Nikon D7000 Owners thread

fozzybear said:
I'd say the D7000 is nearer to the Canon 7D than the cheaper 60D.

The D7000 has weather and moisture sealing from what I know.
Click to expand...

Interesting... Although having just read the DPreview it doesn't seem to mention anything other than the Mg chassis?

Unfortunately it looks like Nikon is going to be a non starter for me, there seems to be a distinct lack of decent (for me) lenses. Nothing between the small lesser quality consumer lenses and the heavy professional lenses. No 70-200 f/4 equivalent and no 300 f/4 IS equivalent either, alongside some missing lenses down below as well.:(
 
I wouldn't use any battery grip in the rain regardless of weather sealing quality. I wouldn't even risk a D800 with the grip attached in the rain as the grips aren't sealed to the same standards, plus if there is a slight gap due to not being tightened properly, water can get into the battery compartment when the camera is used in portrait, killing the camera.

Although back on topic, the weather sealing on nikon bodies is still superior to the canon equivalents upto the 1D range where it equalises.
 
James J said:
I wouldn't use any battery grip in the rain regardless of weather sealing quality. I wouldn't even risk a D800 with the grip attached in the rain as the grips aren't sealed to the same standards, plus if there is a slight gap due to not being tightened properly, water can get into the battery compartment when the camera is used in portrait, killing the camera.

Although back on topic, the weather sealing on nikon bodies is still superior to the canon equivalents upto the 1D range where it equalises.
Click to expand...

I don't have the exact numbers and no doubt the 1D series is by far the most durable Canon's, I still get the impression they are not as reliable as Nikon's in general. I once once told by a Canon landscaper, that he saw a D300 actually get briefly submerged, yet not fail.

"The top LCD on a 5D MKII spontaneously cracked; Another 5D MKII had a jambed on lens caused by a loose screw, a 1Ds MKIII reported intermittent problems; a 1D MKIII kept reporting Error 99; one Hasselblad reported electronic lens connection problems; two Canon G9's failed (no G10s had any reported problems), and a Nikon 80-400mm lens came apart. No Nikon bodies (mostly D700s) failed in any way.

The largest group of failures through were among the Canon 5D MKIIs. Of the 26 samples of this camera onboard, one quarter (six) failed at one time or another, and while three recovered, the other three never did. In all cases it appeared to be water or humidity damage. Of particular concern were two cameras which stopped working while completely protected within Kata rain covers during a light rain ashore."

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/antarctica-2009-worked.shtml
 
Jury's out on the 5diii as well..
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1032&message=41505475&changemode=1

"I ended up using my Nikon D3x and the Leica S2 the most, primarily because I favored larger file sizes over high ISO noise performance. Most of my D3x images were shot at ISO 800 or under and the Leica S2 was shot at ISO 320 or 160. I did have to push it to 640 a few times, but I was more comfortable with the lower ISO values. I didn’t have a single mishap with any of my 3 cameras, however I did see a number of Canon 5DMk2 and 7D bodies give up the ghost."

http://www.theglobalphotographer.com/the-global-photographer/tag/antarctica
 
Last edited:
An Exception said:

Interesting that the guy is using the grip in rain...
Click to expand...

Ok I believe you. :p

Still, doesn't negate the lens issue which is a real shame as the camera is very nice, almost perfect for what I'm looking for.

What lens was on that BTW, was that a 70-200 f/2.8?
 
Might be the 70-200 2.8 vrii, I don't have that lens personally as I don't really shoot much, if any nature stuff at the moment. Might get one maybe next year though.
 
An Exception said:
Jury's out on the 5diii as well..
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1032&message=41505475&changemode=1

"I ended up using my Nikon D3x and the Leica S2 the most, primarily because I favored larger file sizes over high ISO noise performance. Most of my D3x images were shot at ISO 800 or under and the Leica S2 was shot at ISO 320 or 160. I did have to push it to 640 a few times, but I was more comfortable with the lower ISO values. I didn’t have a single mishap with any of my 3 cameras, however I did see a number of Canon 5DMk2 and 7D bodies give up the ghost."

http://www.theglobalphotographer.com/the-global-photographer/tag/antarctica
Click to expand...

The weather sealing on the 5D mk ii isn't great as its barely sealed. I'm very careful with mine and had it out in light rain 3 times since owning it. I wouldn't trust it in really heavy downpours which is a shame. The 1DX has some seriously impressive water sealing though and is vastly more advanced than any of the previous canon camera models. Canon has done really well with it.

The 5D mk iii has better water and dust sealing than the mk ii, but its still no where near as good as it should be or in comparison to nikon equivalents. The 1D IV was vastly better sealed against the elements than the previous 1D models and the X is even better than that.
 
An Exception said:
Might be the 70-200 2.8 vrii, I don't have personally as I don't really shoot much, if any nature stuff at the moment, might get one maybe next year though.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't really define the 70-200 as a nature lens tbh. Its not long enough for most nature shots and flower shots are vastly better on macro lenses anyway, which tend to be cheaper lol. I'd say it was a variable tele portrait lens as most of the owners of the canon version (mk ii one) use it almost exclusively for portraits or indoor sports.
 
^^^
Not really interested in long lenses for portraiture, would much rather use an 85 or even 35 if trying to add context.

As for Macro, I was curious about how this would perform with say 3x 36mm extension tubes. I would think this would allow you to get a macro shot without having to get so close to the subject and avoid potentially scaring it away.
The tubes I use still allow me to AF, which I like as the AF still seems very accurate.
 
Amp34 said:
Interesting... Although having just read the DPreview it doesn't seem to mention anything other than the Mg chassis?

