[anoobis]

Have you solved this yet? Gut feeling says you'll have to send it to a Nikon service center for repair.... You could also post over at dpreview to see if anyone has a DIY fix.

Thanks for the reply. I was looking to buy and the seller was claiming an easy fix but I wasn't entirely convinced. I managed to contact three places, two of which said they'd have to see it and the third guesstimated £200! I had a hunch that it could be expensive despite being a very low-cost part. So, while I don't know definitively, I was sufficiently put off to leave it.

Even if there were a (non-inconvenient) DIY workaround I assume the weather sealing would then be ruined, so again didn't seem worth it.

 

[anoobis]

I went 9 months without an SLR, and the moment I stuck my eye into the viewfinder, it was like settling into your favorite chair after weeks on the road. I missed the advantages of SLR - how easy it is to specifically determine depth of field; aperture, off-angle focus, and so on. After almost a year of cell phone picture taking, I forgot the comfort of having a camera that I didn't need to fiddle with to get what I wanted from it.

I think photography is an art that has been oversimplified and under-appreciated these days. It's better to learn how a camera can accommodate to your needs in the moment, versus using post-production software as a crutch to "fix" what should not have been a mistake in the first place.

I know exactly what you mean about using an SLR. I really only dabble with photography, expertise is low although I have a reasonable grasp of the technicalities. So, on a couple of occasions, I've tried alternatives, such as bridge cameras or compacts. After all, it's a pain lugging around the (relatively expensive) kit. Every time, I've found the non-SLR to be fiddly and a pain to use. EVF, no thanks, horrendous (some time ago, admittedly). No viewfinder at all? What? Also going back some way, the IQ lower than the DSLR despite higher specs.

I'm sure all the alternatives have improved but they've also increased in price to the level that I may as well stick with the system I have!

 

[anoobis]

I wouldn't worry about that test scene. The D7000 is plenty sharp. What happens is the RAW files look softer than the out-of-camera JPEGs. If you go to the resolution test on the prior page you will see what I'm talking about. The JPEGs appear sharper because the solids are brighter, but the resolution is diminished vs RAW. In the RAW image, the edges are sharper and the resolving power is higher. This softness is the effect of how Lightroom/Photoshop process Nikon RAW files in their default settings.

If you are concerned about your particular camera, set up your own test scene and shoot that. I like to shoot books in a book case, with camera on a tripod, and your lens in it's sharpest aperature (typically f/4 to f/8), and take shots with increasing ISO to see sharpness and noise effects on the color as ISO increases. If the book title font edges are sharp and the colors are good, I'd say your sensor is in good shape. The D7000 sensor should be decently clean up to ISO 1600 in practical shooting and ISO 3200 pushed.

Aside from all that, I was in a gallery that specialized landscape photography of the dessert southwest. I saw 24" x 36" color prints taken with a the D7000 that were simply stunning. Helped me stop craving an upgrade to my D7100. If there is an aspect to the D7000 that needs workaround it would be the metering system, and this is not that difficult to do with exposure compensation. In my experience, the metering issues only slightly improved in the D7100 and D7200. What sets the D7100/7200 apart from the D7000 is a higher-res 24mpixel sensor and a much better auto focus system so you could better shoot birds-in-flight and sports. Nikon didn't drop it's good metering system into this line until the D7500 (and the D500 has the latest pro level auto focus).

Oh, I don't think I doubted the general quality but I did doubt some of the tests and comparisons. I think there's perhaps some hyperbola in the reviews/comments versus the data (images). But of course, getting good data seems to be an issue and the differences may not manifest under all circumstances.

Long story short, I think what I really want is a model that has both the ISO and AF advantages. That's not on the cards for now, so I'm probably sticking with the advantages of the D300 over the D7000. I suspect there could be an issue with the particular D7000 I received but have no way to verify and it's not worth the fuss. The D300 is cheaper and the saving can be put towards the next purchase further down the line, which will be a worthwhile improvement over both cameras.

I'll still learn a lot from the D300 and it's still a significant improvement from where I'm at. I would prefer more pixels for cropping but don't think the difference between 12MP and 16MP is that significant in practice; it's diminishing returns as the count goes up with each generation. I also got the impression that getting the best out of the D7000/16MP requires more skill/effort!

 

[ZMG885]

Oh, I don't think I doubted the general quality but I did doubt some of the tests and comparisons. I think there's perhaps some hyperbola in the reviews/comments versus the data (images). But of course, getting good data seems to be an issue and the differences may not manifest under all circumstances.

Long story short, I think what I really want is a model that has both the ISO and AF advantages. That's not on the cards for now, so I'm probably sticking with the advantages of the D300 over the D7000. I suspect there could be an issue with the particular D7000 I received but have no way to verify and it's not worth the fuss. The D300 is cheaper and the saving can be put towards the next purchase further down the line, which will be a worthwhile improvement over both cameras.

I'll still learn a lot from the D300 and it's still a significant improvement from where I'm at. I would prefer more pixels for cropping but don't think the difference between 12MP and 16MP is that significant in practice; it's diminishing returns as the count goes up with each generation. I also got the impression that getting the best out of the D7000/16MP requires more skill/effort!

