Nikon D7xxx owners thread

[ausemmao]

Noted on the B&W thing, although I don't tend to do it - I tend to want to compose specifically for B&W as the rescues don't tend to go so well

It works on the bass because the bass has a pink body - that is how it would have come out anyway

 

[Raikiri]

I've just joined the dark side guys... just need a lens now.

Tamron 28-75 f2.8
Sigma 24-70 f2.8
Other?

Looking for a general purpose lens, f2.8 with decent AF. Doesn't need to be really wide.

P.S. Can't wait to get the D7000

 

[Kaouthia]

If you're going to go to the expense of a 2.8, I would stay clear of the 3rd party manufacturers myself. I've tried the Sigma side by side with the Nikon and there really just was no comparison imo (and Sigma use weird 82mm filters that nobody sells, and when they do they're way more expensive than the standard 77mm pro filters).

 

[Raikiri]

Whilst I see your point the Sigma is £250 used, the Nikon is £1000... I wouldn't expect the Sigma to be as good.

 

[Kaouthia]

Whilst I see your point the Sigma is £250 used, the Nikon is £1000... I wouldn't expect the Sigma to be as good.

Then save your money and go with a slower Nikon. Given that the D7000 can shoot ISO6400 quite comfortably, I'd rather go for higher quality glass with a max f/4 (or even f/4-5.6 range) aperture over a lower quality faster glass that you'll have to shoot at least f/4-5.6 anyway in order to get rid of the softness.

Or, go for an older Nikon like the 28-70mm f/2.8. They're still top quality glass and much cheaper than the current 24-70mm f/2.8.

 

[ausemmao]

I've just joined the dark side guys... just need a lens now.

Tamron 28-75 f2.8
Sigma 24-70 f2.8
Other?

Looking for a general purpose lens, f2.8 with decent AF. Doesn't need to be really wide.

P.S. Can't wait to get the D7000

If you'd wanted wide I'd have said go for one of the third party 17-50s. Those are optically at least as good as the Nikons. I'd still say go for one of those unless you use 50-70mm a lot.

 

[Raikiri]

True, I currently have a Sigma 18-50 f2.8 on Canon and it's a nice lens, would prefer something with HSM but for the price I guess it's my best bet (the Tamron 17-50 too).

Maybe paired with the 50-150 f2.8 if I can find one reasonably priced.

 

[davep90]

siggy 10-20 f/3.5?

 

[Kaouthia]

siggy 10-20 f/3.5?

I normally don't recommend Sigma vs the Nikon & Canon equivalents, and the Sigma 10-20mm f/3.5 is no exception, however I have no problems whatsoever singing huge praises for the Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 (which is about £150 cheaper and WAY sharper, with less CA and less barrel distortion than the f/3.5). It's even better than some of the twice-as-fast and three-times-the-price Nikon & Canon UWA lenses (but if you're shooting landscapes, really, who's doing that at f/2.8???).

I've had my Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 for about 18 months now, and it's one lens I certainly will never part with.

Very close second place in the inexpensive yet still outstanding UWA lineup that proves you very occasionally get far more than you pay for is the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8. Not quite as good as the Sigma, it doesn't go quite as wide or as long and it has a hair more barrel distortion, but you get an extra 1-1.5 stops depending on focal length, and it's fantastic for filming in lower light.

 

[gad-westy]

If you're going to go to the expense of a 2.8, I would stay clear of the 3rd party manufacturers myself. I've tried the Sigma side by side with the Nikon and there really just was no comparison imo (and Sigma use weird 82mm filters that nobody sells, and when they do they're way more expensive than the standard 77mm pro filters).

I keep tabs on this thread as a D7000 is very much on my radar right now. I picked up on this comment and just wanted to throw in an opposite view point. I think it's fairly widely acknowledged that ultimately most Nikon lenses are better than their third party like for like equivalents, whether just in terms of IQ or build or even maybe in every respect.

Its probably fair to say that any Nikon user who doesn't own a D3S or a D3X has made a compromise somewhere on quality and I don't really see why buying lenses should be any different. There are laws of diminishing returns at work with photography where spending double on something will not get you twice the product. If a Tamron 17-50 is 90% as good as a Nikon 17-55 but a third of the price, then unless I was a pro (in which case I would be full frame anyway most likely) or I was regularly printing A1 sort of size then I'd find it extremely difficult to justify the price difference.

When I bought my Sigma 180mm macro lens, one of my friends questioned my choice because Nikon offer a 200mm macro. Well, the answer is, that if I chose the Nikon I'd still be saving for it now and would have missed out on the months of enjoyment I've had with the Sigma.

