Quick Glance
Camera type Digital SLR
Optical Zoom N/A
Megapixels 16.2
Physical Specifications
Dimensions Width 132
Depth 105
Weight (body only) 690g body only
Camera type Digital SLR
Optical Zoom N/A
Megapixels 16.2
Image Sensor DX format
Optical focal length Dependent on lens in use
Viewfinder Eye level pentamirror single lens reflex viewfinder
Shutter speed 1/8000-30 in steps of 1/3 or 1/2 EV
Auto focus Nikon Multi-CAM 4800DX autofocus sensor module with TTL phase detection, finetuning, 39 focus points (9 cross-types), AF Assist
Manual focus Yes
Video (max res/format) 1920x1080 pixels at 24fps, 1280x720 at 30fps
Max output resolution 4928x3264
Other resolutions 3696x2448, 2464x1632
Focus range Dependent on lens in use
Exposure control P, A, S, M
Exposure metering Matrix, Centre weighted and Spot
Exposure compensation 1/3 EV or 1/2 EV step, -5EV to +5EV
Image Stabilisation Optical
ISO settings ISO100 to ISO6400 in 1/3 or 1/2 EV steps, expandable to ISO25600 equiv
LCD Monitor 3-inch, 920k dot resolution LCD
Flash range Guide number of approximately 12/39
Flash modes Auto Flash, Flash ON, Flash OFF, Slow Sync, Rear-curtain Sync, Red-eye Reduction, Accessory Shoe, Built-in Flash
White balance modes Auto, Auto/Red-eye reduction, Fill-flash off
Drive modes Single, continuous
Image formats Raw, JPEG
Picture adjustments Standard, Neutral, Vivid, Monochrome, Landscape, Portrait
Movie length Up to 4GB in size and 20 minutes long
Self timer 2, 10 secs
Memory card slot SD/SDHC/SDXC
Supplied memory N/A
Batteries supplied Lithium ion pack
Charger supplied Yes
A/V output HDMI
Charging/Computer Connection USB 2.0
AV Out Yes
Manual Basic printed guide, full manual on CD


January 13, 2011, 2:10 pm

If it is Nikon DSLR it is normally recommended by Trusted Review. I am not sure whether this website recommended a Nikon D80 when it was released way back then in 2007/8(not sure which year).

I used to own a Nikon D80 with the kit lens, the image quality(IQ) is INFERIOR in all aspects(e.g Jpeq and Raw,lens sharpness,colour, etc)) compared to the newly arrived micro 4/3rds, e.g. E-PL1. So don't buy a 2nd hand Nikon D80. The IQ from my E-PL1 is by far superior to D80 even when taken in Jpeg mode. D80 has an advantage over the E-PL1 in terms of its interoperability i.e ease of use and control.


January 13, 2011, 2:47 pm

The Nikon D80 was released in 2006. That's a long time ago in digital camera terms, so it's not surprising that the E-PL1 (Feb 2010) has more advanced and refined processing.

*Most* DSLRs are recommended by TR - all but one Nikon, all but one Canon, more than half the Sonys, many Olympus, no Sigmas (yet). That's because most of these cameras are excellent tools.

I found this a useful short review. But (as a disclaimer, and highlighting why I find the D7000 far more exciting than a D80 or D90) I still shoot with a 2001 Nikon D1h - just short of 3MP, but lightning fast, and can meter with manual focus Nikon lenses. This latter *professional* feature of the D7000 is worth pointing out.


January 13, 2011, 2:47 pm

For the iso shots, would it be possible to photograph different colour cars? (or ducks) Some cameras struggle with certain colours and currently we would be unable to see that.



January 13, 2011, 5:15 pm

One other thing about the D80, it was (almost) the last of the first generation of Nikon's digital cameras. The jump to the second generation stuff (D3, D300, D90 etc) is substantial and brings HUGE image improvements in a lot of cases.

Now on the D700 I must admit my inner gadget geek is drooling over this but while it's certainly a step up from my D90 it's not really far enough for my sort of use to justify it. There's also a nagging thought in my head that there's a big space in Nikon's range currently occupied by the D90 which I still consider the sweet spot for those looking for something more than the entry level cameras for whatever reason. It's not that hard to imagine a D7000 variant with a plastic body, simpler auto-focus system and a few other tweaks slotting into that hole sometime in 2011 and if that does happen that'll be a real gem.


January 13, 2011, 6:02 pm

Looks like a nice camera.

In addition to joose's request of have objects of different colour in the ISO tests, it would really help to see the images at a pixel level to judge what's going on - i.e. 100% crops. A rescaled full image just averages out the noise and makes images look fine (unless noise is dramatically bad).

On your other test shots, note that converging verticals and barrel distortion are not the same thing. And pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeease learn to hyphenate compound adjectives!

