TOP camera in the consumer / semi-professional segment

I own this camera since 12.11.2010, they have treated myself as an upgrade to the D90 and have been made very positive experience with it. Whether the D7000 is worth the extra cost of the D90, everyone likes decide. In a direct comparison of these two models, the D7000 scores primarily by better operating concept (z. B. arrangement of the autofocus functions), larger ISO setting (down to ISO 100), 39 AF points (including 9 cross-type sensors), Full HD video ....

When image quality is noticeable that the D7000 the light sources such as neon signs depicting sharper especially during long exposures and significantly less than the D90 outshone. For this, the D90 in doubt fine details in dark areas represent better than the D7000 (keyword texture loss).
Whereby the often mentioned texture loss essentially depends on the lens used. When using the Nikon AF-S 18-105mm 1: 3.5-5.6G ED VR This problem occurs m. E. significantly increased as the Nikon AF-S 16-85mm 1: 3.5-5.6G ED VR. Very nice to see this is at the test images, which can be downloaded on the [...].
When there compares the test images (D7000 with 16-85 VR), the D7000 is in front of the D90 and even clearly visible in front of the Canon EOS 60D (contrary to some reviews otherwise).

Bottom line, I would say that the value for money of the D90 is still unbeatable. Who but the money has left for the D7000, is also on this device certainly have a lot of fun ...

Edited on 09/02/2011:
After I have the D7000 now traded (case of complaints) against the D300s and now can compare the pictures, I have to admit that the criticism regarding the texture loss is entirely justified. See the following comparison pictures D300s vs. D7000. At 100% view of the difference is serious.

[...]
[...]
[...]
[...]

The D7000 is certainly a very good camera, but the comparison with the D300s it does not stand up. Therefore, I regret to deduct a point ...