Profile for tbuyer > Reviews

Personal Profile

Content by tbuyer
Top Reviewer Ranking: 13,020
Helpful Votes: 477

Learn more about Your Profile.

Reviews Written by
tbuyer "tbuyer"

Show:  
Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4
pixel
Nikon 1 V1 Compact System Camera with 10-30mm Lens Kit - Black (10.1MP) 3 inch LCD
Nikon 1 V1 Compact System Camera with 10-30mm Lens Kit - Black (10.1MP) 3 inch LCD
Offered by berlin foto
Price: £300.00

3 of 17 people found the following review helpful
1.0 out of 5 stars Died after a few test shots, 1 Mar 2013
.
The camera simply died after a few test shots (most inside my house, some on the street).

Leaving that aside, it's an ok point-and-shoot. IQ is quite good for a point-and-shoot but it's very complicated compared to a point-and-shoot and quite inferior to other mirrorless systems out there.

For the lowest price Nikon sold this camera you would think that it's a good deal -I thought the same thing. I was wrong.

This camera is too bulky to serve as a P&S and the lack of a built-in pop-up flash makes it even bulkier and much less useful than a P&S. I think Sony got it right with the RX100: same size sensor, truly pocketable, buil-in flash,... no wonder why the RX100 has outsold the V1 by such a large margin.

Compared to other mirrorless system, it's clearly inferior. I had an olympus E-Pl1 and the benefits of the Olympus over the V1 are: built-in sensor stabilization that will work with *any* lens, bult-in flash, excellent filter collection (black and white and pinhole are superb), a large collection of very high quality lenses, and a shallower depth of field to separate your subject fron the back ground. I also currently have a Fuji X100 and the Fuji handles so much faster (and the X100 is a complex camera), and offers beautiful bokeh, excelent dynamic range, and magnificent jpegs.

I'm very dissapointed in this camera -even though I didn't expect much from it. I bought it as a P&S equivalent for my wife. But the quality is inferior. Time ago I bought 2 coolpix for my niece and for my sister in-law and both broke in a very short time. Apparently Nikon low-quality standard for the coolpix lineup has made it through the V1 system.

So, all-in-all, I would advise anyone to stay away from this camera unless you are very, very sure about what to expect from it -and even then, be prepared for a subpar and clearly inferior mirrorless camera.

In my case now, I will expect the Sony RX100 to hit 70% of its current retail price and then I will see if I buy it for my wife.

With that said, now I have to:
* spend on shipping for the repair
* Take a hit to get rid of it (after I repair it -no way in hell I'm keeping this rubbish)
* Spend on shipping to return the original case and sb-n5
* Dump the flash diffuser and wireless remote (not worth the effort to return)

A lot of money to the trash

Nikon WAS a reliable company. It's quite unfortunate, but they are not anymore. I regret having wasted my time and money on this company and this system.

Recommendation: get an olympus epl5, fuji x100, sony rx100 or something else. Avoid Nikon -they are no longer what they used to be.
Comment Comments (21) | Permalink | Most recent comment: Oct 8, 2013 12:10 AM BST


Digital Additions® Snap-On Front Lens Hood Cap Cover - 49mm 49 mm
Digital Additions® Snap-On Front Lens Hood Cap Cover - 49mm 49 mm
Offered by Digital Additions Ltd
Price: £1.00

5.0 out of 5 stars Fuji X100 cap solution, 24 Mar 2012
Verified Purchase(What is this?)
Among the many quirks of the Fuji X100 is the problem of the lens cap and hood: You cannot use the lens cap with the hood attached (and placing/removing the hood is a pain, as you have also to screw the adapter).

This cap solves the problem.

Pinch the cap and place it in front of the lens WHILST the hood is on. Perfect. Problem solved.

Now you can have the cap on with the hood. Remove the cap, and you still have the hood on to protect the lens.

PS: The minus for the X100 is that this is a simple cap, not a stylish piece of metal.


Nikon Capture NX2 (PC/Mac)
Nikon Capture NX2 (PC/Mac)
Price: £139.95

1 of 1 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars Maybe the tool you need, 10 Feb 2012
===============
Bottom-line
===============
* A love-hate relationship -I can't live without it
* Squeeze the 60-day trial before making a decision

===============================
From the bottom of my heart
===============================
I can give you a long list of reasons of why you should use Lightroom 3 or Photoshop (CS5 at the moment). And I have recommended those programs from the bottom of my heart to a lot of friends. Really, there are lots of reasons why you should stick to those programs -and I do use them quite often (particularly LR3).

