Nikon D7xxx owners thread

I thought the same but as for the 70-300vr my pics 'appear to me' to be noticably better quality? having said that I have only made the transition from jpeg to raw in the last couple of months....

Don't get me wrong the images are still sharp, and the only images I'm complaining about are the ones taken at the full 300mm which didn't appear to be as sharp as those from the D90 - in other words it might simply be me being hyper picky because it's a new camera. However going from the 70-300vr to the 105VR the sharpness improvement is noticeable.

Edgar, and for anybody else who has the 18-200vr, I've just remembered a trick that I used which really improved the sharpness I got from this lens. Try this:-

Make sure you're in AF-S focusing mode, set the lens to 18mm, focus on something relatively distant and take a shot. Now look in the focus distance scale window of the lens - I'll bet it's reading barely more than 3 meters. Now set the lens to 200mm and focus on the same thing. Keep your finger half pressed on the shutter release, pull back to 18mm and take a shot. This time the focus distance scale should be reading closer to infinity. When you compare the two shots I'll bet you'll find the second shot that you took to be far sharper than the first. This trick seems to work well at all focal lengths up to around 150mm, the effect obviously diminishes thereafter.
 
Don't get me wrong the images are still sharp, and the only images I'm complaining about are the ones taken at the full 300mm which didn't appear to be as sharp as those from the D90 - in other words it might simply be me being hyper picky because it's a new camera. However going from the 70-300vr to the 105VR the sharpness improvement is noticeable.

Edgar, and for anybody else who has the 18-200vr, I've just remembered a trick that I used which really improved the sharpness I got from this lens. Try this:-

Make sure you're in AF-S focusing mode, set the lens to 18mm, focus on something relatively distant and take a shot. Now look in the focus distance scale window of the lens - I'll bet it's reading barely more than 3 meters. Now set the lens to 200mm and focus on the same thing. Keep your finger half pressed on the shutter release, pull back to 18mm and take a shot. This time the focus distance scale should be reading closer to infinity. When you compare the two shots I'll bet you'll find the second shot that you took to be far sharper than the first. This trick seems to work well at all focal lengths up to around 150mm, the effect obviously diminishes thereafter.

Thanks for advice! I will try once I get home. But this is only good for static objects. I mainly going to shoot weddings and children, so I need fast and sharp focus. I know from other Threads that 16-85mm is better then 18-200, but good zoom is important for me as well.
 
You will need better glass in that case, how about a 24-120 F4? 50-150 Sigma F2.8? Start considering primes too?

Reading online everybody seems to agree that even the 18-105 is not quite good enough for the D7000 I doubt the 18-200 will be any better.

Also the extra MPs will exaggerate the effect on the pictures of your shaking. I'd try higher shutter speeds achieved via higher ISO settings. Different AF modes might also affect how accurately you are focusing exactly where you want to focus.

The D7000 seems to have a steep learning curve in order to get the best out of it.
 
The D700 will require FF lenses, making the cost of upgrade considerably higher than just an extra 600£ on top of the D7000 body.

If you require the higher built quality, the extra buttons, the size/handling of a Dxxx series camera then maybe the D7000 will dissappoint. IQ wise it is a serious step up as the sensor in the D80/D200 are quite dated.
 
The D700 will require FF lenses, making the cost of upgrade considerably higher than just an extra 600£ on top of the D7000 body.

If you require the higher built quality, the extra buttons, the size/handling of a Dxxx series camera then maybe the D7000 will dissappoint. IQ wise it is a serious step up as the sensor in the D80/D200 are quite dated.

yeah the lens issue doesnt bother me as i can sell my selection of lenses now and get one or two much higher quality lenses that are FF

im just undecided on the body :shrug:

i really like the build quality and the ease of use of the d200 which is why im skeptical about getting a d7000, but the hassle of selling my lenses too and the extra cost on top for the body is putting me off the d700!
 
