Camera purchase question

[Netskimmer]

I returned my Nikon d5100 to Wal-Mart today. I’m not sure if it’s the camera I want and even if it is I can get it cheaper online. Buying it there was the only way to really get my hands on it for a “test drive.”

Should I get another one online or should I put a little more cash down for the D7000?

I know both are “budget” cameras but I simply cannot spend $2,500+ for a camera and then spend money on lenses so my options are pretty limited. I don’t see too many differences in the two really and the D5100 actually seems to be better in a few ways. Is it worth the extra $400 or so for a D7000?

 

[2WheelPhoto]

d7000 has 2 card slots, "supposedly" handles low light better, shoots faster and will focus all the lenses not just the motorized ones

 

[Ginu]

It depends on what you're planning to do... The 5100 is a very capable entry level DSLR and the D7000 is the most advanced amateur/pro camera Nikon makes today so it is hard to suggest what would be the best for you. Since you've had practice with the D5100, you should know what you're missing or would like to have or if perhaps the D5100 is more than what you would want in a camera... its all relevant to your needs, desires and knowledge.

I know quite a few pro photographers using D7000's and D300s cameras and seem to do quite well.

Here is a link to Eric Diller's home page.. the guy uses a D300 and a D7000 and his pictures are sensational, just look at his bird collection .

99% of the photographers will tell you to spend your money on good glass rather than a camera as even an entry level can get splendid results when used correctly with the right glass under the right circumstances. The main problem with good glass is the price ... which most people have a hard time justifying but once they taste it, they will never look at any other glass but pro.

To be setup for most situations you will need a wide angle lens and a telephoto lens along with a flash and it all boils down to how much you're willing to spend to achieve certain goals afterwards. Do you want to take portraits of people or perhaps taking pictures of birds/animals or perhaps landscapes is your interest? These are all questions which you need to answer before making a decision.

The D7000 has many advantages over the D5100 in terms of settings and ISO sensitivity which is huge... remember photography is all about the light and how you utilize it. Set a money goal and see what you can get from there in terms of camera, lens and other accessories
Another huge advantage of the D7000 over the D5100 is the construction of the body and also it has a internal motor, meaning it will focus on the AF older lens, so it will give you a wider selection of lens. Also a D90 is something you should look at as it is a little older but still a really good camera.

Photography is an expensive hobby and quite frankly never ending and this is why so many people get dragged in (keeps them busy for years to come). There is always something to learn or acquire (techniques, lens, cameras, flashes, tripods, monopods and so many other accessories which will improve your pictures). Some people achieve certain lens and equipment over decades

 

[Netskimmer]

I mostly am interested in landscapes and nature shots maybe candid shots but my brother’s oldest kid competes in local fair and horse shows and the youngest is getting into them so I want something that can catch fast motion shots as well.

I don’t intend to make a career out of photography or going pro anytime soon (maybe freelance, someday) but I would like to make it a serious hobby and plan to attend a college coarse on photography in the fall and I am going to try and find a local club/group to interact with.

The D5100 is more than I need at the moment but I am concerned that I may outgrow it relatively quickly.

 

[2WheelPhoto]

I mostly am interested in landscapes and nature shots maybe candid shots but my brother’s oldest kid competes in local fair and horse shows and the youngest is getting into them so I want something that can catch fast motion shots as well.

I don’t intend to make a career out of photography or going pro anytime soon (maybe freelance, someday) but I would like to make it a serious hobby and plan to attend a college coarse on photography in the fall and I am going to try and find a local club/group to interact with.

The D5100 is more than I need at the moment but I am concerned that I may outgrow it relatively quickly.

thats exactly where I'm at with the D5000. it takes razor sharp pics with good glass, but I wish it could do better at ISO, wish it could fire remote flashes, and several other things the D7000 does. here's some pics i took with my D5000 (last year's 5100): http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/landscape-cityscape/243160-noob-walks-clearwater-beach.html

 

[djacobox372]

d7000 has 2 card slots, "supposedly" handles low light better, shoots faster and will focus all the lenses not just the motorized ones

It's also made of metal instead of plastic, and meters with old manual focus lenses.