Really, most likely you are going to get better results with LR3 than with CNX2

...and yet, I can't live without it.

I curse and I swear using it.

I get irritated with its almost endless bugs and slow speed. I get upset with its "unfriendliness"

But once I get the results... my friend, my old pal, what would I do without you?

=============================
What so special about it?
=============================
I'm not a sentimental fool. Actually my wife still can't understand how easy is for me to get rid of my photographic equipment. The reason is actually quite simple: I see my gear (cameras, lenses, flashes, bags, tripods, AND software) as mere tools of the craft.

And that's what this software is -a tool, and a very rudimentary tool in some respects.But it allows you a degree of precision and control that is literally impossible with LR3 -and I would argue CS5 can hardly match. And when you couple that with the fact that CNX2 perfectly reads the information in the NEF file (LR3 and CS5 have imperfectly back-engineered the process) you are one step away from incredible results.

I think the above is a good description of what this programs offers you: precise interpretation and selection.

Precise interpretation and selection can turn your landscape, your sunsets and sunrises, you portraits into something very special.

==================
Recommendation
==================
It's hard to describe, that's why I insist in the point: use the 60-day trial to the fullest.

Stay with it every day. Resist the temptation of making up your mind after a few files.

Read the manual. Watch tutorials. Experiment with it. Process many files (landscapes, portraits, high iso, low iso, ...).

Once you have done that for 2-month you will have an idea of what it can do.

Then make up your mind.

Chances are that will go for LR3. But maybe, just maybe, you are one of those guys for whom CNX2 is a magnificent tool to get extraordinary results.


The Happiness Advantage: The Seven Principles of Positive Psychology That Fuel Success and Performance at Work
The Happiness Advantage: The Seven Principles of Positive Psychology That Fuel Success and Performance at Work
by Shawn Achor
Edition: Hardcover

12 of 17 people found the following review helpful
4.0 out of 5 stars Pseudo Tony Robbins, 10 Oct 2011
Preliminary notes
-----------------
Note 1: as far as I can tell, you can't simply wish your problems away.
Note 2: as far as I see it, people can change. It takes time, effort, and dedication but it can be done up to a point.
Note 3: I'm not naïve -at least I think I'm not. I hold 3 university degrees and I'm close to my fourth (a PhD), so I know a thing or two about research, evidence for causation, and "recycling" ideas and research.

Review
-----------------
If you look for this book on Amazon (US) you will find it under "self-help" -and there is where it should be. Really, from start to finish this is a self-help book. Is that a bad thing? -No, it isn't.

Everything in this book is already in many Tony Robbins' books -which means that it is also in Zig Ziglar's, Brian Tracy's, and others. Then again: is that a bad thing? No, it isn't.

What is the difference between this book and -say- "Personal Power II..." from Robbins? The way I see it, two:

(1) "Personal Power..." is better. In my view, you are much more likely to actually change a little bit with it than with "The Happiness..."

(2 the way they try to establish credibility and authority. In "The Happiness..." this is done by academic credentials and citing published and unpublished research.

Should you buy this book? If you have read or followed the programme "Personal Power..." from Tony Robbins there is nothing new in this book. And since Robbins has largely recycled the info and strategies of "Personal Power..." in various other products, I would say that is very little new in this book relative to other products from A. Robbins. What would you get if you read this book after reading those from Robbins? More "evidence" that the strategies "work"

Some people look down on A. Robbins saying that it is pseudo-science and will ditch his books. For those people, this book will offer a stripped-down version of those books but saying that the recommendations are based on "hard science". The recommendations and strategies are largely the same, but since now they are backed by "hard evidence" and "reputable research" they will actually consider it (nothing essentially different from the good, old-fashioned, placebo effect)

In all honesty, I believe that the author has deliberately recycled the recommendations and strategies from A. Robbins, Zig Ziglar, and Brian Tracy (to name a few) into a new package that says "science". With this, the author is targeting a seemingly different segment compared to the aforementioned authors. So the essential difference is in the marketing strategy. But if you are more open to consider these strategies if they are based on "hard evidence", by all means buy the book.


Sony MDREX85LPB In-Ear Headphones - Black
Sony MDREX85LPB In-Ear Headphones - Black

1.0 out of 5 stars As usual: dead after 1 year, 24 Sep 2011
Verified Purchase(What is this?)
The sound is fine if you don't account for the price. Certainly far from top-notch, but acceptable.

