# Is the d7000 really that good?



## ghache (Nov 26, 2010)

Yesterday i had the chance to sell my D90 with the grip, couple of memory cards, extra batteries and a slingshot 200 bag. Enough to cover the cost of a brand new gripped d7000 and a couple of extra batteries. With the rebates a friend was able to get me i was able to get it dirt cheap. I am basicly switching over to the d7000 for the cost of the slingshot bag that didnt cost me much


I had the chance to play with the store demo and i deffintly think its a whole lot of camera compared to the d90. The new focus system is really nice and all the added feature compared to the d90 is totally a bonus. The iso performance which is totally clear at 3200 is just amazing on such a low cost body. 6400 seems to be as good as iso 3200 with only one pass of ninja noise with minimal detail lost.

but is ken rockwell is pushing a bit hard when he says its the BEST NIKON camera on the market? 
After trying it, i can see where is coming from but comparing it to a d700 and a d3!?
i can deffinetly see the next generation of dXXX and Dx being crazy.


----------



## Stradawhovious (Nov 26, 2010)

Well, I'm not going to be able to give yo a definitive answer for two reasons. #1, I'm not good enough to give a solid answer. #2, I've not owned or had in depth experience with EVERY Nikon model out there...... But I give as much heed to Rockwells raging hard-on for the D7000 as I give his total damnation of the D3000. As much as people love that guy, I have to take his opinions with a grain of salt.

I will, however, tell you that the D7000 turned my D3000 into a paperweight over night. The camera is simply amazing (well, amazing to a noob anyways). All the features I was drooling over that drew me to it in the first place are flawless, well laid out and extremely user friendly. There are also a handfull of features I didn't even know about or pay much mind to when buying the camera that I will use on a regular basis.... such as the virtual horizon feature and the U1 and U2 settings as well as many many others.

I have been floored and inspired by this camera, but from what I understand the D90 users may want to take a really hard look at it before dropping the money on the upgrade, as there might not be $1,200 worth of difference between the two.

Unless of course their friends can get them a rockstar discount, and they basically get it for free. 

ETA..... Gripped?  Where are you finding the grip?  I haven't been able to locate one for the D7000. I want a grip.


----------



## mrpink (Nov 26, 2010)

Stradawhovious said:


> I have been floored and inspired by this camera, but from what I understand the D90 users may want to take a really hard look at it before dropping the money on the upgrade, as there might not be $1,200 worth of difference between the two.



As a current D90 owner, the only upgrade I would ever consider would be to FX.







p!nK


----------



## ghache (Nov 26, 2010)

mrpink said:


> Stradawhovious said:
> 
> 
> > I have been floored and inspired by this camera, but from what I understand the D90 users may want to take a really hard look at it before dropping the money on the upgrade, as there might not be $1,200 worth of difference between the two.
> ...


 



Thats what i was saying before trying it:lmao::lmao:


----------



## mwcfarms (Nov 26, 2010)

mrpink said:


> Stradawhovious said:
> 
> 
> > I have been floored and inspired by this camera, but from what I understand the D90 users may want to take a really hard look at it before dropping the money on the upgrade, as there might not be $1,200 worth of difference between the two.
> ...



+1


----------



## David Dvir (Nov 26, 2010)

I think the idea here is that for the cost, it's the best current Nikon camera.  If that's the case then I'd have to agree.  I believe however that when it comes to taking still photographs, the D300s, D700 and the D3s are all way better in that department then the D7000.


----------



## mrpink (Nov 26, 2010)

ghache said:


> mrpink said:
> 
> 
> > Stradawhovious said:
> ...



So what was limiting you on the D90 that the D7000 offered?







p!nK


----------



## Jcampbelll (Nov 26, 2010)

There is nothing huge that the D7000 has over the D90. That is why I went for the D90. Also that is was $500 cheaper was a plus. :mrgreen:


----------



## ghache (Nov 26, 2010)

mrpink said:


> ghache said:
> 
> 
> > mrpink said:
> ...


