D3s, so use that Sensor.
3. Two SDHC&#8482;/SDXC&#8482; UHS-I Memory Card Slots
4. One or more Expeed 3 Processors.
5. One Gigabyte of on-board memory.
6. Latest Focus system
7. Articulating LCD screen.
8. 100% ViewFinder
9. 11fps at 1/8000s
10. HD1080 at 24, 25, 50, & 60fps.
11. Video recording for at least 29 minutes.
12. Adjustable AMP for Audio recording & playback.
13. Locking mode dial

Not off the shelf improvements:
14. On-Board GPS.
15. Remote for controlling Video as well as Stills.


----------



## DorkSterr (Oct 1, 2011)

Highly doubt it. Nikon wont release a sub 2000 FX.


----------



## jake337 (Oct 1, 2011)

mabye D700S perhaps.


----------



## katerolla (Oct 1, 2011)

700 is full frame the 7000 is not, I think its only $1000 difference between them, I know wich I would go for


----------



## RRRoger (Oct 1, 2011)

DorkSterr said:


> Highly doubt it. Nikon wont release a sub 2000 FX.


I think it would be a bargain at the suggested D700 price.
Just think about it, a lot more camera in a smaller package.
And if the FX sensor did not fit, 
They could remove the mirror box like they did with the Nikon 1.


----------



## rpm (Oct 2, 2011)

a D7000FX with your listed features while 'off the shelf' (in terms of developed or available parts) would have Nikon selling the camera at a loss. 

also if that camera were to come out a D700s/800 would be pointless. unless the sensor is completely different which would then put that camera selling at a loss or at a price point that no one would even consider it an option due to the D7000FX being available. not to mention a different generation of sensor in the same generation of cameras will just be both a marketing and R&D headache. 

with those features you have in mind even the D4 might become a questionable purchase otherwise the D4 will have to be a godly camera that could probably honestly last you through to the D6 without even worrying about getting the D5....

also i dont think Nikon is ready to remove the mirror box....if they did coupled with your wishlist...the additional internals again would just make the loss being incurred even greater lol

edit: if they sold it at the price of the D700 then it would just be called the D800 lol...also there will be other specs that will differ sensor size aside that will require the extra room...


----------



## Destin (Oct 2, 2011)

It sounds like you need a 5d mkII. Small, full frame camera.


----------



## molested_cow (Oct 2, 2011)

Sounds more like D800.


----------



## rpm (Oct 2, 2011)

one thing tho: the on board memory, why would you need that? at the most complex thing i can think of is as a temporary cache to allow for high fps before it gets transferred to your memory card but otherwise...i really see no point of it


----------



## RRRoger (Oct 2, 2011)

rpm said:


> a D7000FX with your listed features while 'off the shelf' (in terms of developed or available parts) would have Nikon selling the camera at a loss. <<<
> 
> How many do you think they would need to sell at $1995 each to make a profit?
> I think the number would be greater than the D700 + D3s.
> ...


----------



## RRRoger (Oct 2, 2011)

Destin said:


> It sounds like you need a 5d mkII. Small, full frame camera.



I had a 5D2. 
The manual stills and manual Video are really, really good.
Any Nikon focuses much better.
I like fast AutoFocus Zooms.
I do not want to wait for them and then find my Pictures are blurred.
After considerable work, one in ten pictures were as good or better than my D3,
the rest were throw aways.
I got tired of missing important shots.

And I want fast AutoFocus Video.
A HDSLR that can capture an action sequence.

As for the huge 1GB buffer, it may be to much, I just know that the D7000 does not have enough internal memory.


----------



## RRRoger (Oct 2, 2011)

molested_cow said:


> Sounds more like D800.



If the D800 can do everything I want, I will not wait around for the unlikely release of a D7000fx.


----------



## cgipson1 (Oct 2, 2011)

I agree with Molested Cow! I expect the D800 to basically be a full frame sensor with all of the latest tech.... basically a D7000 built to even higher standards, and with a FF sensor.


----------



## RRRoger (Oct 2, 2011)

cgipson1 said:


> I agree with Molested Cow! I expect the D800 to basically be a full frame sensor with all of the latest tech.... basically a D7000 built to even higher standards, and with a FF sensor.



Problem is that we may have to wait two more years for the D800.
If Nikon wanted to, they could put a D7000fx in my hands by then.


----------



## cgipson1 (Oct 2, 2011)

Oh.. no R&D needed huh.. just throw a FF sensor in? Not likely!     Although if you can talk them into doing that, I'll go for it!


