# DSLR choice



## Marc32 (Jun 15, 2012)

_I've done a lot of research and looked at a lot of cameras. I've narrowed my choices to the D5100 or the D7000 from Nikon. Most people have told me that the lenses are the major component. Invest more in high quality lenses to get the most out of a body. I'm torn between ordering a 16-85mm Nikkor, which is supposed to be one of the best DX lenses available, with a D5100 or a better/tougher body in the D7000 with the 18-105mm kit lens it ships with. Either way, I'm going to end up in the same price range. I'm really having a hard time deciding which is the better choice over the long haul. I usually shoot a lot of landscapes, bracketed shots for HDR, and (my current camera has no bulb) I'd like to get into ultra long exposures of the milky way, star trails, etc. That is about 95% of my shots, I'll order the 35mm f/1.8 for any indoor shooting which will be minimal. Which combination do you think will be the best investment for my style, the 16-85 D5100 or the D7000 w/18-105???_

_Thanks!_
_Marc_


----------



## sovietdoc (Jun 16, 2012)

d7000, upgrade lenses later or buy good used ones.


----------



## TCampbell (Jun 16, 2012)

A D7000 has an in-body focus motor so you can use either AF or AF-S lenses.  A D5100 doesn't have a focusing motor in the body so only AF-S lenses will auto-focus on the camera (you can mount an AF lens, but you have to focus manually.)


----------



## Solarflare (Jun 16, 2012)

I would say lenses first, but DX lenses might not be a safe investment into the future (already there is a cheaper FX camera on the way, the D600, and probably the price for full frame will fall in future even more).

Nikkor AF-S DX 18-105mm f/3.5-5.6G IF-ED VR - Review / Test Report
Nikkor AF-S 16-85mm f/3-5-5.6G ED VR DX - Review / Test Report

Personally, the 16-85mm would be no lens for me: 





> The AF accuracy is generally fine although it deteriorates somewhat towards the wide-end of the zoom range.




P.s.: Oh, and D7000 and D5100 have the same fotochip. So picture quality wont differ much. Both awesome cameras for landscape because of their high dynamic range.


----------



## LizardKing (Jun 16, 2012)

Between these 2 options, I'd go with D7000 + kit lens... It makes sense to go for a cheaper camera and invest the extra bucks in glass, but not in this case I think.
If you want good glass, try to buy a good prime like the 50mm f/1.8G which is pretty inexpensive or go for something used... 

Anyway, D7000 + kit lens all the way... It's a hell of a camera and I couldn't be happier with it


----------



## nehas8 (Jun 16, 2012)

I would definitely suggest buying the D7000. This camera can be an asset when you shoot HDR - and obviously other shots too. I would not suggest buying the 18-105 though. Buy the 35mm, use it for sometime. Save some more money and buy a 10-24mm - either nikon, or sigma; based on your budget.


----------



## charlie76 (Jun 16, 2012)

no way...do the D7000 witht the 18-105 and you will be glad you did....take it from me.  The most unreal images come from that camera


----------



## Marc32 (Jun 16, 2012)

Wow....everyone suggest the D7k the D5100.  I did not expect the 'against the grain' advice away from the traditional thought of better lens over body.  I'd heard of the D600 from nikonrumors.com.   I also just heard Canon announced they were doing away with the 60d (the D7k's direct competiton) in favor of a cheaper full frame.  I know a lot of people are clamoring for a D7100, but with what Canon has done and the D600 somewhere out there, I'm wondering if the D7k is going to become a get it while you can camera.  I think it would be a reasonable guess to say Nikon will follow Canon somewhat and do away with the D7k and market the D600 in it's price range.  Upgrade the D5100 to be a step above the D3200 and that's the new lineup.  D3200/D5200 DX and D600 on up to D4X will be FX.  With lower priced full frames, is there a market for a high end crop sensor anymore??

Nehas8...would you suggest the 10-24 over the Tokina 11-16 for a D7k?  In that same thought...does anyone really need a wide angle lens anymore?  With the advances in software, it's becoming pretty easy to stitch images and get seamless results, even handheld.   I've done pretty well stitching with my FZ150 and PSE10 Panorama Assist/AutoPano Giga.  I built a nodal point jig from aluminum and shoot away.  Unless I'm missing something, I'm not sure I see the real advantage to spending the money on a super wide angle lens, other than for shots that require a single image from fast moving subjects in the frame??


