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

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

  1. Bruce

    Bruce Guest

    Bruce, Sep 15, 2010
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Bruce

    Bruce Guest

    bobwilliams <> 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!
    Bruce, Sep 15, 2010
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. bobwilliams <> 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
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Sep 15, 2010
    #3
  4. Bruce

    Guest

    On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 00:39:41 -0700, bobwilliams <>
    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.
    , Sep 20, 2010
    #4
  5. <> 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
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Sep 20, 2010
    #5
  6. Bruce

    Guest

    On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 22:33:44 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
    <> wrote:

    > <> 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.
    , Sep 23, 2010
    #6
  7. <> 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
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Sep 25, 2010
    #7
  8. Bruce

    Guest

    On Sat, 25 Sep 2010 04:11:46 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
    <> wrote:

    > <> 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?
    , Sep 25, 2010
    #8
  9. Bruce

    Peter Guest

    <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Sat, 25 Sep 2010 04:11:46 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> <> 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
    Peter, Sep 25, 2010
    #9
  10. <> wrote:
    > On Sat, 25 Sep 2010 04:11:46 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
    >> <> 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
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Sep 27, 2010
    #10
    1. Advertising

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

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Death from Above

    T3stk!ng is dead, long live T3stk!ng

    Death from Above, May 10, 2007, in forum: MCSE
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    411
    Consultant
    May 10, 2007
  2. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    The Kin Is Dead. Long Live The ...

    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Jul 3, 2010, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    319
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro
    Jul 3, 2010
  3. PeterN
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    220
    PeterN
    Nov 13, 2012
  4. tony cooper

    Re: [SI] The Committee is dead, long live the Committee

    tony cooper, Nov 13, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    201
    tony cooper
    Nov 13, 2012
  5. otter
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    220
    otter
    Nov 14, 2012
Loading...

Share This Page