----------



## Destin (Oct 2, 2011)

cgipson1 said:
			
		

> Oh.. no R&D needed huh.. just throw a FF sensor in? Not likely!     Although if you can talk them into doing that, I'll go for it!



I wouldnt. A camera with no r&d? I think I'd stick with my d80!


----------



## cgipson1 (Oct 2, 2011)

Destin said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



hahaha.. I guess my sarcasm didn't make it across!


----------



## RRRoger (Oct 2, 2011)

Who is to say that the R&D have not already been done?

We are not talking about new technology, only putting the pieces together in a (probably redesigned) D7000 body.


----------



## cgipson1 (Oct 2, 2011)

RRRoger said:


> Who is to say that the R&D have not already been done?
> 
> We are not talking about new technology, only putting the pieces together in a (probably redesigned) D7000 body.



Why would Nikon do this.. when it would basically kill a lot of D300/400 and D700/d800 sales? If it happens, I would be really surprised....


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Oct 2, 2011)

I'm waiting for Nikon to offer somethingnew and FF too, the "Nikon 1" is.... well never mind


----------



## Derrel (Oct 2, 2011)

An FX sensor is a a D7000 body???? Nikon calls that the Nikon D700.


----------



## aliancer (Oct 3, 2011)

RRRoger said:
			
		

> If the D800 can do everything I want, I will not wait around for the unlikely release of a D7000fx.



Me too. However, your spec is really like what we've been expecting at d800 (except type of memory card and maybe price)

Sent from my iPad using PhotoForum


----------



## RRRoger (Oct 10, 2011)

cgipson1 said:


> RRRoger said:
> 
> 
> > Who is to say that the R&D have not already been done?
> ...



They already killed most D3 sales with the D700, 
plus most D90 and D300 sales with the D7000.
So why not kill the D700 sales with a D7000x?

I am sure the D800 and D4 will each be in a different class.


----------



## billydoo73 (Oct 12, 2011)

Nikon will never put an Fx sensor in anything less than Pro or Semi-Pro.  The D700/D3 is their "pro" bread and butter.  i believe they expect to lose some sales of their flagship DSLR with a smaller semi-pro Fx camera like the D700.  the market for a D700/D3 is much smaller and more tailored to wedding photographers and such (or "rich" consumers).

they make most of their money on selling their consumer cameras at walmart, best buy, etc.

The D7000 is a GREAT camera, but it's interesting that it exists.  most consumers will not need it or appreciate it.  most Pros will go for Fx.  i am getting rid of my D7000 in favor of the D300s simply because of the build.  i shoot a D700.  switching back and forth in a shoot is too confusing at times.  the D300s has the same layout.

putting an Fx sensor in a consumer camera will make no sense and will certainly not boost lens sales as the average person will not buy a 24-70 and/or 70-200.

Dx is where the money is at...especially lenses.


----------



## billydoo73 (Oct 12, 2011)

RRRoger said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> > RRRoger said:
> ...



just because the D7000, on paper, is "better" does not mean that people will buy it.  i love the D7000 for family snapshots.  but, throw a 70-200 VR on a D7000 body and it gets nose heavy real fast.  it feels just so wrong...not to mention the wrist pain!

don't underestimate the power/need for a larger and heavier body that balances pro glass.  to me, with big glass mounted, i would rather shoot with a D200 than a D7000 for an 8 hour wedding.


----------



## kundalini (Oct 12, 2011)

> FullFrame Sensor in D7000 body?


It's also known as nocturnal emissions.





Derrel said:


> An FX sensor is a a D7000 body???? Nikon calls that the Nikon D700.


Too right.


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Oct 12, 2011)

billydoo73 said:


> Nikon will never put an Fx sensor in anything less than Pro or Semi-Pro.  The D700/D3 is their "pro" bread and butter.  i believe they expect to lose some sales of their flagship DSLR with a smaller semi-pro Fx camera like the D700.  the market for a D700/D3 is much smaller and more tailored to wedding photographers and such (*or "rich" consumers*).
> 
> they make most of their money on selling their consumer cameras at walmart, best buy, etc.
> 
> ...


 


billydoo73 said:


> RRRoger said:
> 
> 
> > cgipson1 said:
> ...



I'm finding these comments interesting.  I'm the average consumer, not rich, plus a photo student who only looks to this as a hobby.  I bought a D7000 but will have a FX when the next gen comes out, and I also happen to have bought both lens you mention an average person won't buy (24-70, 70-200).


