Should I buy a D7000 (1 Viewer)

I have used a D300 for a few years now - very pleased with it - it has got wet, been dropped in the mud, dragged around rough countryside and been thrown around in the back of the car etc.

I'm off to S Africa on holiday and I reckon I need a back up or need to replace the D300 as my main camera for bird shots. I only use my DSLR for nature photography with a 300mm f4, a 70 200mm VR f2.8 and a x1.4TC. I do not use it for general or family photography, I prefer other cams for that.

I have been waiting and waiting for Nikon to release a NEW DX camera ......

Jessops are selling the D7000 body for about £640, which seems a bargain to me compared with the price of a new D300s.

What do you guys reckon, the D7000 has good reports, (I know that it may not be a weather proof as my D300), but at that price it must be a bargain

maybe I should add:

1). Or wait for the next Nikon DX cam

2). Or buy a V1 + FT1

I've recently bought one Oct. It's a great camera and at that price A steal!!!!
John

BillN said:

maybe I should add:

1). Or wait for the next Nikon DX cam

2). Or buy a V1 + FT1

Click to expand...

If it helps I bought a V1 and FT1 and didn't get on with it at all - sold within a month [used with a 300mm f2.8]. As my D300s must be close to 100,000 shots I bought a D7000 thinking it would be a back up but the better ISO and the higher MP means I haven't used the D300s since - except for a trip to the beach.

Two things I've noticed as a keen amateur user - doesn't feel as robust - i.e. for the beach I grabbed the D300s and not sure if its just the buffer or the buffer and the FPS but I'm finding the camera runs out of shots more often and there's some lag. I can't wait for a 24Mp DX with 7 fps !!!

The D7000 has a more advanced sensor, and also menu and live view refinements.

The D300s has a better buffer, higher fps, a more professional build, and more controls with larger buttons and switches.

I was in a similar dilemma at the start of the year and I went for a used D300s for around £800. I guess it comes down to your photography style. I don't shoot at high ISO's often, and when I do I have a D3, although this lacks pixel density.

IMO, a true "backup" body to the D300 that also offers a SIGNIFICANT IQ upgrade (a D7000 is not even a 1 stop upgrade and requires another battery type) would be the D700 FX since it shares the same batteries and grip. You won't give up any AF features and you will gain a nice bump in high ISO performance. As a bonus you will gain more options for wide prime lenses for what I would imagine to be some breathtaking landscapes. The "gotcha" is finding someone willing to sell you a D700 at fair price given the great deals on the D600 now!

Nikon Rumors suggested the long wait for a true D300 successor may finally end in January or February (and that's probably just when we get the announcement). I'll believe it when I see it, but if you look at their current "buying guide," it seems like the D300/D7000 is only thing left they haven't upgraded. Frustrating. My two cents: try and wait if you can. Or give up and switch to Canon.

--Dave

The thing is the sale pricing of D600 is now effectively ~US$1500. Not alot of price point room for a D400 if they bring in a D7100 @US$1100. And seems more and more likely any D400 would have to offer some ultra pixel count, perhaps as much as 32-40mp, while still not surpassing the D600 overall high ISO performance. Two weeks ago Thom Hogan seemed sure Nikon will make another "pro" DX body, but I think even he was suprised by the current D600 sale.

Hi Bill,
As you already have a D300s for fast (BIF's) a D7000 for everything else would give you discernably superior IQ at relatively low cost. Once I had a D7000 I never again used my D90 (same sensor as d300). It doesn't have the D300's AF or build, but it's a backup.
A D700 would loose you the dx reach and getting it back with a TC would cancel out it's iso advantage. So doable but at some cost.
I choose to go the D800 route rather than wait for a holed for D400 and I have no regrets at all. i also have 9 months of images i wouldn't have got any other way.
The V1 is the best backup camera at the price and doubles as a very good travel bird kit with the ft1 and 300mm f4.

Personally at this point I would wait as there is a distinct possibility of an updated D7000 or D400 in a few months. Having said that the D800 is an amazing bird camera.

RMWD said:

Hi Bill,
As you already have a D300s for fast (BIF's) a D7000 for everything else would give you discernably superior IQ at relatively low cost. Once I had a D7000 I never again used my D90 (same sensor as d300). It doesn't have the D300's AF or build, but it's a backup.
A D700 would loose you the dx reach and getting it back with a TC would cancel out it's iso advantage. So doable but at some cost.
I choose to go the D800 route rather than wait for a holed for D400 and I have no regrets at all. i also have 9 months of images i wouldn't have got any other way.
The V1 is the best backup camera at the price and doubles as a very good travel bird kit with the ft1 and 300mm f4.

Personally at this point I would wait as there is a distinct possibility of an updated D7000 or D400 in a few months. Having said that the D800 is an amazing bird camera.

Click to expand...

