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

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.

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

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.

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

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?

wrote in message
...
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

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