----------



## kundalini (Oct 12, 2011)

billydoo73 said:


> ...... as the average person will not buy a 24-70 and/or 70-200..


My mother kept telling me all these years that I was above average.  Hmmm, I guess she was right after all.  In fact, she thought I was so bright that she called me sun.


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Oct 12, 2011)

Yea, the implication seems to be only the pro's and the wealthy buy the top shelf stuff Nikon offers.


----------



## EchoingWhisper (Oct 12, 2011)

I don't think the D800 will have any new sensors, basically it will just take the D3s sensor like how D700 had the D3 sensor.


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Oct 12, 2011)

EchoingWhisper said:


> I don't think the D800 will have any new sensors, basically it will just take the D3s sensor like how D700 had the D3 sensor.



Can you cite your source? 

Either way the D700 will be cheaper or the D800 will be better but sometime within the next 20 years things will be good.


----------



## cgipson1 (Oct 12, 2011)

billydoo73 said:


> RRRoger said:
> 
> 
> > cgipson1 said:
> ...



As I mentioned in another post.. I use the 70-200 VR II on my D7000 a lot.. never bothers me! You seem to have some hard on against the D7000... whatever. Limp wrists, maybe?


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Oct 12, 2011)

+1 cgipson, and some seem to think only pro's and rich people purchase the top shelf Nikon offerings, too.


----------



## cgipson1 (Oct 12, 2011)

2WheelPhoto said:


> billydoo73 said:
> 
> 
> > just because the D7000, on paper, is "better" does not mean that people will buy it.  i love the D7000 for family snapshots.  but, throw a 70-200 VR on a D7000 body and it gets nose heavy real fast.  it feels just so wrong...not to mention the wrist pain!
> ...



I think he just likes having "PRO" or "Semi-PRO" bodies.. doesn't want our dinky little consumer bodies... you can't be a real "PRO" with a D7000.. right?  I say raspberries to Billydoodoo....


----------



## cgipson1 (Oct 12, 2011)

2WheelPhoto said:


> +1 cgipson, and some seem to think only pro's and rich people purchase the top shelf Nikon offerings, too.



I was making a living with camera's long before he was born.. so I'm not taking him too seriously!


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Oct 12, 2011)

Yea, and he mentioned only pro's and rich people buy the FX and 70-200 and such.  I'm waiting for the NEW FX and the 70-200 is in my bag, along with the 24-70, and I'm just the average hobbyist and photo student nooB.


----------



## cgipson1 (Oct 12, 2011)

cgipson1 said:


> 2WheelPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > Yea, and he mentioned only pro's and rich people buy the FX and 70-200 and such.  I'm waiting for the NEW FX and the 70-200 is in my bag, along with the 24-70, and I'm just the average hobbyist and photo student nooB.
> ...


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Oct 12, 2011)

cgipson1 said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> > 2WheelPhoto said:
> ...


----------



## billydoo73 (Oct 13, 2011)

you guys need to relax.  good grief.  i said THE D7000 is a GREAT CAMERA!  stop only citing 1/2 of what i said.

the fact is, the D7000 is a consumer camera.  the D700 is more of a pro camera, but not 100% pro as the D3 is.  that is just reality and in no way implies i think less of any camera.  in fact, the d7000, combined with an 18-55 VR, would produce AMAZING PHOTOS.

Now...

the other fact is that the average consumer (who does not post on a photography forum) will not buy a 24-70 and 70-200, or even know what a fast lens is.  the AVERAGE consumer looks at the 3100/5100 at Walmart.  We are not AVERAGE.  we are on a forum bickering over what i posted when others are tinkering with their new cameras and think bokeh is a new French movie released this past summer!

Nikon builds way more consumer-grade cameras in order to make money...it's that simple.  they sell less D700s and D3s.

Nikon builds Pro Glass to go with Pro bodies...they build plastic mount consumer glass to go with consumer bodies.  What am i saying that is causing a stir?  Never did I bash the D7000 and it will indeed be a "better" camera on paper when i "down-grade" to a D300s as my backup.

BUT...

the Pro glass balances better on a bigger body.  It is designed this way.  Nikon experts know that most (not all), but MOST people that buy a D3100,5100, or 7000 will purchase a 70-300 VR over a 70-200 VR.  Why???  because of price point.  Therefore, when you change up the plan, you can feel the difference?

personally, i think the 70-200 VR is awkward on a D7000 body.  it does not mean the combo will not take fantastic images.

so, STOP with the nasty posts (i.e. limp wrist) aimed at me when i have not said anything but  a) Fact and b)Educated Speculation, as well as c)Personal taste and opinion.

