The right camera

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by kevin_mackay, Nov 21, 2011.

  1. Hello there everyone, I am new to this so please forgive me if you think this is just rambling. I have an Olympus E-400 and I've had this for 3 years, I am looking to upgrade my whole set up to improve my photography and I am looking at the D-7000. I don't have a particular style as the camera will be used for everything from landscapes to portraits, nature and sport. My question is will this camera be a step up from the E-400, I can't justify going full frame as photography is a hobby I want to improve. I also plan on some local courses to improve my technique. Will the D-7000 be a good choice as a step up and could anyone recommend some descent lenses for this camera, to do all of the above. ( Landscapes, Portraits, Nature and Sport. ) Thank you all in advance for any responces
  2. Given that all of a half hour has passed since you posted your question, I'm surprised your post hasn't yet been met by the usual barrage of knee-jerk responses such as: "It's the indian, not the arrow", "A century of fantastic images have been taken with equipment vastly inferior to your e400", "Invest in good lenses, not bodies", etc. etc. Hopefully, your statement preempted some of the, "Take a course" comments you will also likely receive.
    While all of these comments have some merit, don't be dismayed by them. I know several folks who have a d7000 and love it. To me, one of the most important factor would be that you'll benefit from several years of sensor improvement, ie, better noise/low-light performance, but there are many other improvements/features that you probably know better then I do. Like many things in life it comes down to a realistic cost-benefit analysis: Just how much are you willing to spend to obtain the improvements and new features. Don't forget to factor into your analysis the cost of a different lens system, shoe-mount flash, etc.. Most of the improvements will be incremental and quantitative (eg, lower noise, speed, AF, 2 card slots, better evaluative/matrix metering, etc.), not qualitative, but, I'm sure some will be in the latter category and may, or may not be important to you. Perhaps the bottom line is that if I was in the market for a new camera, I'd purchase one in a heartbeat.
    Assuming you will eventually purchase one ;-) , have fun with your new gear.
    Tom M
  3. Thanks for your quick response Tom, I should have added I'm not new to photography Just to posting questions on a forum, my e-400 isn't going to be binned either as this will become my back-up as I'm quite partial to going to Arizona and the desert, so this camera will be used without the fear of sand damaging my new set up. The reason I'm going back to nikon is I had one years ago and image quality was fantastic.
    Thanks again.
  4. The comments Tom mentions have more than "some merit". They have merit, period. But if that's already clear, then OK, let's move on.
    Is the D7000 a better camera? Yes it is (and obviously it won't make you a better photographer). It may give you more oppurtunities to catch those fleeting moments as the camera has more bells and whistles that help you getting those moments. But needless to say, a D7000 takes a bit of learning.
    Depending on how serious the sports is, you may consider the D5100 as well. It has a few things less than a D7000, but you may not miss them. The reason I mention sports is the AF system - the D7000 is quite a bit more advanced there. The other main advantage is the better viewfinder, in my view (some people will start about the in-body motor, but it's not that big a deal, if you do not have lenses yet).
    As for the lenses, since you list a rather wide range of photography, that might add up to quite some lenses. What is your budget here? For example, for landscapes, the Nikon 16-85VR is seriously good, but as a portrait lens, it falls well short. For sports, some will say the tool to have is a 70-200VRII. Undoubtly a great lens, but rather hefty price too, so it may not be a serious answer. It would help to understand the total budget.
    Just a whole other thought, though. While I can understand concerns about Olympus future as a DSLR supplier (or in general), the E5 is quite a camera too. If you already have a serious investment in 4/3rd lenses, then it is worthy of consideration, I think.
  5. I own a D7000 and love it. I have +1 to all of Tom's comments. You will overwhelmed with the "Its the indian, no the arrow". I think its both. The worlds best Indian couldn't shoot a crooked arrow straight and the worlds best arrow couldn't hit its mark without a skilled Indian. If you got the dough, a D7000 is one of the better imaging cameras out there, its AF may take a little getting used to, and it certainly has features to spare, but its a nice balance between professional features in a reasonably priced package. The next thing which is very important is what lenses you put in front of your D7000. If you are into fast primes, can't recommend the 35mm, 50mm & 85mm F/1.8 lenses enough, all are fantastic and all will do you good. I personally am a fan of the 70-200 F/2.8 behemoths, but I hear the 70-300 is just fine for most applications on a budget, especially if you aren't pixel peeping. The 24-70 is amazing although its also very expensive. As far as wides go I use the 17-35mm F/2.8, but I'll be the first to tell you there are many other, better lenses for the D7000 on the wide end, so I'll let other users advise you there.
