D7000 Dust-Up

[HinFrance]

Thanks for the replies Geoff, and especially for the humour in them.

My wife worked in PR. Including buying advertising. One of my friends is an executive at an advertising agency.

I'm not changing my view, and I'm not bothered about the perceived editorial slant. Although I no longer subscribe because of the hopeless delivery service, for the couple of years that I did I would say that the hierarchy of preference in the magazine went something like this: Canon, brilliant: Nikon very good: Sony/Pentax, bless 'em, they try: Olympus, ahhhhh.

I switched to a French mag because their reviews are all lab based, with comments on handling and no opinion - you have to make your own mind up. Which is, of course, what jinky and any other discerning punter would do. Especially as this week's wunderkamera is next's week's discount bin special.

As the old saying goes (John Wanamaker) - "Half of the money I spend on advertising is wasted, the trouble is I don't know which half". It was true then, and despite what marketing departments tell you the analysis of advertising metrics is at best informed guesswork and at worst voodoo.

[Angela Nicholson]

Hi

Sorry I haven’t been able to respond before now, I was on holiday in the Caribbean with Canon. LOL! Actually I was at Panasonic’s conference in London hearing all about 3D technology.

As I have said elsewhere, I think there is little to separate the EOS 60D and D7000 in many respects. While the Nikon camera has a more advanced AF system, the Canon model has a better LCD screen that is articulated - making it very useful for landscape, still life and macro photography (but enough of articulated screens). I have shot extensively with both cameras and in good light, the number of AF points aside, I have been largely unable to separate the two camera's performance. In low light however, the Canon model has the edge with the kit lens mounted. They are about on a par with f/2.8 optics.

There’s no doubt that twin card slots are useful, but with the exception of running out of space mid way through a continuous shooting sequence, it doesn’t really increase creativity or add additional functionality like some other features might.

Though the EOS 60D has a plastic construction it feels very solid and gives no indication of being any less durable than the D7000. Some plastics these days are stronger than metal, but without a destruction test we can't say for certain which camera is stronger. I wouldn't want to drop either of them onto concrete.
The images direct from the 60D are marginally better than those from the D7000 and Canon provides much better software with the camera to ensure that you get what you want.

Just to clarify a little on the scoring of the EOS 60D and D7000. The EOS 60D and D7000 scored the same for everything apart from the Features score (EOS 60D 4/5 and D7000 3/5) and the Overall score (EOS 60D 4/5, D7000 3/5). Obviously with only 5 stars to allocate, minor differences in spec will not be reflected in the score. The Canon camera's flip-out screen and in-camera rating system are a major bonus for many photographers and I feel they warrant the extra mark. With the Nikon D7000 earning three 3's and a 4, the overall score really has to be a 3 rather than a 4.

The score takes into account many factors including featureset, price, build quality, feel, ease of use, systems performance (AF, metering, white balance etc) and image quality. Image quality cannot be assessed solely by scientific analysis and some photographic experience and understanding has to come into play.

Each camera is assessed with its genre (SLR or compact etc) and market (novice, enthusiast and pro) in mind. Hence a camera lower down the manufacturer’s line-up can garner a higher score than one that is higher up.

Angela

[HinFrance]

Hi Angela, thanks for the clarification and I hope you enjoyed your conference.

Originally Posted by Angela Nicholson

Hi

Image quality cannot be assessed solely by scientific analysis . . .

Angela

I beg to differ, it is actually the only way that image quality can be assessed, otherwise all you have is an opinion. Might be a wonderful opinion, but still an opinion none the less.

Of course, I wouldn't buy either of them; no in body image stabilisation tee hee.

[Sue Allen]

....and of course the K-5 got one more 4 than the Canon....even without a flip out screen...

[donoreo]

I agree, image quality should ONLY be judged by scientific methods. Content of that image, is another matter (composition, etc), but the quality of the image cannot be based in opinion, even a well experienced and educated one.

[Angela Nicholson]

Originally Posted by HinFrance

Hi Angela, thanks for the clarification and I hope you enjoyed your conference.



I beg to differ, it is actually the only way that image quality can be assessed, otherwise all you have is an opinion. Might be a wonderful opinion, but still an opinion none the less.

Of course, I wouldn't buy either of them; no in body image stabilisation tee hee.

Hi

It was very interesting, thanks.

You are entitled to your opinion, but I have yet to find an image analysis system that can accurately replicate all the conditions or situations in which photographers use a camera. Many rely on analysis of perfectly exposed images of (often black and white) 2D charts, yet in reality we mostly photograph 3D objects in a range of lighting conditions. So, in my opinion, lab assessment is only part of the process.

The impact of image stabilisation is interesting. How is it measured this in a lab? On a rig that vibrates to simulate camera-shake. In reality each photographer has a differing ability to hold a camera steady and this varies depending upon a huge number of factors including what the weather is like and how much coffee or alcohol they have consumed. Most photographers learn over time what there own personal shutter speed boundaries are.

I haven't bought either of them either.

Angela