Talk:Nikon D7000

What is about to be the next HOT debate

Hi! I'm RSvetti. Who the BL**P are Users: Pixel8 and Scarcrow?! I have been trying to post the specs for this product for two days now. These demi-gods keep removing it. Further, they label me as a spammer. Needless to say, I am completely offended! Does anyone find this inappropriate? Because I certainly do!

Getting down to business, let's cast a vote:

A.) Does anyone in an audience which is far greater than these two clowns have a objection?

Or

B.) Does anyone in an audience which is far greater than these two clowns feel that the Technical Specifications for this product is completely reasonable to post and believe that it might be something they want to see?

Most of the useful technical information is already located in the infobox. Reiterating them in the body of the article is unnecessary.SCΛRECROW 13:19, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Okay, lets talk about inappropriateness. The reference you provided for the spec list isn't a primary source for such information. A reference to Nikon's website or a well known website is usually required. However you used your own website. You are trying to earn money from clicks to your site. This is frowned upon on Wikipedia.

From the "contact us" on your site "Nikon D7000 Review is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com." I think that is all we need to know. -Pixel8 13:49, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

First of all, and without wasting much more time with YOU DUDES, I would very much like to reiterate that you are an audience of exactly ONE INDIVIDUAL EACH and Wikipedia is not solely for YOU. As well, I would like to reiterate that I would like to see the full specs on there and remind you that neither of YOU are qualified to distinguish what information I, nor the rest of the world, might find "Useful" so long as it is relevant. Does that make sense to you?

This speaks directly to the fact that my post contained ALOT more content than that little box does. And no, it couldn't POSSIBLY be more relevant. THAT WAS KINDA THE POINT DUDE. GET IT? So you call me a spammer? I think you are absolutely ridiculous! That was a HUGE contribution and I feel, a much needed one. "I think that is all we need to know." Shove it; these principles at the very heart of Wikipedia. So whereas I may be relatively new, don't lecture me dude because I know at least that much.

As well, I would like to point out that half of the sources cited (to the very page) are Affiliated with Amazon dude (since you're checking) right along with just about every other site on the internet. Hell, I'll bet you are to! Which means that you may know: that snippet on the Contact Us page is apart to the Amazon TOS. In fact, ALL of those very people (cited, right there on the same page) aught to post that same snippet if they haven't already.

So, tell me again what's appropriate you fool. That IS the deal for you, me, them, the rest of us: we all make our great contributions of free, relevant, and quality content/services --- and we hope to get paid a little somewhere down the line! Sound familiar dude? So tell me again, what is "inappropriate"? Sounds like a little hypocrisy to me... And if you might actually think about that for a but a second, it might sound the same to you. GET IT?

Fortunately, Wiki too has a TOS. As well, they offer a shot at getting around demi-gods like you. BTW, love how you killed the free press! Way to go Champ!

-RS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.42.7.168 (talk) 03:24, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Successor to the Nikon D90?

I'm not sure that D7000 can be considered a successor to D90. In terms of appearance it is a successor, but it has weather sealing, magnesium body, 39 AF points etc. All these characteristics put D7000 in semi-pro category, in my opinion. Satellite779 (talk) 15 September 2010

Well, you could ask the same about the Canon EOS 50D and 60D. The 60D lost some of the semi-pro features that the 50D had, yet it's the successor of the 50D. It probably doesn't help that Nikon is being ambiguous about the D7000's placement within their DSLR range. Well, we should decide soon and make it consistent between the articles and the Nikon DSLR template. P.S. An existing discussion about the issue is here. SCΛRECROW 09:29, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, maybe we should wait to see how thinks turn out regarding D7000 placement. Regarding 60D, I feel it is a replacement only by name, not by features. To me 7D looks like proper replacement for 50D, while 60D is what dpreview guys call "super-rebel".Satellite779 (talk) 19:51, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

This video at Engadget introduces the D7000 as a new class of camera that fits in between the D90 and D300S. The person talking about the camera seems to be a Nikon rep, but we can't be sure. Perhaps they are phasing out the D90 line...time will tell. SCΛRECROW 04:00, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I found a bunch of refs stating the D7000 is between the D300S and D90, so I changed the article accordingly. SCΛRECROW 13:45, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Hm, yes. But Thom Hogan thinks [1] that is a bit of "marketing chicanery" owing to the fact that there is a lot of D90 inventory to clear and manufacturing hasn't yet ramped down. I think your change is fine as is, though, and we'll just have to update as the D90's future becomes more clear. Fletcher (talk) 14:54, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I think Thom Hogan [2] made a very good point recently. The yen was valued at 106 to the dollar when the D90 came out at $999USD. As of today, the yen is much higher at about 1:82. This devaluation of the USD explains the price difference and puts the D7000 as costing about the same as the D90 on release. Combine that with the fact nikon has not announced a formal D90 replacement, nor have they indicated they will keep making D90s after inventory is depleted greatly weakens the claims that this is not a D90 successor. Therefore I suggest the article be revised to reflect the currency exchange differences which is often used as argument by review sites (non affiliated with nikon) to say this camera is a new line and their implied assertion a D95 will follow. In the video posted as reference where the european nikon executive is asked about how the D7000 is positioned, if you listen carefully, the nikon rep does not explicitly confirm the camera isn't a D90 sucessor. He calls it a new "class" and he confirms it is a line below the D300 which is techincally true. But he did not confirm the D90 line will continue or that the D7000 isn't the upgrade nikon prepared for D90 owners specially if FOREX currency movements are accounted for. His statement is simply too ambigous to be consider a canonical stand on nikon's part. It simply seems he dodged the question as companies avoid saying negative things about outgoing products since it is in their best interest to sell remaining inventory. Lastly I think it is important to consider the D5000. It too is on the next upgrade schedule based on time trends and arguing the D7000 is not the D90 successor implies nikon will crowd it's line up with the D5100, D95 and D7000. That seems like far too many cameras separated by a very narrow price band. The more logical conclusion based on the currency exchange reference and the lack of a D95 is that the D7000 is in fact the upgrade path nikon has chosen for the D90 owner regardless of how 3rd party sites view it. I also think that to avoid future confusion made by non nikon affiliated review sites, the nikon online catalog is what should be taken as the canonical guide to nikon's lineup. Should the D90 be removed from said catalog in the upcoming months without a clearly labled replacement, I expect the article to more clearly reflect the that opinions of 3rd party review sites about where the camera sits may not be those of nikon itself. Lsobrado (talk) 12:53, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

File:D7000.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:D7000.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 14 December 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 18:27, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Problems

It is stated that that the camera has backfocusing problem as well as hot pixels and overexposure. The last is mentioned in the article but others are not.

The backfocusing and hot pixels problems should be mentioned in the article.--98.199.22.63 (talk) 05:51, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Removal of any Ken Rockwell references

All KR refs should be removed as they are notoriously unreliable. Refer http://www.kenrockwell.com/about.htm quote: This website is my way of giving back to our community. It is a work of fiction, entirely the product of my own imagination. This website is my personal opinion. To use words of Ansel Adams on page 193 of his autobiography, this site is my "aggressive personal opinion," and not a "logical presentation of fact." KymFarnik (talk) 03:37, 4 July 2013 (UTC)