So he posted his review of his own D7000 that he received late Friday.

http://kenrockwell.com/nikon/d7000.htm

Reading it now...

---
Regards,
Chris Sgaraglino
Outdoor Studios Photography || on Flickr || on Google+

I really do enjoy Ken's reports of the various Nikon cameras and lenses.

He tends to say things that are clear, relevant and to the point. No mucking around with extraneous details.

It was him that pointed out that the way a lens focusses can have a huge impact on your picture taking and I agree. I had that trouble with an old Tokina 200mm lens and I was forever fluffing around refoccusing. I dind't like it and all and got rid of it in the end.

And I liked his take on the D7000. Good stuff!!

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

I agree - I actually learned several things about the camera from reading his review.

Best regards, SteveK

'A camera is an instrument that teaches people how to see without a camera.' -- Dorothea Lange
My Nikonians gallery
My Nikonians Blog

I love his reviews, and was glad to see he had updated his D7000 page.

Do the guy a favor and send him $5. I did, he was nice enough to respond. That's the least we could do for such great reviews.

Chris thanks for the link. I always like his reviews and think they are right on.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

I was on the fence about this camera, but after I read his review, I will be picking one up tomorrow. The shop I deal with has 3 kits and was willing to split one up, but I have found out my son and his girlfriend want my old D80, so I am buying the kit and giving the lens to them with the D80.

Keith

I saw the review, and I like what he said. I like to look at Ken's reviews, as he tends to look at items from a practical point of view. I am comparing the the D7000 features with my needs, and may consider getting one.

Matthew

Interesting. Ken went six for six so far. He rarely does that well on these forums. While I don't take KR for gospel I tend to put a lot of stock in what he says because he is so straight forward and tells it like it really is. According to him (and even some of his harsher critics) he has no axe to grind since he gets no freebies and no consideration from Nikon, Canon or anyone else, save a local camera store that loans him stuff (and from whom he doesn't buy anything.)

The D7000 appears to really be world beater if all the reviewers are to be believed. I'll wait to pull any strings until I've read more. Frankly, I knee-jerked on the 28-300 and regret it.

Don

Been reading KR for two years now and uses his pages as references before I by anything especially lens. I must say I never read any review like this, man he really loves that camera. I'll pass on the D7000 and keep my D90, there is so much you can do with a Non Full Frame camera, most of us would never use those features, imagine what the D800 has in store. Thanks ken

http://images.nikonians.org/galleries/showgallery.php/cat/500/ppuser/353775":My Gallery

http://500px.com/aribitar

“If god does not exist, it would be necessary to invent him.”

The D7000 is not a full frame (FX) camera. It is, as I read it, a pro-sumer DX camera. But the D90 is a great camera capable of great pictures. I think a lot of amateurs tend to buy beyond there capability (or need) and don't use the features.

Keep cranking out the great photos with the D90... still a fabulous camera.

Don

I have been an amateur all my life and I guess I would continue to be, it's only now that cameras went digital that it's created two classes of users, APS-C and Full Frame. I have always used film so I guess I stepped down in the digital age. All in all I can make a great 30X40 blowup from an 11X17 300 DPI file, just drop your resolution in half(150) as you blow it up in photoshop. The reverse is even more amazing, if you reduce an 11X17 300 dpi file by half giving you 5.5X8.5 you now have a whopping 600dpi and an extremely sharp photo. It's all in photoshop pal, all in photoshop.

http://images.nikonians.org/galleries/showgallery.php/cat/500/ppuser/353775":My Gallery

http://500px.com/aribitar

“If god does not exist, it would be necessary to invent him.”

Ken Rockwell's User guide for the D7000 has saved me. I bought the camera, not realizing how complex its use is, but am very happy with it now. To begin, I am using KR's settings.

>Ken Rockwell's User guide for the D7000 has saved me. I
>bought the camera, not realizing how complex its use is, but
>am very happy with it now. To begin, I am using KR's
>settings.

Hi Cinnaro and welcome to Nikonians. You will find tons of answers to your questions here. The D7000 does take some getting use to but it is an amazing camera. It is well worth the learning curve.