  6. Most modern arrows are incredibly straight. Most modern cameras are excellent as well. The real question is: what is your current camera not doing that you need it to do? This question is asked in the present tense; I am not asking what your current gear will not do that you might wish to do in the future. We cannot see the future very well.
  7. Very true, I do not question the technical "straightness" of modern day cameras, they are all good if one knows how to use them, I referring primarily to the connection between Indian and Arrow. I've extensively used the Canon 7D, 5D mkII, & 1DmkIV as well as the Nikon D3s, the D7000 & the D90. I prefer my D90 over the 5DmkII, despite the fact that I thought the 5DmkII had hands down better image quality and I preferred full frame, because I "connected" with the way the D90 worked, it was intuitive for me while the 5D wasn't. Not to say it was a bad camera, it just wasn't for me. So Kevin, you should do some test driving with the D7000 and see if its right for you or not, if it fits your style, do you like more buttons or less buttons? Do you need/like a complex AF system?
  8. It would be helpful to know what you're looking for that your current camera doesn't do...
  9. Thanks all, the problem I have at the moment with my e-400 is I find it struggling in low light ( quite a lot of noise ) the course I was planning, is a get to know your nikon, I'm from the UK and don't know if they run these courses in the US ( I'm sure they do ) the reason I would like D-7000 is I've had a play in the shops and like the general feel of this camera.
    Thanks again
  10. So, how often do you shoot landscapes, nature and portraits in less than adequate light? The noise issue shouldn't be there at all, if you are in the lower ISO or expose adequately. On the other hand, if you just want a new camera, buy it. The d7000 is a great camera but so are many others these days.
  11. Kevin: I'd hate to think back over the dozens of cameras I've purchased over the last 50 plus years. If I thought about it, I probably could remember each one of them. However, two really stand out. They do that in large part because one I kept much longer than any of the others and one I expect to do the same thing with. The earlier one was the Nikkormat. It was technically adept and very rugged. The shutter was state of the art. It was a primary camera for a while and the old dependable backup for years. It outlasted a number of Nikon Fs. The other that I think has many of the same qualities -- though in a somewhat different vein is my D7000. It is physically rugged, but it has a lot of technology that I'm guess will be functional for a long time. The D7000 is probably the best value for the dollar spent of any camera I've owned. It is a lot of bang for the buck. Having said all this it is still a personal choice on my part and yours.
  12. If high ISO image quality is what you're looking for and you don't mind switching systems or want to go all the way up
    to FX, the D7000 is an obvious choice. Don't neglect lenses - the kit lens for it is great in good light but in dim light it
    wipes out the D7000's high ISO advantages. A lot of peopleswear by the 17-50/2.8 Tamron lens and there are some
    great Nikon primes that are reasonably priced.
  13. Thank you all for your comments, I have made my mind up to purchase the D-7000 although it will now be in a few months time, due to the price increase probably because of the flooding. Price in the UK has increased by £150 ( that money will be going towards some nice glass ) when the price comes back down.
    Once again thank you all
  14. As to the kit lens. I've had some great results as ISO 3200 and 6400. It really surprised me because I thought it was going to be a piece of junk. I bought it only because it was the only way to get a D7000.
  15. Everybody hates on kit lenses, but Nikon's been doing a commendable job on them lately. This one is about 95% as
    good as the 16-85mm lens (I mean optically, not build quality - I wouldn't take this or the 18-55 or 55-200 lenses into
    rough conditions, but I'm pretty careful with my newer) at half the price.
  16. There are a lot of good cameras out there, but you can't go wrong with a D7000. The kit lens is an 18-105 VR which is a very good lens. It's one shortcoming is a plastic mount, but that shouldn't be a problem unless you are very hard on your gear. The D5100 has fewer bells and whistles, but it has the same sensor and it's a lot less expensive. It requires lenses with built-in focus motors to autofocus, but Nikon, Sigma, and Tamron all make some excellent lenses with the motors.
  17. The glass in the kit lens is very good, as has been pointed out it is the build quality that lacks. Mine is currently back at Nikon for repair of the plastic mount. No surprise there.
  18. Kevin, those Nikon courses are very expensive for only a few hours. Have you considered a local Adult Education course in photography? You could get a full term's course of 20-24 hours training for less than that 150 quid.

Share This Page