OK. I get more of where your coming from. I can say the weak spot of the D300 is ISO and lower dynamic range compared to the newer 16mp sensor in the D7000. What the D300 brings is slightly faster shutter and pro-level AF, and along with pro-level controls and body. This is what kept most D300 users from upgrading until the D500 arrived. If you want and need pro-level controls, and dislike the consumer controls (many pros do), then the only upgrade option from here is a D500 or D8X0 and they are holding their prices. If you want better image quality, the the prosumer line got the love from Nikon until the D500. BTW, If you get a D300, make sure it's the D300s as Nikon fixed and adjusted issues in the first gen D300.

That said, you may want to look at a used D7100, for not much more than a used D300s on ebay. Sensor performance is dramatically better in every respect and Nikon put a pro-level AF in the camera that is a gen above the D300s. You get a pro-sports/bird-in-flight level AF, good low light AF and a 24mp sensor w/o an alias filter good for landscape. It has consumer controls vs the pro-style controls over D300s, yet many like the U1 & U2 custom settings as they can control the entire camera and stay permanent unless changed, unlike the menu banks on the pro cameras. The jump from the D7000 to the D7100 was dramatic in all aspects. The jump from the D7100 to the D7200, 7500 are more incremental, albeit significant. FYI.

 

[anoobis]

Thanks for all the extra information and advice. I'll keep looking!

I was concerned that the higher MP count may mean that the camera couldn't really be used in a 'casual' way, i.e. needing better lenses, rock solid technique, but given even the entry level sports 24MP I'm guessing this isn't the case.

 

[ZMG885]

Thanks for all the extra information and advice. I'll keep looking!

I was concerned that the higher MP count may mean that the camera couldn't really be used in a 'casual' way, i.e. needing better lenses, rock solid technique, but given even the entry level sports 24MP I'm guessing this isn't the case.

The 24mp can illuminate lens flaws, and when the D7100 came out along with the D800's 36mp there was a lot of talk about better lenses, better technique, and so on. That all died down after a while once folks got used to shooting these cameras. One feature I find very useful that appeared on the D7100 and up is Auto ISO. This allows you to allow the camera to adjust ISO as needed AND set a minimum shutter speed. For hand-held shots in low light, I would set the min. shutter at 1/125 or 1/250 and max ISO at 3200 or 6400 (on aperture priority). This eliminated motion blur on most shots. The improved dynamic range of the sensor allows for this. ISO 6400 is pushing the envelope. I also shot just fine with my older lenses. On of my favorites was a nikkor 50mm f/1.4 D, and yes, zoomed in 100% you could see all kinds of flaws, yet the color rendition and bokeh were outstanding. That said, Nikon has been updating their entry level lenses to increase sharpness since their using the 24mp sensor in their whole APC camera line from entry to prosumer, so lots of inexpensive options.

 

[aerospace33]

It is still true that the 36mp sensor on the D800 will expose flaws, but lenses today are so good that most of the available lenses are plenty sharp for the majority of photographers. The nikkor 50mm f/1.4D is fantastic for the money on any compatible Nikon.

 

[Playstation]

I own a Nikon coolpix 3700 that I have never used

 

[Shaggy8675]

Hey fellow photograpers.
Just going to hike along. Long time Nikon user. Just sold my old workhorse D700, but still have the D750's. Of course with Nikkor glass.

 

[RestlessZombi]

Nikon D810 and D800
Nikon 24 - 70 2.8
Nikon 85 1.8
Nikon 50 1.4
Nikon 180 2.8

My Nikon kit, though various other Lens and Flashes but they aren't Nikon soo.. i wont put them here..

 

[tumpux]

Just sold my old workhorse D700.

W h y . . .

 

[PatekBruguetMogul]

 

[hyogen]

I made it on this top oregon wedding photographer hotlist!! 3 years ago I was spending probably 20+ hours a week on head-fi :O

http://junebugweddings.com/best-wedding-photographers/Portland-photography/

www.justinleewedding.com

here I am 4 years later just getting rid of my nikon bodies and switching to mirrorless Canon Honestly, I wasted so much time correcting skin tones and dealing with WB using Nikon (sony sensor). I shot RAW and constant kelvin too. I have seen the light and will choose Canon color science above all else. I just shut down my website for now as I have stopped doing weddings, but here's my instagram: www.instagram.com/justinleeportland if you want to see my work for the last 6 years :O

 

[Stevko]

Not used my Nikon gear for a while.
Not since jan 20(exept christmas evening 21)Too heavy/big.
Mostly use my iphone. But the pics is grainy and not so good in low light.
Considering to buy som lighter gear from nikon.
The new nikon Z fs looks great.
Maybe this is what i need for coming back in track

 

[Tom239]

I am impressed with the build quality of manual focus Nikkor lenses from the '60s and '70s. The ones I have are still a pleasure to use. I had occasion to take one apart and came across the bearing shown in this pic which was part of the aperture ring mechanism. I don't know how the bearing was assembled; the tiny balls (about 100 of them) cannot come out.