is the D7000 worth buying?

rctneil

yeh, I'm just gonna have to get over the fact I think.

By the way, how do you get the small triangle shaped adaptors off the next strap attachments? I am currently using a Peak Design Leash strap and that uses small quick release clips and they would work much better with just the plain round loop rather than throguh the triangle part. I want to keep the triangle bits so I can put them back on in the future though.

Ignore this, Just managed to remove one, the quick release bit failed to fit through the smaller hole so put it all back together again!

Msmoto

@ rctneil

Having participated in some of your questions...do not sell the D7000 until you have about 20,000 clicks and can handle it like it is you best friend.

PB_PM

I agree with @Msmoto. That and selling a brand new camera is a good way to loose money.

spraynpray

@rctneil: Let me be direct - no offense intended - you are about as ready to exploit the difference between the D7000 and D7100 as I an to fly round the sun and back. I suggest you stop pointlessly lusting after the newest gear and start investing in knowledge and experience. Your D7000 is more camera than you can handle so why get the D7100? Again - no offense intended.

rctneil

@spraynpray Fully understood and not taken offensively. Surely you know how it feels to get a new piece of kit only for it to be superseded in the not to distant future. But yes you are 100% correct.

I'm off on a 1 days starters DSLR photography course nxt Wednesday so that should help me a bit more.

Thanks

spraynpray

Enjoy the D7000 matey, it is a very good camera which you can get some very good images out of. Yes, I had the D5000, D90 and now the D7000 superseded but you know what? They still kept working as good as they did when they were just announced! :P

Ironheart

And in July you can start lusting after the D400...

rctneil

Just put up some of the 950 odd photos I took last Sunday at Alton Towers on Flickr. Let me know your thoughts: http://www.flickr.com/photos/57951266@N03/sets/72157632826334688/

The rest are still uploading so please refresh every now and again.

NSXTypeR

The new D7100 hasn't even upgraded its buffer. I'd rather it have had a huge buffer and do 8 fps at 16mp than have 24 mp and have a buffer just as bad as its predecessor.

spraynpray

@rctneil: You can see that you didn't shoot those shots against the sky using exposure compensation or in manual mode, there is a lot of silhouetting going on there. If you used a grey card in manual mode you could have shot without worrying about your exposure. your skies would have been paler, but you would have got detail in the cars (shot DSC2160). The same shot taken at a longer focal length than you chose would have been more interesting as you would be able to see the terror (which is the point, right?). I saw a couple of dud images where you used auto so that right there is a learning point - take control of the exposure and learn.

Where do you live in the UK Neil?

prh0w311

I am on the cusp of purchasing a d7000 body only very soon, even after reading about the d7100. I'm sold on the price of the d7000 since the MP difference doesnt matter to me and the AF upgrade can eventually be mitigated with my developing skills of handling the camera. But what I'm wondering is should I expect a price drop for this outgoing model? You would think Nikon would be interested in helping speed up the last few sales of the 7000.

Dredden85

Now the 7100 has been announced I really don;t know whether to sell my 7000 and replace it with the 7100. I got the 7000 at xmas. What do you guys think?

or is it one of those things that i'll just have to say "oh well" to and get on with life.

+1 to MikeGunter
I would not upgrade either. Even though I could return it, for me, the added features + $300 for the same set up of D7100 body + N18-200mm is just not worth it.

darn it! Sorry late post.

spraynpray

@prh0w311: You may be lucky, but you run the risk of the last few going at the price they are now - which is cheap as chips BTW.

rschnaible

Hello D7100! There go's the neighborhood!
I've had my new D7000 for one week. Go figure! %%-

It is a fine camera and you will enjoy it.... I love mine

Severin

Hello,

this is my first post on this forum, but I'm following this topics from few weeks, since I 'm a going to buy my first DSLR and I was very interested by the D7000.
I was convinced by all I read about the D7000, and I was waiting for the annoucement of the replacement the D7100.

But finally, I am a little bit disapointed not because of the specifications of the new one, but the price is very very different.
I'm living in Japan, and here you can buy a D7000 18-105 VR lens kit for 90000Y (about 970$) but the new D7100 18-105 VR is announed at 160000Y (about 1720$).... this is even higher price than 18-300 VR kit.

I don't know how long time it takes to go price down for nikon products, but I don't really want to wait for 1 year to buy to new one for not so much new features.

so finally is it a good choice to buy a nikkon D7000 now ?

Msmoto

There are a lot of D7000 fans on NRF. And, for the price difference, if the needs one has meet the specs of the D7000, it would appear the way to go. No one can actually determine what another photographer wants or needs. At almost half off the cost of a D7100, it would appear the D7000 is a great deal.

Incidentally, a refurbished D7000 body only is about $750 from B & H.

royt

i'm still happy with my D7000, besides, there will always be a release for a newer camera model, always.

manhattanboy

+1 to the customers that are happy with the D7000. I bought a refurbished body last year for about what Msmoto displayed above and love it (mine came with about 2K shutter clicks). As this was my first DSLR I was a little worried about the complicated controls and if I should go with something cheaper. But the controls have been great, and the ability to have a camera that works with every Nikon lens is awesome. The general advice I got was spend way more on the lenses than on the camera. Only now am I following that advice, but I will say that even with my cheap lenses the results have been incredible. Read my Christmas photo shoot story earlier in this thread if you need any more convincing. Generally, if you are starting fresh and can afford it, go Full Frame for not that much more than the D7100. If you can't afford a FF camera, then the question becomes how much of a Dx can you get before all the SLRs are made obsolete by the mirrorless cameras. The answer should be just enough to not impinge on buying that incredible lens that is really beautifying your photos.