In that case you should probably wait? I am sure your D200 will keep you happy for a few more months. There is bound to be an upgrade to the D300 which will have the advances of the D7000 sensor while keeping your camera controls on par with if not better than your D200.
 
In that case you should probably wait? I am sure your D200 will keep you happy for a few more months. There is bound to be an upgrade to the D300.

i presume you mean an upgrade to the d700?


ive been thinking about holding out until (whenever it happens) an upgrade to the d700 comes out, because im guessing it will make the d700 drop a little in price, but i was reading up on the d7000 tonight and was just curious what people would say :)
 
i presume you mean an upgrade to the d700?


ive been thinking about holding out until (whenever it happens) an upgrade to the d700 comes out, because im guessing it will make the d700 drop a little in price, but i was reading up on the d7000 tonight and was just curious what people would say :)

No no I mean an update to the D300 :) Cause then you get all the benefits of a pro body with the amazing sensor of the D7000 and you get to not have to bother with selling your lenses. Then again the D400 will be considerably more expensive than the D7000 making a S/H D700 even more appealing! Decisions decisions decisions
 
No no I mean an update to the D300 :) Cause then you get all the benefits of a pro body with the amazing sensor of the D7000 and you get to not have to bother with selling your lenses. Then again the D400 will be considerably more expensive than the D7000 making a S/H D700 even more appealing! Decisions decisions decisions

is the d300 really that much of an upgrade from a d200? ive never really looked into it properly because ive always thought there wouldnt be a huge difference and if i was gonna upgrade i may as well go the full whack!

think im gonna go look into the d300!
 
Well I've chipped into the D7k club, it should arrive tomorrow.

Stepping up from a D5K as I need the high ISO so im hoping it's worth the pennies. Got a good deal on a s/h one with less than 300 clicks on it :D
 
Well I've chipped into the D7k club, it should arrive tomorrow.

Stepping up from a D5K as I need the high ISO so im hoping it's worth the pennies. Got a good deal on a s/h one with less than 300 clicks on it :D

I don't think you will be disappointed
 
DROOL........ it's arrived :D

Gotta say first impressions are ......WOW with iso. :D
 
I have owned a Nikon D80 for approx 3 years and feel as though I have grown and developed my photography skills to the extent where I think I need to upgrade.

I've not read any of the mags or frequented sites such as this for a while, so I'm a bit out of the loop in terms of what's hot and what's not. What I do know is that I want to stick with Nikon as I've already got 3 lenses for the D80 (I do have a subsequent lens question to come), and the D7000 strikes me as a very good camera that will hopefully push my photography to the next level.

This is probably a dumb question, but one would assume that the D7000 will be a definite improvement over the D80, especially when it comes to high ISO shots? I'm also hoping it will handle long exposures better? Living on the coast, I like to take long exp pics down at the beach/harbour/marina and they tend to be in low light conditions such as sunset, and I have noticed that the D80 does seem to produce quite noisey shots with this style of photography.

And so moving on to my lens question.....It would seem that from having read through this thread, the D7000 benefits from having decent glass attached. I currently own a Nikon 18-135mm (kit lens with the D80), Nikon 70-300VR and a Sigma 50mm F2.8 macro. The 18-135mm is the most used lens and has pretty much taken all my landscape style shots as its the widest lens I have. However, I've always felt that its a little soft and doesn't produce the sharpest of images.

The macro is my second most popular lens and the 70-300 gets used on average 1 day a year when I go to the Goodwood Festival of Speed.

With all of that in mind, would I be better off selling the 18-135mm & 70-300mm and using the proceeds from those to get some better quality glass that would cover my landscape needs as well as doubling up as a good all round lens? I have a B&W 10-stopper and a CPL, plus a set of Cokin 'P' series ND Grads that are 67mm dia, so ideally any new lens will be able to take these as well.

What do you folks suggest?

