Trying to decide on a starter Nikon DSLR

[behirab]

I am going to have to stretch my finances to afford either, but I am trying to decide between two starter Nikons. I've read more than once that it's better to try to buy better lenses than an expensive camera with cheaper lenses, so here's my question. Is the Nikon D5100 with the 18-55mm kit lens plus a moderately priced extra lens a more practical buy than the D7000 with it's 18-105mm lens for an equal amount of money? Is the D7000's kit lens better than the D5100's as a starter lens? If so, would it make sense to buy the D5100 body and get the D7000 kit lens and then later get a second lens after saving up for it? According to Snapsort the D5100 is a pretty good camera, certainly better than the lower priced D3100, although the D7000 is better than both in terms of features. Of course, there's the older D90, too. I'm stepping up from a Nikon compact and have no lenses of any kind so I'm starting fresh in the DSLR market. I'm interested in a fast lens for taking photos of my dogs in action and landscapes, especially in low light levels. I love the zoom on my compact and would like to get some kind of a zoom if I could afford it.

 

[Derrel]

I would buy the D7000 and the 18-105 zoom and call it GREAT!!!!! The 18-105 is a much handier lens than the 18-55, and is more versatile than the 18-55, just due to the greater focal length range the 18-105mm has. The D7000 is a much higher-featured camera than the D5100. I'd say the D7000 would probably keep you happy for five years or so. Not so the D5100. The D90 is, right now, a very good value proposition, and if you do not eant to go the full price of the D7000, the D90 is a good Nikon to consider, especially given the performance-to-price equation the D90 carries with it.

 

[behirab]

I would buy the D7000 and the 18-105 zoom and call it GREAT!!!!! The 18-105 is a much handier lens than the 18-55, and is more versatile than the 18-55, just due to the greater focal length range the 18-105mm has. The D7000 is a much higher-featured camera than the D5100. I'd say the D7000 would probably keep you happy for five years or so. Not so the D5100. The D90 is, right now, a very good value proposition, and if you do not eant to go the full price of the D7000, the D90 is a good Nikon to consider, especially given the performance-to-price equation the D90 carries with it.

Which lens would you follow up the 18-105 with, say a zoom? There doesn't seem to be a Nikkor that begins at 105mm--a 70-200, 80-300? How heavy are these lenses?

 

[Patrice]

Which lens would you follow up the 18-105 with, say a zoom? There doesn't seem to be a Nikkor that begins at 105mm--a 70-200, 80-300? How heavy are these lenses?

I suggest you supplement the 18-105 with a 35 f1.8 (better) or a 28 f2.8 (good) for low light indoor family and friends occasions. These lenses won't break the bank and are quite nice.

 

[behirab]

Thanks for your input. Further research reveals that Ken Rockwell recommends the D7000 very highly; he also likes the D5100 but not as much, but it's cheaper. I realize that there are some features I would have to grow into, especially with the D7000, but that will also keep the camera interesting, whichever I choose. He recommends an ideal set of 3 lenses, neither of the kit lenses, but rather: 35mm, 55-200mm, and 10-24mm. The first two are relatively light and inexpensive. The third is more expensive than the D5100 body alone. Will the lenses shoot differently on each of the models? The 35mm appeals to me because it is so fast at 1.8, so I'm wondering if it will be more effective with the D7000 in terms of light gathering than the D5100 if the ISO, shutter and aperture, and other settings are the same?

 

[Drake]

Thanks for your input. Further research reveals that Ken Rockwell recommends the D7000 very highly; he also likes the D5100 but not as much, but it's cheaper.

I wouldn't value his opinion that much, he's known for some controversial statements. But yes, the D7000 is one hell of a camera.

 

[PJL]

I'm wondering if it will be more effective with the D7000 in terms of light gathering than the D5100 if the ISO, shutter and aperture, and other settings are the same?

No, "light gathering" will be the same. This is a pointless tautology, but exposure is exposure. Assuming that the ISO ratings are accurate, the exposure on a D5100 set at 200 ISO, 1/500 shutter speed, and f/3.5 will be exactly the same as a D7000 with those settings or a 30 year old film camera using 200 ISO film and those shutter and aperture settings. It doesn't mean the lens will perform the same as far as autofocus (the D7000 has an on-board AF motor, whereas the D5100 does not; the D7000 also has more AF points), and there will be differences in color rendition and other things that don't have to do with exposure are concerned.

If you want opinions that are a little more stats and results-based than Ken Rockwell's gushing (I like some of his articles, especially regarding photo composition, but he seems very eager to label equipment he likes as the best thing ever), check out www.dpreview.com You can do direct photo comparisons between the D5100 and D7000.

 

[behirab]

This from the dpreview: that there's been an overexposure problem with the d7000 in bright high-contrast conditions. Does anyone know anything about this? Is it correctable with exposure compensation?