----------



## EDL (Jun 16, 2012)

The D5100 is basically a D7000 in a  plastic vs magnesium body without weather sealing or an in-body focus motor.   The weather sealing might be important to you as a landscape shooter and the in-body motor expands your lens choices (if AF is important).  The D7000 also has more manual controls...less menu diving when changing settings for shots.


----------



## Solarflare (Jun 16, 2012)

charlie76 said:


> no way...do the D7000 witht the 18-105 and you will be glad you did....take it from me.  The most unreal images come from that camera


 Uh, D7000 and D5100 have the exact same sensor.

The difference is only the extras.




Marc32 said:


> [...]
> 
> Nehas8...would you suggest the 10-24 over the Tokina 11-16 for a D7k?   In that same thought...does anyone really need a wide angle lens  anymore?  With the advances in software, it's becoming pretty easy to  stitch images and get seamless results, even handheld. [...]


 AFAIK wide lenses have never been about getting panoramas ? They give you a completely different perspective, closer to the action.


----------



## ZapoTeX (Jun 16, 2012)

For landscapes and night skies, the D90 might have all you need, with the same controls as the D7000 and a price very close to that of the D5100.

The big advantages of the D7000 over the D90 mostly affect sport photography and wildlife. For landscapes, you won't need exceedingly high iso and ultra-fast AF.

There are several threads in which these three cameras D90, D7000 and D5100 are compared, I recommend you check them out in detail. You'll find strong supporters of each of the three. Up to you to decide who to believe!


----------



## Bellezzo (Jun 16, 2012)

In the long row I'm sure you'll be more happy with the d7000. I've had a d5000 for a year, and now I'm about to upgrade to the d7000. I hope I can use that for years. Buy some used lenses instead maybe? Besides, I better like the feel of the d7000 than the d5100. I don't know if you have tried that, but maybe that's a good idea, go to a store and feel them in your hands. Everyone feels different about that kinda things. None of the cameras are bad, but I think you'll be using the d7000 for longer.


----------



## Solarflare (Jun 16, 2012)

ZapoTeX said:


> For landscapes and night skies, the D90 might have all you need, with the same controls as the D7000 and a price very close to that of the D5100.
> 
> The big advantages of the D7000 over the D90 mostly affect sport photography and wildlife. For landscapes, you won't need exceedingly high iso and ultra-fast AF.
> 
> There are several threads in which these three cameras D90, D7000 and D5100 are compared, I recommend you check them out in detail. You'll find strong supporters of each of the three. Up to you to decide who to believe!


Did you confuse the threads somehow ?

Nobody here mentioned the D90 before you did ... and it has an older, inferior sensor that is worse at EVERYTHING, compared to the D7000/D5100.

DxOMark - Camera Sensor Ratings


----------



## pixmedic (Jun 16, 2012)

awe..come on now.. the d5100 isnt THAT fantastically much better than the D90. and only better in SOME areas.the D90 still has some big advantages in my opinion. as for the D5100 -vs- the D7000 question, i would definitely go with the D7000. you will get more out of it in the long run. It is really more of an upgrade of the D90 since it has the built in motor and flash commander, yet still has the better sensor, ISO, and resolution. its a win/win. I have the D90 now, and I would like to upgrade to the D7000 in the next year or so and use the D90 as a backup body.


----------



## Mach0 (Jun 16, 2012)

Solarflare said:
			
		

> Did you confuse the threads somehow ?
> 
> Nobody here mentioned the D90 before you did ... and it has an older, inferior sensor that is worse at EVERYTHING, compared to the D7000/D5100.
> 
> DxOMark - Camera Sensor Ratings



What do you shoot with?


----------



## Marc32 (Jun 17, 2012)

I don't think the D90 is an option for me.  If I'm going to upgrade, I'm not going to spend the money on a camera body thats already discontinued and been replaced with the D7000.  I'd choose the D3200 over the D90 if it weren't missing some features even my FZ150 has (swivel screen, AEB, no bulb mode being the big ones) As for price, the D90 is running around $850 right now and the D5100 is down to $550 until the end of June.  What's killing me right now is that I can split up the D5100 and the lens ordering them apart.  With the D7k, it's all the cash upfront, but done and over with.  I've played with the D5100, D7k, T3i, and 60d in the camera shops.  I really had no preference to size, weight, egromatics, etc so for me atleast, it comes down to getting the best I can for what I can spend.  Nikon has been dropping the D5100 prices by $50 a month since April, and the D7k is $100 off right now.  Amazon is also throwing in some freebies to sweeten the pot on each of these cameras.  So the million dollar choice is hope the price drops again in July or go for it now??  Throw in the theory that a whole lot of people would recommend the Pentax K5 over the D7k, and the Pentax is less money.  I'm giving myself a headache just thinking about this....


