Nikon D7000 --$699? Dpreview got the price wrong

They appear to have the price listed at $699. If that's true, I'm pre-ordering tomorrow. Don't even need to wait for a price drop. LOL, I wish, but I think it's yet another of those copy/paste errors.

http://www.nikonusa.com/Find-Your-Nikon/Product/Digital-SLR/25468/D7000.html Nikon USA says $1200 'estimated selling price', body only.

Thats a lot of camera for 1200.00. Just like the D90, Nikon will sell a boatload.

That's the price for D3100. Sorry sloppy DPReview guys.

PicMax wrote: That's the price for D3100. Sorry sloppy DPReview guys.
Did you think to check whether this typo had been fixed before you posted? Thought not (since it had). SJ

Long night at the office? Do you guys enjoy or dread a big new release?

sandy b wrote: Long night at the office? Do you guys enjoy or dread a big new release?
BIt of both

Barney, Simon, Thanks for getting the preview up on launch day. Now... any chance of this going head-to-head with the Canon 60D and Pentax K5 in a group test? Cheers

Simon , you list the 18-55 VR in the kit and price, is that correct. In which case the European price is very very high. is it the 18-105? which is livable. EDIT!! I see you changed that already!!!! You can still reply.... We can be friends
Simon Joinson wrote:
PicMax wrote: That's the price for D3100. Sorry sloppy DPReview guys.
Did you think to check whether this typo had been fixed before you posted? Thought not (since it had). SJ

It ill befits forum users crowing about typos , the average standard of posting is abysmal ! -- Keith-C

KEITH-C wrote: It ill befits forum users crowing about typos , the average standard of posting is abysmal ! -- Keith-C
You bore me! and your post, complaining about people complaining. How great you are.

Thanks for the compliment ! -- Keith-C

Simon Joinson wrote:
PicMax wrote: That's the price for D3100. Sorry sloppy DPReview guys.
Did you think to check whether this typo had been fixed before you posted? Thought not (since it had).
Why bother checking? It's been DPR's observed practice not to fix sloppy typos. I submit them through feedback all the time, and you neither acknowledge receipt nor fix them. Case in point. You have boatloads of sloppy typos in the recent P7000 preview. Through your so-called feedback button, I submitted one coherent set of corrections a week ago, the very first day that piece went up. You've done nothing about it. Instead, right there on the initial splash page it still reads in its very first paragraph:
Nikon has launched the CoolPix P7000 high-end enthusiast compact camera built around a 1/1.7" sensor and featuring a 28-200mm equivalent image stabilizaed lens. Coming over two years after the P6000, the P7000 is a considerably larger camera featuring bulky, faux-rangefinder styling that is more than a little reminescent of Canon's G Series. The P7000 has a 10MP CCD sensor, VGA-resolution fixed LCD and a usefully bright F2.8-5.6 aperture range. We've been able to borrow a P7000 and have prepared a hands-on preview.
And yes: I did check. Just now. That's pasted from the current version. Plus what I wrote above is just the tip of the iceberg. I submitted in one feedback gobs more, like "dual IR recievers " on page 1, or "and the the P7000's plethora of buttons " on page 3. Not one has been fixed. Therefore, (it seems that) you don't care about sloppy typos, and you don't fix them. So why should we bother to check? Or shall I post all the rest of them here, too, since you don't ever pay attention when I submit them privately? I still have my original corrections list, and I can certainly resubmit if it will do any good, but I've done this in the past and it hasn't ever done any good. That does not inspire confidence in the entire process. Don't chastise me: remember, I'm trying to help you. It's not my fault you ignore free fixes. It's yours. My email address of [email][email protected][/email] is now and always has been publicly available, so it's not as though you can't get back to me. I wish you would. Even more, I wish you would fix your sloppy typos that I have cordially and privately notified you of. But this lapse is not the first time this has happened, nor even the second, so I have lost faith. You would, too.

