# $1200 For Nikon prosumer lvl body and lenses what should I buy?



## HerkFE (Mar 6, 2013)

So I have around $1200 to spend on a DSLR body and lenses I have been looking at the D7000 and the D90 but I am open to other options at the prosumer or higher level and some different lens choices. If you had $1200 to spend what would you by? I already have a good bag, tripod, memory cards, etc...I am willing to go used, refurbed, or new as long as the retailer is reputable.


So please share your suggestions and any reasoning behind them.

Thanks!


----------



## CaptainNapalm (Mar 6, 2013)

I would get the d7000 with the 18-105mm lens as a kit.  Right now you can probably get it new for less than $1,200.  This would give you a great camera with a good overall lens with decent coverage.  Later decide what you need more of when it comes to lenses.


----------



## coastalconn (Mar 6, 2013)

Well, what do you plan on shooting?  Landscapes, people, street, wildlife?


----------



## HerkFE (Mar 6, 2013)

I will be taking pics of my family, my travels, cool things I see, and may play with some long night exposures. I was looking at getting a D7000, 18-55 VR, 50mm 1.8, and 55-300mm vr $1213 shipped.


----------



## DCerezo (Mar 7, 2013)

If I had $1200 to spend... I'd save up another $900 and pick up a Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8... But that's just me.


----------



## DCerezo (Mar 7, 2013)

I'd get the D7000 or a D700...


----------



## HerkFE (Mar 7, 2013)

I said with lenses DC I don't see how I would be getting a D700 with glass for under $1200


----------



## Mike_E (Mar 7, 2013)

For what you've said you wanted to shoot what you listed should do you well.


----------



## goodguy (Mar 7, 2013)

CaptainNapalm said:


> I would get the d7000 with the 18-105mm lens as a kit.  Right now you can probably get it new for less than $1,200.  This would give you a great camera with a good overall lens with decent coverage.  Later decide what you need more of when it comes to lenses.


Agreed!
In your price this really is the best and only camera to get with lenses.
The D7100 will be 1200$+tax so you are looking at over 1300$ alread, add to that lenses even the most basic 18-55mm and you are looking at probably 1400$+tax

The D7000 is an awsome camera so thats the right camera to get.


----------



## RoCoFF (Mar 7, 2013)

Just to throw a wrench into the entire thing. A Used excellent condition D300 would get you a great camera PLUS leave a nice chunk of change for a top notch lens(es) of your choice.


----------



## HerkFE (Mar 7, 2013)

What would I gain over the D90 and lose in contrast to the D7000 if I went that route?


----------



## kundalini (Mar 7, 2013)

I have a D300 & D700.  Their technology may be a bit older, but they still take great shots.  But then again, I have lenses that can squeak out the best of both of them.


----------



## HerkFE (Mar 7, 2013)

Ken Rockwell seems to think very highly of the 18-200mm does the board agree with that view for the most part? I can get a refurb d90, 50 1.8, and refurb 18-200mm VRII for about $57 over my budget or the aforementioned D7000, 18-55 VR, 50mm 1.8, and 55-300mm vr for $1213 shipped. Thoughts?


----------



## Ballistics (Mar 7, 2013)

HerkFE said:


> Ken Rockwell seems to think very highly of the 18-200mm does the board agree with that view for the most part? I can get a refurb d90, 50 1.8, and refurb 18-200mm VRII for about $57 over my budget or the aforementioned D7000, 18-55 VR, 50mm 1.8, and 55-300mm vr for $1213 shipped. Thoughts?



Never, ever, ever, listen to Ken Rockwell.


----------



## Ballistics (Mar 7, 2013)

> I can get a refurb d90, 50 1.8, and refurb 18-200mm VRII for about $57 over my budget or the aforementioned D7000, 18-55 VR, 50mm 1.8, and 55-300mm vr for $1213 shipped. Thoughts?



D7000 refurbished is $750 from adorama. I wouldn't go for the 55-300VR or the 18-55 for that matter. I have the 18-105 and the 55-200mm and once you shoot with the 50mm 1.8, you aren't going to want to shoot with kit lenses anymore. The IQ is night and day.


----------



## manicmike (Mar 7, 2013)

The d90 is a very capable camera. I'd go that route and put the extra into some quality glass.


----------



## HerkFE (Mar 7, 2013)

Ballistics said:


> Never, ever, ever, listen to Ken Rockwell.



That bad?


