Confused which config should I be buying

[kunjal_patel]

<p>Hi guys,<br>

I have been using Olympus SP590-UZ and have been doing things with adjusting aperture or focus and all but now it seems it has limited amount of things that I can do with it with higher ISO's during night/low light.<br>

Hence, thinking of upgrading to a DSLR and it seems I have set my heart for <strong>Nikon D7000</strong>. However, I am a little confused with, should I be going for kit lens i.e. <strong>Nikkor 18-105</strong> or I should buy body only and go for <strong>Tamron 18-270 f/3.5-6.3 Di II VC</strong>?<br>

I am basically into Landscapes, bird, portraits and other random photography which I do it as a passion/hobby.<br>

Thanks for your opinion guys.<br>

<br />Cheers,<br>

Kunjal</p>

[johnw63]

<p>That Tamron is what I would call a "super zoom" and as such will not be as good as a pair of less extreme lenses. To have that much optical change, there is a lot of moving parts. All those parts can make the image less sharp. If you want to shot at 270mm, the lens is a SLOW f6.3 and will make using AF or even focusing manually a problem.</p>

<p> </p>

[Jerry_]

<p>You may want to check the Nikon AF-S VR 18-200mm DX lens. The newer version has a zoom lock.</p>

<p>At f5.6, you still get auto-focus. And it is a bit more solid construction wise compared to the kit AF-S 18-105mm lens.</p>

<p> </p>

[Two23]

<p>For what you are wanting to do, I would suggest a zoom that is a constant f2.8. A used Nikon 17-55mm f2.8 would probably be the best choice, with Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 and the Sigma equivalent close behind. For birds you need a longer lens, of course. I'd stay away from the 18-270 lens because it is f6.3. You will have trouble shooting in low light with that.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

[ariel_s1]

<p>You're doing the typical beginner mistake of shooting too high. There is no advantage of getting a D7000 as your first SLR, unless you want your wallet to be lighter when you carry it around in your back pocket. Start with a D3100. I came from years of film experience, was working for a newspaper shooting early Canon digital SLRs, got a D40 as my own personal camera when it was announced, and it still took me many months to be comfortable with it. The 18-55mm is good enough for landscapes starting out, since you'll be stopping down anyway. You may want to supplement that setup with a good tripod and head, and after that, consider a 35mm f/1.8 for general use, and either the 60mm f/2.8 or 85mm f/3.5 for portraits. Buy one of two telephoto setups for your bird photography: a 55-300mm VR lens (or Nikon or Tamron 70-300mm), or if you are willing to step up in price, a Nikon 300mm f/4 AF-S and TC-14e teleconverter will be worlds better, as you'll likely be at 300mm for birds anyway.</p>

[Two23]

<p>I'll agree (as usual) with the idea of putting more money and emphasis on a lens than a camera. The D5100 has the same sensor as the D7000, and the savings would help you buy a lens that will do what you are wanting. You will be disappointed with the slow f6.3 lens in anything but bright daylight.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

[kunjal_patel]

<p>Thanks guys for very prompt response.<br>

From your response and experiences, I guess, you are telling me that D7000 is not the right choice for me at the moment and I should go with either D3100 or D5100 and whatever I save I should invest in buying some good lense which will all together help me in improving the quality of pictures I take?<br>

Is what I understand correct?<br>

Cheers,<br>

Kunjal</p>

[johnw63]

<p>Kunjal,</p>

<p>Yes. If you don't NEED the feature that the D7000 has over the D5100, like the ability to use MF lenses with metering and using the popup flash as a commander for other flash units, two control wheels ( which I really like ) and a few others, the D5100 will give you the same low light ability for less money.</p>

<p>What lenses you get is dictated by how much you can spend. You could get the Nikon 18-200mm as was suggested, but that may leave you a bit short for the long bird shots. The other option is to get two lenes. One for the shorter end and one for the longer end. Such as an 18-55mm and a 55-300mm lens. For landscapes you may need a sturdy tripod. For birds ... it depends on how fast they are moving and how far away you are. Some photographers use a gimbal head to keep the lens steady while panning.</p>

<p>Lots of ways to spend your money. The general idea is to NOT spend money for features on a camera you don't use. Use that for better lenses. You may keep the lenses a lot longer than this first DSLR.</p>

<p> </p>

[elliot1]

<p>While the D5100 and D7000 share the same sensor, they are not the same camera. The D7000 has many advantages over the D5100 and is only marginally more expensive. If it fits into your budget, go for it.</p>

<p>Without having additional information like your budget, typically shooting conditions and the size of prints you make, it is difficult to assist you in making the best lens choice(s) that fit all your needs. </p>