We try to correct all errors that are raised through the feedback mechanism, though some get lost in the spam filter and, I admit, some get glanced at and overlooked - yours I suspect fall into the latter category - but there's a good reason. If you'll forgive me for pasting part of one of your emails (which ran to over 4000 words) you may get an idea why, when we're really busy, we don't go through them with a fine toothcomb looking for the actual 'mistakes'
| From a design point of view the GF1 and E-P1 are chalk and | cheese, with the GF1 eschewing the E-P1's retro chic styling | for an altogether more macho minimalism. (Hm. Meaning Spartan minimalism? What's macho about minimalism?) "Chalk and cheese"? Whatever can that mean? OK, it's not an error, but it was a mystery. This chalk&cheese thing really is largely unknown in North America. Even I had to look it up to figure out what you meant, and I've both occasionally lived and also frequently worked in England. It appears to be mainly a UK thing. There's nothing wrong with that, of course. While you often choose North American turns of phrase or spelling (such as counterclockwise not anticlockwise), many other times you do not (artefacted, whilst). I just thought you should know that some significant portion of your readership is likely to misread or misunderstand you. Here's what I found about it: ("The American's Guide to Speaking British") Chalk and cheese - This isn't some weird British recipe, it is short for the expression "as different as chalk and cheese". You hear it when people are bitching about other couples they know who are very different to each other. You might say like night and day . Chalk and cheese are opposed in various proverbial expressions as things differing greatly in their qualities or value, though their appearance is not unlike, and their names alliterate.
  • 1393 Gower: Conf. I. 17
Lo, how they feignen chalk for chese.
  • 1541 Barnes: Wks. (1573) 258
This deffinition agreeth as well with your key, as Chalke and Cheese.
  • A. 1555 Latimer: in Foxe A. & M. (1684) III. 413
As though I could not discern cheese from chalk.
  • 1579 Gosson: Sch. Abuse To Rdr.
Making black of white, Chalke of Cheese.
  • 1600 Rowlands: Lett. Humours Blood vi. 75
Tom is no more like thee, then Chalks like Cheese.
  • 1708 Motteux: Rabelais v. xvi,
Words..as analogous as Chalk and Cheese!
  • 1826 Scott: Woodst. xxiv
This Scotch scare-crow was no more to be compared to him than chalk was to cheese. So it's certainly real. I just didn't know it, and I don't think most Americans would. You also use the phrase quite a lot. Google for site:www.dpzen.com "chalk and cheese" http://www.google.com/search? > client=opera&rls=en&q=site: http://www.dpzen.com+%22chalk+and+cheese%22&sour > ceid=opera&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8 and you will find 68 hits of that phrase in your material. WOW! That suggests it has become a hackneyed phrase for you guys. It even occurs more than once in this single review. So you might care to pick a different metaphor sometimes. I don't know what, though. Different as NIGHT and DAY is easily recognized, although comparing APPLES with AVOCADOS might suit the CHALK and CHEESE thing better. If you wanted a true category error, then comparing APPLES with APPETITE, or APPLES with AVARICE, might provide the right disconnect. Or the wrong one.
Basically 4000 words to point stylistic things you don't like, anglicisms and a couple of typos is unlikely to produce the desired result. SJ -- Simon Joinson, Editor dpzen.com

Tom Christiansen wrote:
Simon Joinson wrote:
PicMax wrote: That's the price for D3100. Sorry sloppy DPReview guys.
Did you think to check whether this typo had been fixed before you posted? Thought not (since it had).
Why bother checking? It's been DPR's observed practice not to fix sloppy typos. I submit them through feedback all the time, and you neither acknowledge receipt nor fix them. Case in point. You have boatloads of sloppy typos in the recent P7000 preview. Through your so-called feedback button, I submitted one coherent set of corrections a week ago, the very first day that piece went up. You've done nothing about it. Instead, right there on the initial splash page it still reads in its very first paragraph:
Nikon has launched the CoolPix P7000 high-end enthusiast compact camera built around a 1/1.7" sensor and featuring a 28-200mm equivalent image stabilizaed lens. Coming over two years after the P6000, the P7000 is a considerably larger camera featuring bulky, faux-rangefinder styling that is more than a little reminescent of Canon's G Series. The P7000 has a 10MP CCD sensor, VGA-resolution fixed LCD and a usefully bright F2.8-5.6 aperture range. We've been able to borrow a P7000 and have prepared a hands-on preview.
And yes: I did check. Just now. That's pasted from the current version. Plus what I wrote above is just the tip of the iceberg. I submitted in one feedback gobs more, like "dual IR recievers " on page 1, or "and the the P7000's plethora of buttons " on page 3. Not one has been fixed. Therefore, (it seems that) you don't care about sloppy typos, and you don't fix them. So why should we bother to check? Or shall I post all the rest of them here, too, since you don't ever pay attention when I submit them privately? I still have my original corrections list, and I can certainly resubmit if it will do any good, but I've done this in the past and it hasn't ever done any good. That does not inspire confidence in the entire process. Don't chastise me: remember, I'm trying to help you. It's not my fault you ignore free fixes. It's yours. My email address of [email][email protected][/email] is now and always has been publicly available, so it's not as though you can't get back to me. I wish you would. Even more, I wish you would fix your sloppy typos that I have cordially and privately notified you of. But this lapse is not the first time this has happened, nor even the second, so I have lost faith. You would, too.
I just checked, we got no feedbacks from you on the P7000. Technical glitch or overactive spam filtering I suspect. Simon -- Simon Joinson, Editor dpzen.com

