Am I being "dumb" for buying a d7000 if I have a "passing" interest in photography?

snapsnap1973 · Jan 18, 2013

Hi.

I have to admit I'm not a real photography "buff", but I do enjoy taking pictures when I go on (frequent) road trips. I enjoy mostly taking landscape pictures and maybe pics of Historic buildings and flowers, wildlife, etc, when I see them. I'm not into "HDR", editing photos to make them look like paintings, etc, I just like taking photos of things as they appear naturally, I don't wanna "mess" with them, as I think this defeats the purpose of photography.

Anyways, I only have a Sony Cybershot dsc H20 right now and don't really care for it for taking lanscape shots as I don't think it's "wide" enough and I also want to get into DSLR. So after some research I've decided to go Nikon and I've narrowed it down to either the D5100 or the D7000. I have tried both at a local department store and prefer the viewfinder (larger) of the D7000. I also like the "dedicated" external controls of the D7000 over "going thru menus" on the D5100, so I'm leaning towards the 7000.

I'm the type of person that If I were to buy the D5100, I would regret it and want to get the "better" camera. I've also heard the D7000 is "Nikon's best" or similar and this kind of interests me.

Also, as of late I've been getting worried about radiation on Nikon cameras (I know I'm paranoid), am I being ridiculous? Should I worry at all about this?
Sorry, maybe I'm being stupid.

Thanks

480sparky · Jan 18, 2013

I think it would only be 'dumb' if you truly need to spend the money for more pressing needs... like a place to live, food, clothing, stuff like that.

runnah · Jan 18, 2013

If you can afford it then go for it. D7000 will keep you happy for a long time and if you do decide to invest more, you have room to grow.

Yes paranoid.

amolitor · Jan 18, 2013

No.

For almost all of us cameras are a luxury item anyways. If you can afford it, why not? Get what will make you happy. When I do suggest is that you research the available options for long enough to be pretty sure that you WILL be happy. This is much more about you than about the equipment. Nikon and Canon both make gear that is miles more expensive and miles "better" (for fairly specific measures of "better") than the 7000, and similarly they make lots of gear that's cheaper and "not as good".

Just don't wind up spending a bunch of money on something that's not going to make you happy for a while. Get "better" enough stuff for your satisfaction.

ratssass · Jan 18, 2013

....if it's disposable income,dispose of how you wish.Sounds like you've already answered many of your own questions.

Overread · Jan 18, 2013

If you can afford it go for it

All I will say is that if you're looking at landscape consider going for fullframe - ie FX in Nikon talk**. Nikon has some outstanding wide angle lenses (I even know Canon photographers who get them and mod them for work on their CAnon setup or even have a separate Nikon setup to get those lenses).

Heck in my situation I went out and bought a DSLR having never ever owned a camera before in my life* It didn't do me any harm

(though my bank balance has never been the same since

)

* ok there was a cheap digi cam that got used around 5 times and never for photography - just snapshots

** I think I'm right but I don't talk Nikon very well.

snapsnap1973 · Jan 18, 2013

Thanks all! I just KNOW if I were to CHEAP out and get the 5100 I'd regret it and want the 7000 that's my problem. I kind of want to start at the "basics" with a 18-55, but it looks "limiting", although I really don't know what that means lol. Also, the LARGE viewfinder of the 7000 pretty much sold it to me over the 5100.

Do you think the prices of the 7000 would go down in 2 or 3 months or should I just get it now if I were to decide on it?

nycphotography · Jan 18, 2013

I'm hearing that you want wider angle capability for your landscapes. But I'm also hearing very few of the interests that typically drive the "better dslr" buyer.

I never heard of the H20, but I just went and looked at some specs and it doesn't seem all that "crappy" of a point and shoot... just it doesn't go as wide as you find you'd like when zoomed out, stopping at 38mm (equivalent on full frame SLR). So yes, I see where you're coming from.

However, I might suggest that you consider something else first, as a cheaper introductory step, before jumping full into dslr land.

One possibility, would be to get a used Panasonic LX5 for around $200. Yes, it's a P&S. But it has a larger sensor than the superzooms, and it has a wider lens (24mm equiv vs the 38mm equiv on your Sony). It has full manual controls (so you can use it to learn many of the concepts you'll need to know in order get the most out of a dslr). And it's not a throw away stepping stone. I have full a nikon dslr set up w/ many lenses, flashes, bla bla bla. Yet I use my LX5 more than I use the dslr. Why? Because it fits in a pocket and I can carry it and use it easily. It's probably even smaller than your sony (you can check the specs and find out).

Another possibility would be to try a wide angle teleconverter for your sony. I imagine they have one (but I didn't check). A 2x wide teleconverter would make your 38mm equiv into a 19mm equiv which is quite wide and should do the trick for your landscapes and shots where you want a wider angle.