----------



## HerkFE (Mar 7, 2013)

manicmike said:


> The d90 is a very capable camera. I'd go that route and put the extra into some quality glass.



I know the 50mm 1.8 is universally loved but what should I buy with my other $600?


----------



## DCerezo (Mar 7, 2013)

Ugggggh... Ken Rockwell... He told me the old N75 kit lens is amazing.... So I picked one up on eBay for $50.... He was wrong.


----------



## DCerezo (Mar 7, 2013)

HerkFE said:


> manicmike said:
> 
> 
> > The d90 is a very capable camera. I'd go that route and put the extra into some quality glass.
> ...



24mm f/2.8


----------



## kundalini (Mar 7, 2013)

HerkFE said:


> Ballistics said:
> 
> 
> > Never, ever, ever, listen to Ken Rockwell.
> ...


When you have some spare time, use the Search function and enter _Ken Rockwell_ in the keyword search for Titles Only and set for Any Date. Have a glass of wine (or whine in KR's case) and be prepared to laugh your ass off. He's the Rodney Dangerfield of photography, can't get no respect, for a good reason.


----------



## Ballistics (Mar 7, 2013)

HerkFE said:


> manicmike said:
> 
> 
> > The d90 is a very capable camera. I'd go that route and put the extra into some quality glass.
> ...



Save up for a Sigma 70-200mm 2.8 OS. That, and the 50mm 1.8 are my go to lenses.

But you of course could be the complete opposite, and like stuff on the wider end.


----------



## HerkFE (Mar 7, 2013)

With a 50mm and 24mm wouldn't I be limited on what I could shoot? My guess is portraits, macro, and wide landscape shooting would be all I could really achieve with that setup having no telephoto capability.


----------



## yioties (Mar 7, 2013)

You guys over exaggerate with Ken Rockwell. Somethings that he writes are true and helpful some aren't. Not all the advice in here isn't great either but you choose who to believe in! 

Herk the best thing you could do is go to a camera place and test out cameras and lenses and see what is good for you and your pocket!!!!


----------



## Ballistics (Mar 7, 2013)

yioties said:


> You guys over exaggerate with Ken Rockwell. Somethings that he writes are true and helpful some aren't. Not all the advice in here isn't great either but you choose who to believe in!



Over exaggerate what? I said not to listen to him. Hell, even a broken clock is right twice a day. The majority of his advice is one sided and usually incorrect. 



> Herk the best thing you could do is go to a camera place and test out cameras and lenses and see what is good for you and your pocket!!!!



Explain how this is the best thing to do. Instead of parroting this phrase, understand what you are recommending. You are telling someone who doesn't own a DSLR to go down to a camera store and make a decision based on nothing. That's like telling someone who has never driven a car to go down to the dealership, sit in a car, turn it on,rev the gas and buy it based on that.


----------



## Ballistics (Mar 7, 2013)

HerkFe - I've also just noticed that this is your 5th thread about buying a DSLR. Stick to 1 thread, you'll get less redundant answers.


----------



## DCerezo (Mar 7, 2013)

I'd get the D700 with the 50mm f1.8-D if I was on a budget like that. And start saving for the next piece of glass.


----------



## greybeard (Mar 7, 2013)

yioties said:


> You guys over exaggerate with Ken Rockwell. Somethings that he writes are true and helpful some aren't. Not all the advice in here isn't great either but you choose who to believe in!
> 
> Herk the best thing you could do is go to a camera place and test out cameras and lenses and see what is good for you and your pocket!!!!



I've read my share of Ken Rockwell and he seems to take a somewhat simplistic approach to everything.  1)  Shooting RAW is a waste of time, 2) his top 10 Nikon lenses, etc. etc.  I agree with some of what he writes and dis-agree with some of it.  I always find him entertaining to read.


----------



## yioties (Mar 7, 2013)

You're way too angry! I'm not defending Ken Rockwell but not everything he writes is bull! His posts do give you a general ideal of what a specific camera or lens does. 

Just so you realize when someone states their budget is a specific amount of money it doesn't mean he has to spend it all! He can go with a d5100 with a kit lens a 50mm or 35mm 1.8g and a 70-300 vr and have money left over! He will be more than satisfied with that solution. 

Seriously though Ballistic you need to calm down and not freak out because someone doesn't like your opinion!