N/T -- There is no such thing as taking 'too many pictures', you can always delete the extra ones, but you can never go back in time, and take more pictures... See profile for equipment (so far)

Doug, I agree that just listing ounces would be fine. The problem with listing decimal pounds isn't just a stylistic one. It's one of seriously degraded precision. Besides being a measurement that nobody uses, a tenth of a pound works out to more than 45 grams. Why should you sacrifice 45x the precision? Makes no sense. Better to say nothing at all. Here's what Nikon themselves say at http://imaging.nikon.com/products/imaging/lineup/digitalcamera/slr/d7000/spec.htm ;:
Approx. 690 g (1 lb. 8.3 oz.) camera body only; approx. 780 g (1 lb. 11.5 oz.) with battery and memory card but without body cap
I'm not sure why anyone would say anything else.

Simon Joinson wrote: I just checked, we got no feedbacks from you on the P7000. Technical glitch or overactive spam filtering I suspect.
That's a shame. I gave a short, quite complimentary paragraph thanking you for doing such a good job. I then gave you a recursive diff of the typos' corrections, sans commentary. I had no idea you mechanically discarded some feedback! Please explain then how best to reliably submit typos. How can one know whether your spam filter discards that feedback and you never see it? Because you don't answer? No, that's not reasonable, for reasons both theoretical and practical. From a theoretical point of view, it's an unreasonable assumption because absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. One must never assume someone didn't receive something just because they said nothing. It's unreasonable from a practical point of view because there's just no way you should be expected to manually answer every bit of feedback you ever receive. It may be polite, but it's not reasonable. It's certainly not cost effective. But when the typos remain even after resubmission, what is one supposed to think? What would you think? Absent any indication one way or the other, I cannot think of any way to distinguish between your not knowing and your not caring. Neither of those inspires confidence. Wouldn't you agree? May I please constructively suggest that you at least include an option by which the submitter of feedback can receive their own copy? You could email it to the user, or you could leave it in their DPR message box. That would not take any of your personal time because it would be an automated acknowledgement, not a manual one. I do realize both those would still incur some minor expense, insofar as they do consume small but non-zero amounts of your limited resources. But it wouldn't have to happen if the user didn't elect to receive a copy, and it would solve certain problems which I know no other way to address. (These may exist, but I just don't know them.) If you did that, then you could intentionally fail to provide a copy if your filtering mechnism decides it's spam. Not only would that strategy save on resources, it would also be much better than the current black hole of undecidability. Even for those users who check that option, either way the cost is small compared with much else you do, and the benefit real. Sending them a copy costs dramatically less than just one downloaded picture, and leaving a copy in their private DPR message box costs no more than storing any other posting or message costs. This seems an insignificantly small price to pay for the substantial benefit of reliable communications. As an option it wouldn't even have to be paid for all cases — although you might choose to do so always; I know I would. Meanwhile, I will resubmit the P7000 diffs. They have no commentary explaining or justifying them, just raw 'diff -ru' output. I would much appreciate it if you could please be so kind as to acknowledge their receipt, no matter what you eventually choose to do with them. That way I can know for certain that you received them and they weren't mechanically relegated to your spambox. Otherwise, I cannot. I'll address your other concern, that of signal-to-noise, later on today. I truly hope you can see that I'm only trying to be helpful.

yes dpzen made some typo.. they also said about 300k shutter and 150k in the other pages.. and also wrote about 18-55VR as a kit and 18-105 VR in the other.. maybe mr. Barnaby got very excited with d7000

they already fixed the typo can't wait to see in-depth review and some samples gallery (even it's from a pre-production camera)

Photog23 wrote: They appear to have the price listed at $699. If that's true, I'm pre-ordering tomorrow. Don't even need to wait for a price drop. LOL, I wish, but I think it's yet another of those copy/paste errors.
My fault - Simon got to it before I did but it's fixed now.