The big problem is that, as usual with Sony earphones and other products, they died shortly after the first year.

Given that Sony products seem to have a built-in expire date that kicks-in after 1 year one would be far better off buying other brands at higher prices.

Advice? Avoid them, they turn out to be very expensive and the sound quality is therefore sub-par


No Title Available

20 of 34 people found the following review helpful
4.0 out of 5 stars Debunking the Nikon D7000, 22 Sep 2011
========================================================================
Bottom-line: the greatest trick Nikon's marketing department ever pulled
========================================================================

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quick summary (see below for more details)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

**** see update at the end ***

The Nikon D7000 is NOT the best APS-C DSLR in the market.

After taking thousands of pictures with the D7000, I have concluded that:

* It produces soft images
* For ISO 200-1600 the IQ is inferior to the D90
* For (1600 > ISO <= 4000) the IQ is better than the D90
* For any ISO above 200 the IQ is inferior to that of the D700
* For ISO 100 the dynamic range is superb
* It's not really a robust camera in terms of build quality (the D300s, D700 are)
* The AF system is just average, on par with the D90 and well below the D700
* The raw files are prone to develop artifacts very quickly

And on the plus side...
* It has a magnificent dynamic range at ISO 100
* It has some nice features (micro AF adjustment tops the list for me)

========================================================================
Review
========================================================================

------------------------------------------------------------------------
3 important preliminary notes
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target audience
This review is mainly intended for the user of cameras such as the D90, D5000, and D80 that is considering this camera against alternatives like the D700 and D300s. Probably the owner of the D60/40/3000 may also find something useful.

A word about video
I don't care at all about video. Video is a completely useless feature for me. I only care about stills and this review completely disregards video capabilities and features. So please, keep that in mind for the bits where you will read things like "better in every aspect".

Foundations of this review
I'm keen amateur photographer. I put a great deal of effort, love, and attention into this craft and I consider myself a photographer -an amateur photographer but a photographer nonetheless. I have extensively used the D700, D7000, D90, D5000, D40, D60 and to a much lesser extent other bodies (such as Sony, Canon). Thus, I'm basing this review on actual and extensive experience with those cameras and from patient comparison of same-subject shots taken under same conditions.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why I bought this camera
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I decided to try this camera as it was a virtually risk-free exercise. A friend was travelling abroad and I could get it new at the same price that I can sell it second hand. So, I decided to give it a go.

The number 1 reason I considered this camera was because it offered micro-AF adjustment. I do a lot of low light shooting and shallow depth-of-field shots so AF accuracy is very, very important for me. Let me be clear about one thing: I don't have any problem whatsoever with the AF in the D90 with Nikkor lenses. I do however have problems with third-party lenses (see my review of the Sigma 24 f/1.8 for an example).

The second reason why I decided to give this camera a try was the dynamic range. I love the colours and contrast offered by bright sunny days and sunsets as much as I hate white skies resulting from poor dynamic range.

In all honesty, I didn't have any other reasons to justify this camera.

I also knew that the extra 4MP would most likely render noisier images without any meaningful/observable increase in resolution.

I also didn't care at all about the (partial) alloy frame, mild weather sealing, video, and the double card thing.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reality check: the distance between marketing and actual performance
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Let's start with the good.

Remember what I told you about my reasons to try this camera? Yes, (1) Micro-AF adjustment, and (2) dynamic range. Well, let me tell you that it delivered in both counts.

I'm very happy with the micro AF adjustment. I can now use third-party lenses without spending too much time manually focusing to get sharp images. Great. Excellent.

Next: dynamic range. I knew the extra dynamic range would show up only at ISO 100, and it did. Fantastic. A clear 1 (1 1/3 I would say) extra stop which results in a meaningful, observable, and delightful, improvement in my landscape photography.

If you just give me a D90 with those extra features (micro AF and expanded dynamic range) I would buy it in a heartbeat

Now, let's move on to the rest...

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Noise
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let's start with the elephant in the room that apparently nobody wants to see: the D7000 produces more noise than the D90 from ISO 200 to ISO 1600.

It doesn't matter how you want to slice it: between ISO 200 and ISO 1600 the D90 delivers lower noise than the D7000.