 

I dont think the D90 was limiting me on anything since i shoot mostly portraiture outdoor and in studio but i think some of the feature of the d7000 will help a bit while i am out shooting all the other things i like to shoot.

considering the 100$ it costed me, the dual card slot and the extra mp, iso performance, extra focus points and the built of the camera itself is totally worth it.

for someone that is buying it full price, i dont know if i would buy the d90 again if this is what you wanted to know  only time will tell once i start using it


----------



## Blake.Oney (Nov 26, 2010)

David Dvir said:


> I think the idea here is that for the cost, it's the best current Nikon camera.  If that's the case then I'd have to agree.  I believe however that when it comes to taking still photographs, the D300s, D700 and the D3s are all way better in that department then the D7000.



You think so? I mean about the D300s. I'm having internal wars between the D300s and the D7000. I don't care about video.


----------



## mrpink (Nov 26, 2010)

ghache said:


> mrpink said:
> 
> 
> > ghache said:
> ...




Ok, ok, ok... I would say for $100 I would upgrade- one would be labeled a complete fool to say other wise.

MSRP to MSRP I do not see it being worth it.






p!nK


----------



## DVC Mike (Nov 26, 2010)

David Dvir said:


> I think the idea here is that for the cost, it's the best current Nikon camera.


 
:thumbup:


----------



## JAFO28 (Jan 4, 2011)

Blake.Oney said:


> David Dvir said:
> 
> 
> > I think the idea here is that for the cost, it's the best current Nikon camera.  If that's the case then I'd have to agree.  I believe however that when it comes to taking still photographs, the D300s, D700 and the D3s are all way better in that department then the D7000.
> ...



I know this thread is a little old, that being said i'm having the same problem as you Blake. I don't care one bit about video. I've had a d90 since they came out and have shot a total of three videos with it. My wife has, over the past year, gotten quite interested in photography. It's a hobby we share when we're not having a power struggle over who gets to use the camera. I have saved the money for a new body now I have to decide which one. David I was wondering if you still believe the 300s takes better stills than the d7000? Anybody else have an opinion I would love to here it. Thanks.


----------



## Light Artisan (Jan 4, 2011)

Having shot the D300s and D7000 side by side for a month, my opinion is that the D7000 comes out on top far more often than not.

I've since traded my beloved D300s for a Nikon 70-200 VR.


----------



## Ken Rockwell Fan (Jan 4, 2011)

The D7000 is the new D70. Nuff said.


----------



## rateeg (Jan 4, 2011)

i guess d90 is better if the photographer is that damn good.
d7000 sucks if the photographer sucks.


----------



## Light Artisan (Jan 4, 2011)

If the photographer sucks, it doesn't matter what they have in their hands.


----------



## rateeg (Jan 4, 2011)

you're getting me, bro


----------



## flatflip (Jan 4, 2011)

I am ready to upgrade my D40. I've done some homework and I don't think the D7000 is worth $500 more than the D90. I also think the D90 will go down in the next few months after the D7000 becomes more readily available. I would love to proudly say, I have a D90.

I ordered my D7000 today.


----------



## flea77 (Jan 4, 2011)

Also being the owner of a D90 and D7000, and having used a D300s quite a bit, here is how I see things:

The D7000 is superior to my D90 in every way possible. How superior? I don't think most people should ditch their D90 and rush to buy a D7000 unless you need another stop of light and already have fast glass, or unless you need a faster and more accurate autofocus system, or unless you need some weathersealing. To me, those are the three biggies and they may or may not mean anything to you.

Now against the D300s? Well since the D90 and D300s have the same sensor, and in most tests the D90 even has a slight edge in low light capabilities, the only reason I can possibly see to take the D300s over a D7000 is that the D300s has more FPS and is better weather sealed. If you need 2 more FPS get the D300s, or if you are planning on shooting in the pouring rain without any protection for your gear (which I think is stupid anyway). To 90% of the people using a D300s 2 more FPS will not make any difference. If you needed FPS that dang bad you would be shooting a D3 anyway.

I tend to agree with most of what Ken says about the D7000, it is an incredible little machine. For the money, I think it is probably the best out there right now. That, of course will change soon enough 

One huge advantage is that it is driving the price of D90s down and they are still awesome little cameras. If you have a lesser camera and want to upgrade but don't need the features of the D7000, now is an excellent time to get a great deal on a D90.

Allan


----------



## OrionsByte (Jan 4, 2011)

I have a D70 right now and I'm currently saving up for an upgrade.  At this point, I think what I want to get is a D7000.