Does this one go in the Nikon D90-D40/D5000 forum or in the D300-D100 forum?
  • C

There is another error on the D700 diemsionsion comparison page: D300s is slightly bigger than D700 and D90 and not the same size as D700. Best regards -- fidibus http://home.fotocommunity.de/hannesm

Fidibus wrote: There is another error on the D700 diemsionsion comparison page: D300s is slightly bigger than D700 and D90 and not the same size as D700. Best regards -- fidibus http://home.fotocommunity.de/hannesm
That's fixed now - thanks.

It´s still erroneous. -- fidibus http://home.fotocommunity.de/hannesm

Fidibus wrote: It´s still erroneous. -- fidibus http://home.fotocommunity.de/hannesm
Hit F5 a few times - it's updated but might take a few refreshes.

The stats used in the Buying Guide, Side by Side Comparison could do with some fixes. Particularly ISO range and Metering. In the preview the bulleted points in the Key Differences section have the RAW Nef bit depth point and the non-CPU lens registration point each stated twice. I am so jealous of Nikon users right now. This HAS to make Canon drop their prices... right?

Good question!
CFynn wrote: Does this one go in the Nikon D90-D40/D5000 forum or in the D300-D100 forum?
  • C

Since everyone is quibbling, the gram to pound conversions in the full specifications (not the comparison table) could be revised.

Zamac wrote: Since everyone is quibbling, the gram to pound conversions in the full specifications (not the comparison table) could be revised.
Quite so. Nobody thinks in decimal pounds: that's why we have ounces.
  • 780 grams shouldn't be 1.7 pounds, but rather 1 pound and 11½ ounces.
  • 704 grams shouldn't be 1.5 pounds, but rather 1 pound and 8? — call it 9 — ounces.
  • 918 grams shouldn't be 2.2 pounds, but rather 2 pounds and 0? — just drop the term — ounces. Or perhaps, say it's 11 grams over 2 pounds.
  • 690 grams shouldn't be 1.0 pounds since it isn't , but rather 1 pound 8? ounces.
  • 780 grams shouldn't be 1.1 pounds since it isn't , but rather 1 pound 11½ ounces.
Sheesh! And you wonder why people grouse about sloppy typos? What else would you call them, eh?

Tom C. you might be going overboard here Give our friends at Dp a break, we all know what they are doing with those numbers, no need to nitpick your ounces !!! Cheers waiting for the D77510 cam, what a beautiful name for a camera! Isn't it? Ed

I find decimal pounds much more useful. If I see "1 pound and 11½ ounces" it means nothing until I convert it 1.7 lbs. Decimal pounds are a multiple of a single unit, while pounds and ounces require adding different units in my head.

Tom Christiansen wrote:
Zamac wrote: Since everyone is quibbling, the gram to pound conversions in the full specifications (not the comparison table) could be revised.
Quite so. Nobody thinks in decimal pounds: that's why we have ounces.
  • 780 grams shouldn't be 1.7 pounds, but rather 1 pound and 11½ ounces.
  • 704 grams shouldn't be 1.5 pounds, but rather 1 pound and 8? — call it 9 — ounces.
  • 918 grams shouldn't be 2.2 pounds, but rather 2 pounds and 0? — just drop the term — ounces. Or perhaps, say it's 11 grams over 2 pounds.
  • 690 grams shouldn't be 1.0 pounds since it isn't , but rather 1 pound 8? ounces.
  • 780 grams shouldn't be 1.1 pounds since it isn't , but rather 1 pound 11½ ounces.
Sheesh! And you wonder why people grouse about sloppy typos? What else would you call them, eh?
I'd call them minor errors in an unusually long preview which was - by necessity - produced very quickly. And they're fixed now. And Tom - we just got your P7000 news/preview typo 'report' (it arrived at 16:47 UK time). It stretches to 2049 words, and by the looks of it, most of the 'errors' they you've found are missing Oxford commas. And I'm sure I don't need to remind you that Oxford, or 'serial' commas are something of a gray area in written English. That said, I can see a couple of genuine typos in there, they've been noted, and will be corrected.

