2 of 2 people found this review helpful
1 October, 2014
Purchased at BB during BFD last year. Killer deal. It replaced a D90 which replaced a D80. D80 was a very good camera but got noisy quickly when the scene got dim. The D90 cleaned a lot of it up. After the birth of my first kid, I found the D90 struggled with indoor pics at night and dawn. So, happily, this gave me reason to upgrade again.
I chose between D7000 and D7100. From reviews, I couldn't really tell the difference between these two cameras' test shots found online. And, I didn't need the 24 megapixels. 16 is more than enough for me. Plus, D7000's layout is more ergonomically familiar to me since I am coming from a D90. So, I chose the D7000 over the D7100. It was icing on the top when I found it on sale during BFD. Pretty much got the camera for free since the price I paid for it was the same as the kit lens' msrp.
I do "struggle" with whether I want to upgrade to full frame such as D610 or the new D750. However, I think I am sticking the DX a bit longer and perhaps wait for the new D9300 to come out before upgrading again. DX is great because the lenses are so much cheaper. And, the benefits FX has over DX is quickly diminishing as sensor technology is improving at lightening speed during these past few years. I would love to get rid of the 1.5x crop factor, but I don't want to at the cost of buying much more expensive glass at the full frame end which are bigger and heavier to carry.
My 17-55mm f2.8 is on the D7000 most of the time. And, it produces beautiful pictures with the flexibility for both wide and midrange angles. If I wanted to go wider with FX, I have to spend a lot of money on a 17-35mm which is a god awful heavy and expensive lens with less tele than the 17-55mm. Or, I can go with the 16-35mm which is cheaper but is f4 rather than f2.8 constant. I could get the 24-70mm but that is exactly the same effective range as the 17-55mm. So, because of lens cost, function and weight of the full frames, I think it's smarter to stay with DX for now.
Oh, the D7000 takes fantastic indoor night pics hand held with the 17-55 f2.8.
Some notes. I configure the function button to activate RAW shooting mode. So, with one press of the function button, your very next exposure will record in both jpeg and raw format. This allows me to do a lot of test shots to frame and adjust parameters before recording in raw format to save on SD card space. This helps my workflow as I hate having to open up numerous RAW files while editing.
Also, I thought I'd like the second SD slot a lot but I don't use the second slot at all. At first, I thought I could configure the camera so the second slot will save only RAW files while the first slot saves all the JPEG files. But, I couldn't do so. For me, this defeats the purpose of having a second card slot. I don't take enough exposures in a day or even a week to fill up a 32gb card, so the second slot is useless to me.
Conclusion: I think this camera is the sweet spot in terms of price, performance and functionality. It does pretty much what all of the more expensive Nikon models does (at least the things that I care about) but at a fraction of the price.
For manufacturer: I am minimalistic and prefer my cameras not too have too many bells and whistles and don't want a fold out LCD screen. I think those are ugly and cheap looking. So, to me, the D7000 is ahead of the game because it doesn't have a lot of features I don't cluttering the menu and body. I was tempted to get the Fuji XT1 because of its minimalistic body but plethora of useful dials. But, I don't like their Xtrans sensor. I guess I am an odd ball who doesn't prefer a sensor that produces an over massaged image.
And, let the user configure what type of files is stored on which SD card slot. The default choices are not ideal at least not for me.