I'm not saying you're wrong as everybody has a different budget etc... Just my viewpoint.

 

[Kaouthia]

I'm not saying you're wrong as everybody has a different budget etc... Just my viewpoint.

I completely agree and get where you're coming from, however, many of the older pro lenses (like the 80-200mm f/2.8 that got replaced by the 70-200VR lenses), that are still just as fast and razor sharp as they ever were are often around the same price as buying the current version of off-brand lenses.

I compromised too. I mainly shoot a D300s, also a DX crop body, so instead of getting the 70-200VR2, I got the original 70-200VR, as it generally makes zero difference on a crop body.

I'm not suggesting people buy the latest and greatest most expensive everything, but spend wisely and do your research. Sometimes spending £400 instead of £800 on an off-brand lens looks like a good idea. Spending £400 on a lens to find out it's soft, has a lot of distortion and chromatic aberration only to sell it at a loss (assuming you can sell it at all) and then buy the £800 lens anyway isn't such a good idea.

 

[gad-westy]

I completely agree and get where you're coming from, however, many of the older pro lenses (like the 80-200mm f/2.8 that got replaced by the 70-200VR lenses), that are still just as fast and razor sharp as they ever were are often around the same price as buying the current version of off-brand lenses.

I compromised too. I mainly shoot a D300s, also a DX crop body, so instead of getting the 70-200VR2, I got the original 70-200VR, as it generally makes zero difference on a crop body.

I'm not suggesting people buy the latest and greatest most expensive everything, but spend wisely and do your research. Sometimes spending £400 instead of £800 on an off-brand lens looks like a good idea. Spending £400 on a lens to find out it's soft, has a lot of distortion and chromatic aberration only to sell it at a loss (assuming you can sell it at all) and then buy the £800 lens anyway isn't such a good idea.

100% agree. There is certainly no point in spending a penny on something you won't be happy with. Sometimes you have to spend a lot and there are no cheap alternatives. Sometimes there are though and the Sigma 10-20 and Tokina you mentioned above are good examples. One thing that probably is true is that if ever in doubt, it does generally seem that with lenses more expensive usually equals better. The important thing is to find out how much better and whether it matters to you.

 

[Raikiri]

I normally don't recommend Sigma vs the Nikon & Canon equivalents, and the Sigma 10-20mm f/3.5 is no exception, however I have no problems whatsoever singing huge praises for the Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 (which is about £150 cheaper and WAY sharper, with less CA and less barrel distortion than the f/3.5). It's even better than some of the twice-as-fast and three-times-the-price Nikon & Canon UWA lenses (but if you're shooting landscapes, really, who's doing that at f/2.8???).

It's a great lens, I had one on my Canon before selling up. Although I preferred the Tokina 11-16, better build and image quality.

Wouldn't want to use either as a general/walk about though as they're suited to very specific tasks.

Anyway, my love of primes prevailed and I ended up buying a 35mm f2 for relatively little (£120) to tide me over whilst I look for something better suited.

Cheers for the replies though

Edit: Am also looking at getting the 80-200 f2.8 if I can find one at a good price.

 

[Yardbent]

I had a read through this D7000 owners thread, and many appear to have initial 'focus' problems, then get sorted, but all state it's a steep learning curve

what have you found,,?

I ask as I can afford only ONE upgrade before retiring and it was to be a D300...but everyone seems to be bashing on about the D7000

95% of my work is landscapes, [ no kids, portraits, or weddings]. DON'T need high ISO nor video

any 'street' and/or B&W is done with my Canon A-1 system

cheers ...john

edit BTW...I have Nikkor 50mm Ai and Nikkor 28mm Ai lens on my F3 - which I understand will meter on the D7000 = bonus..?

 

[dejongj]

If you are only doing one more upgrade on DX format I'd still go with the D7000. I have zero interest in video and stuff like that as well so I just ignore it. But unless you need the water sealing in the D300 I can't see a reason to go for an older generation camera if it was your last.

But depending on what lenses you already have for your D5000 and F3 I would consider the D700 as well if it was truly my last ever camera...

 

[Yardbent]

thanks Jean-Paul

Nikon FX is too expensive

in addition to the F3 Nikkor Ai pair, current lenses are ...
Sigma 17-70mm 2.8-4.5 Macro HSM
and a bog-standard 55-200 DX VR which is performing 110%

thanks...john

 

[dejongj]

I really like my 55-200 DX VR as well. In fact the picture of my daughter in the grass higher up on this page was taken with that value for money lens. It is a little cracker for the money and can say it works well with the D7000.