----------



## Patrice (Mar 7, 2013)

If I were in the market for a DX camera and had $1200 I'd wait a little bit until D7100's ship and get that. Then pick bottles for a weekend and get a secondhand 28 mm f/2.8 AF-D lens to start.

Starting from fresh you might as well get the latest body and build up a good lens selection as your budget improves.


----------



## Ballistics (Mar 7, 2013)

yioties said:


> You're way too angry! I'm not defending Ken Rockwell but not everything he writes is bull! His posts do give you a general ideal of what a specific camera or lens does.
> 
> Seriously though Ballistic you need to calm down and not freak out because someone doesn't like your opinion!



I don't see any exclamation points in my post. There's nothing that indicates anger, just a cut and dry objection to your objection.  
You are defending him by the literal definition of the word. The majority says not to listen to him, and then you chime in and say that we're over exaggerating and that he's not wrong all the time.
If you want to listen to him, go for it. But why listen to someone when you agree that he has a tendency to be wrong?  



> Just so you realize when someone states their budget is a specific amount of money it doesn't mean he has to spend it all! He can go with a d5100 with a kit lens a 50mm or 35mm 1.8g and a 70-300 vr and have money left over! He will be more than satisfied with that solution.



Just so you know, he made it clear that he wanted to spend his entire budget.
Also, unless you buy used, you are looking at probably $1200 for that list.


----------



## HerkFE (Mar 7, 2013)

Thoughts on a D7000 and a 24-85mm 3.5-4.5?


----------



## HerkFE (Mar 7, 2013)

Ballistics said:


> HerkFe - I've also just noticed that this is your 5th thread about buying a DSLR. Stick to 1 thread, you'll get less redundant answers.



I actually have bought and returned 2 DSLR's already, which is why I am on my 5th thread however I think this will be the last thread on this issue as I have a feeling that this will be the final purchase as far as body goes and my questions from here forward will be in regards to glass, accessories, and techniques.


----------



## Ballistics (Mar 7, 2013)

HerkFE said:


> Ballistics said:
> 
> 
> > HerkFe - I've also just noticed that this is your 5th thread about buying a DSLR. Stick to 1 thread, you'll get less redundant answers.
> ...



I'm not a mod, so I don't really care if you make 10 threads lol. Just looking out for you, this way you have all your answers consolidated.


----------



## HerkFE (Mar 7, 2013)

Ballistics said:


> I'm not a mod, so I don't really care if you make 10 threads lol. Just looking out for you, this way you have all your answers consolidated.



Got ya, yea I didn't take it as anything more then helpful just explaining why that occurred. Basically I bought a T3i for a steal from Adorama but all my pro photo friends shoot Nikon. Sold the T3i for a $400 profit. Bought a D80 kit off ebay for a good price, it showed up with a malfunctioning flash. Mailed that back on monday and have been reading and shopping all week.


----------



## Ballistics (Mar 7, 2013)

HerkFE said:


> Ballistics said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not a mod, so I don't really care if you make 10 threads lol. Just looking out for you, this way you have all your answers consolidated.
> ...



I would highly suggest spending a weekend with one of your pro friends and having them give you a crash course in DSLR's. This way you can get a feel for the equipment, the focal lengths, and have a better understanding of what you want in a camera.


----------



## HerkFE (Mar 7, 2013)

Ballistics said:


> HerkFE said:
> 
> 
> > Ballistics said:
> ...



Yea unfortunately they are all in ATL and I am still in Arizona until late June early July. They both recommended the D90 or D7000 and the lens recommendations have varied between the two. One advised I go with the nifty 50 and a 18-105mm the other advised I roll with the 24-85 3.5-4.5 and then start saving for the 3 lenses he thinks fulfill pretty much every shooters needs. The 24-75mm 2.8, the 70-200mm 2.8, and the 50mm 1.4 are what he says pretty much provide all the focal coverage you need with the exception of ultra wide angle shooting. I just find that there are a million opinions and I really don't want to play the exchange return game anymore.


----------



## Ballistics (Mar 7, 2013)

HerkFE said:


> Ballistics said:
> 
> 
> > HerkFE said:
> ...



No matter what you are shooting, you can't go wrong with the D7000. I haven't ever used the D90, but it's usually highly recommended. It's an old camera though. 
As for the lenses, you're going to hear a thousand different things because different people shoot different things. Inside and outside the studio, I'm always using the 50mm and the 70-200mm. But I never shoot landscapes, and I'm mainly shooting my kids and my dogs.

