What to buy?

pizimp · Nov 17, 2011

In the past few years I have taken up photography, I started with an xsi and the kit lense, I decided that In fact I wanted a lense with a longer focal length, so I went out and bought a new 55-200 ( I dont have it right infront of me so I cant give you the exact model number), but It was roughly 350 odd dolars, Fast foward to this september, and I just bought my self a new D7k again with a kit lense and though I really enjoy It, I think that it is time for me to move up to a full frame camera, I was thinking that after I tallied up my Xmas/chanukah <-- (I am a practicing jew, but my dads side of the family is Protestant.) gifts, I would buy my self a 5D MKII, but then it dawned on me, I enjoy the pictures I am taking with the D7k and with the 3 grand I could spend on the new cannon, I could buy my self one or two new great lenses for my D7k such as a AF-S NIKKOR 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR from Nikon or some other sort of lens. I don't mean to gloat, but I am from a rather "well to do" family, and we take several vacations a year, to many different parts of the globe so keep in mind in need something rather versatile.

So the questions must be asked, should I buy a D5 mkII, or just get several more lenses?

Thanks for your help

WCIIX

MLeeK · Nov 17, 2011

I think you just have camera envy problems. The D7000 is an amazingly capable camera for a crop sensor. I'd probably choose it over my 5d2 at this point. I love my 5D2, but it's not as versatile as the D7000 is and the handling of the D7000? Mighty impressive even to canon shooters. You are much better off investing that into good lenses.

pizimp · Nov 17, 2011

Coming from a cannon fangirl extraordinaire, those are meaningful words. Thanks for the advice.

tevo · Nov 17, 2011

o_o

>buy disposable camera
>carry out xtreem good composition
>profit

Why do you keep upgrading cameras? More importantly, WHY DO YOU KEEP SWITCHING MANUFACTURERS?

KmH · Nov 18, 2011

Perhaps you should redefine what a great lens really is, because the 28-300 mm isn't one of them.

Any 10x+ superzoom lens is a don't-need-to-change-lenses - convenience lens. To achieve the 10x+ superzoom range they have to stack a variety of design compromises such that the lens sacrifices image quality for the convenience of the superzoom focal length range. In other words superzoom lenses are jack-of-all-trades, masters-of-none lenses.

To be sure, Nikon sells a lot of their superzoom lenses because for many amateur shooters the convenience of a superzoom lens is more important to them than the losses to image quality.

I also travel, but I take a backpack full of camera gear because I don't want to sacrifice image quality for a bit of convenience.

MLeeK · Nov 18, 2011

pizimp said:
Coming from a cannon fangirl extraordinaire, those are meaningful words. Thanks for the advice.

Hey, Nikon makes great cameras. They just aren't fit well to ME. That D7000 made a LOT of canon users look twice and consider jumping ship. A LOT of Nikon pros are using them as their second camera and a lot of emerging pros are using them at their main cameras. They are impressive.

As to the lens... Yeah, a super zoom is a real compromise on quality and light capability. The elements of the lens have to work together over such a wide range that they compromise some in order to do that. Yes, it's great to not have to change lenses, but if you want quality and sharp? that's not the way to go. It's done with 2 lenses if you are a zoom person. Something in the 24-70 f/2.8 range (there are several different lenses from Nikon as well as third party manufacturers for Nikon) and the 70-200 f/2.8.