Am I surprised? Not at all; do I care? Yes, but not much

From ISO 3200 to ISO 6400 is the other way around. In particular, with the D90 my limit is ISO 1600, beyond that I have to put extra work and technique to get useable images; with the D7000 I can dare to go to ISO 3200 -and then put extra work and technique if I want to go beyond that.

* Noise Vs the D700
Let's be clear in one thing: the D7000 handles noise with decency from ISO 1600 to around ISO 4000. However, it does NOT come close to what the D700 can do. The D700 smokes the D7000 when it comes to low-light / high-ISO performance. These are two worlds apart.

Really, don't kid yourself. For a lot of people the way the D7000 handles high-ISO noise is more than enough -but in no way is at the level of the D700.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dynamic range and colours
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Dynamic range and colours at ISO 200 and above

At ISO 200 and above, the D90 delivers marginally better dynamic range and colours than the D7000. The difference is small, and most people will not notice it. Yet, the difference is there and plays in favour of the D90.

When compared to the D700, well, things are different: The D700 captures colours and tones in a way the D7000 can only dream of. As for dynamic range, the D7000 still trumps the D700 up to ISO 300/400. Beyond that, again, the D700 smokes the D7000.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Overall Image Quality
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is the biggest issue.

From ISO 200 to ISO 1600, the D90 delivers better image quality than the D7000. The D90 has better colours, less noise, often better dynamic range, and -very important- higher acuity.

Please, pay attention to the last part: the D90 images have higher acuity than those from the D7000.

Let me put it in other words: the D7000 produces SOFT images. I hate to break it to you because I was very surprised by that, but there is no doubt: the D7000 produces soft images.

Above ISO 1600, the D7000 produces better images than the D90.

What about the D700? Well, in this case things are very simple: the IQ you can get from ISO 200 and above is clearly, vastly, superior in the D700. The images are better both at low and high ISO -but it gets bigger as ISO increases.

* Artifacts
If you had asked me before, I would had said that is the other way around, but as it turns out, the RAW files in the D7000 offer significantly less latitude for post-processing than both the D700 and the D90. The key failure here is sharpening: there is very little latitude to get a natural look. Don't ask me why, but with the D7000 artifacts build up very quickly during sharpening. Lens aberrations are also harder to work with in the D7000 -again, don't ask me why.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
AF system
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 11 focus points in the D90 are enough for me -heck, I have no problem with the 3 focus point in the D40. But having 39 focus points is a very, very nice addition. I don't complaint.

However, the AF accuracy of the D7000 is really not what you expect. It's largely on par with that of the D90 -that is, nothing extraordinary.

How does it compare to the AF in the D700? Well, the AF system is simply inferior to that in the D700. There is a significant advantage for the D700 that really makes a difference in terms of performance.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Build quality
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lots of people got excited by the stronger frame and weather sealing. I have only played for a little while with a friends' D300s and at the store, and I can tell you this: the D300s is a much stronger camera. Needless to say, the D7000 also pales against the D700.

The truth is that after almost 50,000 shots with the D90 I never felt any disadvantage in terms of ruggedness or durability, and after several thousand shots with the D7000 I can't see much of a difference. Yes, I know is marginally stronger but I don't really see any advantage in that to be honest. I would trade the partial magnesium alloy frame for better image quality without thinking about it.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additional things
------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are a few things that I like in the D7000. I find the buttons layout and ergonomics to be very good. Also, the 100% viewfinder coverage is definitively a plus. And the live view system is significantly better than in both the D90 and D700.

* Exposure
One thing that you may have read is that "the D7000 overexposes" -nonsense.

First, it's your fault if you don't understand how the camera meters light. Second, any photographer worth his salt would make the exposure decision. The way I see it, whenever I read "the D7000 overexposes" I know that person doesn't think like a true photographer. And third, it's simply not true: the metering is very accurate and reliable. I usually select something else simply because I'm looking for something different than the average and because I already have in mind what I'm going to do with that shot (really, until you have figured out what you are going to do with the shot you can't really say that it is over or under exposed).

========================================================================
Conclusion
========================================================================

After taking thousands of pictures with the D7000, I have concluded that:

* It produces soft images
* For ISO 200-1600 the IQ is inferior to the D90
* For (1600 > ISO <= 4000) the IQ is better than the D90
* For any ISO above 200 the IQ is inferior to that of the D700
* For ISO 100 the dynamic range is superb
* It's not really a robust camera in terms of build quality (the D300s, D700 are)
* The AF system is just average, on par with the D90 and well below the D700
* The raw files are prone to develop artifacts very quickly

In short, the D7000 doesn't have the best image quality, is not the strongest camera, and it doesn't have the best AF performance.