If you want lenses now, the 50mm will do wonders. I've heard good and bad about the 35mm. If you want zoom, 18-105mm should do for now.


----------



## HerkFE (Mar 7, 2013)

Any thoughts on the 24-85mm?


----------



## Ballistics (Mar 7, 2013)

HerkFE said:


> Any thoughts on the 24-85mm?



I've never used that lens. Check out sites like DP review. How much is it by the way?


----------



## HerkFE (Mar 7, 2013)

$449 I am trying to get Adorama to price match Cameta at $379 though right now. I am also looking at the Sigma and Tamron options of similar focal length.


----------



## Ballistics (Mar 7, 2013)

HerkFE said:


> $449 I am trying to get Adorama to price match Cameta at $379 though right now. I am also looking at the Sigma and Tamron options of similar focal length.



Sigma and Tamron equivalents are terrible. The 17-55mm however is much better.


----------



## Mach0 (Mar 7, 2013)

Ballistics said:


> Sigma and Tamron equivalents are terrible. The 17-55mm however is much better.



What ? I actually heard the tamron 28-75 AF is quite good and the new 24-70 is exceptional.


----------



## Ballistics (Mar 7, 2013)

Mach0 said:


> Ballistics said:
> 
> 
> > Sigma and Tamron equivalents are terrible. The 17-55mm however is much better.
> ...








Stopped down, they're good. But then that defeats the purpose of buying a 2.8 lens to stop it down.

The 28-75mm I've never looked into, so I can't comment on it.


----------



## HerkFE (Mar 7, 2013)

As far as Sigma/Tamron I am looking at the old and new Sigma 17-70mm 2.8-4.0 and the Tamron 28-75 2.8


----------



## Mach0 (Mar 7, 2013)

Ballistics said:


> YouTube Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SVKcY4IZ5Ag
> 
> Stopped down, they're good. But then that defeats the purpose of buying a 2.8 lens to stop it down.
> 
> The 28-75mm I've never looked into, so I can't comment on it.



Thanks for the link. I'm going to watch it now


----------



## Ballistics (Mar 7, 2013)

Mach0 said:


> Ballistics said:
> 
> 
> > YouTube Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SVKcY4IZ5Ag
> ...



I'm all about 3rd party equipment, but the reviews like this one made me steer clear.


----------



## Mach0 (Mar 7, 2013)

Ballistics said:


> I'm all about 3rd party equipment, but the reviews like this one made me steer clear.



That sigma sucked wide open. The tamron was pretty good though.


----------



## Ballistics (Mar 7, 2013)

Mach0 said:


> Ballistics said:
> 
> 
> > I'm all about 3rd party equipment, but the reviews like this one made me steer clear.
> ...



It's definitely better than the sigma, but even at $1300 you're better off paying the extra $200 for a used nikon or canon.


----------



## Mach0 (Mar 7, 2013)

Ballistics said:


> It's definitely better than the sigma, but even at $1300 you're better off paying the extra $200 for a used nikon or canon.



I agree.


----------



## Richichi (Mar 7, 2013)

Nikon D7000 low mileage under $700
Nikon 35mm AF-S f/1.8G low mileage under $200
Nikon 85mm AF-S f/1.8G low mileage under $400

This would be a more than excellent starting point IMHO - Learn with primes is a motto that was taught to me.


----------



## Mike_E (Mar 8, 2013)

HerkFE said:


> Ballistics said:
> 
> 
> > HerkFE said:
> ...



OK, as you've noticed a lot of advice is people telling you what worked for them.  Unfortunately they aren't you so your results will vary.

From what you said you wanted to do your first friend's advice seems to be sound- the 18-105mm and the 50mm along with the D7000.  The D7000 will do you fine and there isn't going to be much in the way of improvement from the D7100 to justify _your_ waiting or paying more for it.

As to the lenses, travel photography is mostly done on the wide end (18-24mm in consumer grade lenses) so having a lens that starts at 24mm is not wide enough.  You need background to set the story in a photo but if your lens is too long then the subject becomes too small for impact when including the background if your lens is too long.

People photography needs to be done from 10 feet and out.  This is because if you get much closer then the things closest to the lens will appear bigger than the things that are further back and the wider the lens the more exaggerated this becomes.  You wind up with huge noses and little bitty ears if you aren't careful.  I mentioned distance for a reason, you can get good shots of people with wide angle lenses buy simply moving back.  But as in travel photography you need the subject larger in your frame for impact and this won't happen at the distances you need to keep your people from looking like freaks.  

