Guys,

Anyone got an opinion on this camera? Worth upgrading the D200 for? I see commentary on the net that the D7000 performs on a par with the D700...is that really the case?

Also, if you were to upgrade today, which camera would you guys go for, being realistic for what you could actually afford, not what you dream you could afford

Regards

Mailman

Have you checked out DPReview at all? Last I looked, people thought it was a good camera, but not as good as its specifications might make it sound. If I remember right, it has a small buffer for multiple shots, and a few other shortcomings. It sounds like it's definitely a step down from the D300s, from what I've seen, but I'm not sure how that translates into a comparison to the D200.

All that is based on what I've seen other people say about it, not from any personal knowledge of it.

Aren't Four-Digit Numbers indicating entry-level DSLRS with Nikon (D5000)?

I'm still as happy as a pig in the mud with my D200. Hate the Battery Grip on the D300, and after having done that cover for the Swiss Magazine, I can really say 10MP Resolution is plenty too. I think they all have reached a level where further development simple doesn't translate into true benefits for a normal photo gig.

D7000 is a killer camera for the money

I got one, so I guess I already answered the latter question =)

In comparisons to the D300s, downsides (from memory) are smaller buffer, fewer AF points, dual SDs as opposed to dual CF cards (has an impact on how fast it can flush the buffer) and apparently a stop better ISO. Lighter too. (Hard for me to say that coming from the puny D60!)

In terms of ISO, it goes up to 6400 before getting another stop or two in the "hi" modes. Rise of noise with ISO is fairly linear. I prefer to shoot at 400 since the birds I've been shooting over the winter haven't been all that close by. YMMV. I've not used one, but I won't say it performs as good as the D700. Software can't break physics.

Everything else is similar or better.

In terms of buffer, turning on auto distortion correction massively reduces the buffer. JPG and RAW buffer are around 7 shots by default (plainer backgrounds can increase the JPG buffer due to compression). If you turn auto dist correction off, NEF buffer grows to 9, whereas the JPG buffer then becomes rather large, somewhere from a quoted 17 to 40+. Changing bit-rate doesn't change the buffer size. Buffer cycle time is about 2 seconds.

I haven't personally run the buffer out so far, as I'm only shooting birds and wildlife and still getting used to the AF system (old D60 used to have only 3 points =). I can see that it might be a problem if you're shooting RAW at an airshow though, but I don't know how that will personally affect me - I think that if you choose your shots you'll get by okay. If you spray and pray then you'll have issues unless you drop to JPG, in which case I don't think there will be too many issues at all (all that white sky makes for good compression).

I can't really offer any advice about upgrading from a D200 as I've never handled one. If you have any particular questions I'll be happy to answer, though I don't know how much else I can say other than what's out there.

Oh, one final thing - If you're expecting good video, forget it. My anti-video-in-dSLR stance has been reinforced by what I've seen in the D7000. Lucky I don't use it!

RSColonel_131st: You're right, the thousands-series are entry level; The D7000 occupies the slot previously occupied by the D90. That said, the upgrade from D90 to D7000 is quite a lot larger than what I understand the upgrade from 50D to 60D is - I'm not saying the 60D is crap or that the 60D and 7000 are that comparable, but Nikon pushed the D7000 upgrade "more than was expected".

EDIT:
If you want to upgrade to a similar hundred-series pro-DX sensor camera, you might want to wait until the end of the year, as Nikon are expected to come up with D300s, D3* replacements this year. I'm also hoping that they'll bring out a 100-500mm lens that I can replace my sigmonster with...

Gopher,

The one thing that really gets my goat with the D200 is its crap low light handling. Basically, anything over ISO800 comes out looking grainer than a photo of a beach up close!

How have you found the D7000 at handling noise in low light conditions?

Regards

Mailman

In my *experience* I'd say that the D7000 has a full stop better than my D60, which I think is a similar generation in terms of sensor to the D200.

By ISO 800, you do start to see noise in the shadow and lower mid-tones, which is why I try and stick to 400. If you shoot raw, you can mitigate the problem by intentionally over-exposing as there seems to be quite a large number of bits in the white region. I'd say that above 800 you have to really fill the frame as you really start to lose pixel-level detail to noise.

If I am shooting properly in the dark though (for example some foxes in the street or if I do another night Britcar race or something) then I wouldn't hesistate to go right up to 6400, but not any further except for B&W only. (Yes, I know shooting in the dark is a different mindset...)

My D60 is, for practical purposes, an ISO 100 to 1600 camera. Likewise, I'd say that the D7000 is a 100 to 6400 camera, and between ISO 100 and 800, the D7000 is similar to a D60 at 100 to 400. It makes using my sigmonster easier, at least.

If you don't mind descending into statistics, you could take a look at this comparison in DXOmark.

A couple examples of noise from today's rather disappointing shoot:


100% Crop @ ISO 1600, 500mm, f/11


Resize of the above so you can see why you need to fill the frame up;


100% crop @ ISO 800, 500mm f/9 from fine JPG. As an aside, all of the white overexposed area is fully resolved in the RAW file, not clipped.



100% crop, ISO 3200, 35mm f/2.8 - just so you know what ISO3200 looks like at night.

FYI, all photos are unprocessed from fine JPGs. Hope this is a bit more informative than plain text!

EDIT: I wasn't driving in that last shot.

I have been thinking about saving up for one. This is where I get a lot of my camera info, pretty easy to find and he seems pretty honest in his reviews.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d7000.htm

LOL KenRockwell!!!! everyone stays well away from him

but this is an interesting read about the D7000

Ahh, good old Ken.

If you want to do any additional reading, Thom Hogan has looked at the camera, and there is also the DPReview review, amongst others.

Consider as well, if you don't have any Nikon glass, the Canon 7D.
It's very good.

James