Should you get a D7000? Well, that depends. Why do you want it? For the low-light performance? If so, wait a little more for a second hand D700. For the ruggedness? Get a D300. For the IQ (iso 200-1600)? Get a D90. For the AF? Get a D300 or above. For the dynamic range? Good reason, but remember that is only very good at ISO 100 and you still will have to deal with the softness of the image.

I now have put my hopes in the D300s replacement. I do need the high dynamic range, but I put acuity, colours, noise performance, and AF accuracy before the extra dynamic range at ISO 100 any day. The new technology that Nikon has revealed in the J1/V1 hints to promising things for the upper-end DSLRs. But only using the yet-to-be-announced camera will tell if the better performance is actually there or just in the marketing brochures

********************
Feb 2012 UPDATE
********************
I've just sold my D7000.

After spending a few more months with the D7000 I decided to sell it (the reasons are described in the review, nothing new here)

The price of the D700 is coming down, so if you are interested in stills, go for the D700 and ditch the D7000.

I may go for the D800, but I hope Nikon will release a camera with the D4 sensor and the D800 body. That's the one I would go for with my eyes closed.
Comment Comments (17) | Permalink | Most recent comment: Feb 7, 2013 11:06 AM GMT


Nikon D700 Digital SLR Camera Body Only (12.1MP) 3 inch LCD
Nikon D700 Digital SLR Camera Body Only (12.1MP) 3 inch LCD

8 of 11 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars D7000, D400, buy, or wait?, 21 Sep 2011
Note: the review ended up being too long. I summarise it here. Continue reading if you want more details.

========================================================
Summary of claims
========================================================
Claim #1: The D700 is better than the D90 in every aspect
Claim #2: The D7K is NOT better than the D90 in every aspect
Claim #3: the D7H is NOT better than the D7K in every aspect
Claim #4: the D7H beats the D7K hands down for low-light shooting
Claim #5: the D7K is not that far behind from the D7H -but it is behind it nonetheless
Claim #6 (economics): the D7H may not be the best VfM (value for money)
Claim #7 (economics redux): the D7H may be the best VfM (value for money)

========================================================
Summary of the conclusions and recommendations
========================================================
* For some -aspiring pros, true (amateur) photographers - the D7H is the best value for money
* If you don't care much about wide angles, probably waiting for the D300s replacement is the best option
* Once the D7H and D300s replacement start shipping, second-hand D7H will be the best value for money in the market

----------------------------------
The target of this review
----------------------------------
This review is mainly intended for the user of cameras such as the D90, D5000, and D80 that is considering this camera against the D7000. In my view, the owner of a D300/D300s should already know which one is the sensible upgrade for him/her. Probably the owner of the D60/40/3000 may also find something useful.

----------------------------------
A word about video
----------------------------------
One additional comment: I don't care at all about video. Video is a completely useless feature for me. I only care about stills and this review completely disregards video capabilities and features. So please, keep that in mind for the bits where you will read things like "better in every aspect".

----------------------------------
Foundations of this review
----------------------------------
I'm a keen amateur photographer. I put a great deal of effort, love, and attention into this craft and I consider myself a photographer -an amateur photographer but a photographer nonetheless. I have extensively used the D700, D7000, D90, D5000, D40, D60 and to a much lesser extent other bodies (Sony, Canon). Thus, I'm basing this review on actual and extensive experience with those cameras and from patient comparisons of same-subject shots taken under same conditions.

----------------------------------
The reference
----------------------------------
I will assume that you have a D90. Everything applies for the D5000/D80 owner as well with the logical adjustments

----------------------------------------------------------
Claim #1: The D700 is better than the D90 in every aspect
----------------------------------------------------------
This is not a controversial statement for most people. The D700 is better than the D90 in every conceivable aspect, from image quality (IQ) to build quality. There is no question about that. By IQ I mean, better colours, better dynamic range, better post-processing latitude, much lower noise, and higher acuity. The last bit is important. Both the D90 and D7H are 12MP, however, the D7H resolves detail much, much better than the D90. So in effect, you are getting a boost in resolution as well.