On the tele- end well, you do get what you pay for but it's still pretty good.  Learning editing software will solve a lot of problems (there are programs that have a lens distortion function to correct any)  and by the time you have grown out of your consumer grade lenses you will have had time to save for others.

Get your kit, go shoot and be happy!

mike


----------



## HerkFE (Mar 8, 2013)

Mike E; thanks a bunch this is really getting me narrowed down. 

Ok I see your point about lacking on the wide end and I was considering that last night as well. So would something like the 17-70mm Sigma/16-85mm Nikkor be better then a 18-105mm?  Would a superzoom like 18-250 sigma/Nikkor 18-200/300 be a better choice?  Also if I already have 50mm in my focal range I am basically getting the prime for better low light performance and faster focus correct?


----------



## HerkFE (Mar 9, 2013)

Anybody else?


----------



## Ballistics (Mar 9, 2013)

I think you've heard just about every angle.


----------



## HerkFE (Mar 9, 2013)

Ballistics said:


> I think you've heard just about every angle.



So why am I so uncertain...ha ha ha


----------



## Ballistics (Mar 9, 2013)

Because it's a lot of money.


----------



## DorkSterr (Mar 9, 2013)

Wait I thought D7000/D7100 was a mid range while the D700/D800 were prosumer?


----------



## Ballistics (Mar 9, 2013)

DorkSterr said:


> Wait I thought D7000/D7100 was a mid range while the D700/D800 were prosumer?



They are.


----------



## HerkFE (Mar 9, 2013)

Ballistics said:


> Because it's a lot of money.



It's not the money per say I am certain on the body it's the lens choice that is plaguing me and how much to spend, what to spend on. For example I can get a brand new D7000, 18-105, and SB700 for right under $1400. I could also get a plethora of configs within a couple hundred bucks of my budget.


----------



## Ballistics (Mar 9, 2013)

HerkFE said:


> Ballistics said:
> 
> 
> > Because it's a lot of money.
> ...



I would highly recommend getting a cheap $60 or $70 flash. I have the SB700, and I haven't used its TTL feature in a very long time. I bought the YN560 flash for $45, and it's more powerful and just as consistent but it has no TTL.
As for the lens, to tell you to go one way or the other would really be shooting in the dark. If money isn't really an issue, buy a bunch of lenses, try them out for a couple weeks and then return the ones you don't want.


----------



## Mike_E (Mar 9, 2013)

HerkFE said:


> Mike E; thanks a bunch this is really getting me narrowed down.
> 
> Ok I see your point about lacking on the wide end and I was considering that last night as well. So would something like the 17-70mm Sigma/16-85mm Nikkor be better then a 18-105mm?  Would a superzoom like 18-250 sigma/Nikkor 18-200/300 be a better choice?  Also if I already have 50mm in my focal range I am basically getting the prime for better low light performance and faster focus correct?



The only Sigma lens that I own is an old manual focus 80-200mm macro -a fine lens- that I picked up at a thrift store for $13.

I took this with it while out on a hike




Still, I'd probably go with the 16-85mm.  You should get at least 90% of what you want to shoot done with that range.  And yes, the 50mm would be better for low light.


----------



## HerkFE (Mar 9, 2013)

Last question....I think...is a new D7000 and 18-105mm kit worth a $100 more then a refurb D7000 and 18-105?


----------



## Ballistics (Mar 9, 2013)

HerkFE said:


> Last question....I think...is a new D7000 and 18-105mm kit worth a $100 more then a refurb D7000 and 18-105?


It's a difference between a 90 day warranty and a year warranty. If it's only $100, I'd go new. Having said that, don't buy the D7000 kit. You're paying $300 for a lens that you can get for about $175 on ebay.


----------



## HerkFE (Mar 9, 2013)

Ballistics said:


> HerkFE said:
> 
> 
> > Last question....I think...is a new D7000 and 18-105mm kit worth a $100 more then a refurb D7000 and 18-105?
> ...



It's only $200 more then the new body; current prices are $896 body only $1096 with 18-105, it's only a $100 more then a refurb d7000 body and refurb 18-105mm lens.


----------



## Ballistics (Mar 9, 2013)

HerkFE said:


> Ballistics said:
> 
> 
> > HerkFE said:
> ...



I didn't know they dropped the price.


----------



## HerkFE (Mar 9, 2013)

At that price is that worth it?


