Take your photography to the next level and beyond...

  • NEWS
  • REVIEWS
  • INSPIRATION
  • COMMUNITY
  • COMPETITIONS

Why not join for free today?

Join for Free

Your total photography experience starts here


PRIZES GALORE! Enter The ePHOTOzine Exclusive Christmas Prize Draw; Over £10,000 Worth of Prizes! Plus A Gift For Everybody On Christmas Day!

Should I upgrade to a D7000?


Sylar 6 95 England
29 Jan 2011 9:36AM
I upgradde from my Nikon d300 to the Nikon d7000. However, I am not pleased that it cannot do wireless flash control, like my D300 could do.

Also there is no socket for my Hanlnel wireless remote control.

I AM NOT IMPRESSED!

I have a Nikon SB600 and a SB900 flash. Can I use the SB900 in commander mode, but would I have to put it on my d7000, and this would make it award.

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

discreetphoton e2
10 3.5k 20 United Kingdom
29 Jan 2011 9:52AM
Not much of an upgrade then?
snapbandit 10 2.2k 3 Northern Ireland
29 Jan 2011 10:05AM

Quote:I upgradde from my Nikon d300 to the Nikon d7000. However, I am not pleased that it cannot do wireless flash control, like my D300 could do.

Also there is no socket for my Hanlnel wireless remote control.

I AM NOT IMPRESSED!

I have a Nikon SB600 and a SB900 flash. Can I use the SB900 in commander mode, but would I have to put it on my d7000, and this would make it award.



According to Nikon (& many other 'online resources') the D7000 can be used in commander mode with the built in flash
"Popup flash commander mode is covered on p 225 of the D7000 manual"

HTH
MeanGreeny e2
9 3.7k England
29 Jan 2011 10:15AM

Quote:I upgradde from my Nikon d300 to the Nikon d7000. However, I am not pleased that it cannot do wireless flash control, like my D300 could do.

Also there is no socket for my Hanlnel wireless remote control.

I AM NOT IMPRESSED!

I have a Nikon SB600 and a SB900 flash. Can I use the SB900 in commander mode, but would I have to put it on my d7000, and this would make it award.



Buying a camera that doesn't have the features you want isn't the cameras fault - or the manufacturers.
csurry
12 9.2k 92
29 Jan 2011 10:22AM

Quote:how bad the noise was @ ISO1600 when you badly underexpose then correct


Which would apply to just about every camera on the market - I have always said that Nikons do not respond well to deliberate underexposure and then correcting it in software. Most high noise with modern cameras at less than the stated ISO maximum usable is caused by user error.
User_Removed 5 4.6k 1 Scotland
29 Jan 2011 11:00AM

Quote:I upgraded from my Nikon d300 to the Nikon d7000. However, I am not pleased that it cannot do wireless flash control, like my D300 could do.

Also there is no socket for my Hanlnel wireless remote control.

I AM NOT IMPRESSED!



As I said on this other thread , D300 to D7000 is a downgrade in terms of a consumer/professional scale although a move to a more recent model.
filmforever 7 695
31 Jan 2011 11:53PM
Dare I suggest you're pouring money down a bottomless pit?....In a few years time you'll be dissatisfied with your D7000, because Nikon have launched at least three new "improved" models in the meantime....
The best technology in the world is free, everybody's got one, it's called a brain.
That's why I use a Nikon FM2n film camera....superbly made, costing just 199 secondhand, it'll outlive me, and will never need an upgrade, I can stop worrying about pixels and just get on with the job of taking pictures that will enlarge to any size I need.
strawman e2
11 22.0k 16 United Kingdom
1 Feb 2011 12:06AM

Quote:Dare I suggest you're pouring money down a bottomless pit?

Quote:That's why I use a Nikon FM2n film camera....superbly made, costing just 199 second hand
LOL and is film and processing free these days its horse for courses. How many films can you get developed and processed for the cost difference? And of course Nikon never did get the AF to work on the FM2 did they. Does other stuff like Vr work??

Sorry had to laugh. Its a choice and if you want you can stop off at any point of the development cycle, you could stick with a particular camera and not follow the rush to a new camera at any stage, it could be film or digital. and in terms of picture size I think the D7000 is fine and comparable to the FM2, and if its negative film you use then the D70 will give it a run for money. Just seen a fantastic print from a D70 at the wildlife photographer of the year exhibition.

Lets face it, photography is a hobby, you can pour lots of money down the drain in various aspects, it could be film, or it could be cameras etc. Or you could enjoy it and spend what you want. The user decides.