Your challenge is that they are both (D300 and D7000) very good cameras, so if it is not something in the specs perhaps it will be the handling that would be the deciding factor. Try them out

 

[Kaouthia]

I ask as I can afford only ONE upgrade before retiring and it was to be a D300...but everyone seems to be bashing on about the D7000

I've had my D300s about 18 months, and I've had a good play with the D7000 over the last couple of months. I won't be getting one. For video and high ISO the D7K's pretty fantastic. For just about everything else the D300/D300s beats it hands down.

 

[dejongj]

Really just about everything else 'HANDS DOWN', that big a difference ;-) Common then educate everyone else...

 

[AdamK]

I seem to be using my kit lens (18-105mm) more than any other at the minute, I think I need some new lenses

 

[Kaouthia]

Really just about everything else 'HANDS DOWN', that big a difference ;-) Common then educate everyone else...

The D7000 is equal or worse in every other respect.

D300s has a better autofocus system, it shoots up to 8fps, it has a flash sync socket and 10-pin remote (which makes hooking up intervalometers, wired and wireless shutter releases a lot easier), it's a full magnesium alloy body (not a partial one that's still mostly high impact plastic like the D7K), it's fully weather sealed, one of its two card slots is CompactFlash (which is much faster than SDHC - but it has one of those too). The D300s is a pro body rated to pro spec. The D7000 is not.

I'm not saying the D7000 is a crap camera, because it's not. But if he's not interested in HD Video (which the D300s sucks balls at) or high ISO (which the D300s does fairly well, but not as well as the D7000), the D300s is a much better choice.

 

[Yardbent]

I've had my D300s about 18 months, and I've had a good play with the D7000 over the last couple of months. I won't be getting one. For video and high ISO the D7K's pretty fantastic. For just about everything else the D300/D300s beats it hands down.

thanks..!
the D300 seems to be selling for about £200 less than the 'S'...so I'll take a look

then again - one 'knowledgeable' member here reminded me the D300 is 'older' technology

need to research more...........

 

[gad-westy]

thanks..!
the D300 seems to be selling for about £200 less than the 'S'...so I'll take a look

then again - one 'knowledgeable' member here reminded me the D300 is 'older' technology

need to research more...........

The D300/s certainly is older tech and probably due for replacement pretty soon. That certainly doesn't make it a poor choice though. I'm going through the D300 vs D7000 dilemma right now and it seems to boil down to better sensor vs a more substantial/solid body with more external control. The D300S and D7000 are pretty close on price these days so you make your choice....

I'm still totally undecided by the way

 

[Raikiri]

The D7000 is equal or worse in every other respect.

D300s has a better autofocus system, it shoots up to 8fps, it has a flash sync socket and 10-pin remote (which makes hooking up intervalometers, wired and wireless shutter releases a lot easier), it's a full magnesium alloy body (not a partial one that's still mostly high impact plastic like the D7K), it's fully weather sealed, one of its two card slots is CompactFlash (which is much faster than SDHC - but it has one of those too). The D300s is a pro body rated to pro spec. The D7000 is not.

I'm not saying the D7000 is a crap camera, because it's not. But if he's not interested in HD Video (which the D300s sucks balls at) or high ISO (which the D300s does fairly well, but not as well as the D7000), the D300s is a much better choice.

You seem to forget that the D7000 also has better image quality, colour depth and dynamic range.

It's also the full 6FPS when shooting 14 bit RAW, compared to the D300s which only does 2.5.

It depends what your priorities are, but I wouldn't get for the D300s for anything but sports personally.

 

[ausemmao]

Really just about everything else 'HANDS DOWN', that big a difference ;-) Common then educate everyone else...

The buffer and the AF. The buffer is a real weak point on the D7000. Not just with continuous bursts (which you get about a second on in RAW and then about 0.5 fps unless you give it some time to clear) - if you're shooting groups of 2 or 3 shots after a bit the camera will refuse to shoot and just when you think maybe something broke, you remember that the buffer Barbie's shot glass look generously proportioned.

The AF is more debatable. If you're tracking the subject, it's as fast as the D300 from what I saw of the D300, and if you give it something contrasty it'll focus in light you can't do reliably by eye (at least with the central 9 points). But the 51 points may make a difference, and I think the D300 is better at tracking stuff across the frame.

If you do sports stuff, the buffer will make you rage, especially if you've been used to faster buffers. Other than that, it's awesome, so I'd say get D7000 or wait for D400. It was a very clever marketing move from Nikon to segment this from the future D400. Because if you're doing something that needs to be able to reliably shoot continuously, short of rotating between 3 labelled D7000s, it's simply not fit for purpose, so those D300 upgraders WILL get a D400. And they still get to pitch the D7000 as a massive upgrade from a D90 without hurting their margins.