Barney Britton wrote: I'd call them minor errors in an unusually long preview which was - by necessity - produced very quickly. And they're fixed now.
And you’d be right to do so. They were. You did a great job on that review.
And Tom - we just got your P7000 news/preview typo 'report' (it arrived at 16:47 UK time). It stretches to 2049 words,
Hm, ‘2047 words’ seems a curious metric; I don’t believe I’ve seen that before. It had exactly 28 lines of changes, the way these things are normally measured. That’s two orders of magnitude smaller than your figure of 2047 words. And really, 28 changed lines doesn’t seem like all that terribly much, especially given the piece’s length. More importantly, my submission had zero lines of commentary, kibitzing, inveigling, dissembling, or extrapolating. It was svelte even. It lacked only some indication of errors versus suggestions, as both were included. That was probably a judgement error on my part, and I’ll try to do better next time. It’s in diff(1) format, the standard format used between developers for sending each other patches to text files. Revision control systems also use this format to record changes from one version to another. The format is really quite minimal, being about as parsimonious a format as you can have while still retaining surround sufficient context so as not to be vulnerable to simultaneous updates changing line number out from under you. We apply these patches automatically using the standard patch(1) program. It’s what I’m used to. In case you haven’t used them, the Mac versions of these standard programs are (somewhat under?)described here: I’ve sent you patches in diff -ru format before, and it seemed to have worked well then.
and by the looks of it, most of the 'errors' they you've found are missing Oxford commas. And I'm sure I don't need to remind you that Oxford, or 'serial' commas are something of a gray area in written English.
Many of them were, yes. And I do realize that there are two standards normally used, although I myself am firmly Oxford’s side in this, a position I’ve developed through decades of professional technical writing. You’ll find it more prevalent in technical publications than in newspaper journalism, where precision is more — well, exacting. The Oxford comma has also spared me the crucifying embarrassment of claiming divine birth by dedicating books to my parents, Mother Theresa and God. ? Still, I wouldn’t normally have included them, except that I hit on a couple of places where comma placement (or absence) led to a wrong parse or genuine error. One such was here:
  • such as in candlelit interiors and a Noise Reduction
It looked like ‹in› was governing both ‹interiors› and ‹NR›. With the Oxford comma, the problem goes away. Since I was inserting a serial comma in one place to fix a problem parse, foolishly hectored on by Emerson’s hobgoblins, I felt it would be inconsistent not to apply the same standard throughout. Otherwise it would have been internally inconsistent, which makes for rather harder reading; not a good idea. Another comma problem occurred here:
  • personal examination or printing, we do so in
That is what we call a comma?splice error, because a comma without a conjunction isn’t enough to join (or splice) together a pair of independent clauses. If one is not going to use a full stop between them, then one either needs a conjunction after the comma, as in ‹, and›, or else one needs a semicolon or colon, all depending on context, sense, and taste. That is not a suggestion, but a genuine error.
That said, I can see a couple of genuine typos in there, they've been noted, and will be corrected.
Thank you. I really was trying to help, and did so in the most useful and succinct way I was familiar with. In future, I’ll be more careful to distinguish corrections from suggestions.

Barney Britton wrote: That said, I can see a couple of genuine typos in there, they've been noted, and will be corrected.
Better check again: you seem to have missed a few. For example, you still have the catachrestic form, ‘convertor’, about which the OED has this to say;
  • convertor, erron. form of converter.
Hope this helps,

Tom Christiansen wrote:
Barney Britton wrote: That said, I can see a couple of genuine typos in there, they've been noted, and will be corrected.
Better check again: you seem to have missed a few. For example, you still have the catachrestic form, ‘convertor’, about which the OED has this to say;
  • convertor, erron. form of converter.
Hope this helps,
It's on the list sorry - loads to do here ahead of Photokina, but when I get a bit of breathing room I'll look at it.

Add new comment

Image
More information
  • Files must be less than 2 MB.
  • Allowed file types: png gif jpg jpeg.
Attachment
More information
  • Files must be less than 2 MB.
  • Allowed file types: zip rar.
By submitting this form, you accept the Mollom privacy policy.