John

My Pictures may be seen here: http://jmiguez.smugmug.com/

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Thank you, John. I find this site most interesting, as well as this forum.
Corinna

>it's created two classes of users, APS-C and Full Frame.

I know of pros who use DX. For example Bob Krist uses a D90 most of the time and publishes in National Geographic Traveler and Smithsonian. DX and FX have created two groups of users, not two classes of users. The DX and FX are different tools for different jobs.

Peter

>
>>it's created two classes of users, APS-C and Full Frame.
>
>I know of pros who use DX. For example Bob Krist uses a D90
>most of the time and publishes in National Geographic Traveler
>and Smithsonian. DX and FX have created two groups of users,
>not two classes of users. The DX and FX are different tools
>for different jobs.
>
>Peter

Well said. A number of pros made their living on the Nikon D2 and D2x, some saying Nikon would never copy Canon and go with FX.

As always, almost any camera becomes a "pro" camera when a pro picks it up and starts shooting...

www.billkeane.zenfolio.com

>As always, almost any camera becomes a "pro" camera
>when a pro picks it up and starts shooting...

Some interesting work is appearing these days by use of an Apple iPhone camera.

Peter

PS: I see this thread started in November 2010!

>...some saying Nikon would never copy Canon and go with FX...

I thought Nikon said this. They said DX would be their digital format, until the market pushed them to change their mind and go to FX, as I understand it. (Just like Henry Ford said you can have any color car you want, as long as it's black).

Randy

When Nikon said they were committed to crop sensors, the state of the art was at that point. The first few FX digitals offered by competitors were not great by any means. Nikon wisely waited for technology to make a FX that was fully realized, the first one by anyone;D3. It was well received and claimed top ranking....until topped in res and DR by the D3x and then D3s which took low light performance to extreme levels. Now, all the manufacturers are chasing Nikon and are anxious--worried about the D4. They should be.
Considering how Nikon emptied the feature shelves in creating the D7000, we should expects some unexpectedly spectacular features and performance from the D4 which should be announced in the last week of August. We all assume more of the conventional trends in low noise and higher pixel counts but few people guessed the extensiveness of features poured into the low priced D7000. With $4000 more to play with, guessing will be even less accurate with the D4.
I still hear Canon shooters deriding Nikon for being late to deliver FX but they are missing the point, they still do not have a camera that can beat aging Nikon designs. Just compare the banding and ugly noise signature of the 5DII and their top DX, 7D, to even a D5100. I shoot along side pros using both of those and they envy the high in focus rate and lack of noise that my little D90 has in dark difficult situations. The D7000 now is in another league.
So, to say that Nikon was tardy should actually be expressed as Canon was premature and the owners are still dealing with trends established before the technology was available. In hindsight, Nikon was the one to get it right. If one is to be stuck in a brand system, which would you really rather be tied to?
Stan
St Petersburg Russia

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Since Nikon is using the Sony backside illuminated CMOS sensor/imager in the latest cameras, it seems the performance, at least at the sensor, will be dictated by Sony.

I wonder if Sony will sell their best CMOS imager technology to Nikon since they compete in the same high end market.

> For example Bob Krist uses a D90
>most of the time and publishes in National Geographic Traveler
>and Smithsonian.

Nope, he uses a D7k ... replaced his D90's
http://www.pixiq.com/contributors/21

\rant{on}
It is funny how all the big-name pros preach "equipment does not matter" and "instead of spending on new gear, improve your skills, take a workshop or two". Yet somehow they always shoot with the latest and greatest. Don't get me wrong, equipment cannot turn a crappy image into a compelling one, and the right kind of instruction can make a lot of difference. However, if the pros truly believe what they are preaching then they should put their money where their mouth is and shoot with a D1 for a year.
\rant{off}

Back to the original topic. Ken Rockwell has many opinions, few of them well substantiated. Like the 16-35 being sharper than the 14-24? Many suspect that he tosses these out there merely to drive traffic to his website. Usually the mere mention of his name on these forums spews out dozens of hate messages. I am surprised how many people expressed positive opinions of him here. Then again, everyone is entitled to their opinion, including me

Having said that, if you want a well thought-out review of the D7000 you will do much better here
http://bythom.com/nikond7000review.htm

And if you want a useful in-depth description of the camera that covers both beginner and advanced topics, one of the better choices is here
http://bythom.com/nikond7000guide.htm

No, I am not affiliated with Thom Hogan in any way. In fact, at times I find him too full of himself. But you cannot deny that what he writes is usually well balanced and substantiated.