 

[tim_uk]

Don't forget you can largely overcome the buffer issue on the d7000 by using the special extreme pro cards - not cheap 30 notes for 8 gb but v fast

 

[vrapan]

The D300 is also much heavier/bigger but it can be had s/h for 200-300£ less than the D7000. Heck I've seen a D300 going for less than 500£ s/h on here and though I really am settled on getting the D7000 (just not at 900£) I was just about to buy the D300.

 

[ausemmao]

Don't forget you can largely overcome the buffer issue on the d7000 by using the special extreme pro cards - not cheap 30 notes for 8 gb but v fast

You can't really. The UHS-I cards clear a bit faster, yes, but they don't overcome it, not by a long way - they still take 20+ sec to clear the buffer. It's not a deal breaker for most (even though it's an issue for me the rest of the camera still made it worth the buy ) but it is something to be considered.

 

[dejongj]

You seem to forget that the D7000 also has better image quality, colour depth and dynamic range.

It's also the full 6FPS when shooting 14 bit RAW, compared to the D300s which only does 2.5.

It depends what your priorities are, but I wouldn't get for the D300s for anything but sports personally.

And that is key and a bit more balanced response than win hands down on just about everything.

The arguments that I've heard I couldn't care about, that is not to say other don't ofcourse, but if they do I'd probably rather consider the D700 in that event

I've probably not shot enough, or it is true about the extreme pro as I've got a 32Gb and 8Gb card and haven't run out of steam yet.

I'm not say it is the best thing since a V8 Powerboat (don't like sliced bread myself), but to dismiss this camera and saying the D300 is better in every area sounds ridiculous to me.

 

[Beardy]

I often read about the D300/s having superior controls. Out of interest what are those controls that the D7000 is worse at? Also do the U1 and U2 modes on the D7000 mitigate a lot of that disadvantage?

 

[dejongj]

I often read about the D300/s having superior controls. Out of interest what are those controls that the D7000 is worse at? Also do the U1 and U2 modes on the D7000 mitigate a lot of that disadvantage?

I wonder that to, but at the same time whilst saying that I wouldn't go below the D90 in the range because of the controls either. Having the two command wheels and the LCD is essential to me.

 

[Syd]

Having changed from a D300 to a D7000 the major downsides are
Build and Feel (the D300 is my favourite, even over the D700 for this as it just fitted my hands perfectly)
Ergonomics (more instant buttom access)

HOWEVER i was drawn to make the change for the sensor, high iso performance and HD video - was it the right move, mmmmmmmm I think so.
But I have sine bought a D700 as I just missed having the 'PRO' body and always really wanted FX - so it ws a particualrily expensive exercise for me !!!!!!!
THe 7000 does now make a nice portable alternative though - with a 18-70 strapped on (or a 50mm) its a small 2nd camera

 

[Kaouthia]

Build and Feel (the D300 is my favourite, even over the D700 for this as it just fitted my hands perfectly)

Other than the lack of 10-pin port and 8fps continuous shooting, that was one of my top reasons for not switching too. The D7000 just felt like a toy in my hands by comparison.

 

[ausemmao]

So it turns out my 70-200 was back focusing on the D7000. I was beginning to rage at myself for missing shots on Thursday, after making sure my technique was up to scratch. I finally thought as a laugh to try out the fine tune and dialled in -10 arbitrarily...it worked, apparently. I need to get out to shoot properly, but so far it seems to have fixed things.

Edit: Also found out I accidentally deleted the background shots for the composites, so can't finish them until I get back to the lake on a sunny late afternoon :bang:

 

[davep90]

I thought this was the D7000 owners thread?

I THINK ITS GREAT .......

 

[dejongj]

LOL So did I, but I guess there is some envy from D300 owners

 

[MomentCapture]

I thought this was the D7000 owners thread?

I THINK ITS GREAT .......

Yup, best crop sensor camera to date...

 

[Jase_Face]

Ordered one of these last night along with a third party grip. Going to be one hell of a step up from my D40!

 

[ausemmao]

Ordered one of these last night along with a third party grip. Going to be one hell of a step up from my D40!

That it will!

Thinking of which wide lens to get. Pretty much settled on a Tokina 11-16. When I tried the 10-24 out in the shop deciding between the D300s and D7000, I promised myself one would be next on the list. Still no flashes though, which is pretty bad - I want to start using artificial light, but I think that will have to wait. Will be a good post exams present

 

[dejongj]

I really like my 8-16 Sigma on the D7000. Tried it comparing against Nikkor/Tokina/Tamron, but those extra 2 to 3 mm make a huge difference and the goal was a wide lens. I'd recommend to try it.