Trying to decide on a starter Nikon DSLR

[Kerbouchard]

You didn't offend me. Since the OP is relatively new to photography, I just wanted to give him an alternate point of view.

Obvioiusly, I disagree with just about everything you said. If I'm shooting indoors, I would take a kit lens and a flash over a D7000 and a fast prime any day of the week. If I am shooting portraits outside, I would take a kit lens and a reflector over the D7000 and a fast prime any day of the week. If I am shooting waterfalls or landscapes or city lines, I would take a kit lens and a tripod over a D7000 and a fast prime any day of the week.

You seem to have a pretty limited view of photography and judging by your opinion that a good lens and a camera are more important than getting 'bogged down with reflectors and other accessories' leads me to believe you may be missing out on quite a bit.

In any case, we have hijacked this thread long enough. Best of luck to the OP on whatever decision he makes. To Lady Nikon, whenever you decide to start a thread with some of your work, I would love to take a look.

 

[ladynikon]

You didn't offend me. Since the OP is relatively new to photography, I just wanted to give him an alternate point of view.

Obvioiusly, I disagree with just about everything you said. If I'm shooting indoors, I would take a kit lens and a flash over a D7000 and a fast prime any day of the week. If I am shooting portraits outside, I would take a kit lens and a reflector over the D7000 and a fast prime any day of the week. If I am shooting waterfalls or landscapes or city lines, I would take a kit lens and a tripod over a D7000 and a fast prime any day of the week.


In any case, we have hijacked this thread long enough. Best of luck to the OP on whatever decision he makes. To Lady Nikon, whenever you decide to start a thread with some of your work, I would love to take a look.

I agree we have hijacked this tread long enough! And maybe I aught to post some of my work, I wouldn't doubt you'd give me your honest opinion ;-)

I must say to the op that a lot of photography is about personal taste. Every one has their own personal style. That's what makes it an art. You will go out and use your camera to capture life and create your own art so you should buy equipment you are comfortable using. But know that photography can be very rewarding not just on a personal level but financial as well!

 

[behirab]

I know a chiropractor who also shoots weddings. Really, she's not bad--has a knack for interacting with people in such a way as to get good photos from them, and she has an eye. I've seen some of her poster size images and I thought they were good quality. Point and shoot or top of the line, there's obviously more to photography than the gear. And I'm not saying she doesn't have good gear, I don't know what she has.

Then again there's only so much you can get from a Holga, even if they are popular with the art crowd, nevertheless they do have their place... There seems to be a lot of snobbery among the technical cognoscenti, but really, when you're talking about vision as opposed to technical prowess, that's something you can't buy. Though you can educate yourself.

I recently looked at a site that sold "stock" photographs, and some of them weren't very good. I don't know much about how they obtained their stock or how one sells to them, but I would like to know more about making photography more "rewarding." Although that's not my main aim at this point. First the camera, and maybe not a fast 85mm lens to start out with, but there's nothing wrong with gathering information. Why not dream? Why not dream bigger?

I've checked out dpreview, but some of their information requires Flash which I can't use on my iPad. Adorama also has info requiring Flash. I like my iPad in spite of that. No camera or lens is perfect either. But I can like what I get. My checking account has almost enough for a D90 and a 105mm lens (if I don't mind draining the account), though I haven't fully decided on a lens yet. I may not stop there though. Not likely to be very soon, but maybe the D7000 will come down in price by the time I'm ready to take the plunge. Ha! In the meantime, I decided to check a book out of the library describing the operation of the D90, just to see what it was about, what it was capable of and how to get around to its various options before I go to a store so I'll have some idea of what to ask and try out. The library doesn't have a D7000 book yet, but the D90 operation should give me a step up to that model when I try one out.

It was written above, and I've also come across information about some chromatic aberration in the 35mm. Is this also true of the 50mm 1.8 ?

 

[o hey tyler]

On the d7000 the 35mm becomes more of a 55mm and the 50 becomes a 75mm because of the cropped sensor. They are both great starter lenses the one you choose is really up to personal taste since the only difference is focal length they are both very sharp and will have you looking like a pro in no time!