<p>Unless you are making very large an/or poster sized prints, you will likely be extremely satisfied with any lens you invest in.</p>

[kunjal_patel]

<p>Thanks John and Elliot.<br>

Yeah actually that was my first thought of buying D7000 as I have already started trying things with Aperture and F-stops in my current camera so I was thinking of tryign it out more. Once going through the specs D7000 fancied me as I may keep the camera for long than I would usually had. And since I am getting good discount with local dealer on D7000, I thought of going for it rather than D5100.<br>

What I was planning is to get the D7000 kit which comes with 18-105mm glass for now. After an year or so I can think of expanding my glass collection as suggested by Ariel earlier but not really sure on getting all those set of different lenses or an app-purpose lens. <br>

As far as my budget goes, initially I thought of spending around $1500 - $1600 and I am getting D7K for around $1350 and its quite cool for me.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>There D7000 is an excellent DSLR and provides great value for the money. It has been my primary DX-format DSLR for a year, almost since as soon as it was available, replacing my D300. The D7000 is also a demanding camera that can reveal the faults of a lot of lesser lenses.</p>

<p>As long as you can afford it and will put some good lenses in front of it, there is nothing wrong with buying a D7000 as your first DSLR. For example, if you shoot a lot of action, sports, etc. and need good AF, I would buy a D7000 over a D5100. What I would not do is to put some mediocre lenses on it. Even Nikon's official kit lens the 18-105mm DX does not quite match up with the D7000 in my opinion. I would definitely not use any super zoom such as any 18-200 or 18-270mm type lens as the primary lens on a D7000. In particular, any slow f6.3 zoom simply does not do the D7000 justice.</p>

<p>If your budget cannot quite get you a D7000 and a couple of good lenses, or you don't really need all the AF and higher-end features (such as metering with no-CPU AI/AI-S lenses, etc. etc.), you may be better off with a D5100. Typically you are better off spending a little more on lenses than on camera bodies. Improving your technique is more important to good photography than having good equipment.</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>If I were you, I think I'd buy the D5100 and a Nikkor 16-85 VR lens, an excellent choice for the kind of varied photography you do.</p>

<p>Only if you KNEW why you wanted the extra features the D7000 provides would I buy that camera. There are a handful of features on the D7000 that are not on the D5100 that I use regularly, but some of those I could do without.</p>

<p>You'll still be able to shoot in full manual or really any mode you want with the 5100.</p>

<p>And... this is important... only buy ONE LENS right now... wait a bit, then you will know where you need to go from there.</p>

[mihai_ciuca]

<p>Tamron 18-270 VC is optically a fine lens for the money, considering a non-professional usage. It was working very well for me on D5000 and on D300, not only in bright days but as well in less bright settings.<br>

The problem is that since I switched to D7000 it refuse to AF from 135mm to 270mm even on bright days... so I encourage you to test it first to not have bad surprises... if you still consider purchasing it. Maybe the newer PZD version works better... I have the non-PZD...</p>

[kunjal_patel]

<p>Thanks Shun and Peter for your advice... Seems I will have to re-think on getting the D7000 kit.<br>

Anyways Peter, I would definately stick to your advice on getting only 1 lens for the time being.<br>

Yeah Mihai, I have heard about the new PZD from Tamron. Thanks for pointing it out.<br>

Well my thought in getting D7000 was to have a better low-light pictures, have control on apertue at hand which might be handy when I get more used to manual settings. Last but not the least is to retain the body for a little longer than a couple of years which I guess is better.</p>

 

[angkordave]

<p>I've used a Nikon 18-105 with D300S and reckon it is significantly better than Nikons 18-200 which is useful but has too many compromises. The 18-105 is pretty sharp overall and while a tad slow has VR which helps. For a budget lens the bokeh is pleasing and distortion at the wide end (a big failing with the 18-200) is well controlled and not disturbing. Providing you are not into wild life or sport; this would work well.<br>

If you can afford a D7000 buy it; as it has the image and build quality to last for a long time.</p>

[Two23]

<p>Generally speaking, my own strategy has been to go as cheap as I can on cameras, and build up a great selection of lenses. I see the lenses as having more impact on what I can photo and their quality. By having a "core" of good lenses, I simply change the cameras from time to time. I keep good lenses for a long time, and have come to see cameras as "disposable." This has worked very well for me. If you are wanting to photo in dim light much, sooner or later you will come to realize you need lenses that are f2.8 or faster. An f5.6 lens just won't do. (I'm a night photographer.)</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>If you only have the one wheel, you still have control of aperture. You just have to press a button while you spin the wheel. That said, when I'm in full manual, two wheels is awfully sweet.</p>

<p>Also, I think that the 5100 and 7000 both have similar (if not the same) low-light capabilities.</p>