----------



## IByte (Jun 17, 2012)

Marc32 said:
			
		

> I don't think the D90 is an option for me.  If I'm going to upgrade, I'm not going to spend the money on a camera body thats already discontinued and been replaced with the D7000.  I'd choose the D3200 over the D90 if it weren't missing some features even my FZ150 has (swivel screen, AEB, no bulb mode being the big ones) As for price, the D90 is running around $850 right now and the D5100 is down to $550 until the end of June.  What's killing me right now is that I can split up the D5100 and the lens ordering them apart.  With the D7k, it's all the cash upfront, but done and over with.  I've played with the D5100, D7k, T3i, and 60d in the camera shops.  I really had no preference to size, weight, egromatics, etc so for me atleast, it comes down to getting the best I can for what I can spend.  Nikon has been dropping the D5100 prices by $50 a month since April, and the D7k is $100 off right now.  Amazon is also throwing in some freebies to sweeten the pot on each of these cameras.  So the million dollar choice is hope the price drops again in July or go for it now??  Throw in the theory that a whole lot of people would recommend the Pentax K5 over the D7k, and the Pentax is less money.  I'm giving myself a headache just thinking about this....



Wait and build up your budget, wait and see how much the d7k cost when the d7100 is launched.  Or depending how far you're taking this hobby/career look at used d700.  Compare the prices for new/used d700 body vs.d7k new/used and good luck.


----------



## Kerbouchard (Jun 17, 2012)

I sold my D90 with 18-105 for around $800 not too long ago.  In my opinion, it is still one of the better values out there on the used market.  When I had the D90, the D7000 just wasn't enough of an 'upgrade' to make me want one.  Instead, I went the D700 and am glad I did.

For me, the D7000 just never has made sense to me from a value to cost ratio, but if you are deciding between the D5100 and the D7000, I would say D7000 in a heart beat.  The D3000/3100/5000/5100 bodies are just lacking so many of the thigns I take foregranted.  A few that haven't been mentioned, yet...top LCD, pentaprism vs pentamirror view finder, better controls, flash commander built in, etc, etc.  FWIW, the D90 also has all of those things.  What you get in the d7000 over the D90 is about a half stop better noise at higher ISO's and more megapixels.  If that's worth the money to you, go for it.

The D5100 wouldn't even be on my list.



Marc32 said:


> I don't think the D90 is an option for me.  If I'm going to upgrade, I'm not going to spend the money on a camera body thats already discontinued and been replaced with the D7000.  I'd choose the D3200 over the D90 if it weren't missing some features even my FZ150 has (swivel screen, AEB, no bulb mode being the big ones) As for price, the D90 is running around $850 right now and the D5100 is down to $550 until the end of June.  What's killing me right now is that I can split up the D5100 and the lens ordering them apart.  With the D7k, it's all the cash upfront, but done and over with.  I've played with the D5100, D7k, T3i, and 60d in the camera shops.  I really had no preference to size, weight, egromatics, etc so for me atleast, it comes down to getting the best I can for what I can spend.  Nikon has been dropping the D5100 prices by $50 a month since April, and the D7k is $100 off right now.  Amazon is also throwing in some freebies to sweeten the pot on each of these cameras.  So the million dollar choice is hope the price drops again in July or go for it now??  Throw in the theory that a whole lot of people would recommend the Pentax K5 over the D7k, and the Pentax is less money.  I'm giving myself a headache just thinking about this....


----------



## greybeard (Jun 17, 2012)

I have the d5100 and If I had it to do over I would get the d7000.


----------



## Marc32 (Jun 17, 2012)

The D700 is going to be way, way overboard for what I'd ever get out of it. I have no plans to do photography professionally, I just like the art form of being able to take an amazing picture, and tell a story with it. I have a few vacations I'd like to take within the next few years and visit places I've seen fascinating images taken at. (slot canyons w/light beams, horseshoe bend, badwater basin, and the famous japanese maple tree in Portland OR to name a few) That would be the big reason to get into a DSLR from my FZ150 bridge camera. I think it's a capable camera, however it still has limitations like any other camera. When I'm out shooting, I want equiptment that will give me the results I want to have, but the rest of the time, it's a lot of money in a camera bag sitting in the closet as I don't shoot every day. 