Cmudogtag

I bought a discounted D90 just after the D7000 came out and with the money I saved I bought a 50MM lens. D90 was my starter camera and I learned a lot. I ended up destroying that camera in a moutain bike crash. So now I just bought a discounted D7000 and put the savings toward a 24-70 f2.8. The D7000 is a good step up for the evolution of my ability. I will continue to invest in good lenses and upgrade camera bodies as need be. I will always purchase camera bodies as they near the end of their product cycles. Unless the best is a must, no sense in wasting money on the latest and greatest when the last round is still good. It may be that my shiny new D7000 will be spent about the time the D800 is considered old tech. Or maybe the end of the D400's life......

Keemo

So I'm about to buy my first DSLR & from all the comments here, the D7000 is the way to go. I looked at the D3200, D5200 & the D7000. I'm new, but want good action shots & it appears there is a consensus about the quality of the results of the D7000. And, it sounds like the D7000 will be a camera I can "grow into."

I have one daughter in gymnastics & the other in volleyball. At times, they could be as much as 50-75 yards away.

My question is about lenses. Should I buy the 18-105 or the 18-200 lense?

Thanks for your input.

Paulohn

So I'm about to buy my first DSLR & from all the comments here, the D7000 is the way to go. I looked at the D3200, D5200 & the D7000. I'm new, but want good action shots & it appears there is a consensus about the quality of the results of the D7000. And, it sounds like the D7000 will be a camera I can "grow into."

I have one daughter in gymnastics & the other in volleyball. At times, they could be as much as 50-75 yards away.

My question is about lenses. Should I buy the 18-105 or the 18-200 lense?

Thanks for your input.

You could also consider the 18-300mm.
Super zoom lenses are good for traveling and everyday photos. I believe it is a good way to start.
I have the 18-105mm and I consider it good. But to fill the frame at the distance you've mentioned I believe it is not enough.

dissent

I am way and far away from the expert here, Keemo, but I personally get the impression from several recent threads that the Nikon 18 superzooms may not be fast enough for you to get good stop action on indoors sports shooting, unless it's extraordinarily well lit. I have the 18-200 and have used it a lot outside for travel shots and I like it, so I'm not dissing the superzooms. donaldejose has posted indoor sports shots he's taken with the 70-200 VRII that are very good. But then again, that's the 70-200 VRII. I may get a chance to try the 70-300 VRII indoors soon, but I'm planning to take along my faster 85mm f1.8 as well just in case.

Hopefully someone here can offer much better advice from their experience. Maybe this should be its own thread.

manhattanboy

+1 to the above comment about getting a fast zoom for indoors. One could almost argue that at 200+ feet you might be better spending the majority of your money on the low aperture zoom or prime tele, and what ever you have left spend on the camera. Most of the standard zooms may ask for the flash indoors (the pictures turn out okay without it though). If you can't afford a fast zoom, then consider a monopod or tripod so that you can increase your exposure length to compensate for the higher apertures.

Keemo

One thing I've learned over the past few days & one of them is that this hobby has a long, steep learning curve. This is a prime example.

I have a monopod & a cheap tripod, but if I increase the exposure length, won't I lose some of the action? Back handsprings on a balance beam don't last too long. Lol.

So what is an example of a "fast" zoom? I may be able to get the 7000 & a couple of lenses to start.

dissent

"fast" means capable of larger apertures (smaller f/numbers). As I understand it, f/2.8 and under are probably going to be considered "fast". (I don't know, guys; is f/4 also considered "fast"?). The Nikon 70-200 VRII is a fast zoom, but the larger aperture (smaller f/number) pro glass tends to be heavier and more expensive. The pros get it and use it because that is what they need.

You don't need to spend a ton of money to get "fast" glass. The f/1.8 35mm G lens for DX is only a couple hundred bucks, IIRC. You just can't stand in one place and zoom with it. But you can use it in lower light situations.

Slower shutter speeds (more light enters camera at given aperture) can lead to motion blur. Larger apertures mean you can use faster shutter speeds (at given ISO) to try to freeze motion.

Longer shutter speeds aren't all bad. You could play with some artsy type shoots where you exaggerate the longer shutter speed to intentionally show motion blur, say through one complete back flip or a set and spike. You'll have to play with the aperture, ISO combination to get clean exposures. And that tripod will come in handy to reduce camera shake from your hands, so you only capture the motion you want to capture. Take lots of pictures and hopefully you get at least a few keepers.

Yeah, there is a lot to learn. The good news is that there are lots of resources out there to help you. Poke around in some of the other threads where they discuss lenses for use in low light.

Take pictures. Make mistakes. Learn from them. Have fun. I bet you'll start getting better before too long.