[jack flannery]

<p>I bought a D7000 refurb body for $1k. I figured that was a pretty decent price.</p>

[craig_shearman1]

<p>The debate here is between a camera that sells for around $1100 against cameras that sell for $500 or $600 as opposed to a $3000 or $5000 or $8000 camera against a $500 camera. Unless money is tight I don't see anything wrong with a beginner going up a notch rather than just buying the cheapest camera. There's nothing complicated or difficult to use about the D7000 other than that it includes and amateur "scene" modes that seem to cause confusion among beginners more so than helping anything. It's a camera someone who is a beginner can put on program mode and use like a P&S but also be able to grow into. Better to buy an $1100 camera once than buy a $500 camera today and then a year later spend $1100 to move up. I agree with those who caution against getting too much of a superzoom. No one lens can do anything.</p>

[ariel_s1]

<p>Keep in mind that Kunjal's current camera has a superzoom lens that reaches to 676mm equivalent. The difference is that with a budget of $1,600 you'll want to factor in a tripod for serious landscapes and serious telephoto for birding. Even with a lens like the 55-300mm that I recommended, a bird photographer will most likely be at 300mm for 95% of his shots. If the difference is having a 55-300mm or 70-300mm lens zoomed in all the way, or having the 300mm f/4 lens with a lesser camera, that's a huge deal. Give me a D3100, or even an older D40 with 300mm lens over a D7000 with zoom lens any day for birds. Or, give me a 55-300mm over a 18-270mm Tamron all day long. Either way you look at it, you're getting much more for your money by investing in lenses. Even a D3100 or D5100 will give as much manual control as you know what to do with; they eclipse Kunjal's manual capabilities and controls of his current Olympus point and shoot by miles. $1,000 vs $500 for a camera body can be thought of as "only" $500, but I prefer to look at it as double the price. When we're already dealing with a limited budget, that leaves $500 for lenses and accessories instead of $1,000 for lenses and accessories, which is a huge deal. For landscapes, a tripod with 18-55mm lens stopped down to f/8-f/11 will beat having a D7000 handheld with a 18-105mm, using image stabilization handheld. People treat the lower end cameras like they're less capable. I know many photographers who have very serious cameras and consciously chose to get a D40/D3100 as their backup camera because of its size while still providing serious image quality. Even the D3100 handily beats the image quality of what professionals were using less than 10 years ago.</p>

[boinkphoto]

<p>Generally speaking, the longer the zoom range, the more distortion and other flaws the lens will have. If you're more concerned with the quality of each image, I would suggest the shorter zoom. If you are more concerned with missing the shot (even if you might get a less than perfect shot), then I would go with the longer zoom.</p>

<p>That said, I am not familiar with the lenses in question and sometimes there are exceptional lenses (bad or good), that break the above rules to some extent.</p>

[carl_becker2]

<p>I would make a list of features needed then purchase a body meeting those needs. The D7000 should be an excellent choice to grow with if you have the funds for excellent glass to put in front. Make another list of what you want to photograph. Pick the most important and get the best lens for that purpose. Once you have mastered that you should have a bit of experience to enable choosing other glass. IMHO super zooms are not as good at the extremes and that is where I want to use them. I use a 300mm f4 prime instead of a zoom or super zoom.</p>

[kunjal_patel]

Thanks guys for clearing Some misconception on the lens's aspect.

I am now thinking of getting D7000 kit which comes with a 18-105.

And after I get used with both the DSLR and glass I can go for 300 prime which will help me in birding.

 

CHEERS.

[kunjal_patel]

<p>Should i buy any filters with the basic setup that I am considering to get pretty soon?<br>

Your advice might be really helpful to me.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>Should i buy any filters with the basic setup that I am considering to get pretty soon?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That topic has been debated to no end. Typically I put a Nikon NC protective filter on most of my lenses. If you often shoot under dusty or rainy conditions, or there may be kids who may touch the front of your lens, I would use a protective filter. If not, a filter is not necessary.</p>

<p>If you are getting the 18-105, which is roughly a $300 lens, I wouldn't spend more than $30 for a filter. Some multi-coated Hoya should get the job done. Get a multi coated filter to minimize reflection. There is no point to spend a lot of money on a fitler to protect a $300 lens. However, you want better than single coated. And if you ever need to shoot into a light source such as the sun or lights at night, I would remove the filter.</p>

<p>Those claims that protective filters would seriously degrade your image are essentially nonsense. You have to buy some really cheap filter to hurt your image quality. Once I stacked 3 Nikon protective filters together and did an A/B test and posted the result here. Nobody on this forum could tell the difference between shooting through 3 high-quality filters stacked together and no filter at 100% crop pixel level. I certainly cannot.</p>