Honestly, if the D3200 wasn't so stripped of some of it's features, I think that camera would be all I'd ever need. I thought I had it figured out with the D5100/16-85. I've been completely surprised with the results and votes here that support going up one model to the D7k. I think I need to do more careful research, considering the $1500 price tag (which for me, is huge) and be absolutly certain the D7k with the 18-105 is the correct way for me to go.


----------



## Mach0 (Jun 17, 2012)

Kerbouchard said:
			
		

> I sold my D90 with 18-105 for around $800 not too long ago.  In my opinion, it is still one of the better values out there on the used market.  When I had the D90, the D7000 just wasn't enough of an 'upgrade' to make me want one.  Instead, I went the D700 and am glad I did.
> 
> For me, the D7000 just never has made sense to me from a value to cost ratio, but if you are deciding between the D5100 and the D7000, I would say D7000 in a heart beat.  The D3000/3100/5000/5100 bodies are just lacking so many of the thigns I take foregranted.  A few that haven't been mentioned, yet...top LCD, pentaprism vs pentamirror view finder, better controls, flash commander built in, etc, etc.  FWIW, the D90 also has all of those things.  What you get in the d7000 over the D90 is about a half stop better noise at higher ISO's and more megapixels.  If that's worth the money to you, go for it.
> 
> The D5100 wouldn't even be on my list.



X2


----------



## Kerbouchard (Jun 17, 2012)

Marc32 said:


> The D700 is going to be way, way overboard for what I'd ever get out of it. I have no plans to do photography professionally, I just like the art form of being able to take an amazing picture, and tell a story with it. I have a few vacations I'd like to take within the next few years and visit places I've seen fascinating images taken at. (slot canyons w/light beams, horseshoe bend, badwater basin, and the famous japanese maple tree in Portland OR to name a few) That would be the big reason to get into a DSLR from my FZ150 bridge camera. I think it's a capable camera, however it still has limitations like any other camera. When I'm out shooting, I want equiptment that will give me the results I want to have, but the rest of the time, it's a lot of money in a camera bag sitting in the closet as I don't shoot every day.
> 
> Honestly, if the D3200 wasn't so stripped of some of it's features, I think that camera would be all I'd ever need. I thought I had it figured out with the D5100/16-85. I've been completely surprised with the results and votes here that support going up one model to the D7k. I think I need to do more careful research, considering the $1500 price tag (which for me, is huge) and be absolutly certain the D7k with the 18-105 is the correct way for me to go.



I didn't say you should buy the D700.  I said that I think you shouldn't overlook the D90, especially since you can find one for around $800, which is a lot less than the $1500 price tag you are currently looking at.  I think the D7000 is a marginal upgrade over the D90, and certainly not worth twice the price.

If you think the D3200 would work for you other than the stripped down features, the D90 is exactly the camera you want.

Just my .02


----------



## Marc32 (Jun 17, 2012)

I'm still not sold on a D90. The best price I've seen so far (not to say that tomorrow a amazing deal won't pop up) is only about $300 less than the D7k. For that difference, I'd be buying into a newer model, and far more importantly, into Nikon's factory warranty. The idea of buying a camera off craigslist used for $800 cash....I'll just never be able to do it. You really have no idea what you're buying, taking the seller on his/her word, and I'm just not seasoned enough in photography equiptment to know exactly what I'm getting into. Buying used or recon from B+H is a good idea, but it's still only a 90 day warranty. I'd pay the $300 just for peace of mind.

I wouldn't go so far as to say the D3200 is what I want, but my point was any DSLR, even a T3, will be an improvement over a bridge camera. FWIW I've been very happy with what I've gotten out of my FZ150. I just have new things in photography I'd like to try my hand at that are beyond the capability of the Panasonic. I'd like to take the next step up, I'm just struggling with how big a step I can take toward a D5100 or D7k. Is the D7k too big a step from a bridge camera? There's so much info on each camera and what are the 'best' lenses for each that it's overwhelming. For every person that says the 18-105 is a great lens, theres a Ken Rockwell who says it's one of his least favorites. Should I combine advice and get a D5100 with a 18-105 instead of the 16-85? The savings between both lenses would pay for the 35mm f/1.8 plus B+H is including a Tiffen UV and CPL free with a new 18-105. What to do, what to do????

I've searched for the comparisons between the D5100 and D7k, but I've not been able to locate the page.  Could someone post a link?


