Hey Jeff (Loftus) I will make you an offer on yours

NikonRumours
Paul C
edit. link was broke....
Edited by PRC, 12 November 2010 - 11:15 AM.
Posted 12 November 2010 - 11:13 AM
Edited by PRC, 12 November 2010 - 11:15 AM.
Posted 12 November 2010 - 04:03 PM
Posted 13 November 2010 - 04:42 AM
Yeah right, I've got BBC and Nat Geo knocking down my doors to provide them commercial rights to as yet to be shot underwater video by someone who's never done it before.So video on D7000 Not for commercial use then ?
Hey Jeff (Loftus) I will make you an offer on yours![]()
NikonRumours
Paul C
edit. link was broke....
Posted 13 November 2010 - 06:11 PM
Posted 13 November 2010 - 08:29 PM
In all seriousness though: is commercial quality video really expected from an "entry-level" DSLR?
Posted 13 November 2010 - 09:45 PM
Posted 14 November 2010 - 05:00 AM
My understanding from Captain Caveman's post is that the Nikon warning/disclaimer really has nothing to do with quality, but purely with proprietary codec etc.Maybe I am wrong for seeing the 5D Mark II in a different class of camera than the D7000. And the functions of the two may actually support that.
But my point is that the price of the D7000 puts it in a different class than a 5D Mark II or even a D700...half the class by my measure! (Lenses not included).
The majority of people buying a D7000 based on its price level make me think that commercial quality is not as important for this camera. I certainly didn't expect a camera of this quality at this price.
Steve
Edited by loftus, 14 November 2010 - 05:28 AM.
Posted 14 November 2010 - 06:17 AM
Maybe I am wrong for seeing the 5D Mark II in a different class of camera than the D7000. And the functions of the two may actually support that .
But my point is that the price of the D7000 puts it in a different class than a 5D Mark II or even a D700...half the class by my measure! (Lenses not included).
The majority of people buying a D7000 based on its price level make me think that commercial quality is not as important for this camera. I certainly didn't expect a camera of this quality at this price.
Posted 14 November 2010 - 06:33 AM
But my point is that the price of the D7000 puts it in a different class than a 5D Mark II or even a D700...half the class by my measure! (Lenses not included).
Steve
Yeah right, I've got BBC and Nat Geo knocking down my doors to provide them commercial rights to as yet to be shot underwater video by someone who's never done it before. smile.gif
Posted 14 November 2010 - 08:50 AM
My understanding from Captain Caveman's post is that the Nikon warning/disclaimer really has nothing to do with quality, but purely with proprietary codec etc.
It's also very difficult to compare prices as it relates to quality in cameras that are 2-3 years apart whether Nikon or Canon. The D7000 outshines any number of Nikon and Canon cameras at any price in some areas. In terms of low light capability the D7000 probably approaches the 5D MkII as it does the D700. the focusing system is almost certainly superior to the 5D even if not to the 7D. As the years go by we see the feature set and abilities of the more expensive cameras being incorporated into the lower end cameras, no different to any other electronic gadget. Probably House could be shot on a D7000, maybe other more complex and demanding shoots could not. Recalling that House shoot, I don't recall that the type of shooting would have exhibited good examples of say rolling shutter effect for example which might be more evident say in the D7000.
For shooting stills and in terms of image quality except for the larger viewfinder I can't see many reasons to choose a 5D or even a D700 (except for very high ISO) over a D7000. Once a D800 or a 5DMkIII come out, that's going to change all over again.
Drew
Moderator
"Journalism is what someone else does not want printed, everything else is public relations."
"I was born not knowing, and have only had a little time to change that here and there.
Posted 14 November 2010 - 09:56 PM
Posted 15 November 2010 - 05:43 AM
Not saying pros would choose the camera; just as most pros would choose a 1DSMKIII or a D3S or D3x etc for still work due to a whole host of feature factors etc. And not because image quality would be discernably better then presently available amateur cameras.Further more, without manual control of shutter and ISO (at the same time), there's no way any cinematographer would touch the D7000, even if there were manual aperture lenses around. Basically, House could've been shot by D7000s if a bunch of teenagers were producing it as a web only show.
Edited by loftus, 15 November 2010 - 07:57 AM.
Posted 17 November 2010 - 08:22 AM
That's right Jeff. Nikon uses the AVCHD codec and as such, one cannot use it as a direct distributive source. It is a complicated royalty based system for Licensees which someone tried to explain to me once but I stopped her to eat my salad.
Edited by climbrox, 17 November 2010 - 08:41 AM.