Thanks Rich

I've looked at your wonderful images lots of times

maybe the answer for my S Africa trip is to buy the V1 plus FT-1, (about £450 now), and take my 70 200 VR f2.8, TC x1.4 and my D300 .... (i.e. leave the 300mm f4 at home) - the light should be good this time of year and the V1 and 70 200mm, plus TC should give me enough reach

When I get back maybe there will be a new Nikon DX ....... if not I'll go for the D7000

(I've always fancied a V1 anyway and at the current price they must be good value)

Thanks to all for their comments

i have had the d7000 for over a year now and use it mainly with a 300mm f4 plus 1.4 and 1.7 t.c's ,however i bought a s/hand d300s in october and its now my camera of choice .it has its drawbacks in bad light (i revert back to the 7000) but if the suns shining the sheer image quality and ease of use is far better ,theres unfortunately no quick fix answer to your dilemma ,i have however just bought a nikon V1 and FT1 so that might well be the way forward and nikon are virtually giving them away at the moment

d7000

the d7000 is a pretty good choice as a main/back-up body. low light performance is rather good. image quality is good and sharp but it is essential to adjust its picture control and af settings from the out of the box defaults.
in the right hands it will beat the d300/d700 in image quality, not quite as weatherproof or robust, but unbeatable at todays price.
as soon as the price dropped to £650 i sold my d90 back-up and bought a second d7000! it is all that i currently want in a camera and a lot more than i really need. as long as you have good technique and knowledge of the nikon system it is unlikely that you will have any so called issues, (usually OP errors).:t:

I've just bought a V1 plus FT-1, Nikon grip and spare battery
I'll use it with the 70 200mm f2.8 and TCx1.4 out in S Africa on holiday ..... leave my 300mm f4 at home to save weight, but take my D300 ....... take a small monopod ..... and see how it goes.

Should give me 2.7 x 200mm x 1.4 = 750mm at f4 and VR
The 300mm would give me 1125mm at f5.6

Should I take them both and my tripod and head etc.,.......... and rent a "pack mule" ......no I better stick to the 70 200mm .........

Evan47, I agree that the D7000 takes some getting used to. What picure and AF settings do you use.

Len

Two drawbacks for me would be the lack of the Nikon 10-pin adapter port which I use with an Aokatec receiver to automatically geotag my pictures in the field and that the D7000 requires using SDHC cards so I would need to invest in new cards for the new camera.

A possible alternative thought pricier is to get the D600 and shoot it in DX mode. More options with the D600 for non-bird photography on your trip and it can use all your FX and DX lenses.

I'd agree with Montereyman's comments on the D600 if your budget can reach. A substantial improvement over the D300 and D7000 (but not in fps). Otherwise the d7000 is a great camera for that price and you can always sell it later when Nikon release something else. The small hit would be more than worth taking it to SA for, and of course the use you'll get out of it in the meantime and after the trip.

I'd definitely take the 300mm for a once in a lifetime trip (or one of them) ! You can always leave it in the hotel if/when not needed. For the sake of just a little extra weight you could be kicking yourself for leaving it behind. Especially if you don't get on with the V1 & FT-1 (as it seems many don't) in pressure conditions and without real stability.

You are going to need wide/standard for animals close in (sometimes jeep-side so in the 17-50 range) and long (400-600mm) so the 300+x1.4 is a better option (your 70-200, +1.4 = 320mm, is just not going to cut it - especially since it's not a true 320mm with focus breathing, it's actually 192mm x 1.4 = 269mm vs a real 420mm with your 300mm and TC).

And Now for Something Completely Different

Here's another idea -- I had a D300 and bought a D7000 as a backup. I found that the sensor was better, and there were other little things that I preferred, so I found myself using the D7000 as my main camera (with Nikon 300 f/4 AF-S and 1.7x TC). But I still wanted something smaller and lighter for travel, that would shoot Raw, and still give high quality bird and scenic pics.

So I sold the D300 (and 80-400VR that I no longer used) and bought an Olympus OM-D and Panasonic 100-300. Much smaller and lighter, very customizeable, and iq equal to the "big rig" except for BIF and distant shots where huge crops have to be made. Also, because of the smaller sensor, isolating backgrounds isn't as easy. However, I'm glad I made that choice, and now when I go out I'm often in 2 minds as to which gear to take. Certainly for trips by plane, or long hikes, it's the OM-D.

For examples of image quality with either, search some of my latest pictures in the gallery here on Birdforum.

Richard

Thanks for all your comments

In the end I took the following

D300 plus 300mm f4
TC x 1.4
V1 plus FT-1 and kit 10 30mm
S95
Sigma 10 200mm

I used the trusty D300 and 300mm f4 most of the time and I am very pleased with the results....... although I could have used better low light performance, (or maybe VR)

I hardly used the V1 and FT-1 combo ...... I could just not get on with it for bird and animal shots
I used the V1 with the kit 10 30mm along with the S95 for normal "tourist" shots.
Occasionally I used the D300 and Sigma 10 20mm

I did not take the 70 200mm f2.8, but as suggested this would have been more flexible, (than the 300mm f4), for the "Game Reserve" Safari days .... but I have read about a poorer image quality of the newer Nikon more pixel DSLRs

I took a lightweight Slik tripod and head ....... not great, probably a waste of time ............ 95% of my shots were with the D300 and 300mm f4 were hand held.

Overall I am quite pleased with the results and the conclusions for ME for bird photography are:
Stick to a DSLR
Stick to the 300mm f4 or buy a 300mm f2.8 VR ll
The V1 and FT-1 only confuse the situation as can the Nikon TC x 1.4 unless you have a good tripod
If I take a tripod/head - take my proper one - but the weight and space in the suitcase really does say NO

We have already booked a few weeks in January 2014 ......So I need the new Nikon DX camera when it is released, or as suggested the D600, and I need a 300mm f2.8 VR ll which I can use hand held, and I have to persuade my wife to throw out half her luggage so that I can take my heavy Gitzo and head.

Looks like I need to spend £5,000 + on equipment and more on my wife to persuade her to lug a heavy tripod around.

so the V1 and FT-1 is a NO for me for birding for this kind of trip ......... I suppose it's the old saying, "you get what you pay for"