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

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.

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

bobwilliams <mytbob@cox.net> wrote:
>Bruce wrote:
>> 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.
>
>Several years ago when compact P/S cameras were shooting video pics,
>serious DSLR users ridiculed the feature as a fun novelty, but with no
>real place in a top notch DSLR.
>Now most, if not all, modern DSLRs are touting movies as a "must have"
>feature.


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!

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

bobwilliams <mytbob@cox.net> wrote:

> Several years ago when compact P/S cameras were shooting video pics,
> serious DSLR users ridiculed the feature as a fun novelty, but with no
> real place in a top notch DSLR.
> Now most, if not all, modern DSLRs are touting movies as a "must have"
> feature.

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

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

On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 00:39:41 -0700, bobwilliams <mytbob@cox.net>
wrote:

>Bruce wrote:
>> 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.
>
>Several years ago when compact P/S cameras were shooting video pics,
>serious DSLR users ridiculed the feature as a fun novelty, but with no
>real place in a top notch DSLR.
>Now most, if not all, modern DSLRs are touting movies as a "must have"
>feature.
>Bob Williams

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.

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

yodasbud@mnsi.net <yodasbud@mnsi.net> wrote:

> Yes, and they were also saying that 6 megapixels was more than
> enough for anyone,

for P&S cameras? Right.

> back when that's the most DSLRs had. Now there are
> people saying that 10.1 or 10.2 isn't enough.

They are right. Wall filling shots that you can step right
in front of and see tiny details need more pixels.

> It's ridiculous.

It isn't.

> Isn't it possible, with proper upsampling, to get a very good
> print out of even a 6 megapixel DSLR? Of course it is.

Sure, if you stay far enough from it, you can print any size.
If you don't, you need more.

> 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.

What's that got to do with your argument? Are you trying to
talk sour grapes sweet?

-Wolfgang

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

On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 22:33:44 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
<ozcvgtt02@sneakemail.com> wrote:

>yodasbud@mnsi.net <yodasbud@mnsi.net> wrote:
>
>> Yes, and they were also saying that 6 megapixels was more than
>> enough for anyone,
>
>for P&S cameras? Right.
>
>> back when that's the most DSLRs had. Now there are
>> people saying that 10.1 or 10.2 isn't enough.
>
>They are right. Wall filling shots that you can step right
>in front of and see tiny details need more pixels.
>
>> It's ridiculous.
>
>It isn't.
>
>> Isn't it possible, with proper upsampling, to get a very good
>> print out of even a 6 megapixel DSLR? Of course it is.
>
>Sure, if you stay far enough from it, you can print any size.
>If you don't, you need more.
>
>> 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.
>
>What's that got to do with your argument? Are you trying to
>talk sour grapes sweet?
>
>-Wolfgang

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.

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

yodasbud@mnsi.net <yodasbud@mnsi.net> wrote:

> Nope, I'm just saying that for what I do, the D3000 is good.

Then why don't you say so, instead of saying THEY SAID and
THEY ARE SAYING, ridiculing them?

> if I did, I'd print what I get from the D3000, upsample, and have big
> pix with good resolution anyway.

Try it some time, and see how detail poor your image will be.

-Wolfgang

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

On Sat, 25 Sep 2010 04:11:46 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
<ozcvgtt02@sneakemail.com> wrote:

>yodasbud@mnsi.net <yodasbud@mnsi.net> wrote:
>
>> Nope, I'm just saying that for what I do, the D3000 is good.
>
>Then why don't you say so, instead of saying THEY SAID and
>THEY ARE SAYING, ridiculing them?
>
>> if I did, I'd print what I get from the D3000, upsample, and have big
>> pix with good resolution anyway.
>
>Try it some time, and see how detail poor your image will be.
>
>-Wolfgang

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?

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

<yodasbud@mnsi.net> wrote in message
news:2hps965jmse2vgahpk15i3afhskoqf5n76@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 25 Sep 2010 04:11:46 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
> <ozcvgtt02@sneakemail.com> wrote:
>
>>yodasbud@mnsi.net <yodasbud@mnsi.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Nope, I'm just saying that for what I do, the D3000 is good.
>>
>>Then why don't you say so, instead of saying THEY SAID and
>>THEY ARE SAYING, ridiculing them?
>>
>>> if I did, I'd print what I get from the D3000, upsample, and have big
>>> pix with good resolution anyway.
>>
>>Try it some time, and see how detail poor your image will be.
>>
>>-Wolfgang
>
> 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?


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

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

yodasbud@mnsi.net <yodasbud@mnsi.net> wrote:
> On Sat, 25 Sep 2010 04:11:46 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
>>yodasbud@mnsi.net <yodasbud@mnsi.net> wrote:

>>> if I did, I'd print what I get from the D3000, upsample, and have big
>>> pix with good resolution anyway.

>>Try it some time, and see how detail poor your image will be.

> 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?

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