If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Are used D7000's holding their value?
On Sat, 16 Feb 2013 18:24:45 -0800 (PST), RichA wrote:
: I remember how long it took for cameras like the D90 and D300 as used : to drop significantly in price. The 7000 (at least in this case) : seems to be going down a lot faster. : : http://www.henrys.com/66850-USED-NIK...--8-Plus-.aspx Full disclosu I'm winging this a bit, without looking up release dates, etc. But my impression is that ... The principal competitor of the D90 (the Canon T1i) never quite measured up. (And didn't have Ashton Kutcher stepping in punchbowls to advertise it on TV.) And the principal competitor of the D300 (the Canon 7D) was a bit late to the party. But the D7000's formidable competition (the T2/3/4i) was right there in its face all along, possibly resulting in fiercer competition on the used market. Bob |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Are used D7000's holding their value?
On 17/02/2013 5:27 p.m., Robert Coe wrote:
On Sat, 16 Feb 2013 18:24:45 -0800 (PST), RichA wrote: : I remember how long it took for cameras like the D90 and D300 as used : to drop significantly in price. The 7000 (at least in this case) : seems to be going down a lot faster. : : http://www.henrys.com/66850-USED-NIK...--8-Plus-.aspx Full disclosu I'm winging this a bit, without looking up release dates, etc. But my impression is that ... The principal competitor of the D90 (the Canon T1i) never quite measured up. (And didn't have Ashton Kutcher stepping in punchbowls to advertise it on TV.) And the principal competitor of the D300 (the Canon 7D) was a bit late to the party. But the D7000's formidable competition (the T2/3/4i) was right there in its face all along, possibly resulting in fiercer competition on the used market. The D7000 still has a remarkable sensor with greater dynamic range than many full-frame cameras at base ISO, the AF system is still current in Nikon's range, and the ergonomics are pretty good. I guess that as a "consumer" model with likely replacement very soon, people may be dumping them. The D5200 seems to demonstrate that 24mp is possible in Dx format, with something to gain over 16mp, and nothing lost (except data storage space). |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Are used D7000's holding their value?
On 17/02/2013 6:17 PM, Me wrote:
On 17/02/2013 5:27 p.m., Robert Coe wrote: On Sat, 16 Feb 2013 18:24:45 -0800 (PST), RichA wrote: : I remember how long it took for cameras like the D90 and D300 as used : to drop significantly in price. The 7000 (at least in this case) : seems to be going down a lot faster. : : http://www.henrys.com/66850-USED-NIK...--8-Plus-.aspx Full disclosu I'm winging this a bit, without looking up release dates, etc. But my impression is that ... The principal competitor of the D90 (the Canon T1i) never quite measured up. (And didn't have Ashton Kutcher stepping in punchbowls to advertise it on TV.) And the principal competitor of the D300 (the Canon 7D) was a bit late to the party. But the D7000's formidable competition (the T2/3/4i) was right there in its face all along, possibly resulting in fiercer competition on the used market. The D7000 still has a remarkable sensor with greater dynamic range than many full-frame cameras at base ISO, the AF system is still current in Nikon's range, and the ergonomics are pretty good. I guess that as a "consumer" model with likely replacement very soon, people may be dumping them. The D5200 seems to demonstrate that 24mp is possible in Dx format, with something to gain over 16mp, and nothing lost (except data storage space). I have a D90 here and was toying buying another DX as a replacement which would have been the D7000. The D90 has been a good camera very reliable takes video Has low mileage. Do I want another DX format camera after using the D800 - no. I rather enjoy what FF has to offer. Nikon has knocked the market about with each successive release being higher pixels and lower pricing. What chance have you got trying to trade a used digital camera. My first digital camera was the D100 6Mp 3 frame buffer, costing about $3000 AUD in 2003. Roll on 2013 and the D800 is under $3500 AUD Just to getting a bit side tracked - tried out a friends D5100 that he bought on special. Small form comfortable in hand, but gee looses a lot of features which I have become accustomed, even compared with the D100 D200 D300 D90. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Are used D7000's holding their value?