In past (and current) Nikons which use a Sony-based sensor, the Nikon has generally exceeded the performance of the same basic sensor in a Sony camera. Nikon's engineers and designers seem to know a thing or two about maximising image quality

Brian
Welsh Nikonian
Check out the Nikonians Team pages

Of course they will sell their best, Nikon makes them more money than Sony DSLRs make for Sony.
Besides, the sensor chip is a single component in a complex array of techologies that makes up what people call "sensor". Sony has used similar sensors in several models that Nikon used in a dozen models. Can you name one Sony camera which outperformed Nikon models sharing the same silicon die?...D3x versus a900, one a so-so image capture device and the other the unmatched leader in res, DR etc, just as an example.
Any Sony using the 12mpx die that the D90 and D300s work as good in image quality and noise? No.
Another thing to consider is the common confusion between a Sony product and a Sony fab plant product. Sony Semiconductor produces silicon chips as a foundry for hundreds of companies in various fields, most not in consumer electronics and those industries seem to know the difference between the designer and the manufacturer of a finished chip. Sony Semiconductor is an entirely separate entity from Sony Camera. Sony Camera is but another customer for Sony Semiconductor's silicon fabrications. Nikon is an important customer, probably buying a lot more expensive chips from Sony Semiconductor than Sony Camera does.
We do not know how much Nikon designers were involved in the design phase of the chips but we sure know the results of whatever they DID do.
Stan
St Petersburg Russia

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

>> For example Bob Krist uses a D90
>>most of the time and publishes in National Geographic
>Traveler
>>and Smithsonian.
>
>Nope, he uses a D7k ... replaced his D90's
>http://www.pixiq.com/contributors/21
>
>\rant{on}
>It is funny how all the big-name pros preach "equipment
>does not matter" and "instead of spending on new
>gear, improve your skills, take a workshop or two". Yet
>somehow they always shoot with the latest and greatest. Don't
>get me wrong, equipment cannot turn a crappy image into a
>compelling one, and the right kind of instruction can make a
>lot of difference. However, if the pros truly believe what
>they are preaching then they should put their money where
>their mouth is and shoot with a D1 for a year.
>\rant{off}

They did, that is how they got the money to invest in nice glass and new bodies. Unless in extremes, such as very low light, very wet conditions, or very fast sequences who can tell a photo from a top line pro camera and a D90 low cost consumer camera? In normal conditions, of normal subjects there really is such small differences that to detect any difference better or worse, would require careful side by side pixel level comparisons, even then, it would mostly be subjective preferences if anything was detected.
The main criteria a pro requires from equipment...in any field from mechanics, movie making, woodworking, gardening, sound recording, photography, is the 3 Rs repeat-ability, reliability and repair-ability.
None of those things are required for excellent results but they are preferences by people who have to depend on their equipment to be functional and predictable. In recording, the field that I was classified as a "pro", I never expected my Studer A820 or D820 $80,000-$150,000 tape decks to sound better than a consumer unit, that is not why the investment was made, it was the 3Rs. If restricted to a consumer deck, I doubt any album I did would have not sold just as well. The reason the albums sounded good and production values were high, had nothing to do with the specs of the equipment. A wannabe home recordist assumed it was the gear and would focus their questions on gear, while missing the whole point, it is not the gear, it is skill, talent, experience, passion and inventiveness.
If I gave my D7000 or D90 to a pro who regularly got noteworthy significant images for clients, I have no doubt he would produce images I would never be able to, regardless of the equipment budget.
Stan
St Petersburg Russia

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

GroovyGeek, you turned the rant on but didn't turn it off. does that mean we can expect more?