My chief reasons for upgrading from the D70 are:

The D70 has a very small LCD screen compared to the most current generations of cameras.  I still CHIMP a lot so sometimes I feel like the small screen keeps me from seeing things that I notice later on my computer.
Far better low-light performance.
Video.  I'm a big fan of consolidated technology - so if I can carry one camera instead of a still camera _and_ a video camera, but still accomplish either task at a moment's notice, that's a big selling point for me.
So the thing is, saving for the D7000 is going to take me at _least_ until mid-summer.  I could get a D90 a lot sooner than that, especially if I settle for a used one.

So I go back and forth a lot.  The D90 will meet all my main reasons for upgrading, though from what I understand the video capabilities of the D7000 are far superior, so that's one possible caveat.  But I also figure, if I'm going to invest in a new body, it might as well be one that I don't "have to" upgrade again for a long time.

This thread has been helpful though - does anyone have any additional opinions that might help me out?


----------



## DecadentDashes (Jan 5, 2011)

For those who are wondering..a Nikon grip for the d7000 can be purchased from Adorama.

27013 Nikon MB-D11, Multi-Power Battery Pack for D7000 Digital Camera


----------



## Mark Saint (Jan 13, 2011)

DecadentDashes,
- 240$?!!! haha, no thanks )


----------



## o hey tyler (Jan 13, 2011)

Mark Saint said:


> DecadentDashes,
> - 240$?!!! haha, no thanks )



That's pretty run of the mill for Name Brand battery grips, especially for new cameras. I think the used Canon Grip I got for my 5D was ~$180 or 190.


----------



## sierramister (Jan 13, 2011)

Consider that most likely, the D400 is going to have the same sensor as the D7K.  The D7K is amazing!  The other thing to consider: two D7K batteries will beat out 4 D90 batteries, so you will save yourself $140 in batteries alone.


----------



## Ken Rockwell Fan (Jan 13, 2011)

If the D7000 had the same finder as the D2H and D2X it would dang near be perfect.


----------



## cfusionpm (Jan 13, 2011)

o hey tyler said:


> Mark Saint said:
> 
> 
> > DecadentDashes,
> ...


 
Are there decent third party options for Nikon?  I have two Adorama Flashpoint grips for my 50D and 7D.  Both work great and were 50-70$ a piece.


----------



## Stradawhovious (Jan 13, 2011)

cfusionpm said:


> Are there decent third party options for Nikon? I have two Adorama Flashpoint grips for my 50D and 7D. Both work great and were 50-70$ a piece.


 
Not for the D7000.

Yet.

When it happens, Im all over it.


----------



## o hey tyler (Jan 14, 2011)

cfusionpm said:


> o hey tyler said:
> 
> 
> > Mark Saint said:
> ...




I'm sure there are, I had an Opteka for my T1i that worked fine and it was roughly 80 bucks and came with a few batteries. I got the Canon brand grip because I kind of like the soft touch shutter, and I knew it was a solid battery grip.

Edit: Guess not for the D7000, but for other Nikons lawlz.


----------



## ghache (Jan 14, 2011)

I have the grip for the d7000 and it worth every penny. the only freaking things that bug me is the need to remove the grip to use 2 battery. BUT, I got the camera the 23 of december. 2 shoot so far, alot of testing pictures. around 800-900 pictures taken, and stil has more than 3/4 of the battery left. I will run that thing on 1 battery and change it as needed.


----------



## o hey tyler (Jan 14, 2011)

ghache said:


> I have the grip for the d7000 and it worth every penny. the only freaking things that bug me is the need to remove the grip to use 2 battery. BUT, I got the camera the 23 of december. 2 shoot so far, alot of testing pictures. around 800-900 pictures taken, and stil has more than 3/4 of the battery left. I will run that thing on 1 battery and change it as needed.



You need to actually remove the grip to use both of the batteries? lol wut?


----------



## Light Artisan (Jan 14, 2011)

No, you need to remove it to install/remove the battery in the camera.


----------



## rainking (Jan 14, 2011)

Something to keep in mind regarding the Nikon grip is that it is magnesium alloy and has the same weather sealing the body has.


----------



## Mark Saint (Jan 16, 2011)

back to the GRIP, look what i just accidentally found:
Amazon.com: Zeikos ZE-NBG300 Battery Power Grip for Nikon D300 & D700: Camera & Photo
*$54.70*


----------



## Light Artisan (Jan 16, 2011)

That is for a D300/D700, not a D7000.


----------