The 35mm lens doesn't "become" a 55mm lens. And the 50mm doesn't "become" a 75mm lens. They're both 35 & 50mm, however the FIELD OF VIEW changes. Focal length is consistent, FoV isn't.

 

[o hey tyler]

You didn't offend me. Since the OP is relatively new to photography, I just wanted to give him an alternate point of view.

Obvioiusly, I disagree with just about everything you said. If I'm shooting indoors, I would take a kit lens and a flash over a D7000 and a fast prime any day of the week. If I am shooting portraits outside, I would take a kit lens and a reflector over the D7000 and a fast prime any day of the week. If I am shooting waterfalls or landscapes or city lines, I would take a kit lens and a tripod over a D7000 and a fast prime any day of the week.

You seem to have a pretty limited view of photography and judging by your opinion that a good lens and a camera are more important than getting 'bogged down with reflectors and other accessories' leads me to believe you may be missing out on quite a bit.

Now I don't disagree with you that LadyNikon is a bit overzealous, however only using a "D7000 and kit lens" is kind of naive and also a very limited view of photography in it's own respect.

 

[ladynikon]

After reading my posts I suppose I do sound a bit overzealous! I'd like to clear up the idea that I was recommending he by the 85 1.4 as a starter lens that is NOT what I ment!! I actually said that the 35 or 50 would make a good starter lens!!!! The only reason I even brought up the 85 1.4 was because he had mentioned the 85 being in a package with the d7000. And my advice was to save up for the best one. Anyway I dare not give anymore advice as I don't want to send anyone else off on a tangent!!! I will say that after owning the both the d90 and the d7000 that the d7000 is worth spending the extra, what is it like $200?!?! I mean come on that's a no brainer thier is a reason why nikon replaced the d90. And if you would like to learn how to use the d7000 u can buy the d7000 for Dummies app for your iPad its only 99cents.

 

[Kerbouchard]

You didn't offend me. Since the OP is relatively new to photography, I just wanted to give him an alternate point of view.

Obvioiusly, I disagree with just about everything you said. If I'm shooting indoors, I would take a kit lens and a flash over a D7000 and a fast prime any day of the week. If I am shooting portraits outside, I would take a kit lens and a reflector over the D7000 and a fast prime any day of the week. If I am shooting waterfalls or landscapes or city lines, I would take a kit lens and a tripod over a D7000 and a fast prime any day of the week.

You seem to have a pretty limited view of photography and judging by your opinion that a good lens and a camera are more important than getting 'bogged down with reflectors and other accessories' leads me to believe you may be missing out on quite a bit.

Now I don't disagree with you that LadyNikon is a bit overzealous, however only using a "D7000 and kit lens" is kind of naive and also a very limited view of photography in it's own respect.

You are right...which is why I didn't advise the OP, nor have I ever advised anybody to max out there budget with a camera body and a kit lens, or a camera body and a prime lens.

I think anybody who is beginning photography who thinks that they might have a passion for it should spend less than their max budget on a decent camera body with a general purpose lens, shoot with it for a while, and then spend the rest of their budget once they have a better idea of what they want to shoot and what limitations they are recaching.

 

[behirab]

Since I have about $1000 to spend right now, which camera and lens would you recommend then?

 

[behirab]

I just read today on Nikonians that the D90 has been discontinued.

 

[o hey tyler]

I just read today on Nikonians that the D90 has been discontinued.

So?

 

[bentcountershaft]

For $1000 I'd get a D90 and a Tamron 17-50 non VC. I haven't check prices in a while but I think that can still be pulled off.

 

[behirab]

Around $1200 on B&H. Why you want non VC?

 

[Kerbouchard]

Around $1200 on B&H. Why you want non VC?

Probably to get closer to your budget.

 

[bentcountershaft]

Around $1200 on B&H. Why you want non VC?

Probably to get closer to your budget.

Yes, that and I don't find it necessary on shorter focal lengths. With a little hunting you could probably find both of those used in excellent condition allowing you to stay under $1000 and have a little left over for memory cards and batteries.

 

[mayhem7]

I can warmly recommend Nikon D7000 with a 16-85mm VR-II lens.. You can of cause use a FX lens, so you don't have to upgrade that too, if you decide to go pro one day.. But if I was you, I would start with a DX.