Which Camera Would Be Best To Buy

[bigheadkyle2]

I know people are going to give the "go to your local store and feel them to see" but I'm talking best for what I want to shoot. I'm looking to do sports, both indoors and out, landscape and nature(which is probably more about the lens right?) and a little portait stuff here and there. Nothing big. Mainly looking to do local sports stuff like high school basketball and baseball. So which setup would be best for those? Should I go kit lenses or just get the body and another lens?

Nikon D7000 DSLR Camera (Body Only) 25468 B&H Photo Video
Nikon D7000 DSLR Camera Kit with Nikon 18-105mm DX VR 25474 B&H
Nikon D300s SLR Digital Camera (Body Only) 25464 B&H Photo Video
Nikon D300s SLR Digital Camera with 18-200mm VR II Lens 9740 B&H
Nikon D90 SLR Digital Camera (Body Only) 25446 B&H Photo Video
Nikon D90 SLR Digital Camera Kit with Nikon 18-105mm VR 25448

 

[2WheelPhoto]

D300s will shoot more and faster without filling the buffer compared to the others. Better for sports of course. But I love my D7000!

 

[bigheadkyle2]

Yeah I have read a lot of places that it was a good choice for a beginner sports shooter. And as far as the landscape and nature stuff it performs well there too? How about low light? Is that more depending on lens or what?

 

[D-B-J]

D7000 is a better "all around" body in my opinion. The d300s is nice, but is a few years old, where as the d7000 is new, has a newer processor (expeed 2), a better megapixel rating (not really that important, but still). Better video, and newer technology. All around my vote is the d7000. Sports only? D300s. But to achieve the full 8fps you need the mb-d10, with the en el4 battery. So add 100 for the batttery, 200 for the grip, and 50 for the charger.


Just my two cents.

Regards,
Jake

 

[D-B-J]

Side by Side Comparison: Digital Photography Review

 

[bigheadkyle2]

So you would say the D7000 because it is a better all around and it wouldn't be worth it to get the D300 just because it shoots faster.

 

[D-B-J]

So you would say the D7000 because it is a better all around and it wouldn't be worth it to get the D300 just because it shoots faster.

Correct. The only things the d300s really has OVER the d7000 is the fps, the focus points (51 in the d300 and 39 in the d7000, although most say they never notice the difference), and the setup of the external controls. I came from a d200 to a d7000, and while i like the external button setup of the d200 and d300, i will say the d7000 is a better camera. It's newer, has better imaging technology (Sensor, expeed 2 processor, etc).

 

[Kerbouchard]

All of your choices could be great or horrible. Honestly, it really depends on your overall budget and how you want to disperse your funds.

For instance, a D90 with a 70-200 2.8 would be a much better option than a D7000 and a 70-300 3.5/5.6. You basically want to shoot a bit of everything. So do most of us. IMO, Lenses and lighting are more important than the differences between the camera bodies that you listed. All 3 of the bodies you mentioned are up to the task that you outlined, but they will all need a good lens and/or flash equipment for the best results.

 

[bigheadkyle2]

Well that sounds like a win/win since it is also cheaper. I should just go ahead and get the kit lens since it is only $400 more than the body only right?

I'm going to get the same lenses regardless of the camera. I just have to get the money saved first. I'm not going to skip on a lens jsut because I got the more expensive camera. At least eventually. Maybe to start with it will be a difference.

 

[D-B-J]

Well that sounds like a win/win since it is also cheaper. I should just go ahead and get the kit lens since it is only $400 more than the body only right?

Not so much. The kit lens is good for beginners, but once you start to really get into photography, you will end up being limited by the lens. For me, it was the variable aperture and sub-par image quality. But then again, you said you want to shoot local sports. Possibly in crappy lighting in a gym? You'll want a 80-200 2.8 or the newer 70-200 2.8 Which are both over a grand. So its choices, choices, choices.

 

[2WheelPhoto]

Side by Side Comparison: Digital Photography Review

This is why I bought the D7000, but the D300s is still better for sports and he stressed sports. Buffer fills fast on the D7000.

 

[D-B-J]

Side by Side Comparison: Digital Photography Review

This is why I bought the D7000, but the D300s is still better for sports and he stressed sports. Buffer fills fast on the D7000.

What class is the card you are using, just outta curiosity? Class 4 or 10?

 

[2WheelPhoto]

Side by Side Comparison: Digital Photography Review

This is why I bought the D7000, but the D300s is still better for sports and he stressed sports. Buffer fills fast on the D7000.

What class is the card you are using, just outta curiosity? Class 4 or 10?

Not sure its a "PNY PROFESSIONAL" in both slots. But its common knowledge on the D7000. It shoots 6 fps, but buffer fills fast. Mine seems to fill if I stand on it after 15-20 shots. You can google "D7000 buffer" and find test results with various cards.

 

[bigheadkyle2]

Oh yeah I know eventually I will be wanting the more expensive ones but to start off with it would be worth getting the kit lens you know just to get my feet wet a little bit or would there be a better choice for about the money saved from getting the body only?


And I'm a bit confused, well not so much confused as I just don't know, but what does it mean that the "buffer fills faster."

 

[Kerbouchard]

The 18-105 VR really is a pretty versatile kit lens to get your feet wet. It shouldn't add $400 to the price, but then again, the prices have gotten all wonky since the earthquake in Japan and I haven't really been following how much the distributors are price gouging. If you can get the 18-105 for less than $200 additional, I would say go for it. If you can't, I would pick up a used 35-70 2.8 for around $300 and a 50mm 1.8 for around $100 before I paid $400 for the 18-105.