Apologies for turning this post in to a camera & lens question, but the two seem to go hand in hand quite nicely ;)

Look forward to your replies (y)
 
Got mine today, upgrading from a D90. First impressions are.... wow! This is a great camera and worth the upgrade. Now to play............ :D
 
I'm new here so please bear with me.
I'm a loyal Nikon user so.......
I bought my D7000 a couple of months ago as an upgrade for D40X. Got it before the VAT increase.
I have 18-135mm and a 35mm 1.8 but bought the SB700 flash with vouchers supplied by Digital Depot.
I think the camera is fantastic and probably capable of far more than my efforts. The flash is the first proper dedicated nikon one I have tried and I'm amazed at the combinations available with this kit.
I'm frustrated by not being able to get to the locations I would like often enough.
Landscape is my thing but I live in Bedfordshire!
 
Last edited:
I'm new here so please bear with me.
I'm a loyal Nikon user so.......
I bought my D7000 a couple of months ago as an upgrade for D40X. Got it before the VAT increase.
I have 18-135mm and a 35mm 1.8 but bought the SB700 flash with vouchers supplied by Digital Depot.
I think the camera is fantastic and probably capable of far more than my efforts. The flash is the first proper dedicated nikon one I have tried and I'm amazed at the combinations available with this kit.
I'm frustrated by not being able to get to the locations I would like often enough.
Landscape is my thing but I live in Bedfordshire!

barton springs is nice and there is always dunstable downs/blows downs, good luck
 
Well Christmas has come very very early!! My lovely husband (delta skies) turned up at my work at lunchtime with my new Nikon D7000!!

The battery has finished charging and now time to play!!
Can't wait to get out at the weekend to try it out!
 
Well I've just got my D7000 and am pleased with it, however I'm struggling with soft images a lot of the time! They come out not sharp and a bit annoying really. Otherwise, the quality is spot on and the speed over my D80 is unparalleled :)
 
any of you d300 owners?

really want video as a feature and a newer body. much over the d300? how are the much touted ISO capabilities? i.e 800+?

The D7000's video features kick the D300s' ass.

1080p for a start, full manual control over ISO & shutter speed for another. I did some video tests with the B+W 10-stop filter over the end of the 70-200mm f/2.8 VR in the middle of the day shooting at ISO6400 (it's the only way I could do a high ISO test with my limited time access to the camera) and it was very very impressive.

There was a fair amount of noise in the dark dark shadows, but adequately exposed areas were fantastic. I'll have to see if I can get the samples I shot uploaded to Youtube or somewhere.

If not for the fact that it doesn't offer 25 or 30fps options (or 50/60 @ 720p), I'd get one just for shooting video (I'd still stick to the D300s for stills tho).

The D300 for many has superior ergonomics and obviously the durability of the pro body but the D7000 is probably the more advanced camera technically. Depends what your priority is I suppose.
Actually, video aside, the only place the D7000 has the D300/s beat is the fact that it has a couple more MP. The D300s is equal or superior in every other way.

As for video it seems that the Canon cameras are still superior from what I have read but that wasn't why I bought the camera.
To be honest, I don't see much in it between the Canon bodies and the D7000. The quality is near enough identical for all practical purposes - most people would likely not be able to tell the difference given identical lens & in-camera processing settings.

Personally though, I prefer the Nikon footage. The noise from the Nikons looks a lot more like grain than the Canon footage, where as the noise in most Canon footage looks very much like digital noise.

Of course, given ideal shooting conditions, both can look too clean, and require noise to be added in post to give it that certain look that only film has.
 
I intend to get a D7000 in a few months. If anyone is coming from a D90, would you mind telling me (us :p) how it compares? Is it much better? :eek:

Thanks in advance!
 
Last edited:
Another firmware update?
 
Yeah, just came out a coupla days ago, v1.02
 
Question: does the onboard flash on the D7000 act as a trigger for the Nikon CLS flashguns?
 
Actually, video aside, the only place the D7000 has the D300/s beat is the fact that it has a couple more MP. The D300s is equal or superior in every other way.
Video and image quality for stills...

