The Nikon D90 is dead. Long live the Nikon D7000!

Discussion in 'Digital Cameras' started by Bruce, Sep 15, 2010.

  1. Bruce

    Bruce Guest

    The Nikon D90 replacement is here!

    http://preview.tinyurl.com/2upd63v
    or:
    http://www.photographybay.com/2010/09/15/nikon-d7000/

    The D7000 features a 16.2MP sensor, a 39-point AF system and a large
    sensitivity range covering ISO 100-25,600. Additionally, the D7000
    can capture 1080p HD video at 24 fps, or 720p video at either 24 or 30
    fps.

    The Nikon D7000 should be available in October 2010 at an initial
    retail price of $1199.95.
     
    Bruce, Sep 15, 2010
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Bruce

    Bruce Guest


    Absolutely. It was the same with Live View. The "serious" DSLR users
    on here, led by Alan Browne, dismissed it as a gimmick. But it was
    warmly welcomed by people who actually shoot pictures, rather than the
    dinosaurs who can only *talk* about photography.

    Now Live View is an essential feature on almost any DSLR, HD video is
    rapidly becoming the next "must have". Canon's mirrorless EIS system
    camera will go a stage further and use almost all the information from
    the sensor (rather than just a small sample) to produce high quality
    HD video images.

    I cannot remember a more exciting time for photography. I thought
    that the recession would probably slow down development of new
    technologies but the opposite seems to be the case. We have had more
    announcements of new products in 2010 than there have been for years,
    and Photokina hasn't even opened yet!
     
    Bruce, Sep 15, 2010
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Everyone who is a SLR shooter already has all the DSLRs they'll
    ever need. Who's left? P&S shooters. They demand video.
    Even if they cannot use it properly (they have no focus pullers
    available) and would be better served with a conventional home
    user video camera.

    Additionally, independent video producers love that stuff: they
    got the technology to use DSLR-video (see focus puller etc)
    and can buy 10 DSLRs + their special gear instead of a single
    'professional' camera with less lens choice and a less light
    sensitive, much smaller sensor.

    That's why video is rated 'must have' by marketing.

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Sep 15, 2010
    #3
  4. Bruce

    yodasbud Guest

    Yes, and they were also saying that 6 megapixels was more than
    enough for anyone, back when that's the most DSLRs had. Now there are
    people saying that 10.1 or 10.2 isn't enough. It's ridiculous.
    Isn't it possible, with proper upsampling, to get a very good
    print out of even a 6 megapixel DSLR? Of course it is.
    I'll grant that it's easier with a higher res camera, but so
    what? Not everyone can afford the latest whiz-bang.
    I've got a D3000 and it's good enough for me for the
    foreseeable future.
     
    yodasbud, Sep 20, 2010
    #4
  5. for P&S cameras? Right.
    They are right. Wall filling shots that you can step right
    in front of and see tiny details need more pixels.
    It isn't.
    Sure, if you stay far enough from it, you can print any size.
    If you don't, you need more.
    What's that got to do with your argument? Are you trying to
    talk sour grapes sweet?

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Sep 20, 2010
    #5
  6. Bruce

    yodasbud Guest

    Nope, I'm just saying that for what I do, the D3000 is good. I
    don't need wall sized prints for anything I can imagine right now, and
    if I did, I'd print what I get from the D3000, upsample, and have big
    pix with good resolution anyway.
     
    yodasbud, Sep 23, 2010
    #6
  7. Then why don't you say so, instead of saying THEY SAID and
    THEY ARE SAYING, ridiculing them?
    Try it some time, and see how detail poor your image will be.

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Sep 25, 2010
    #7
  8. Bruce

    yodasbud Guest

    You DO know that when you print an image at the resolution of
    the camera, and then upsample, you don't lose much unless you get
    ridiculous, right?
     
    yodasbud, Sep 25, 2010
    #8
  9. Bruce

    Peter Guest


    Don't pay too much attention to him. While he may be technically right if
    you are looking to make large images that will be viewed at a distance of
    3", all that really matters is that you are happy with the images. If it
    works for you, go with it.
     
    Peter, Sep 25, 2010
    #9
  10. Compared to a camera with a native resolution of whatever you
    upsample to, you lose a lot, unless you use said camera with a
    coke bottle bottom.

    BTW: Unless you print at home, my guess is that the shop where
    you get quality prints knows best how to upsample or downsample
    your image for their specific machines.

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Sep 27, 2010
    #10
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.