If, having tried either of these, and you still want a dslr... by all means get one. But I think in this day and age, the only reason to go dslr is if photography is an interest unto itself for you, and will be given a much larger share of your interest and attention.

Overread · Jan 18, 2013

nycphotography said:
I
Another possibility would be to try a wide angle teleconverter for your sony. I imagine they have one (but I didn't check). A 2x wide teleconverter would make your 38mm equiv into a 19mm equiv which is quite wide and should do the trick for your landscapes and shots where you want a wider angle.

Careful with the terminology here. A 2*Teleconverter will increase the focal length of the lens by double - making a 38mm into a 76mm lens. A wide angle converter could be on the market for the lens, however wide angle converters are generally limited to only the point and shoot market and are typically rather poor in quality.

I've yet to see any made for DSLRs or other high end stills optics (video might have some but I honestly don't know). I'd also suspect that the vast majority sold at a cheap price are pretty poor options. They will work but you might get poor edge performance.

SCraig · Jan 18, 2013

snapsnap1973 said:
Also, as of late I've been getting worried about radiation on Nikon cameras (I know I'm paranoid), am I being ridiculous? Should I worry at all about this?
Sorry, maybe I'm being stupid.

Radiation??????? Where in the world did that come from? What radiation would there be in a camera? Sorry, but I have absolutely never, ever heard of any radiation of any kind coming from a digital camera, except in the strictest sense of the word. If you get one hot enough it's going to "Radiate" heat and if you get it cold enough it's going to "Radiate" cold, but something along those lines is honestly all I can think of.

jwbryson1 · Jan 18, 2013

SCraig said:
snapsnap1973 said:

Also, as of late I've been getting worried about radiation on Nikon cameras (I know I'm paranoid), am I being ridiculous? Should I worry at all about this?
Sorry, maybe I'm being stupid.

Click to expand...

Radiation??????? Where in the world did that come from? What radiation would there be in a camera?

:mrgreen:

nycphotography · Jan 18, 2013

Overread said:
nycphotography said:

I
Another possibility would be to try a wide angle teleconverter for your sony. I imagine they have one (but I didn't check). A 2x wide teleconverter would make your 38mm equiv into a 19mm equiv which is quite wide and should do the trick for your landscapes and shots where you want a wider angle.

Click to expand...

Careful with the terminology here. A 2*Teleconverter will increase the focal length of the lens by double - making a 38mm into a 76mm lens. A wide angle converter could be on the market for the lens, however wide angle converters are generally limited to only the point and shoot market and are typically rather poor in quality.

I've yet to see any made for DSLRs or other high end stills optics (video might have some but I honestly don't know). I'd also suspect that the vast majority sold at a cheap price are pretty poor options. They will work but you might get poor edge performance.

Good point... I meant twice as wide, which would be a .5 teleconverter, and not a 2x. And the camera in question is a P&S, a Sony h20. I wouldn't suggest a teleconverter for a SLR, since you can simply get a different lens.

But in the context of the original post, don't you think a wide teleconverter (provided one is available) would make sense? This is not someone who's making all the usual noises about "photography" and pixel peeping image quality. The only real complaint I heard is that the wide isn't wide enough, and at 38mm, it's easy to understand why.

edit: seems there's one available somewhere as here's a picture of one. sony h20 with wide lens

Overread · Jan 18, 2013

Thing is anyone can use a DSLR - they are not all that complex and there is more to it than just pixel peeping. I also think that when someone comes asking "is a DSLR right for me" a lot of the time they want it to be and just need that extra push over the edge. IF they have the money and they are already interested I think its great to give them the choice.

A DSLR can be a very fine camera on its own and it can sometimes start people off into a new hobby (they don't have to get all serious, but they can have a lot of fun).

Sometimes people are suited to a point and shoot, but I've also not heard the OP making noises that sound like a point and shoot is what they should stick with. OF course in the end it is their own choice on the matter and there are certainly some very fine point and shoot/bridge or even mirrorless cameras on the market now to consider.

snapsnap1973 · Jan 18, 2013

I already have a point and shoot and want to start out with a dslr now. I'm just wondering between the 5100 and the 7100, but I think the viewfinder seems small on the 5100. The plus points about the 5100 are that:

5100
cheaper
can buy another lens and get the 18-55 (kit) (I'd like to have the 18-55 kit)

7100
more expensive and get a 18-105 (kit)
dedicated buttons
LARGER viewfinder

Also is there any difference between having an 18-55 versus 18-105? I mean would there be any point in having an 18-55 if you own an 18-105 other than the 18-105 possibly being a little heavier?

by RADIATION I meant since the earthquake and leak and the proximity of the NIKON plant and if cameras could be contaminated. It's a valid concern, but I don't know how realistic it is.