Buying New DSLR

[benjyman345]

Hello,

I am going to buy a new DSLR soon. I previously had an Olympus E410 which had an accident and I will be stepping up.

I do a lot of nature photography and macro. I like to be able to take my camera on bush walks etc.

The Nikon D7000 is very very tempting but the weight of the big beast is holding me back. I am use to the E410 which is about 375g in comparison to 780g for the Nikon.

The other option i was looking at in the camera store was the Canon 600d, which was a more reasonable weight.

It seems the Nikon has superior quality imaging and lens compatibility.

I have been happy using manual focus on my old camera. I generally shoot in Aperture priority and am not interested in movie.

As well as macro I like to do night photography when away camping etc.. star trails...
I believe Nikon is better for higher sensitivity but then again I may be best just using a Film SLR for this.

My other choice of course is Pentax (but my local camera store no longer stocks any DSLR except Nikon & Canon) It seems that Nikon and Canon have very good marketing and of course a large range of lenses but are they really that much more superior to say Pentax.

Anyway I just not really sure what to do now... weight is obviously a big factor in the practicality and user friendly-ness of the camera.

 

[kylehess10]

The Nikon D7000 is very very tempting but the weight of the big beast is holding me back. I am use to the E410 which is about 375g in comparison to 780g for the Nikon.

I don't think the weight of the camera should determine if you should buy it or not. I just got my D7000 on Friday, and I'm absolutely in love. Just take it from Ken Rockwell:

"The D7000 is Nikon's most advanced camera at any price. The fact that it sells for $1,200 make it a no-brainer, which is why it's sold out. The D7000 is Nikon's best DSLR ever."

I paid $1,100 for a refurbished D7000 from Adorama. It's worth it! When you look at it, paying a little over a grand for Nikon's "best DSLR ever" is a hell of a bargain.

 

[benhasajeep]

The D7000 weighs more becuase of serveral reasons, one of whict is it has more capabilities like a body focusing motor. This opens up the possibility of using amlost any Nikon AF lens made. So, if you want to buy used gear your choices go up big time. The D7000 bests quite a few Canon models in performance in a lot of areas. Right up to their 7D model. Although it does not have as many megapixels, it does alot better with the pixels it does have. And really the weight difference also means how much lightweight plastic is used in the other cameras (think toughness and longevity). If your always very carefull this may not matter. But if you hike and slip or accidently bang it against something. It may matter quite a bit.

Pentax is probably the best bang for the buck out there. I don't think they have any intenetions to go after Nikon and Canon in the pro market. So, I think they have setteled in to making very good consumer camera and lenses. I think they are due to bring out a better body / sensor pretty soon.

Canon obviously has a large line of cameras. The only problem I have with them is they sell them like cars. Each step up in body level (price level), they give you a couple more options. Some may see that as good though. Really the performance of their first 4 or 5 levels of bodies are very similar. Each one up just adds another or better feature. But their output is nearly the same.

 

[benjyman345]

Thanks for the replies. I know the D7000 is a very good camera and much better then the canon 600d but I do need to take into consideration my small hands and lugging it with me on bushwalks etc. If the camera is going to be a nuisance to carry around the extra quality and features may not be worth it. It is an awful sacrifice to have to make but I guess it needs to be practical and user friendly. Pentax K-5 is about the same size and not sure about the other models. I'm still completely unsure what to do... it would be good if I could try each camera out for a day or two and get a proper feel for it and whether it 'works' for me.

 

[benhasajeep]

Thanks for the replies. I know the D7000 is a very good camera and much better then the canon 600d but I do need to take into consideration my small hands and lugging it with me on bushwalks etc. If the camera is going to be a nuisance to carry around the extra quality and features may not be worth it. It is an awful sacrifice to have to make but I guess it needs to be practical and user friendly. Pentax K-5 is about the same size and not sure about the other models. I'm still completely unsure what to do... it would be good if I could try each camera out for a day or two and get a proper feel for it and whether it 'works' for me.

If you have no plans to be a prophotographer with a large range of capabilities. I say go with the Pentax. A nice added feature of Pentax is in body image stabilization. They do have very good quality lenses as well. And like Nikon you can use certain older lenses on them as well. If the Pentax feels good, I say go with it. And the Pentax K-5 scores higher than the D7000 in quality tests. And compared to the Canon 600D, the K-5 scores much much higher than the Canon. But again the Pentax is about 120grams heavier than the Canon, and the Nikon is about 140grams heavier.

As for the heavier bulk of the Nikon / Pentax. If your walking around the bush, do you really want a camera that has cheaper lighter construction, that might break easier??

 

[benjyman345]

Supposing I buy the Nikon what lenses do you suggest? It comes with an 18-105mm.

* An all purpose lens would be good - preferably with more zoom then the kit (but I may have to just stick with the kit lens for the time being)
* A Macro Lens (I'm interested in the larger then 1:1 macro photos but I believe it is only possible to achieve this with Nikon lenses + additional components or adding a reverse lenses - and then of course their is the issue of needing extra light i.e. flash which is out of the question at the moment...)

and then possibly a wide angle and maybe general purpose prime lens later down the track

I still think practicality comes before the possibility of falling over and breaking the camera. You are more likely to fall over or have an accident if your lugging a brick as appose to something lighter, but I do understand that the higher quality production should lend to a longer lifespan. I will most likely be insuring my new camera either way but lets not talk about insurance and all the fun and games involved...

 

[molested_cow]

Have you held the D7000 personally? Your main concern is the weight and how it fits your hands. If you haven't held it personally, it's useless talking about these. And come on, small hands? Just think about who designed that camera!