----------



## Ballistics (Mar 9, 2013)

HerkFE said:


> At that price is that worth it?



That's up to you lol.


----------



## HerkFE (Mar 9, 2013)

Ballistics said:


> HerkFE said:
> 
> 
> > At that price is that worth it?
> ...



BOOOOOOO *throws tomatoes*


----------



## Janeen (Mar 12, 2013)

I went in to pre order a d7100 and then I seen the Sony a77! Needles to say.... I STILL have no camera!  You're not the only one confused! ?!


----------



## Ballistics (Mar 12, 2013)

Janeen said:


> I went in to pre order a d7100 and then I seen the Sony a77! Needles to say.... I STILL have no camera!  You're not the only one confused! ?!



It will be a long time before I consider Sony DSLRs as competition to Nikon or Canon.


----------



## Janeen (Mar 12, 2013)

Yea,  I think im gonna stick with the 7100.


----------



## jamesbjenkins (Mar 12, 2013)

Ballistics said:


> Never, ever, ever, listen to Ken Rockwell.



This. Whatever KR says, do the exact opposite.


----------



## bc_steve (Mar 13, 2013)

HerkFE said:


> Ken Rockwell seems to think very highly of the 18-200mm does the board agree with that view for the most part? I can get a refurb d90, 50 1.8, and refurb 18-200mm VRII for about $57 over my budget or the aforementioned D7000, 18-55 VR, 50mm 1.8, and 55-300mm vr for $1213 shipped. Thoughts?



I would get the D7000.  Look at getting the 70-300 instead of the 55-300.  It is a better lens.


----------



## bc_steve (Mar 13, 2013)

and the 50mm 1.8 is definitely worth getting.  If you are on a budget look at the 1.8D, an excellent lens and quite cheap.


----------



## Benco (Mar 13, 2013)

jamesbjenkins said:


> Ballistics said:
> 
> 
> > Never, ever, ever, listen to Ken Rockwell.
> ...



Ken Rockwell highly recommends the D7000....

:Joker:


----------



## Ballistics (Mar 13, 2013)

Benco said:


> jamesbjenkins said:
> 
> 
> > Ballistics said:
> ...



Even a broken clock is right twice a day.


----------



## HerkFE (Mar 13, 2013)

So I ended up buying the D7000 w/18-105mm kit New, a 50mm 1.8d, a Bower Battery Grip from Amazon Warehouse for $60 repackaged, and a Vivitar DF-286 flash.

Total including shipping was $1360

Thanks for all the feedback help and suggestions as well as all the time spent answering questions.


----------



## Ballistics (Mar 13, 2013)

Finally lol


----------



## HerkFE (Mar 13, 2013)

Ballistics said:


> Finally lol



I have seriously spent the past few days re-reading this thread, the conversations on FB I have had with all my photog friends, and researching lenses. I finally came to the conclusion the 50mm 1.8 was a long term addition I would want anyway and the 18-105 does enough now so I know what to save for and focus on purchasing next. I should have the camera by Monday and I am super excited to start applying everything I have been reading up on and learning.


----------



## Janeen (Mar 14, 2013)

So....I ended up purchasing the Sony a77 yesterday  love the way it feels in my hands & its features!


----------



## ph0enix (Mar 14, 2013)

Janeen said:


> So....I ended up purchasing the Sony a77 yesterday  love the way it feels in my hands & its features!



Way to stir sh1t up in the Nikon forum! 
Enjoy the new camera.  I'm sure it's great!


----------



## Janeen (Mar 14, 2013)

Thank you!  nothing against Nikon or Canon,  it was just the camera for me


----------



## Benco (Mar 14, 2013)

Janeen said:


> So....I ended up purchasing the Sony a77 yesterday  love the way it feels in my hands & its features!



I was _seriously_ considering getting one of them, it was just a little too pricey and the glowing recommendations of the D7000 swung it for me.


----------



## Janeen (Mar 14, 2013)

The d7000 is an awesome camera!


----------



## Benco (Mar 14, 2013)

Yes it is, now I just need to save up for the awesome glass it deserves.


----------



## HerkFE (Mar 14, 2013)

Janeen said:


> So....I ended up purchasing the Sony a77 yesterday  love the way it feels in my hands & its features!



I looked at those quite a bit the limited lens selection and cost of accessories along with the fact none of my friends shooting sony so no lens borrowing or playing with was one of my big deciding points.


----------