Don't get me wrong, the D7000 isn't perfect but I've been using it as a backup to the D3s for several months now and it's been far more of a pleasure to use than my D300 (which I've now sold as it got so little use). Image quality is far more pleasing on the D7000 in my opinion and if it wasn't for the size and speed, I'd buy one tomorrow. Instead though, I'll wait for the D300 replacement which will address all the issues with the D7000 I expect.

The D7000 biggest downside is it's not a 'pro' body so it's got some quirky controls and build - so D300 wins there, no question. But in the few months I've had the D7000 I've grown far fonder of it than I ever did my D300 which I owned for a couple of years. In fact, I'll be sad to see the D7000 go when I have to give it back!
 
Image quality is far more pleasing on the D7000 in my opinion

Our opinions might have agree to disagree on that one. :)

The D7K might be better at higher ISO, but everything I shoot is at ISO200, and at 200, I much prefer the look of images from the D300s.
 
Our opinions might have agree to disagree on that one. :)

The D7K might be better at higher ISO, but everything I shoot is at ISO200, and at 200, I much prefer the look of images from the D300s.

:thinking: The story of the 'Kings new clothes' comes to mind Kaouthia . . . :naughty: (y)

CJS
 
:thinking: The story of the 'Kings new clothes' comes to mind Kaouthia . . . :naughty: (y)

Well, the D7000 isn't terrible, but when I was testing it side by side with the D300s using the 70-200mm f/2.8VR and a Sigma 24mm f/2.8, the D7000 did look a little soft in comparison once we got back and put 'em up on the computer screen.
 
is the softness not just more pixels coming into play? i.e showing slight movement?
 
Anyone using a D7000 with the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 and have any opinions on it? Thinking about that as a possible upgrade.
 
is the softness not just more pixels coming into play? i.e showing slight movement?
There ain't much slight movement at 1/4000th of a second.
 
Well, the D7000 isn't terrible, but when I was testing it side by side with the D300s using the 70-200mm f/2.8VR and a Sigma 24mm f/2.8, the D7000 did look a little soft in comparison once we got back and put 'em up on the computer screen.

Not had personal experience, however, the talk-up, then the matrix metering issue, and now I read we are on the 2nd firmware update? How Many times have we read about the 'Hobbyist not requiring zillions of pixels', loads of functions, etc., etc . . . Nearly put my 'money down' :thinking: . . . but resisted. Now standing back, happy with my D90 and G1, they fit my requirements as a 'hobbyist' just fine:)

Thought for the day . . . 'dont be a pixel peeper' . . . CJS
 
Thought for the day . . . 'dont be a pixel peeper' . . . CJS

It wasn't pixel peeping, it was noticable with the image zoomed to fit on the screen. But the D7000 is plenty good enough for most people. I wouldn't normally even look at a consumer body, but it's the only one Nikon currently sell with 1080p and full manual control over ISO & shutter speed while shooting video.

Over a D90 though, I probably wouldn't bother upgrading unless 1080p @ 24fps (and only 24fps) with full manual control was a big need.
 
It wasn't pixel peeping, it was noticable with the image zoomed to fit on the screen. But the D7000 is plenty good enough for most people. I wouldn't normally even look at a consumer body, but it's the only one Nikon currently sell with 1080p and full manual control over ISO & shutter speed while shooting video.

Over a D90 though, I probably wouldn't bother upgrading unless 1080p @ 24fps (and only 24fps) with full manual control was a big need.

Sorry Kaouthia, I was not getting at you over pixel peeping, apologies if I came over that way, I'm on your side:LOL: So many are paying to much attention to 'how many pixels', despite the constant comments; 'they are not required 99% of the time'!

The D7000, I'm sure, is a fine machine, that will get even better eventually? But I agree with you, at the moment . . . Mr Stills-Hobbyist, is well suited to the D90. I have said elsewhere, I think the D90 is heading for classic status, it hit the ground running when launched, and is still full of puff:LOL: IMHO? . . . Spend money saved on good glass . . . ?

ET
 
Back
Top