As to the OP, if you have the money go for it. If not then your existing camera is fine as long as it keeps on working. Goes for a D70, FM2 etc. The cameras will always evolve till they are a dropped product. There is no need to buy every evolution step, unless you want to. Me I tend to replace my camera every 5 years or so. It is also nice to have a couple of cameras, a nice old film range finder has its good days and makes a good contrast to SLR.
filmforever 7 695
1 Feb 2011 12:29AM
Think we had this conversation before!....As for the cost of film processing, I do my own (except for tranny)....As you say, we have a choice, although I didn't, until I left the editorial scene some years back....I rediscovered my enthusiasm for photography by going back to basics....film cameras and mainly black & white. Never did quite get to grips with the fact that my two digi top of the range Nikons, costing 3,500 each, were now worth barely 200 apiece....while my old Nikon F, purchased in 1979 s/h, has tripled in value!
Furthermore, my "F"'s didn't pack up in the rain either!
strawman e2
11 22.0k 16 United Kingdom
1 Feb 2011 12:44AM
Yes I think its a choice, we spend money one way or another. With pro cameras do you not count them against the work you do, I guess it is because I view cameras like any other tool. If its for pro use then you depreciate them against work you do, just like you would say a van. And if its a hobby, well did you enjoy it. And technology always has its bleeding edge where you get a lot more for a lot less a few years later. I am afraid buying your pro cameras was the bleeding edge, just like early computers and early plasma TV's etc.

Me I buy at a lower level and expect it to run for 5 years, then trade up and its a cost I can bear. So for me I know going digital allowed me to do a lot more for less than doing it with film. And the cost model has changed, just won a local camera club competition with an image taken on a 50 digital camera.

you must be kinder to your mechanical cameras, I had a couple die in the outside. My SRT100 required some expensive TLC to bring back to life.
filmforever 7 695
1 Feb 2011 1:25AM
I don't know about being "kinder" to my cameras.....my FM2's (with Motordrive attached) survived confrontations during the Brixton riots, and the business end of a copper's truncheon at disturbances in Tottenham.
A couple of times my old Nikon D1x packed up in the rain.....a colleague who was dispatched to the Asian psunami 10 years ago had both his (then new) D1h's fail in Sri Lanka...a mixture of heavy rain and humidity.
At the opposite end of the scale....colleagues who covered the Gulf War reported digis packing up in desert sandstorms, even one case of smouldering electronics in the extreme desert heat!
Years ago, I had an SRT101....great lenses those old Minoltas!
You winning that competition is proof that it's not the camera that counts, but the person behind it.
strawman e2
11 22.0k 16 United Kingdom
1 Feb 2011 1:28AM
Well if its a comfort I am now bidding on an OM1, I always meant to get one. So who knows.. Smile

take care and good night. yes I did enjoy that Minolta and there was something satisfying about the mechanical shutter clunking away and the lovely focusing ring action.
filmforever 7 695
1 Feb 2011 10:42AM
I'd be interested to hear if you find any battery issues with your OM1 when you get it. My understanding is that the mercury batteries they originally used were a different voltage to the silver oxide ones that currently fit (I think 1.3v as opposed to 1.5v) leading to inaccurate meter readings.
User_Removed 5 4.6k 1 Scotland
1 Feb 2011 11:11AM
Of course, the cynical view is that camera manufacturers (in common with manufacturers of all technology consumer products) will try to sell us their latest model. Meanwhile their backroom boys are working on the next development.

That way, once everyone who is going to buy Model X has done so, they can announce the latest enhancement that we didn't know we needed and try to persuade us that we do need it. That way they can generate sales of Model Y.

In 1960 I did not know that I needed colour film.
In 1965 I did not know that I needed an exposure meter.
In 1970 I did not know that I needed a built-in exposure meter.
In 1975 I did not know that I needed AE.
In 1980 I did not know that I needed motor drive
In 1985 I did not know that I needed AF
In 1990 I did not know that I needed a digital camera

...and here's a photo of me taken in 1947 without any of the above-mentioned "needs".

1-eric.jpg




Smile Tongue Wink


(and, believe me, I looked a helluva lot better then than I do now!! )
thewilliam 6 4.9k
1 Feb 2011 11:22AM
Why can't people realise that if they want to take great pictures, they need to buy the very best and latest camera?

Then we wouldn't have any posts asking about upgrading. People would just get on and do it!

Sign In

You must be a member to leave a comment.

ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.

Join For Free

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.