----------



## mjhoward (Jun 17, 2012)

Marc32 said:


> I'm still not sold on a D90. The best price I've seen so far (not to say that tomorrow a amazing deal won't pop up) is only about $300 less than the D7k. For that difference, I'd be buying into a newer model, and far more importantly, into Nikon's factory warranty. The idea of buying a camera off craigslist used for $800 cash....I'll just never be able to do it.



What!??!  You can get a like new D90 all day for $550-600.  Hell there's even one in there WITH the grip for $525.

FS: Nikon D90 and 24mm f/2.8 AF - FM Forums
FS: Nikon D90 & Nikon D200 - FM Forums
FS: Nikon Lot - D90, 35mm f1.8G, 70-300mm VR, 18-55mm VR, 50mm f/1.8, SB-900, Sigma 50mm Macro f/2.8 - FM Forums
FS: Nikon D90 + Battery Grip ** 12K shutter clicks only ** - FM Forums
FS: Nikon D90 - Very Low Mileage - FM Forums

Buying only brand new when you're on a strict budget is kindof ridiculous to me.  I've bought MANY things used off that site and pretty much everything I got has looked like it had never been used.  Just check the users feedback and use paypal (not gift option) and you shouldn't ever have any problems. BTW, if you ever plan on shooting under circumstances that might require changing any settings... the difference in a D5100 or a D7000 (D90) is huge.  Same sensor, sure, but similarities end there.


----------



## Kerbouchard (Jun 17, 2012)

Most of the stuff I own, I have bought used.  Like mjhoward said, if you are on a budget, 'new' shouldn't even be on the table.  You can easily look at somebody's posting history and figure out if they are somebody you want to do business with or not.

I just think your attitude has backed you into a choice between a lesser camera and a camera that costs more than you are comfortable with.


----------



## IByte (Jun 17, 2012)

Adorama, B&H, Meh are all reputable dealers.  Good place to start in the used department.


----------



## ZapoTeX (Jun 18, 2012)

> Did you confuse the threads somehow ?


No I did not, I just mentioned a third option that might be an excellent compromise between the two mentioned by the OP 

Ciao!


----------



## Marc32 (Jun 18, 2012)

I'm willing to pay for new as long as I know its the right choice for me.  I'll sit for another couple months if the D7k turns out to be that choice.  If you've been lucky buying used, more power to you.  I've been burnt twice with used gear (not photography gear) so it's worth it to me to buy new and have a good warranty behind it.  I'm also not doubting the ability of the D90, its just that personally I would order a D7k first for the reasons above.  Even a D7k reconditoned would probably work well for me, however, it's only about 20 bucks less than a brand new model right now.  For that small difference, I'd buy new.  If I could find a brand new D90 somewhere, and the price was discounted enough to make it an amazing deal, I'd consider it.  have not found that deal yet.


----------



## IByte (Jun 18, 2012)

Marc32 said:
			
		

> I'm willing to pay for new as long as I know its the right choice for me.  I'll sit for another couple months if the D7k turns out to be that choice.  If you've been lucky buying used, more power to you.  I've been burnt twice with used gear (not photography gear) so it's worth it to me to buy new and have a good warranty behind it.  I'm also not doubting the ability of the D90, its just that personally I would order a D7k first for the reasons above.  Even a D7k reconditoned would probably work well for me, however, it's only about 20 bucks less than a brand new model right now.  For that small difference, I'd buy new.  If I could find a brand new D90 somewhere, and the price was discounted enough to make it an amazing deal, I'd consider it.  have not found that deal yet.



Have you checked those websites even Amazon may have good package deals.


----------



## Marc32 (Jun 18, 2012)

I've checked them all and so far B+H is the best I've found.  They have a D90 w/18-105 for $980.  Not a terrible buy, but not an amazing one either.  I think I will keep looking and keep a sharp eye out for a better deal.


----------



## PicMaker (Jun 19, 2012)

Every single camera in the Nikon line up takes awesome pics. That is a fact.

I am a D90 man so like the 2 dials and commander mode, plus the onboard motor enabling me to use old lenses. The natural "upgrade" for me is the D7000 - that is if I wanted a D7000. But the D90 is enough camera for me so don't need to upgrade anything. I came in via this route because I have an old D50.