On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 20:17:16 +1300, Me wrote:
: On 17/02/2013 5:27 p.m., Robert Coe wrote: : On Sat, 16 Feb 2013 18:24:45 -0800 (PST), RichA wrote: : : I remember how long it took for cameras like the D90 and D300 as used : : to drop significantly in price. The 7000 (at least in this case) : : seems to be going down a lot faster. : : : : http://www.henrys.com/66850-USED-NIK...--8-Plus-.aspx : : Full disclosu I'm winging this a bit, without looking up release dates, : etc. But my impression is that ... : : The principal competitor of the D90 (the Canon T1i) never quite measured up. : (And didn't have Ashton Kutcher stepping in punchbowls to advertise it on TV.) : And the principal competitor of the D300 (the Canon 7D) was a bit late to the : party. But the D7000's formidable competition (the T2/3/4i) was right there : in its face all along, possibly resulting in fiercer competition on the used : market. : : : The D7000 still has a remarkable sensor with greater dynamic range than : many full-frame cameras at base ISO, the AF system is still current in : Nikon's range, and the ergonomics are pretty good. : I guess that as a "consumer" model with likely replacement very soon, : people may be dumping them. : The D5200 seems to demonstrate that 24mp is possible in Dx format, with : something to gain over 16mp, and nothing lost (except data storage space). Two people in my office have the D7000, and both are very happy with it. I don't think the extra 8Mp will get either of them to switch. Bob |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Are used D7000's holding their value?
"Robert Coe" wrote in message news On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 20:17:16 +1300, Me wrote: : The D7000 still has a remarkable sensor with greater dynamic range than : many full-frame cameras at base ISO, the AF system is still current in : Nikon's range, and the ergonomics are pretty good. : I guess that as a "consumer" model with likely replacement very soon, : people may be dumping them. : The D5200 seems to demonstrate that 24mp is possible in Dx format, with : something to gain over 16mp, and nothing lost (except data storage space). Two people in my office have the D7000, and both are very happy with it. I don't think the extra 8Mp will get either of them to switch. Why would they if like many people I know they only print 6"x4" with the occasional 8"x10" print. Those who take their photography seriously are far more likely to buy a D800 as the replacement. The 5200 may be a good camera for those upgrading from older base models or compacts though. Trevor. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Are used D7000's holding their value?
On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 12:34:38 +1100, "Trevor" wrote:
: : "Robert Coe" wrote in message : news : On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 20:17:16 +1300, Me wrote: : : The D7000 still has a remarkable sensor with greater dynamic range than : : many full-frame cameras at base ISO, the AF system is still current in : : Nikon's range, and the ergonomics are pretty good. : : I guess that as a "consumer" model with likely replacement very soon, : : people may be dumping them. : : The D5200 seems to demonstrate that 24mp is possible in Dx format, with : : something to gain over 16mp, and nothing lost (except data storage : space). : : Two people in my office have the D7000, and both are very happy with it. I : don't think the extra 8Mp will get either of them to switch. : : : Why would they if like many people I know they only print 6"x4" with the : occasional 8"x10" print. : Those who take their photography seriously are far more likely to buy a D800 : as the replacement. : The 5200 may be a good camera for those upgrading from older base models or : compacts though. What you say is true as far as it goes, but depends on a rather narrow definition of "take their photography seriously". I take my photography seriously, but hardly ever make large prints. Most of my photographs are displayed only on computers. Those that do get printed (for report covers, brochures, etc.) or find their way into newspapers are usually pretty small in size. Once in a great while someone will toy with the idea of pasting my pictures on the side of a truck or something similar, and then it occurs to me that it might be nice to have a camera with higher resolution. But if one of those ideas ever came to fruition, we'd probably just go out and rent a Hasselblad or something. It's another matter, I guess, if you enter gallery shows, etc. Print sizes in many such venues have become truly ludicrous in recent years. Bob |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Are used D7000's holding their value?
"Robert Coe" wrote in message ... : Two people in my office have the D7000, and both are very happy with it. I : don't think the extra 8Mp will get either of them to switch. : : Why would they if like many people I know they only print 6"x4" with the : occasional 8"x10" print. : Those who take their photography seriously are far more likely to buy a D800 : as the replacement. : The 5200 may be a good camera for those upgrading from older base models or : compacts though. What you say is true as far as it goes, but depends on a rather narrow definition of "take their photography seriously". I take my photography seriously, but hardly ever make large prints. Well in my definition, someone who never really sees his photo's is not too serious. Of course you are entitled to your own definition. Most of my photographs are displayed only on computers. So you don't require a D800 then. Others might. Those that do get printed (for report covers, brochures, etc.) or find their way into newspapers are usually pretty small in size. So a few extra meagapixels is irrelevant to you as I suggested. Once in a great while someone will toy with the idea of pasting my pictures on the side of a truck or something similar, and then it occurs to me that it might be nice to have a camera with higher resolution. But if one of those ideas ever came to fruition, we'd probably just go out and rent a Hasselblad or something. That's probably the right thing to do, except what often happens is you take a photo that could be used for such purposes, and wish you had a better image because you can't take it again. It's another matter, I guess, if you enter gallery shows, etc. Print sizes in many such venues have become truly ludicrous in recent years. Perhaps, but if you only ever print 6"x4" the D7000 is probably already overkill. Trevor. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Are used D7000's holding their value?