The biggest difference is -as expected- in the high ISO performance. Nowadays you have several cameras that claim high ISO abilities but one thing is nominal ISO and other quite different the actual high ISO performance. Example: the Sony A450 claims high ISO ability but it completely obliterates anything resembling detail (not just fine detail) as soon as you go above ISO 3200.

No need for noise reduction with the D700: trust me, the ISO ability of the D700 is simply amazing. If you know how to use the histogram and if you understand how the information is distributed through the range of highlights and shadows, any noise reduction becomes largely unnecessary. I cannot emphasize this enough: with the correct technique, in a very wide range of shooting situations, there is NO NEED FOR NOISE REDUCTION up to ISO 6400. The only way to get better performance than that is to go with the D3S - period.

------------------------------------------------------------
Claim #2: The D7K is NOT better than the D90 in every aspect
------------------------------------------------------------
Ok, this one is probably raising some eyebrows. This is not a review of the D7K. I will post a review for the D7K later on but for now let me point to the elephant in the room: for ISO 200-1600 the D90 has less noise than the D7K -heck, in some cases it has less noise at ISO 3200. No, that is not a typo. No, I'm not drunk. And yes, that contradicts a lot reviews in websites that are trying to push the D7K.

Moreover, the D90 has better dynamic range from ISO 200-3200. Yes, it has better dynamic range between that range. And it also captures colours better than the D7K for that range.

The D7K is better than the D90 when it comes to features and build quality. But as far as IQ goes, the D7K is not systematically better than the D90.

------------------------------------------------------------
Claim #3: the D7H is NOT better than the D7K in every aspect
------------------------------------------------------------
When it comes to IQ there is one aspect where the D7K smokes the D7H: dynamic range at base ISO. The difference is large, very large, and clearly observable. I put a lot of effort in my landscape photography, and the D7K's dynamic range allows me to capture beautiful scenes in a way the D7H cannot match. However, when you move to scenes with a much more compact dynamic range, the D7H can outperform the D7K. The thing is that I'm interested the scenes with a high dynamic range, and unfortunately, for those situations the D7H is -to put it in a word- crippled.

Then there are handling differences in favour of the D7K, but then again, I will tackle those in the D7K review.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Claim #4: the D7H beats the D7K hands down for low-light shooting
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The greatest trick Nikon's marketing department ever pulled was convincing the world that the D7K can compete with the D7H for low light shooting.

Lots of people actually believe that. Yet, after thousands of shots I can confidently say that the D7H beats the D7K hands down when it comes to low-light shooting.

Let me clarify this: I'm not talking about post-processed shots in which I have made heavy use of noise reduction software. I use a lot the histogram to guide my exposure and I try to collect as much data as possible from my shots so I can later get properly exposed pictures that also preserve fine detail. I absolutely hate those flickr-style pictures where noise reduction has been pushed so far that even a monkey using watercolours would deliver more detail.

The good old D7H can deliver simply outstanding combination of detail and low-noise at high ISO (1600, 3200, 6400). The colours, acuity, detail, and lack of noise the D7H can attain are simply out of reach for the D7K.

----------------------------------------------------------
Claim #5: the D7K is not that far behind from the D7H
(but it is behind it nonetheless)
----------------------------------------------------------
Having said that (see claim #4), I have to point out that the high ISO abilities of the D7K are respectable. It is actually possible to get very decent performance at ISO 3200 and -under very favourable conditions- even at ISO6400. Still, the D7K is simply no match for the D7H.

----------------------------------------------------------
Claim #6 (economics): the D7H may not be the best VfM
(value for money)
----------------------------------------------------------
For low-light shooting the D7H has a clear advantage of at least 1EV over the D7K, but it costs about 130% more. It's up to you to decide how much you are willing to pay for the extra performance. In my mind things are easy: if you are a professional interested in low-light performance there is no question; if you are a keen amateur it comes down to how much you value that extra performance. What the D7K has to offer may be good enough for you.

----------------------------------------------------------
Claim #7 (economics redux): the D7H may be the best VfM
(value for money)
----------------------------------------------------------
Please, note: this does not contradicts claim #6. Why? Because it all depends on how you approach the problem.
If you are approaching the problem from "below" (i.e., coming from D90, or something like that and you are not making money out of you photography) then claim #6 applies to you.