James Thomes

January 13, 2011, 6:18 pm

"Full frame"? come on!

This is mere amateurism. Please ask some more advanced amateurs what are the proper terms to be used, and please provide the readers with 1:1 (or 100% magnification) crops in the ISO Performance section (the current crops are 40% at best, and I suspect that most of the crops in the other sections are not 100%/1:1 either).

Sorry for being so brutal, but such amateurism in such kind of reviews cannot be treated in any different manner.

simon jackson

January 13, 2011, 7:25 pm

@Kaplan: i think those are 100% crops; they're referred to as "full resolution crops".

@monto: I wasn't aware of that - thanks for sharing. Though that said, I find with modern high mp cameras, I can't manual focus particularly well anyway. Just can't seem to judge the focus well enough through the view finder to get something which is accurately focussed when viewed at 100%. And i use a d3s, which is "only" 12mp ish! I've never really manually focussed though, so perhaps it's just a skill which requires practice like any other.


January 13, 2011, 7:38 pm

@James Thomas: What's amateurish about full-frame?

I'll double check with Gavin about the cropped images and get him to do crops for the ISO shots.

Elie Boujaoude

January 13, 2011, 7:41 pm

A review of a Nikon DSLR can not be described as biased if it concludes that such a camera is capable of high quality pictures.

I've used several Nikon DSLR cameras: D100, D70S, D80, D300, & D700. Picture quality was always superb but I still have special feelings to those shot with the D80 because I could see some depth in each picture. On the other hand, it was the only camera that failed during its first year of use & I had to get it serviced before I sold it.

Finally, I would say that the camera settings make a lot of a difference. Lately I had this bad experience with my D700 which usually renders the highest quality pictures. It's not the camera that should be blamed but the inappropriate settings.


January 13, 2011, 8:07 pm

@James Thomes - What IS the proper term? If you are referring to the lack of hyphenation in "full frame", then can I direct you to both the Sony and Canon websites? Both show the term non-hyphenated.

simon jackson

January 13, 2011, 8:20 pm

@Metalex: I think he's referring to the usage of "full frame" in the iso comparison shot captions, which is a little mis-leading as convetionally "full frame" (when not used in the context of image sensor size) is used to refer to the entire image captured. However, I'm not sure it warranted such a vitriolic diatribe. ;)

James Thomes

January 13, 2011, 9:30 pm

Yea, Simon is right, and his politeness warrants praise. Not only is the term misleading, but the crops in themselves are DOWNSCALED. I repeat, DOWNSCALED. If one fails to see this, one is not qualified to review cell-phone cameras, let alone a Nikon DSLR. Please!


January 13, 2011, 9:33 pm

@simon: it's a bit ambiguous from what's written, but if the top image is 16mp then the images below surely cannot be 100% crops. Plus if that IS a 100% crop and there is essentially no noise at ISO6400 then that's pretty amazing

@Ed: "Full frame" is a bit confusing because of its other meaning: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F...

James Thomes

January 13, 2011, 10:39 pm

True, Ed. I apologise, and please feel free to delete the venomous comments. I'll try to pinpoint the main problem as I perceive it:

In the ISO section, Gavin seems be (justly) following the convention established by Cliff, namely, supplying the readers with a full/complete picture on the top of the page, and then, in ascending order, 100% resolution crops taken from similar pictures shot at various ISO sensitivities. But in this review, as well as in the previous one, the full picture on the top IS NOT followed by 100% resolution crops, but rather by what seams to be 50-60% resolution crops (those oddly referred to as "full frames").

I hope that this point is clear now, as it is an essential one in such reviews. In fact, Gavin current method in the ISO section would reveal no dramatic difference between the ISO performance of a DSLR and that of a simple point-and-shoot.

Thanks and again, sorry.


January 13, 2011, 10:48 pm

Simon jackson: It's not just you, the viewfinders in modern dSLRs (and indeed autofocus 35mm film SLRs) are simply not designed for manual focusing. The focusing screens on pre-autofocus cameras used split-screen and microprism or other features to aid manual focusing. Now these are gone, as it is (correctly) assumed that the majority of users will be happy using autofocus. For those of us who do want to focus manually, some dSLRs can beep or flash to confirm focus during manual focusing (going by the camera's AF points); if you're really committed to manual focusing then you can fit third-party focusing screens to many major dSLRs at about £100 a go (although the downside is these generally mess with the autofocus and/or metering systems).

Martin Daler

January 13, 2011, 11:15 pm

@MrGodfrey - re: manual focusing, something else has changed also. If you still have a film SLR, and a dSLR, hold one to each eye and see the difference in size of viewfinder. The old film SLR viewfinder fills the eye, the dSLR viewfinder, in comparison, is like looking down the wrong end of binoculars. Much of this is due to the "crop" factor, but even so called "full frame" dSLRs have smaller viewfinder magnifications than typical film SLRs. Given that the viewfinder is probably the single most important part of the SLR (I feel a flame coming), it is a shame it receives so little attention.


