Nikon D3000/5000/7000

[martin7]

Where is the sweet spot for an affordable camera? I really like the D3400 but find myself looking at the 5000 and 7000 series.

 

[Designer]

Bear in mind that the D3xxx and D5xxx series of Nikons are called the "baby Nikons" for a reason. Not only are they physically smaller, they are lacking in many useful features that the D7xxx series and above have.

So for the largest "bang for the buck", get a lightly used in excellent condition Nikon D7100. That should run you around $700 (at last look) which is not much more than the entry-level Nikons.

That is the sweet spot IMO.

 

[dunfly]

First you need to figure out what is important to you. The D3400, d5300-D5600 and the D7100-D7200 all have the same sensor and will all take great photos. I have a D5200, which has essentially the same sensor with a low pass filter, and a D7200. The D5200 is lighter, has a good AF system and a flippy screen. I use it for travel most of the time due to its size and weight. It is relatively easy to set up for most situations. The D7200 is more substantial (heavier), bigger, a better menu and control system, and a better AF system. It is better for more challenging situations and appears more durable. But I can get equally good images out of both under normal conditions. The D3400 is OK but it doesn't have some of the features I want. It can take good images, it is just not quite as convenient.

 

[ac12]

IMHO, there is no general "sweet spot."
There however is a "sweet spot" for YOU.

What I mean by this is
1 - If the "general sweet spot is a D7200" but you can't afford it, than it is of no use to you. So your budget defines the boundaries of the sweet spot.
2 - If the lens is not what you need/want, you will end up replacing it, at further cost to you.
So, the sweet spot has to be what you can afford, and what you need.

Example1, I use the Nikon 18-140 lens. It has worked out better than I expected. The 18-140 has met 80+% of the shooting needs, and significantly eliminated lens changes. Right now, I only change lenses when I need a FASTER lens for indoor sports, or a LONGER lens.

Example2, but for casual home/family use, the 18-140 may be too bulky and expensive, and the 18-55 might fit that need better.

In fact, I have been thinking of getting either the D3400 or D5600 with a 18-55, just for use as a 'grab camera,' for family parties and such. Easier to use than the bulkier and heavier D7200, and better than my P&S camera.
I can tell you from personal experience, if the gear is a hassle to use, you won't use it as much as you should. This is why phone cameras are used so much. You have it with you all the time, and they are easy to use.

If I just want an upgrade from a P&S, the D3400 + 18-55 might fit the need.

As you can see YOUR use of the camera drives which camera and lens meets that need best.

Try this.
Draw a matrix, with columns for D3400, D5600, D7500.
Then list the features of each camera, so that you can compare what features each has.
Then REALLY think about these features and if they are of value to you.

Example, the D7000 has the ability to autofocus the older mechanical autofocus lenses.
If you do not have any of these lenses, then that feature is of no value to you.
However if you do have these lenses, then that feature is of value to you. It was for me.​

Then list the needs or things you are interested in.
Then under each camera, note how or if it meets those needs.

Overbuying is like insurance, so you are not caught short of functionality later. But that comes at a $$$ cost. If you never end up using that functionality, you wasted $$$. But no one can predict the future, so this is a personal decision that has to be made.

 

[dunfly]

I definitely agree with ac12 about the Nikon 18-140mm. It is the most versatile lens in the DX lineup. Whatever setup you get, I would recommend getting the 18-140mm with it, even above the two lens kits with the 18-55mm and the 70-300mm (particularly since the 70-300mm that comes with the kits does not have vibration reduction). I use the 18-140mm 80% of the time also no mater which camera body I am using.

My personal sweet spot would be a refurbished D5300 with the 18-140mm lens, but I like the convenience of a lighter body and a flippy screen.

 

[ac12]

I definitely agree with ac12 about the Nikon 18-140mm. It is the most versatile lens in the DX lineup. Whatever setup you get, I would recommend getting the 18-140mm with it, even above the two lens kits with the 18-55mm and the 70-300mm (particularly since the 70-300mm that comes with the kits does not have vibration reduction). I use the 18-140mm 80% of the time also no mater which camera body I am using.

I would NOT get the 2-lens kit with the non-VR 70-300. IMHO, a waste of money. Unless money is tight, and you are willing to accept a non-VR long lens. Hand holding a non-VR 300mm lens on a DX body is not as easy as some may think it is. My 75-300 will be replaced with a similar VR lens.

The D3400 can be bought with 2 lens options: 18-55 or 18-55 + 70-300 (non-VR). There is no body only option.
The D5600 can be bought with 3 lens options: 18-55, 18-55 + 70-300 (non-VR), or 18-140. It can also be bought body only.

 

[SquarePeg]

The refurbished 7100 I bought 3 years ago was just under $500. An excellent choice and I was happy I upgraded from the 5100 for several reasons:

Dual SD slots (built in back up)

External controls - if you’ve graduated from the Auto settings, you’ll appreciate not having to go into the menu to change key settings

24 mp makes cropping a better option

Weather sealing provides some peace of mind

Built in motor so no worries if used lenses will be compatible

Cons vs 5100: I missed the moveable screen and it is definitely heavier

 

[Derrel]

Right NOW, there are a lot of cameras being traded in, as spring and better weather approaches, and as new Sony and Nikon high-end models lure people into gettin' some cash together to buy, "the next great thing". The Nikon D850 is the next great thing in Nikon; Sony's new A7r-III is their next great thing. I was in a brick and mortar photo sho yesterday, and they had a number of older "great thing" models that had been consigned. Really NICE cameras from the past! Nikon D700, Nikon D3x, Nikon D800, and a pair of D610 models. All at affordable prices, used. Some of the cameras were well-used, a few were almost new, with click counts as low as 6,000 frames.

Personally? I think used bodies are the way to go...within the past six months, I've gotten a D610 and grip and four batteries for $748, and a D800 and two batteries for $798. I bought each at what I thought was the low-price point for each model; as a "next great thing" is announced,and then as it hits stores, the number of people who feel, they simply MUST HAVE that next, high-megapixel wonder-camera start trading in their gear, or consignment selling it.

Right now? I say used full-frame D610 or D800, for a low price. OR...and this is just me...look into the used D3x body, 24-MP, and simply the finest-handling flagship Nikon has ever released. The D800 is a nice body, it is, very,very nice. But the D3x is simply superior in every way, except it's larger and heavier, but it has abetter layout and a better control system, and handles better, shoots better (but slightly slower FPS).

Whatever you buy--get a 24-MP sensor, or higher MP count.

If you buy a small body APS-C Nikon, ___definitely____ get the 70-300mm AF-P VR lens! The 70-200 AF-P VR is an excellent performer; Google Thom Hogan and the D3400 and the 70-300 AF-P VR review, and see his other comments on that lens. The 70-300 AF-P VR is now, according to him, the very-best 70-300 Nikon has __ever___ released.

I dunno...I say, get a used, D7200 body if you want APS-C...and want to jeep costs down.