I am new here and so far this forum seems very defensive when one brings up something counter to popular belief...

(sorry for the rant but i felt some posts were not justified)


----------



## billydoo73 (Oct 13, 2011)

cgipson1 said:


> billydoo73 said:
> 
> 
> > RRRoger said:
> ...



that comment was not called for.

my personal opinion about the balance of pro glass on a consumer body is technical speculation and personal observation.  i do find it awkward.  do you shoot professionally?  have you shot 8-9 hours with a 70-200 VR on the D7000?  if so, then you are different physically. Bravo to you!  i need the bigger body when i shoot for long hours.

...and let me add AGAIN, the D7000 is a great camera


----------



## cgipson1 (Oct 13, 2011)

billydoo73 said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> > billydoo73 said:
> ...



I apologize for the comment.. meant more in fun than to imply anything. Yes.. I have done several day long events (14 hours plus) with the D7000 and the 70-2000.... sometimes with a monopod for short periods or occasionally switching to my 24-70 or another lens for a short period. But the 70-200 is the lens that stays on it most when shooting like this. Usually with a SB900 mounted with a large bounce card for fill, or on a bracket for OC flash, and a grip on the body. Some 2000+ shot days. I usually use the lens as my balance point... and don't hold the lens up with the body. Old habit from pre AF days... when you had to manual focus. I no longer shoot full time on a professional basis.. haven't done that since the late 80's. But still shoot "professionally" if you define that as being paid for providing the service. 

I personally don't notice much of a difference in handling when switching bodies... as long as they have a motor drive or a battery grip on them, no matter how big the lens is. Probably because, as mentioned... I support the body by supporting the lens...not the other way around.


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Oct 13, 2011)

Yea I have my D7000 gripped too for helping with the weight of the lenses.  The manual that came with the 70-200 says don't hold it by the cam body, always hold it by the lens.

Billydoo I'm never too serious on the 'net either.


----------



## cgipson1 (Oct 13, 2011)

2WheelPhoto said:


> Yea I have my D7000 gripped too for helping with the weight of the lenses.  The manual that came with the 70-200 says don't hold it by the cam body, always hold it by the lens.
> 
> Billydoo I'm never too serious on the 'net either.



Jeez, 2wheel... you actually RTFM'd? Dude... I just lost all respect for ya!


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Oct 13, 2011)

cgipson1 said:


> 2WheelPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > Yea I have my D7000 gripped too for helping with the weight of the lenses.  The manual that came with the 70-200 says don't hold it by the cam body, always hold it by the lens.
> ...


----------



## kundalini (Oct 13, 2011)

cgipson1 said:


> I apologize for the comment..





2WheelPhoto said:


> Billydoo I'm never too serious on the 'net either.



Kumbaya MFs    


Seriously though, it's nice to see egos put to the side for the greater good.   :thumbsup:


----------



## cgipson1 (Oct 13, 2011)

Sure Felix (I mean, Kundalini)!!!

.. where's Poindexter when I need him!


----------



## billydoo73 (Oct 13, 2011)

thanks...

big hug.  LOL.  i never meant any disrespect.  i have been through so many bodies that my wife has given up on me!  i really wanted to love the D7000, and i still do to a point.  but, i just have trouble with it.  it's just me i guess.

anyway, no, Nikon will never put a full-frame in anything but 2 models... a D"x" and a D"xx".  it appears their D"xxx" models are going to be consumer.

x = pro FX
xx = semi-pro to pro DX and FX
xxx = consumer Dx only

that's how i see it at least.   also don't think we will see a D800 until Fall 2012.  there is no need.  the D700 and D3s are doing wonderful and it's hard enough to keep them in stock.  Canon is little threat right now.  we may see a D700s or upgraded D3, however.

...or i am totally wrong!


----------



## RRRoger (Oct 13, 2011)

[QUOTE  have you shot 8-9 hours with a 70-200 VR on the D7000?  if so, then you are different physically. Bravo to you!  i need the bigger body when i shoot for long hours.

...and let me add AGAIN, the D7000 is a great camera[/QUOTE]

Yes I have shot 8 hours with the 70-200 on my D7000.
I find it balances just fine with one hand on the zoom ring and the other on the camera.
It is a lot easier for me than the much bigger and heavier D3.


----------

