Nikon D 7000 or New Lens

[brian_lawliss]

<p>The Nikon D7000 is a better camera altogether. Don't let anyone talk you out of getting the D7000. We upgraded to the D7000 from the D90 so much better camera. The D40 is ok for snapshots, buy even with the standard lens from the D90 on the D7000 is difference enough to make the change. Higher Quality altogether. You can crop your pictures to even 1/4 the size and still get great 14 X 20 prints. The D7000 gives you the options of much better photography, and the video is superior to any other camera in its price range.</p>

[owen_omeara]

<p>I have to second Brian</p>

<p>-O</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>brian, you're confusing the OP. no doubt, the d7000 is a better camera than the d40. but, it matters not if you dont have the skills to get the full measure of performance from it. the d7000 will still be around in six months. in the meantime, the OP could help himself to become a better photographer and make himself worthy of such a camera. when you're just starting out, IMO, it's better to learn on entry-level bodies and fully master their capabilities before upgrading. just my opinion, but the idea that the camera makes the photographer isn't completely accurate.</p>

[andylynn]

"Better photography" is accomplished by better photographers. Better cameras allow for certain technical

improvements, but technical improvements are a single term in the equation.

 

I got to borrow a D7000 for a weekend in CA a couple weeks ago. Very nice camera. Better than my D90 in some

respects. But it didn't lead me to "better photography" - it did help me do better on a couple of indoor shots and a

couple in fog where I was able to bring up colors that would ot have come out as well (though I shot Reala in my F100

at the same time and, being honest, it did just as well) but probably 99% of my digital shots would have come out so

close if I had been using my D90 that I would ot have been able to tell the difference unless I was going to make some

very large prints and compare them side by side, standing very close. If it were between a D40 and a D7000, that 99%

by comparison might havebdroppedmto 95% (there was low light shooting involved, but I had that 35/1.8 and my new

50/1.8 and wasn't pushing the ISO envelope most of the time).

 

Now, being able to get those few extra shots is good. But if I owned William's equipment (William already did the right

thing by buying two good lenses instead of a new body) and were thinking of ways to invest resources to improve my

photography, education and practice and a trip to somewhere I wanted to shoot would be a higher priority than

equipment. Heck, when I first came to consider myself a halfway decent photographer I was using a manual focus

SLR and a 3 MP Nikon E995.

[rob_mulligan1]

<p>Pretty much anything I would have said has already been said, except for (with all due respect) Brian's comments. Improve your craft before you spend money without a tangible reason to do so. In particular, don't buy into the megapixel propaganda. I have this picture <a href=" as an 8x10 in my office. Do the math. It's LESS than 1.5 MP. Makes a lovely 8x10.<br>

Having said that, I have both, and owned a D70s and a D90 previously. Sure the D7000 is better, mostly in it's high ISO capability ( I have a new baby, that's important for sleeping baby pics), near pro build quality, autofocus video (baby stuff again), the ability to use legacy lenses - it meters my old AI and AIS lenses- and a bunch of other improvements that I carefully considered before I dropped the wad on a new camera. <br>

The D40 has it's own magic too, in particular, a nearly unlimited flash sync when using radio flash triggers - seen here: <a href=" It's small, light, and easy to use. Even if you DO get the D7000, keep the D40 as your backup. It's one sweet little camera.</p>

 

[ShunCheung]

<p>Over and over, I have read arguments on this fourm such as:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I have seem some excellent images from the Dxyz camera at ISO 3200 with little noise.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>or</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I have printed to 11x14 with a 3MP image and it looks great.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>While there may indeed be some excellent images captured at ISO 3200 with this Dxyz camera, it does not at all mean any image captured at ISO 3200 using Dxzy will look great. It also does not mean that any 11x14 image from a 3MP original will look great.</p>

<p>Noise is mainly the result of underexposure. If you have a low-constrast image with no shadow areas, ISO 3200 can look great. Likewise, if your image has little fine details, 3MP could be all you need to capture most of the information.</p>

<p>However, there are many many other situations where those settings will not yield good images. In that sense, a higher-end, newer DSLR such as the D7000 with better AF and perhaps currently the best high-ISO results for a Nikon DX-format body is desirable.</p>

<p>The problem here is that the OP has not identified why his current camera and lenses are limiting his photography. Whenver someone askes whether he/she should get another camera or lens, that is a good indication niether one is necessary. In that case typically one is better off taking some classes and reading some books to get better first. Again, get your images critiqued, and don't be embarrassed by negative comments. All of us have been beginngers once upon a time. If nobody points out to you how you can improve, the chance is that it is much harder for you to do so.</p>

<p>On the web, there are plenty of photographers who have high-end equipment but beginner technique. At least I don't think it is a good idea to join that rank.</p>