 

[Drake]

This from the dpreview: that there's been an overexposure problem with the d7000 in bright high-contrast conditions. Does anyone know anything about this? Is it correctable with exposure compensation?

Such things can be corrected. As PJL stated, every camera should produce identical image when used with the same settings. When a particular camera tends to over/under expose, it isn't really a problem with the ability to get a correct exposure. Every camera has a different meter which measures the light and gives the camera the right settings based on that. Some meters might think a particular scene should be a tad brighter/darker than it is in reality. It's usually not a big deal and pretty easy to correct, especially if you shoot in RAW mode.

 

[behirab]

I'm reconsidering the D90, which I could get so much cheaper than a D7000, today after looking at the prices of lenses. I like the theory of not having overlapping lens ranges as suggested by Ken Rockwell, but does this work out In practice? I've seen cameras packaged with lenses with overlapping or seemingly redundant lengths, such as one I saw on Adorama packaging a D90 with an 18-105 and a 55-200 lens. Does it make sense to buy these two lenses together? Wouldn't you want an 18-55 with a 55-200 or an 18-105 with say an 80-200 that would have less overlap? Maybe there's something I don't understand about all this. I realize that even in an overlapping length a lens might be faster or slower too, so maybe a 50mm lens is f/1.4 and the 18-105 has a range beginning with f/3.5. Anyway, buying the D90 could allow me more flexibility in lenses and still have a better camera in some ways than the D5100. Thomas Hogan says the 16-85 lens is better than the 18-105. I know it's more expensive, but is it better?

 

[digital flower]

To me a little overlap in focal lengths isn't that big a deal. Remember you can only use one lens at a time. The D90 is kind of a steal now IMHO.

 

[Drake]

I'm reconsidering the D90, which I could get so much cheaper than a D7000, today after looking at the prices of lenses. I like the theory of not having overlapping lens ranges as suggested by Ken Rockwell, but does this work out In practice? I've seen cameras packaged with lenses with overlapping or seemingly redundant lengths, such as one I saw on Adorama packaging a D90 with an 18-105 and a 55-200 lens. Does it make sense to buy these two lenses together? Wouldn't you want an 18-55 with a 55-200 or an 18-105 with say an 80-200 that would have less overlap? Maybe there's something I don't understand about all this. I realize that even in an overlapping length a lens might be faster or slower too, so maybe a 50mm lens is f/1.4 and the 18-105 has a range beginning with f/3.5. Anyway, buying the D90 could allow me more flexibility in lenses and still have a better camera in some ways than the D5100. Thomas Hogan says the 16-85 lens is better than the 18-105. I know it's more expensive, but is it better?

I wouldn't be too crazy about the overlapping thing. You want to get the 80-200 just because it's less overlapping with the 18-105? There are more important factors, such as lens quality and price. The 80-200 is a fast, very sharp lens, and the 55-200 is... well, cheap. It's not a bad lens, but not really a substitute for 80-200. The 25mm of overlapping focal length is not really worth your time to think about. As for the 18-55 vs 18-105mm dilemma - again, the 18-55 is a good starting lens, not brilliant, but really good for it's low price, whereas the 18-105 is a bit sharper, has a much useful focal length for the times you want to take only one lens with you, and of course it's pricier. My advice? If the two lens package is not a lot cheaper than getting the D90 with 18-105 and than the 55-200 lens separate, than I'd just forget about the tele for now. The kit lens is pretty versatile, start shooting with it and in a couple weeks/months you'll know exactly if you need a tele, or perhaps something different like a fast prime or ultra wide angle lens.

 

[behirab]

One thing against the D90 is that it has less ISO sensitivity and I like to shoot in low light outdoors at night without flash.

 

[PJL]

One thing against the D90 is that it has less ISO sensitivity and I like to shoot in low light outdoors at night without flash.

Do you want to shoot in low light or at night? They're not the same thing ("at night" assuming that it's dark out). High ISO is useful for shooting, say, inside without a flash, or around sunset outside when the light is diffuse. If you're shooting at night using long exposures, you wouldn't use high ISOs anyway. By the way, have you looked at samples from the D5100 at its higher ISO settings? The results aren't exactly stellar (at the very high end, they're almost unrecognizable). You'd have to go up to a D700 or D3 to truly get usable high ISO figures. I'm not trying to dissuade you, but high ISO numbers can be as meaningless as high megapixel numbers -- more doesn't necessarily mean better results.

 

[behirab]

Thanks. Good point. This gives me reason to reconsider the D7000. I was reading today an article about how great the Nikon 85mm f/1.4 was for poor light, I guess any fast lens would be, right? And how that would be a great combination. Can you use an FX lens on a D7000?