Weight wise, it will depend on the lens. You want to do macro. I've used the Nikkor 105mm macro lens and it is big and heavy as compared to a regular lens like the 50mm. If you want that shot, you got to do whatever it takes.

 

[flatflip]

Ergonomically, the D40 was perfect for hiking, for me. In turn, the D3100 is perfect as well. I have a D7000 and it seemed massive and uncomfortable at first, but now I'm totally used to it. It is still a little harder to backpack but worth it if I want just one do-it-all camera.

I got the kit lens because that was the only way to find a D7000 in stock at the time. It is an OK lens but I would prefer a faster lens like a Sigma or Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 or something.

 

[benhasajeep]

Supposing I buy the Nikon what lenses do you suggest? It comes with an 18-105mm.

* An all purpose lens would be good - preferably with more zoom then the kit (but I may have to just stick with the kit lens for the time being)
* A Macro Lens (I'm interested in the larger then 1:1 macro photos but I believe it is only possible to achieve this with Nikon lenses + additional components or adding a reverse lenses - and then of course their is the issue of needing extra light i.e. flash which is out of the question at the moment...)

and then possibly a wide angle and maybe general purpose prime lens later down the track

I still think practicality comes before the possibility of falling over and breaking the camera. You are more likely to fall over or have an accident if your lugging a brick as appose to something lighter, but I do understand that the higher quality production should lend to a longer lifespan. I will most likely be insuring my new camera either way but lets not talk about insurance and all the fun and games involved...

The 18-105 would be a good general purpose lens. If you do get the D7000 there will be the body focus motor that will be of an advantage to you. Because of the focusing motor you can use the AF-D type lenses. Including the 105 f/2.8 AF-D macro. Which sells for a very decent price now a days. Focusing speed in general for macro is not that important, unless your doing moving insects. For plants and flowers and such. I actually use a focsing rail for final focus. So focusing speed really doesnt matter to me. the AF-D lenses are very good lenses. So, by going with the D7000 you open up the possibilities in lenses that you can use (and savings by buying good used lenses). Also with the new G lenses there is no aperature ring. So if you do get into reversing and such. The new lenses are harder to deal with. So being able to use AF-D lenses is a big plus in my book.

 

[benjyman345]

The camera comes with 18-105
but what do you think if I changed that for a 18-200 VR II Kit? (bumps the cost up approx $850, but gives a 27-300 equivalent in 35mm)

I guess the lens would be a bit slower and quality may not be quite as good but it gives me the extra zoom for general use. When I was using my Olympus E410 I had a 40-150 kit which is equivalent to 80-300mm (in 35mm). I know quality wise you are better investing in a tele lens but I was thinking more for ease of portability and general use.

What are your thoughts? Is it worth it etc?

----------
P.s. I'm assuming these lenses from the nikon site are the same as the kit lenses I am referring too.

* AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-105mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR (Provided?)

* AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II (Possible Upgrade?)

 

[flatflip]

Surely you don't mean $1000 more? I would like to have that lens for a vacation do-it-all but that's too much for slow glass. You're gonna want some fast glass soon enough. Get the kit lens (a great starter lens) and a 50mm f/1.8 ($125). The fast prime will teach you to love fast glass and you will save your money and not buy multiple slow lenses.

EDIT; I spoke boldly and I'm just a hack but maybe someone with years of experience will back me up. I feel strong about it.

 

[benjyman345]

Woops... AU $850

Thanks for the quick reply, your info is helpful and I'm sure others will have similar thoughts, but will be good to hear from them.

Cheers

 

[benjyman345]

Anyone else have thoughts on the two lenses?

The camera comes with 18-105
but what do you think if I changed that for a 18-200 VR II Kit? (bumps the cost up approx $850, but gives a 27-300 equivalent in 35mm)

I guess the lens would be a bit slower and quality may not be quite as good but it gives me the extra zoom for general use. When I was using my Olympus E410 I had a 40-150 kit which is equivalent to 80-300mm (in 35mm). I know quality wise you are better investing in a tele lens but I was thinking more for ease of portability and general use.

What are your thoughts? Is it worth it etc?

----------
P.s. I'm assuming these lenses from the nikon site are the same as the kit lenses I am referring too.

* AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-105mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR (Provided?)

* AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II (Possible Upgrade?)

 

[benjyman345]

Anyone else have thoughts on the two lenses?

The camera comes with 18-105
but what do you think if I changed that for a 18-200 VR II Kit? (bumps the cost up approx $850, but gives a 27-300 equivalent in 35mm)

I guess the lens would be a bit slower and quality may not be quite as good but it gives me the extra zoom for general use. When I was using my Olympus E410 I had a 40-150 kit which is equivalent to 80-300mm (in 35mm). I know quality wise you are better investing in a tele lens but I was thinking more for ease of portability and general use.

What are your thoughts? Is it worth it etc?

----------
P.s. I'm assuming these lenses from the nikon site are the same as the kit lenses I am referring too.

* AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-105mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR (Provided?)

* AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II (Possible Upgrade?)

 

[Propsguy]

Just a thought....

I have a 7000 and I have found that it really suffers when shooting with anything but pro glass. If you are sticking with kit lenses, get a D90... it has better overall image quality with cheap lenses. If, however, you intend to invest in pro glass, the 7000 betters the 90 by a longshot, and even surpasses the D300 for general IQ.

I say this based on my personal experience with all three cameras tested with identical lenses under studio lighting... I was dissapointed with the 7000 until I gave it the beans with good glass, and then it shocked me...

Cheers,

Paul