 

[Netskimmer]

Nice shots.
I've heard several poeple here say it's the indian not the arrow and other similar sayings and I'm sure thats correct but a better arrow can't hurt.

I got some decent shots with my kodak P&S at the zoo last year. I knew nothing of compisition at the time but my family liked them.

 

[Netskimmer]

99% of the photographers will tell you to spend your money on good glass rather than a camera as even an entry level can get splendid results when used correctly with the right glass under the right circumstances. The main problem with good glass is the price ... which most people have a hard time justifying but once they taste it, they will never look at any other glass but pro.

Could you define "good glass" for me? I know that there are $3,000 lenses out there and there are $75 lenses. Does the 55-300mm lens in my sig qualify as good glass or low end?

If I go with a camera with an internal focus motor should I try to get lenses without a focus motor? I would assume that all other things being equal lenses without the motor would be less expensive and lighter.

 

[FireRunner]

The D7000 is in no way a "budget" camera. It's an excellent camera. Unless you're a professional photographer there's nothing you will need the D7000 doesn't give you.

And, I agree with the above. The lens is what makes the photo. My two most used lenses cost as much if not more than my camera. Prime lens are always better than zoom, the quality is better in build and glass.

 

[Netskimmer]

And, I agree with the above. The lens is what makes the photo. My two most used lenses cost as much if not more than my camera. Prime lens are always better than zoom, the quality is better in build and glass.

Hmm... since it only cost about $330 I am going to assume that's a negative on it being "good glass". :mrgreen:

BTW since I took the D5100 out of my sig it looks like I am using a 55-300mm Nikkor lens on a Kodak Easyshare :lmao:.

I wonder if I could find an adapter...:sillysmi:

 

[KmH]

It's also made of metal instead of plastic, and meters with old manual focus lenses.

Only the top and back panels of the D7000 are metal, the rest of the D7000 body, like the lens mount and the bottom of the camera where the tripod mount is, are still made of plastic.

http://techpatio.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/nikon_d7000_magnesium_front.jpg

Here is a D300/D300s all metal chassis:

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1143/1219834188_6c7ccc3427.jpg

 

[KmH]

"Good glass" has high quality optics that have minimal optical aberrations like barrel distortion, pincushion distortion, chromatic aberration (CA), coma, soft focus, etc.

For zoom lenses "good" means a constant aperture zoom, not a varuable aperture zoom, and a wide maximum aperture so they can be used in low light situations.

 

[Netskimmer]

So I would be extremely lucky to find a "good" 200mm let alone a 300+mm zoom lens for less than $1,400.

Anyone know a trustworthy place to get good used lenses? I am leaning towards the D7000 which means I could get older lenses that don't have AF.

 

[KmH]

So I would be extremely lucky to find a "good" 200mm let alone a 300+mm zoom lens for less than $1,400.

A good Nikon zoom that has a max focal length of 200 mm can be bought used for lots less than $1400, and lots of older used lens can auto focus on a D7000 because it has an AF motor in it.

You can also buy new for less than $1400: Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8D ED AF Zoom Nikkor Lens for Nikon Digital SLR Cameras

You can also buy the slightly older push-pull version for $600 or so, depending on it's condition: http://www.keh.com/camera/Nikon-Autofocus-Zoom-Lenses/1/sku-NA07999032018N?r=FE

The top-of-the-line 70-200 mm is $2400: Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II AF-S Nikkor Zoom Lens For Nikon Digital SLR Cameras

Anyone know a trustworthy place to get good used lenses? I am leaning towards the D7000 which means I could get older lenses that don't have AF.

KEH.com, BHphotovideo.com used department, Adorama.com used department, Amazon.com from both retail stores and private sellers.

As focal length gets longer, particularly with wide apertures, cost goes up dramatically: http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-300mm-V...EVEW/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1306010044&sr=8-3

 

[Netskimmer]

I was thinking of getting this one but it wouldn't fit in my camera bag.
Sigma 200-500mm f/2.8 EX DG APO IF Autofocus Lens 597306 B&H

I'm not sure a 200mm focal length would be enough. Would a teleconverter come in handy?