Having said all that, I love the D3100, D3200, and the D5100 all for different reasons. D3100 is so simple to use and a great camera. The price now is so cheap I'm thinking of getting one to take with me everywhere. Stick with the kit lens or put a 35mm 1.8 on it and you have a fantastic combo for almost anything except long range. D5100 is better in low light high ISO the same as the D7000. Price drop means you can get another fantastic camera for less money. The back screen on this and the D3200 is much better than the D3100 which could be a deal winner to many. 
Don't forget that these bottom of the range camera's are far far better than top of the range a few years ago. Pro's like tough bodies, but let me tell you that my old D50 looks like new. I'm not a pro I grant you but that camera has been with me for 6 years, been in 4 countries (2 x each) as well as holidays, zoos, weddings, etc etc etc. My point being that you do not need an all tough body, weather sealed this and that, if you look after it and don't shoot in the pouring rain. But you might need the added on bits like faster shots per second etc etc that only a higher priced camera would bring.

Don't forget guys its you who take the pics, the camera is incidental.


----------



## greybeard (Jun 19, 2012)

Nikkor AF-S DX 18-105mm f/3.5-5.6G IF-ED VR - Review / Test Report
Nikkor AF-S 16-85mm f/3-5-5.6G ED VR DX - Review / Test Report
Nikon D5100 vs D7000 - Our Analysis

I personally don't think you will see all that much difference between the 16-85 and the 18-105.  The D7000 has many professional features that the d5100 lacks.  The d5100 does have however, a flip out screen that can come in handy.


----------



## Marc32 (Jun 19, 2012)

PicMaker--- I hear you loud and clear. That's exactly where I'm at right now. I'd like a D7k for all the right reasons, but I'm not sure I can justify the price tag thats currently nearly double what the D5100 is on sale for. I really don't know if I'll every find myself in a situation where I need the remote flash, pro weather sealed body, quick buttons for quick changes, etc etc. The D3200/3100 are great, but no bulb or AEB is a buzzkill for me. I'd like to try and shoot some 30 min exposures and make some star trails. I also don't shoot daily, so while I like the D7k, I think it's over board for my needs.

I disagree that there is little difference between the 18-105 and 16-85. Reading those reviews you posted shows fairly clearly that the 16-85 is a better lens, and if not the top, certainly near the top of the DX lens lineup.

The only thing really holding me up now is one fact about the D5100 I can't find the answer to.  On my bucket list of places to visit are the slot canyons in Page AZ.  I'm doing some research to prepare to head out there and reading up on how different photographers have gotten the best results.  One of the big suggestions is to shoot RAW and use the AEB feature to insure that you've nailed the correct exposure due to the long shutter speeds.  You end up with something like 4,12, and 40 second speeds for the bracket.  On my FZ150, I have the AEB feature, but I can't use it if the neutral exposure is longer than 1 second.  I can't seem to find out if the D5100 will allow me to use AEB on shutter speeds longer than 1 second?  If it doesn't, I might be back to the D7k or I'm looking into a T3i/T4i to see what it can do.


----------



## PicMaker (Jun 19, 2012)

Aha, so you know the features you need which is great - easier to make a decision. 

16-85 is a great lens, probably better than any kit lens, but make no mistake, the kit lenses are well respected and enjoyed by many.


----------



## Marc32 (Jun 19, 2012)

I've made a short list of features I'd like on my next camera that came from what I've done with my FZ150. It's all there in the D5100, but the obvious succuss and recommendation to take a close look at the D7000 weighs on one's mind when considering what to do. For me, photography is a hobby, not an obsession like it is for some, and therefor, the cost of the D7000 is really pushing what I'm good with spending. I'll drop $3k on a table saw for my woodshop in less than a heartbeat, but I currently can't fathom that kind of cash on a camera. If the D5100 couldn't do what I want and need, I'd have no issue paying extra for the D7000. It's about what I 'need' vs what I 'want' vs what it 'cost'. Looking at all the variables before I jump in...I hate rushing and getting caught with my pants down.

As for lenses, I'm aware that a lot of people have had good luck with the newer VRII lens that ships with the D5100, however, everything and everyone says it will be outgrown quickly. I'd personally rather go body only, and put the saved $100 toward the 35mm f/1.8 and start out with that. My concern is not to spend money on a lens that is equal to, but not better, than what my bridge camera can produce.  The 35mm is certainly sharper by a wide margin. When the 16-85 becomes available, or the rumored 16-85 f/4 is announced, I'll buy that lens. If I need more reach, which I seldom ever do for any serious shots, I'll reach for the superzoom and shoot away. The panasonic actually goes out to about 1500mm at 3mp. Never going to find a DSLR lens less than the cost of a house that can do that.


----------