January 14, 2011, 2:07 am

Question. While a HDMI cable is attached and in use is it possible to also see the live view display on the camera? If so what are the menu settings to accomplish this? Thanks.


January 14, 2011, 2:33 am

Martin - Very true, although just to be extra pedantic I should point out that even autofocus film SLRs have rubbish viewfinders compared to all-manual ones. Once autofocus was introduced the manufacturers figured they could get away with cutting costs here. There are honourable exceptions - the Minolta Dynax 7 had a nice big bright finder, as have some Pentax dSLRs. With digital SLRs I suppose cost-cutting is a bit more forgiveable since so much extra technology has to be crammed in, but I agree it's a real shame you generally have to buy a professional-grade dSLR to get a viewfinder half as good as that found in a £5 Chinon in your local charity shop.


January 14, 2011, 3:05 am

Elie Boujaoude,

I tried all sort of settings with my D80, the output is not satisfactory period. The images compared with my E-PL1 is like chalk and cheese.

I will never buy a DSLR because it is too balky and heavy to carry even though they in general give me a better image quality.


January 14, 2011, 3:34 am

@simon jackson - most of the AF Nikons I've used (film and digital - no D3s yet, though) have an electronic rangefinder which indicates focus using marks in the bottom left hand corner of the viewfinder: > o <, where the filled in 'o' indicates correct focus at the chosen focus point and the '>' and '<' marks indicate out-of-focus. This works with manual lenses as well as autofocus ones. Hope this helps...

Ertan Ozturk

January 14, 2011, 2:30 pm

A couple of comments:

- For high ISO shots, using brownish and smooth objects does not make much sense (especially if the scene is well lit). There should be more color and some objects with fine texture (like fur, hair or cloth) to see if the sensor is losing color and fine detail in high ISO shots. Previous car models were a lot better (still not sufficient, but at least there were colors). And the crops should be %100.

- For high ISO shots again, there should be some shadow to see how much detail the sensor can capture in shadow areas in high ISO.

- Seeing how much the sensor can recover in shadow and highlight areas would be nice.

I know TR is not a dedicated photography site, but these are simple tests and TR is one of the sites I visit every day, and improvement is not a bad thing :)


January 14, 2011, 6:34 pm

@Ertan Ozturk: A good point, I'll see if Gavin has any alternatives he could use.

The ISO crop sizes should now be fixed on this and all previous photos - it was actually a publishing error, not Gavin's fault.

simon jackson

January 14, 2011, 7:13 pm

@MrGodfrey: Ah yes - I remember the spit screen feature from an old Minolta SLR my dad used to own. Very intuitive and simple to use. I would definitely consider such a modification, though the interference with the metering and AF performance would probably be a deal breaker for me. I'm a wedding photographer, and do a lot of fast paced candid/reportage stuff, so good AF performance is really crucial most of the time. Can't afford to compromise it. Might be a cheaper entry-level crop body though and mod that...:D

@monto: Yeah i do have the little rangefinder thing, but my assumption has been that relying on the rangefinder to indicate focus is more or less the same as using the AF. In other words, it'll achieve the same results. The time manual focus would be most use to me is in dimmer, lower contrast environments where my 70-200 can tend to hunt. I assume - perhaps wrongly - that the rangefinder function will lead to results which are just as innacurate as the AF...


February 14, 2011, 5:41 pm

I've been using my D7000 for a month and a half - changed from a D90 - great camera except the buffer size - if you bracket as I do, shooting raw after 7 shots -it stops and you need to wait several very long-seeming seconds for the write-to-card to catch up - I tried a class 10 SD on the off chance but it makes no difference - it's very irritating and rather tight of Nikon I think - a 9 shot buffer (ie 3 x 3 bracket shots) might have been more thoughtful design - but that's all I can fault (I never experienced a problem with the D90 in over 15,000 exposures in the 15 months I had it)

I like that I can use my old Ai lenses on aperture priority (all I use anyway) and not have to guestimate exposure and look at the screen.

If you have a D90 you won't notice much difference in use - its a bit heavier, the files are larger and if you want to continue to use CS4 then you'll be converting to DNG from RAW - if you shoot RAW - to edit pics or going to CS5 - which I didn't want to but CS5 does fix some CS4 bugs like crashing out when using some Nik Efex filters


February 17, 2011, 1:45 am

@MrGodfrey et al - the D7000 has a focus indicator in the bottom left of the view finder - I use it with my old Ai primes

comments powered by Disqus