I believe that a comparison between Ken Rockwell and Thom Hogan would be a high school football coach and a college or pro coach. They cater to two differ levels of photographic expertise. I think they write primarily for two difference audiences.

Ken Rockwell writes for the beginner. The individual who has just purchased a brand new DSLR and is now looking for information on how to use it and what else to purchase. Ken's advice which primarily states, use the Auto features and don't rush off to buy expensive tripods and such, you will never use; is in my opinion, right on for a new photographer.

Most vacation type photographers will get better pictures if they just leave the camera in Auto for six months and then go to Program and use compensation features for the next six months. To expect a brand new photographer to understand and use the myriad of features on a modern DSLR is like expecting a 16 year old to learn how to drive in a 6 speed standard high performance sports car.

Thom Hogan, I believe writes primarily for the advance amateur who wants to learn more about his camera and start using some of the advance features. His information is detailed and informative but I believe requires the reader to bring in a certain knowledge base, in order to understand some of the more advanced concepts. While, he does a good job of explaining the basics, some photo basics are still pretty complex for someone who is use to, turning on the camera then pointing and shooting.

John

My Pictures may be seen here: http://jmiguez.smugmug.com/

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

While we're on the subject of camera authors and photography writers, I would encourage everyone to check out our own Darrell Young's book on the D7000, as well as his monthly newsletter for only $1.99. I'm plugging Digital Darrell only for one reason: I seriously enjoy his writing! I find he does a great job of gearing some of his articles to newby's, and others to more seasoned photographers. I think this is a wise approach as it makes his newsletter an important resource for the newby for years to come; as they grow in their skills they'll find other articles that they ignored before quite important now.

In any case, I enjoy Ken Rockwell and Thom Hogan, but I learn the most the fastest by Darrell Young's writing style.

Beemerman2k
2000 BMW R1100RT Motorcycle
Nikon D7000
Nikon D70s w/ SB600
Nikon N70 w/ SB28

Visit
My photo gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

>GroovyGeek, you turned the rant on but didn't turn it off.
>does that mean we can expect more?

Hey, look again, there was a \rant{off} there

I agree that KR and TH write for different audiences, but IMO if you have spent $1k on a D7k to use in auto mode you have more money than brains. If you start in auto mode for the first six months you grow lazy and habits of older folk are difficult to change. And let's not kid ourselves, most of us that hang out here are middle age and above, this is why we have thousands of dollars to drop of a hugely cashflow negative hobby.

I agree 100% with what you said. It is my impression that people who make a living with photography care more about ergonomics than image quality, because they all know that both Canon and Nikon can do the same thing. However, one can debate the point whether replacing a D90 with a D7k significantly increases any of the 3Rs. In fact, I would argue that in the area of ergonomics/handling the D7k is a step down, the thinner grip just does not feel right to me.

I hear you GroovyGeek.

I have owned my D7000 since just before Christmas of 2010, yet I have never taken a single shot in Auto, P, or one of the scene modes. I am quite comfortable relying on Aperture Priority, Shutter Priority, and Manual for my picture taking.

One step I recently took, however, that is sure to be controversial, I no longer use Matrix Metering! I keep it mostly in Center Weighted metering mode, and I have the center circle set to "average out the whole frame". I'm just tired of getting overexposed shots from the Matrix Meter!

There, Center Weighted; problem solved.

Beemerman2k
2000 BMW R1100RT Motorcycle
Nikon D7000
Nikon D70s w/ SB600
Nikon N70 w/ SB28

Visit
My photo gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

>I have never taken a single shot in Auto, P, or one of the
>scene modes.
Scene mode is worth investigating - it is not just "scene" mode
It includes options for natural skin tone in portraits, correct skin tones with vivid clothing colour for children, beach and snow (to avoid possible under exposure), dusk/dawn to preserve weak natural light colour, sunset for deep sunset hues, candlelight (outside Nikon's AWB range), silhouette, low key and high key.
There is something in scene mode for most photographers, and especially for those wanting post process effects without resorting to post processing.
As you have started a new topic on matrix metering I have replied to your matrix comment in this second topic.

