So I was shopping for a point and shoot camera, but ended up with a

[Dr. Tweedbucket]

... Nikon D7000 DSLR





If you are a camera buff, you can appreciate this camera!





It's not as pocket friendly as a Cannon S95 (which was my original idea) .... but hey! life is too short to worry about stuff in your pockets.

It was interesting to find that most of the cheapest prices out there are scammy bait and switch operations who won't sell you a camera unless you buy a bunch of overpriced accessories. Or they'll sell you a camera stripped of everything in the box like the battery, manual, strap .... and then charge you extra for them. .....OR, they'll sell you a gray market camera that will be shipped from China in about 10 weeks.

I got this one from Amazon. Thanks for all the suggestions on the best place to buy a camera thread! It's a jungle out there!

[vesper]

Nice! The D7000 is definitely on my radar for my next camera.

[GAD]

Cool. Now you need lenses. If you think guitar GAS is bad, you might be in for a surprise.

[smiert spionam]

Nice! The D7000 is a fantastic camera -- they've squeezed a lot of higher end features into this body. It ain't cheap, but it does a LOT.

[Dr. Tweedbucket]

Originally Posted by GAD

Cool. Now you need lenses. If you think guitar GAS is bad, you might be in for a surprise.

Yes! I know

I want the 18-200mm AF-S ED VRII


I have an 18-135mm and a 12-24mm super wide Nikkor .... The 18-135 is just ok .... actually pretty sharp, but has the plastic mount.

I think the 18-200 is a better quality and better range for slightly more length.... but pricy !!


Now what to do with my old D70 and D70s bodies ?

[Raytonium]

Welcome to the club! I'm sure you'll love that camera.

[neastguy]

I don't get jealous of guitars or guitar players... but I am jealous right now of Dr. Tweed... enjoy that thing, I want one....

[smiert spionam]

The 18-200 is undeniably handy, but it's not where I'd spend money trying to get the most out of a D7000. That camera has the highest pixel density of any DX camera Nikon has ever produced, which means it is very demanding of lenses. The 18-200 isn't great optically in the best of circumstances, and the D7k will show its flaws far sooner than a D70/D70s. It won't look any better than what you get from the 18-135.

For a midrange zoom, the 16-85 is the best of the bunch. Yes, it's a shorter range, but it's optically better, and the little bit extra on the wide end is nice.

The other thing to keep in mind is that the 18-200, like most superzooms, only reaches 200mm when focused at infinity. At shorter distances, the maximum reach is much less (it essentially foreshortens the focal length as you focus increasingly closer). That means that there's not as much extra reach from it as you might think.

For more reach, the Nikon 70-300VR and the Tokina 70-300 equivalent are both superior to the 18-200 optically, and still pretty affordably priced. If you're out and about with one of them and the 12-24, you're not likely to miss the middle range much.

You might also be interested in a fast prime or two. Nikon just announced a nice AF-S upgrade to the 50/1.8, and it will be out soon for around $220. Very compact, light, sharper than any of your zooms, and excellent in lower light, giving a short telephoto perspective that can be nice for portraits. The 35/1.8 is fantastic, too, for a more normal perspective.

[Dr. Tweedbucket]

Originally Posted by smiert spionam

The 18-200 is undeniably handy, but it's not where I'd spend money trying to get the most out of a D7000. That camera has the highest pixel density of any DX camera Nikon has ever produced, which means it is very demanding of lenses. The 18-200 isn't great optically in the best of circumstances, and the D7k will show its flaws far sooner than a D70/D70s. It won't look any better than what you get from the 18-135.

For a midrange zoom, the 16-85 is the best of the bunch. Yes, it's a shorter range, but it's optically better, and the little bit extra on the wide end is nice.

The other thing to keep in mind is that the 18-200, like most superzooms, only reaches 200mm when focused at infinity. At shorter distances, the maximum reach is much less (it essentially foreshortens the focal length as you focus increasingly closer). That means that there's not as much extra reach from it as you might think.

For more reach, the Nikon 70-300VR and the Tokina 70-300 equivalent are both superior to the 18-200 optically, and still pretty affordably priced. If you're out and about with one of them and the 12-24, you're not likely to miss the middle range much.

You might also be interested in a fast prime or two. Nikon just announced a nice AF-S upgrade to the 50/1.8, and it will be out soon for around $220. Very compact, light, sharper than any of your zooms, and excellent in lower light, giving a short telephoto perspective that can be nice for portraits. The 35/1.8 is fantastic, too, for a more normal perspective.

Thanks for the suggestions. I was looking at that 16-85, it got really good reviews for optical quality. Yes, I may consider the 50mm too, it would be a great all around lense for closer work.

[Raytonium]

Originally Posted by smiert spionam

For a midrange zoom, the 16-85 is the best of the bunch. Yes, it's a shorter range, but it's optically better, and the little bit extra on the wide end is nice.

That's my walk-around lens on my D7000.

[dimpler]

i hate it when people throw it in my face that they have more money than me. merry christmas.

[smiert spionam]

I mostly use full frame (D700), but recently picked up a D3100 to use for extra reach with long lenses and for a lightweight companion body. Even that camera, with its 14mp sensor, rides most lenses pretty hard. I see flaws with it that are completely invisible on a D700.

Some pixel pitch comparisons:

D700: 8.4 µm
D70: 7.8 µm
D90/D300: 5.48 µm
D3100: 4.94 µm
D7000: 4.73 µm

By the time you get to the D7000, you're working with a much more demanding capture medium, so glass is even more important.

[Dr. Tweedbucket]

Originally Posted by smiert spionam

I mostly use full frame (D700), but recently picked up a D3100 to use for extra reach with long lenses and for a lightweight companion body. Even that camera, with its 14mp sensor, rides most lenses pretty hard. I see flaws with it that are completely invisible on a D700.

Some pixel pitch comparisons:

D700: 8.4 µm
D70: 7.8 µm
D90/D300: 5.48 µm
D3100: 4.94 µm
D7000: 4.73 µm

By the time you get to the D7000, you're working with a much more demanding capture medium, so glass is even more important.

I don't have a real good portrait lense, and this one here gets a great review (at least from this website) for being ultra sharp ... and cheap at the same time. ... I may have to try it out.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/5018daf.htm

[smiert spionam]

The 50/1.8D is indeed a great lens -- stunning, actually, when you consider they're $130 or so new. The new AF-S version makes some incremental improvements, and is clearly more useful for the smaller bodies without focus motors (a notch below your D7000), but either is great.

[rico1204]

Nice! DSLR photography can be just as expensive, if not more, than guitar.

You'll want to invest your money in lenses going forward. And in my experience (unfortunately) you get what you pay for. Superzooms (18-200mm) are great for flexibilty and are cheaper, but the image quality is definitely sub-par compared to fast prime lenses (like a 50mm f/1.4) and even some high quality zooms.

Also get yourself a good external flash. It's amazing how much better you indoor photos look when you can "bounce" the flash off a ceiling/wall - difference between the P&S look and a quality photo.

That said, learn to use your camera to it's max limits. Get out of the Auto Green Box mode and learn how to use the creative modes (Av, Tv, Manual). Learn about composition and the Rule of Thirds. Your pictures will be so much better because of it.