In article , "Trevor"
wrote: Why would they if like many people I know they only print 6"x4" with the occasional 8"x10" print. Those who take their photography seriously are far more likely to buy a D800 as the replacement. The 5200 may be a good camera for those upgrading from older base models or compacts though. My first digital camera only had 4Mp and I printed up to 12"x18" with it. The key is whether people are going to look at the print from normal viewing distances or through a magnifying glass. From what I have seen and read, printing much over 300-360dpi is a waste of ink no matter how closely it is viewed. Even prints down to 100dpi can look great from a reasonable viewing distance. 16Mp will allow 12"x18" prints at 272dpi. You don't really need 24Mp |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Are used D7000's holding their value?
On 2013-02-18 02:11:07 -0800, Robert Peirce said:
In article , "Trevor" wrote: Why would they if like many people I know they only print 6"x4" with the occasional 8"x10" print. Those who take their photography seriously are far more likely to buy a D800 as the replacement. The 5200 may be a good camera for those upgrading from older base models or compacts though. My first digital camera only had 4Mp and I printed up to 12"x18" with it. The key is whether people are going to look at the print from normal viewing distances or through a magnifying glass. From what I have seen and read, printing much over 300-360dpi is a waste of ink no matter how closely it is viewed. Even prints down to 100dpi can look great from a reasonable viewing distance. 16Mp will allow 12"x18" prints at 272dpi. You don't really need 24Mp I agree. My D300S with its puny 12.3MP sensor is capable of producing images which can be printed at 12X18 (13X19 being the largest simple solution for my E2880) indistinguishable from anything produced from 24MB image files. Any larger prints I trust to Bayphoto and they have been able to present me with astonishing enlargements from image files produced via my D300S. http://db.tt/GvAFmtLY http://db.tt/e0SRj5PB At a time my primary cameras were my, then 25, now 37 year old K1000 and my then 32 now 44 year old Yashica Electro 35, my first digital camera was a 2.1MP CoolPix 775, which served its purpose as a snapshot camera from which I have been able to get some acceptable 8X10 prints. https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/Fil.../DSCN0201w.jpg -- Regards, Savageduck |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Are used D7000's holding their value?
Savageduck wrote:
On 2013-02-18 02:11:07 -0800, Robert Peirce said: In article , "Trevor" wrote: Why would they if like many people I know they only print 6"x4" with the occasional 8"x10" print. Those who take their photography seriously are far more likely to buy a D800 as the replacement. The 5200 may be a good camera for those upgrading from older base models or compacts though. My first digital camera only had 4Mp and I printed up to 12"x18" with it. The key is whether people are going to look at the print from normal viewing distances or through a magnifying glass. From what I have seen and read, printing much over 300-360dpi is a waste of ink no matter how closely it is viewed. Even prints down to 100dpi can look great from a reasonable viewing distance. 16Mp will allow 12"x18" prints at 272dpi. You don't really need 24Mp I agree. My D300S with its puny 12.3MP sensor is capable of producing images which can be printed at 12X18 (13X19 being the largest simple solution for my E2880) indistinguishable from anything produced from 24MB image files. Any larger prints I trust to Bayphoto and they have been able to present me with astonishing enlargements from image files produced via my D300S. http://db.tt/GvAFmtLY http://db.tt/e0SRj5PB At a time my primary cameras were my, then 25, now 37 year old K1000 and my then 32 now 44 year old Yashica Electro 35, my first digital camera was a 2.1MP CoolPix 775, which served its purpose as a snapshot camera from which I have been able to get some acceptable 8X10 prints. https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/Fil.../DSCN0201w.jpg I understand what you are saying about print quality and image resolution but it leads me to a question. Is what you are saying assuming that the original image isn't cropped before printing? So it seems to me that if you had 24MP at your disposal you could crop it by 50% and still get that good quality A3 print. If this is correct isn't that an advantage to the higher resolution camera in many circumstances? David |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
OT Customs Canada holding up items? | Justin F. Knotzke | 35mm Photo Equipment | 44 | September 14th 04 07:43 PM |
Holding Kalogen's Blue | Ken Smith | In The Darkroom | 6 | May 16th 04 02:20 PM |