Photography is a bit like archery. A technically better camera, lens or arrow may not hit the target as often as it could if the photographer or archer does not practice enough.

Len Shepherd

I love Ken Rockwell. His matter-of-fact-I'm absolutely positive I'm Right-style takes a little getting used to, but I like it. That said, I always take Ken with a grain of salt, like when he says things like (paraphrased) "the photos from my D7000 just 'look' better than from my other cameras" (re: D3S and D700?), or "it just seems to do everything faster than ANY other Nikon I've EVER used". Come on Ken.

I also think it's funny to read reviews of other things on his site, like cars and audio equipment. Hell, I can review a car as well as he can. He also repeats things ad-nauseum.

That said, I think he distills the technical to a level that a hobbiest can understand, and I find most of his advice on using the cameras to be sound. I also read his lens reviews before buying, although sometimes I disagree with his "opinions" on what lens is better for what purpose.

One other thing about Ken. While I like his reviews, and he provides us with tons of information basically for free, I find his actual photography a little disappointing. While there is some good stuff in his web portfolio, there are an awful lot of photos of neon lights and brightly colored walls and objects that look cool on a computer screen, but I could not imagine ever printing, selling, or hanging in my house or office. But then again, some guys play, and some guys coach - and I basically like the way Ken coaches.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Ken's review helped me to decide on the D7000 along with the many comments here on Nikonians. I agree regarding Darrell book. His books are the best when it comes to the D90 and D7000 (the only ones I have used and read). His D7000 Book is the best of several I have read and I return to it often for guidance. Ken Rockwell has a great review for the D7000 and for many other Nikon cameras and lenses. HIs information I value while comparing it to others. Ken's comments helped me to make decisions about what I purchase, since his information helped me to understand the product more. Now I know that the D7000 gives me a "leg up" with its added features and ability to be used in varying weather conditions more then the D90. In no way do I stop using the D90, it is just that the D7000 can provide me more options depending on what I am doing. I still have much to learn regarding both cameras. So thanks Ken and Darrell.

I learned of Darrell through Nikonians once I had purchased the camera and got his D7000 book and concurrently purchased his D90 book. They have become my day to day operation manuals. Darrell is far more succinct and practical then the books written by Simon Stafford, David Busch, J. Dennis Thomas, and Jon Sparks. My order of listing is my ranking of these books.

jdroach, a Milwaukee area and sometimes Chicago area Nikonian.





Visit my Nikonians Blog

Visit my Nikonian gallery

jdroachphotography.com

Ken's reviews are the most frequently ones I like to get some reference before I pick up some gear.

Thanks for your informative post. I guess I was being a bit of a "snob" by giving no consideration to Scene modes. I can think of at least two recent situations where I would have tried them!
If I use one of the scenes, am I correct to assume the mode gets "baked" into the .jpg, but that I can off-set it (turn it off) using NEF in CaptureNX2?
Thank you again.
-scott

The sensor in the D7000 is made by Nikon.

I don't own a D7000. In fact the last DX camera I bought was the D200 years ago, but I did enjoy reading the comments on Ken Rockwell. As has been previously stated usually when you see someone mention him on most forum all you see is pages of vicious rants about how he "reviews stuff he doesn't own" blah blah blah.
My experience is I used to read Ken's webpage back when I owned my D70 in 2004 and I found it useful but eventually I just outgrew him as I improved my photography. It is interesting to go back every once in a while. Like when he was on his Leica phase. He is definitely targeted to newbies.
But, I digress, the point of my post was to say that this may be one of the only photo oriented sites where people stay nice when his name comes up. Like is too shoert for all the hate and discontent and that's why Nikonians is my home on the internet for photography related information.

Tom
D3, D200, D70, F6, F3/T, F2AS, FM2N

"The Gods have two ways of dealing harshly with us. The first is to deny us our dreams. The second is to grant them."
Irish playwright Oscar Wilde


Visit my Nikonians gallery.