On the other hand, if you are approaching the problem from "above" (i.e., you are a pro starting out, or a very enthusiast amateur) then the best performance is the D3s. But the D3s is roughly 100% more expensive delivering something like 1/3EV of extra performance for ISO 200-6400 (Note: I'm basing this appreciation on borrowed samples, not extensive personal tests)

----------------------------------------------------------
A few things I don't like about the D7H.
----------------------------------------------------------
- the implementation of live view (ergonomics, speed, features) is now officially "old" (almost primitive)
- the shutter is way too loud (a big, big problem for discrete shooting in religious places and the like)
- Even with the Sandisk Extreme 60MB/s performance can be sluggish

========================================================
Conclusion and recommendation
========================================================
* The D7H is simply fantastic. If you are coming from the D90 or something like that you will be very happy.
* For some -aspiring pros, true (amateur) photographers - the D7H is the best value for money
* For the casual amateur, or people making less than 8,000 shots a year, the D7H is an overkill
* As of now (September 2011) the D300s replacement shouldn't be far in the horizon. Having seen the D7K performance, I'm hopeful that Nikon will come up with something very, very attractive at a very, very competitive price. If you are not keen on wide angles, then I see the D300s replacement as something like a dream come true regarding dynamic range and low-noise.
* If you are keen on wide angles and low-light shooting, probably now the best thing is waiting: once the D700 and D300s replacements appear, it would be possible to get a second-hand D7H for very little money - that is, you will get incredible value for money.
Comment Comments (2) | Permalink | Most recent comment: Oct 20, 2011 10:35 PM BST


Sandberg Multi Card Reader
Sandberg Multi Card Reader
Price: £6.40

1 of 1 people found the following review helpful
1.0 out of 5 stars Broke within days, 8 Aug 2011
Verified Purchase(What is this?)
After using it just a few (very few) times, I can no longer plug my CF card.

Stay away from this if you want to use it with CF cards
Comment Comment (1) | Permalink | Most recent comment: Aug 12, 2011 3:34 PM BST


Opteka SSC-20 Pre-Moistened CCD/CMOS Sensor Cleaning Swabs for SLR Cameras (20 Pack)
Opteka SSC-20 Pre-Moistened CCD/CMOS Sensor Cleaning Swabs for SLR Cameras (20 Pack)

4 of 6 people found the following review helpful
2.0 out of 5 stars Be careful -very careful, 28 July 2011
Verified Purchase(What is this?)
I'm that case. Yes, that case you've been warned about: I punctured my sensor.

---------------------------------------------------
Review based on the first 14 "successful" attempts.
---------------------------------------------------
The fact that *I* broke my sensor is not the reason for the 2-star rating. That was my fault entirely.
The reason is that it didn't work the first 14 times I used it properly (before I pinched my sensor).
So, to be clear, I did follow the instructions to the letter and I couldn't remove the difficult spots (and I didn't hurt the sensor). Over several days I tried to remove those spots (again, without any damage to the sensor). 14 times I did this and was unsuccessful.
So, that's the reason for the 2 stars.

-------------------------
How I punctured my sensor
-------------------------
Now, once again, I'm basing my 2-star on the first 14 attempts I made before I screwed things up.
This section is intended to be a reminder that you can indeed damage your sensor (and has no relation to the overall rating for the product)
I was in a bad mood, and over-confident for the "success" (i.e.: not damaging the sensor) of the first 14 attempts. The spots were not coming off and I decided that I knew better and that could get away with using my own style (i.e.: not following the instructions). So I went for it... and the sensor ended up with a very nice tiny hole instead of a spot of dust.
So, here is my advice. If you have a rather expensive camera, don't even try it. The savings are negligible in that case compared to sending it for a professional wet cleaning. If you have a rather cheap camera, think twice if it is worth the risk.


Nikon - Coolpix S5100 - Digital camera - compact - 12.2 Mpix - optical zoom: 5 x - supported memory: SD, SDHC - blue
Nikon - Coolpix S5100 - Digital camera - compact - 12.2 Mpix - optical zoom: 5 x - supported memory: SD, SDHC - blue

7 of 10 people found the following review helpful
1.0 out of 5 stars Don't waste your money, 22 May 2011
-----------------------------------
Bottom-line: don't waste your money
-----------------------------------

----------------------------
Build quality and durability
----------------------------
I bought 2 of these cameras for my sister-in-law and for her daughter. Within a few months, one died completely and the other developed a black screen. Clearly, the quality is rubbish.

-------------
Image quality
-------------
Image quality is, as usual for coolpix cameras, behind the comparable Canon. Enough said (see my other reviews and you will see that I'm long-term Nikon user).


Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4