Unfortunately it looks like Nikon is going to be a non starter for me, there seems to be a distinct lack of decent (for me) lenses. Nothing between the small lesser quality consumer lenses and the heavy professional lenses. No 70-200 f/4 equivalent and no 300 f/4 IS equivalent either, alongside some missing lenses down below as well.:(
Click to expand...

Depends what you want. Price wise there are many Nikon equivalents to the 70-200 f/4.0, the older 70-200 f2.8 VR, second hand 80-200 AF-S 2.8, a 80-200 AF-D, which are still made new and are as sharp as the newer lenses.

The Nikon 70-300VR is optically plenty sharp enough between 70-200mm and has the added advantage of 300mm reach, I use this when hiking.

There is a NIkon 300mm f4.0, which is optically amazingly good, I use it with. A 1.4TC. Not stablished, but should be used on a tripod anyway so to a big deal. A replacement VR version is due soon, likewise 70-200 f/4.0 may appear soon, patents have been out for a while.
 
An Exception said:
^^^
Not really interested in long lenses for portraiture, would much rather use an 85 or even 35 if trying to add context.

As for Macro, I was curious about how this would perform with say 3x 36mm extension tubes. I would think this would allow you to get a macro shot without having to get so close to the subject and avoid potentially scaring it away.
The tubes I use still allow me to AF, which I like as the AF still seems very accurate.
Click to expand...

Now that I don't know as I'm not sure how much closer you'd need to get to be able to focus again with the extension tube. The MFD on my 70-200 F4 is about 1.2 metres but if the flower is a good size floral shots are easy with it. Wildlife shots however are a nightmare. Might as well buy a sigma 150-500 if that was what you fancied shooting though lol.

I also wouldn't use a very long lens for portraiture (not 200mm anyway), but the canon 135L F2 is one of the sharpest lenses on the market and its use in portrait photography is legendary.
 
James J said:
I wouldn't really define the 70-200 as a nature lens tbh. Its not long enough for most nature shots and flower shots are vastly better on macro lenses anyway, which tend to be cheaper lol. I'd say it was a variable tele portrait lens as most of the owners of the canon version (mk ii one) use it almost exclusively for portraits or indoor sports.
Click to expand...

I don't know about that, the focal range is a great all round landscape and larger wildlife lens. Certainly not a birding lens bit for larger mammals it's pretty good. Unfortunately f/2.8 makes it pretty hefty, which is where the f/4 Canons come into their own.
 
@James
I know the 135 2 is an amazing lens, but a little too long for me 90% of the time, as when I had a crop, I barely used my 85...

Also, you can get a similar effect as a 135 f2 by backing up a bit and shooting at 1.4 and then cropping. Obviously this isn't ideal as you lose quality and resolution, but I'd rather do that than carry another lens with me if I'm shooting all day.
 
D.P. said:
Depends what you want. Price wise there are many Nikon equivalents to the 70-200 f/4.0, the older 70-200 f2.8 VR, second hand 80-200 AF-S 2.8, a 80-200 AF-D, which are still made new and are as sharp as the newer lenses.

The Nikon 70-300VR is optically plenty sharp enough between 70-200mm and has the added advantage of 300mm reach, I use this when hiking.

There is a NIkon 300mm f4.0, which is optically amazingly good, I use it with. A 1.4TC. Not stablished, but should be used on a tripod anyway so to a big deal. A replacement VR version is due soon, likewise 70-200 f/4.0 may appear soon, patents have been out for a while.
Click to expand...

Mostly size and weight. When you have that and your camping gear in your backpack an extra kg of weight in just one lens ins a heck of a lot (camping gear is about 10kg). The 70-300 is a potential, but really good enough? The Canon version certainly isn't. I'd rather go 70-200 f/4 and a 1.4tc for those times where extra reach is needed. On the other hand an I've also had the Canon 300 f/4 and that's a nice lens. The issue with the Nikon one is it is non IS/VR and yet the same price as the Canon IS version (non IS version being around £400 second hand).

I'll have a look into the suggestions though.
 
Amp34 said:
I don't know about that, the focal range is a great all round landscape and larger wildlife lens. Certainly not a birding lens bit for larger mammals it's pretty good. Unfortunately f/2.8 makes it pretty hefty, which is where the f/4 Canons come into their own.
Click to expand...

Yeah true, but depends on the distance to the animal, as it requires image cropping otherwise which I hate doing personally as I like to try and get the composition right on the camera instead lol.

An Exception said:
@James
I know the 135 2 is an amazing lens, but a little too long for me 90% of the time, as when I had a crop, I barely used my 85...

Also, you can get a similar effect as a 135 f2 by backing up a bit and shooting at 1.4 and then cropping. Obviously this isn't ideal as you lose quality and resolution, but I'd rather do that than carry another lens with me if I'm shooting all day.
Click to expand...

True, you'd have to have a body with just that on at a wedding really if it was used in one, however its a cracking lens. It can melt away the background just like a 35L can, which is a very sort after effect.
 
Been to Goodwood today, i had my D7000 linked up to my 18-55, only just come home and had some food, and ill look through the photos tommorow and upload a few
 
Having sold my D90 previously and without a camera and needing one sooner rather then later, I am unsure if I should go for a D7000 at this point. Have £900 to play with but will need a Tokina 12-24mm (will go 2nd hand) with that as well, which leaves around £650. With second hand prices at £600 and new at £725 I might as well add the extra and go new. Only thing that worries me is the possibility of Nikon shortly announcing a D400/600 or even a D7100. As I do feel like I am buying into the D7000 towards its end before replacement. If new versions do come out not too far off this may mean second hand prices will fall further rather quickly.

Would rather wait until towards of end of year but need one for a few business related things. Anyone had experience hiring and where from for a body?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom