# Am I being "dumb" for buying a d7000 if I have a "passing" interest in photography?



## snapsnap1973 (Jan 18, 2013)

Hi.

           I have to admit I'm not a real photography "buff", but I do enjoy taking pictures when I go on (frequent) road trips.  I enjoy mostly taking landscape pictures and maybe pics of Historic buildings and flowers, wildlife, etc, when I see them.  I'm not into "HDR", editing photos to make them look like paintings, etc, I just like taking photos of things as they appear naturally, I don't wanna "mess" with them, as I think this defeats the purpose of photography.

Anyways, I only have a Sony Cybershot dsc H20 right now and don't really care for it for taking lanscape shots as I don't think it's "wide" enough and I also want to get into DSLR.  So after some research I've decided to go Nikon and I've narrowed it down to either the D5100 or the D7000.  I have tried both at a local department store and prefer the viewfinder (larger) of the D7000.  I also like the "dedicated" external controls of the D7000 over "going thru menus" on the D5100, so I'm leaning towards the 7000.

I'm the type of person that If I were to buy the D5100, I would regret it and want to get the "better" camera.  I've also heard the D7000 is "Nikon's best" or similar and this kind of interests me.

Also, as of late I've been getting worried about radiation on Nikon cameras (I know I'm paranoid), am I being ridiculous?  Should I worry at all about this?
Sorry, maybe I'm being stupid.

Thanks


----------



## 480sparky (Jan 18, 2013)

I think it would only be 'dumb' if you truly need to spend the money for more pressing needs... like a place to live, food, clothing, stuff like that.


----------



## runnah (Jan 18, 2013)

If you can afford it then go for it. D7000 will keep you happy for a long time and if you do decide to invest more, you have room to grow.

Yes paranoid.


----------



## amolitor (Jan 18, 2013)

No.

For almost all of us cameras are a luxury item anyways. If you can afford it, why not? Get what will make you happy. When I do suggest is that you research the available options for long enough to be pretty sure that you WILL be happy. This is much more about you than about the equipment. Nikon and Canon both make gear that is miles more expensive and miles "better" (for fairly specific measures of "better") than the 7000, and similarly they make lots of gear that's cheaper and "not as good".

Just don't wind up spending a bunch of money on something that's not going to make you happy for a while. Get "better" enough stuff for your satisfaction.


----------



## ratssass (Jan 18, 2013)

....if it's disposable income,dispose of how you wish.Sounds like you've already answered many of your own questions.


----------



## Overread (Jan 18, 2013)

If you can afford it go for it  
All I will say is that if you're looking at landscape consider going for fullframe - ie FX in Nikon talk**. Nikon has some outstanding wide angle lenses (I even know Canon photographers who get them and mod them for work on their CAnon setup or even have a separate Nikon setup to get those lenses). 

Heck in my situation I went out and bought a DSLR having never ever owned a camera before in my life* It didn't do me any harm  (though my bank balance has never been the same since )


* ok there was a cheap digi cam that got used around 5 times and never for photography - just snapshots

** I think I'm right but I don't talk Nikon very well.


----------



## snapsnap1973 (Jan 18, 2013)

Thanks all!  I just KNOW if I were to CHEAP out and get the 5100 I'd regret it and want the 7000 that's my problem.  I kind of want to start at the "basics" with a 18-55, but it looks "limiting", although I really don't know what that means lol.  Also, the LARGE viewfinder of the 7000 pretty much sold it to me over the 5100.

Do you think the prices of the 7000 would go down in 2 or 3 months or should I just get it now if I were to decide on it?


----------



## nycphotography (Jan 18, 2013)

I'm hearing that you want wider angle capability for your landscapes.  But I'm also hearing very few of the interests that typically drive the "better dslr" buyer.

I never heard of the H20, but I just went and looked at some specs and it doesn't seem all that "crappy" of a point and shoot... just it doesn't go as wide as you find you'd like when zoomed out, stopping at 38mm (equivalent on full frame SLR).  So yes, I see where you're coming from.

However, I might suggest that you consider something else first, as a cheaper introductory step, before jumping full into dslr land.

One possibility, would be to get a used Panasonic LX5 for around $200.  Yes, it's a P&S. But it has a larger sensor than the superzooms, and it has a wider lens (24mm equiv vs the 38mm equiv on your Sony).  It has full manual controls (so you can use it to learn many of the concepts you'll need to know in order get the most out of a dslr).  And it's not a throw away stepping stone.  I have full a nikon dslr set up w/ many lenses, flashes, bla bla bla.  Yet I use my LX5 more than I use the dslr.  Why?  Because it fits in a pocket and I can carry it and use it easily.  It's probably even smaller than your sony (you can check the specs and find out).

Another possibility would be to try a wide angle teleconverter for your sony.  I imagine they have one (but I didn't check).  A 2x wide teleconverter would make your 38mm equiv into a 19mm equiv which is quite wide and should do the trick for your landscapes and shots where you want a wider angle.

If, having tried either of these, and you still want a dslr... by all means get one.  But I think in this day and age, the only reason to go dslr is if photography is an interest unto itself for you, and will be given a much larger share of your interest and attention.


----------



## Overread (Jan 18, 2013)

nycphotography said:


> I
> Another possibility would be to try a wide angle teleconverter for your sony.  I imagine they have one (but I didn't check).  A 2x wide teleconverter would make your 38mm equiv into a 19mm equiv which is quite wide and should do the trick for your landscapes and shots where you want a wider angle.



Careful with the terminology here. A 2*Teleconverter will increase the focal length of the lens by double - making a 38mm into a 76mm lens. A wide angle converter could be on the market for the lens, however wide angle converters are generally limited to only the point and shoot market and are typically rather poor in quality.

I've yet to see any made for DSLRs or other high end stills optics (video might have some but I honestly don't know). I'd also suspect that the vast majority sold at a cheap price are pretty poor options. They will work but you might get poor edge performance.


----------



## SCraig (Jan 18, 2013)

snapsnap1973 said:


> *Also, as of late I've been getting worried about radiation on Nikon cameras (I know I'm paranoid), am I being ridiculous?*  Should I worry at all about this?
> Sorry, maybe I'm being stupid.



Radiation???????  Where in the world did that come from?  What radiation would there be in a camera?  Sorry, but I have absolutely never, ever heard of any radiation of any kind coming from a digital camera, except in the strictest sense of the word.  If you get one hot enough it's going to "Radiate" heat and if you get it cold enough it's going to "Radiate" cold, but something along those lines is honestly all I can think of.


----------



## jwbryson1 (Jan 18, 2013)

SCraig said:


> snapsnap1973 said:
> 
> 
> > *Also, as of late I've been getting worried about radiation on Nikon cameras (I know I'm paranoid), am I being ridiculous?*  Should I worry at all about this?
> ...



:mrgreen:


----------



## nycphotography (Jan 18, 2013)

Overread said:


> nycphotography said:
> 
> 
> > I
> ...



Good point... I meant twice as wide, which would be a .5 teleconverter, and not a 2x.  And the camera in question is a P&S, a Sony h20.  I wouldn't suggest a teleconverter for a SLR, since you can simply get a different lens.

But in the context of the original post, don't you think a wide teleconverter (provided one is available) would make sense?  This is not someone who's making all the usual noises about "photography" and pixel peeping image quality.  The only real complaint I heard is that the wide isn't wide enough, and at 38mm, it's easy to understand why.

edit:  seems there's one available somewhere as here's a picture of one. sony h20 with wide lens


----------



## Overread (Jan 18, 2013)

Thing is anyone can use a DSLR - they are not all that  complex and there is more to it than just pixel peeping. I also think that when someone comes asking "is a DSLR right for me" a lot of the time they want it to be and just need that extra push over the edge. IF they have the money and they are already interested I think its great to give them the choice. 

A DSLR can be a very fine camera on its own and it can sometimes start people off into a new hobby (they don't have to get all serious, but they can have a lot of fun). 


Sometimes people are suited to a point and shoot, but I've also not heard the OP making noises that sound like a point and shoot is what they should stick with. OF course in the end it is their own choice on the matter and there are certainly some very fine point and shoot/bridge or even mirrorless cameras on the market now to consider.


----------



## snapsnap1973 (Jan 18, 2013)

I already have a point and shoot and want to start out with a dslr now. I'm just wondering between the 5100 and the 7100, but I think the viewfinder seems small on the 5100. The plus points about the 5100 are that:

5100
cheaper
can buy another lens and get the 18-55 (kit) (I'd like to have the 18-55 kit)

7100
more expensive and get a 18-105 (kit)
dedicated buttons
LARGER viewfinder

Also is there any difference between having an 18-55 versus 18-105?  I mean would there be any point in having an 18-55 if you own an 18-105 other than the 18-105 possibly being a little heavier?

by RADIATION I meant since the earthquake and leak and the proximity of the NIKON plant and if cameras could be contaminated. It's a valid concern, but I don't know how realistic it is.


----------



## nycphotography (Jan 18, 2013)

I reread the OP.  Again.  Third time ;-)

I guess the real question is _*WHY*_ do you "also want to get into DSLR"?


----------



## o hey tyler (Jan 18, 2013)

snapsnap1973 said:
			
		

> I already have a point and shoot and want to start out with a dslr now. I'm just wondering between the 5100 and the 7100, but I think the viewfinder seems small on the 5100. The plus points about the 5100 are that:
> 
> 5100
> cheaper
> ...



IIRC, the size of the viewfinders are the same. The D7k has 100% coverage as well as a pentaprism viewfinder. So yes, it is a better viewfinder, but I don't think it's physically larger.


----------



## nycphotography (Jan 18, 2013)

snapsnap1973 said:


> 5100
> cheaper
> can buy another lens and get the 18-55 (kit) (I'd like to have the 18-55 kit)
> 
> ...



One IMPORTANT thing to keep in mind... these are both DX cameras (as in APS-C, as in crop sensor).  This means than all lenses have to be converted via 1.5x to get an "FX 35mm equivalent" before comparing them to the 38mm-380mm equivalent of your H20.

That means that these lenses are really only 27mm equiv at the widest.  This is only somewhat wider than the 38mm you currently find too constraining.


----------



## MiFleur (Jan 18, 2013)

snapsnap1973 said:


> I already have a point and shoot and want to start out with a dslr now. I'm just wondering between the 5100 and the 7100, but I think the viewfinder seems small on the 5100. The plus points about the 5100 are that:
> 
> 5100
> cheaper
> ...



I always think that it is better to go for what you like best if you can afford it. I would go with 7K but you are talking about 7100, I think you mean the D7000. Right?

As far as lens choice, I have never tried the 18-55, but Iwould  prefer the 18-105 which offers more reach, unless the quality is not as good as the other lens. The weight for me is not the issue, I am a woman with small hands and the 18-105 is not heavy nor hard to handle.
I have had the 18-200, on my Nikon D90 and was always unsatisfied of the results, specially when I compared the results I had with my AF 60 mm F2.8 which I really love.
Now that I have experimented with more lens, I would sure give-up reach for image quality.

As far as radiation, it is true that they are not good, but since radiation were recorded in Boston and on the west coast and probably all of the planet  after that nuclear accident. I seriously doubt that a camera will make a difference, every one is contaminated already. your cell phone may have a worst influence on your heath or the radiations from your computer.

Good luck with your choice!


----------



## TonysTouch (Jan 18, 2013)

The radiation released in Japan was non penetrating. People were advised to just stay indoors and seal their windows and doors. They were just fine. I was over there at that time and did many stories on it. Plus, most Nikon DX cameras are not made in Japan, but rather in Thailand.


----------



## SCraig (Jan 18, 2013)

snapsnap1973 said:


> by RADIATION I meant since the earthquake and leak and the proximity of the NIKON plant and if cameras could be contaminated. It's a valid concern, but I don't know how realistic it is.



Not very realistic, especially since both the D5100 and D7000 are manufactured in Thailand.


----------



## kathyt (Jan 18, 2013)

We all started somewhere. I will warn you though that once you start it never ends. I lens here, a gadget there, a new camera down the road...


----------



## tedfoto (Jan 18, 2013)

If you aren't into editing, and appreciate the naturalist approach, why not practice enough with a basic (less expensive) dslr to take advantage of the instant feedback that an lcd provides, and then move onto a film camera (slide film, or even pure mechanically operated cameras)?  Nothing more naturalist than that.


----------



## snapsnap1973 (Jan 18, 2013)

About the viewfinder .... when I looked through the D5100 and D7000 at a local store the 7000 viewfinder WAS larger in my opinion. Don't know if this matters in the end, but ....

Another thing ... is there a big difference in 38mm vs. 27mm for lanscape shots?


----------



## nycphotography (Jan 18, 2013)

snapsnap1973 said:


> About the viewfinder .... when I looked through the D5100 and D7000 at a local store the 7000 viewfinder WAS larger in my opinion. Don't know if this matters in the end, but ....
> 
> Another thing ... is there a big difference in 38mm vs. 27mm for lanscape shots?



_Historically_, 24mm was the go-to _standard _"wide lens" for 35mm cameras.  There were wider lenses, but the 24 was just ubiquitous.

You apparently have a decent local shop where you can handle the cameras.   I'd suggest going to the shop and asking to see a D600, D700, or D800 with the 24-70 AFS lens on it.  Wait.  Does one of those cameras have better viewfinder coverage than the others?  If so, then use THAT camera for this.

Then you can consider for yourself how wide 24mm, 27mm, and 38mm is really.  Try different scenes in the store, imagining how wide the view is, then extend it to things you like to shoot.  Maybe ask if they will accompany you to the parking lot so you can see how it frames a large scene.

Then you should ALSO try the 14mm to 24mm on the same camera to see what "really wide" does.

That will SHOW you what the difference, as it applies to you.

If you really care about wide angle, and you really care about quality, and you're willing to pack the gear around to get it.... then you really want a FX / full frame DSLR (D600, D700, D800).

Just for the record... I love my Nikon cameras... and I'm definitely not trying to talk you out of getting one.  I just want to help you figure out what you really want.  Consider:  Are you willing travel with a D7000 with a lens slung around your neck all day?  I used to be willing to... but once they made (and I found out) about alternatives that give suitable results and also fit in my pocket... well my Nikon stuff rarely leaves the studio these days.


----------



## snapsnap1973 (Jan 18, 2013)

maybe I should just get the D5100 with the stock lens (someone said it's a good fallback lens) and then get a 55-200 also?


----------



## Joves (Jan 18, 2013)

snapsnap1973 said:


> Thanks all!  I just KNOW if I were to CHEAP out and get the 5100 I'd regret it and want the 7000 that's my problem.  I kind of want to start at the "basics" with a 18-55, but it looks "limiting", although I really don't know what that means lol.  Also, the LARGE viewfinder of the 7000 pretty much sold it to me over the 5100.
> 
> Do you think the prices of the 7000 would go down in 2 or 3 months or should I just get it now if I were to decide on it?


You might consider buying one used from one of the reputable dealers such as KEH, B&H, or Adorama. The 18-55 is an adequate lens to start on well Kind of, maybe if you look at one of those I mentioned they may have one with a better lens like the 18-135 which would give you more range. Also if you choose to buy new B&H often has a two lens kit option on that body.


----------



## SCraig (Jan 18, 2013)

snapsnap1973 said:


> maybe I should just get the D5100 with the stock lens (someone said it's a good fallback lens) and then get a 55-200 also?


There are plenty of comparisons between the D5100 and D7000 floating around the internet.  DxO has excellent measured-value comparisons of virtually all DSLR's on their DxO Mark web site.  Read some of them.  Take note of the features that you feel are most important to you and see how they stack up.  What's important to me or others may be meaningless to you.  You are the one buying the camera, and you are the one that needs to be happy with it.   Both are excellent, but in my opinion the D7000 is better.  Whether it justifies the price difference to you is, of course, entirely up to you.

Many of Nikon's "Kit" lenses are very good lenses.  Some aren't.  When I got my first DSLR I got the 18-55 and 55-200 lenses with it.  The 18-55 is a good lens, the 55-200 not so good.  My 55-200 is buried in my closet somewhere because I never use it.  My advice would be either the 55-300 or 70-300, and by all accounts the 70-300 is a much better lens.  I have one and love it.


----------



## Geaux (Jan 18, 2013)

snapsnap1973 said:


> I just like taking photos of things as they appear naturally, I don't wanna "mess" with them, as I think this defeats the purpose of photography.
> 
> Also, as of late I've been getting worried about radiation on Nikon cameras (I know I'm paranoid), am I being ridiculous?  Should I worry at all about this?
> Sorry, maybe I'm being stupid.



Not sure which statement was funnier, so I thought I'd quote both. wtf? lol


On topic, if you can afford d7000, go for it.  Remember you will need to get a WIDE ANGLE lens to accomplish the wide landscape stuff that you mention in your OP. Looking at the Sony, the focal range is 38-380mm (odd range imo) and the d7000 kit lens starts at 18mm (which on a crop sensor, you're looking around 19-30mm) so I think you'll need to look into some Wides if your really interested in seeing a major difference from your Sony.


----------



## nycphotography (Jan 18, 2013)

Geaux said:


> snapsnap1973 said:
> 
> 
> > I just like taking photos of things as they appear naturally, I don't wanna "mess" with them, as I think this defeats the purpose of photography.
> ...



18mm on a crop sensor is 27mm.

I looked and found a Nikon DX AFS wide zoom... 10-24mm, which would be equiv to a 15-36mm FX lens.  So that lens w/ a D7000 would be the wide angle schwing.  (But I'd still rather travel w/ LX5, G12, P7700).


----------



## Geaux (Jan 18, 2013)

nycphotography said:


> 18mm on a crop sensor is 27mm.



Hah, thanks.  I mistyped and meant to say 29-30mm..instead of 19mm.

I was close enough


----------



## thunderkyss (Jan 19, 2013)

snapsnap1973 said:


> I'm the type of person that If I were to buy the D5100, I would regret it and want to get the "better" camera.  I've also heard the D7000 is "Nikon's best" or similar and this kind of interests me.



I'm the exact same way. About 2 years ago my daughter started to dabble in photography. I bought her a Nikon D100. According to the "research" I had done at the time, it was a professional grade product, but since it was so old, I got it inexpensively. She loved the camera, but didn't know how to use it. 

This past Christmas I bought a D3000 thinking it would be an upgrade. I gave it to her two weeks before Christmas & borrowed her D100. Well, when we got together at Christmas she wanted her D100 back & I'm stuck with the D3000. 

The D3000 is a fine camera & it's really beyond what I need in a camera, but I'm sure I'm going to sell it & get a D200, maybe a D300. I like the focus motor in the body. I like the aperture button where I can really see what my picture is going to look like. I like to be able to take more than 3 shots per second.


----------



## goodguy (Jan 20, 2013)

As a guy who was in your shoes only few weeks ago facing same dilema I can tell you go with the D7000, you will regret getting the D5100.
I chose the D7000 and deep in my heart I know I did the right thing!!!


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Jan 20, 2013)

D600  <---you'll enjoy even more as a consumer body


----------



## thunderkyss (Jan 20, 2013)

2WheelPhoto said:


> D600  <---you'll enjoy even more as a consumer body



I agree, if I were looking to spend that kind of money, I'd probably be looking for a deal on a D300s or even a D300, unless he's really got to have video.


----------



## sashbar (Feb 19, 2013)

"I have to admit I'm not a real photography "buff", but I do enjoy taking pictures when I go on (frequent) road trips. I enjoy mostly taking landscape pictures and maybe pics of Historic buildings and flowers, wildlife, etc, when I see them. I'm not into "HDR", editing photos to make them look like paintings, etc, I just like taking photos of things as they appear naturally, I don't wanna "mess" with them, as I think this defeats the purpose of photography."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Problem is -  whatever Nikon you buy this is exactly what is waiting for you: "HDR", editing, etc.  Plus inevitably you will look into lenses, filters etc.  
I think - if you "just enjoys taking pictures" there is a lot of good quality non-DSLR cameras these days with decent glass and zooms from Sony or Olympus - much more practical, just point and shoot, control your apperture and shutter speed, and basically this is all you need.  DSLR cameras are great and "serious" and all that, but in reality most people who say that they are "not really a photography buffs" would make much more (good) photos having a simpler, lighter, smaller, more convenient camera that they can alway have in their bag or pocket.  A friend of mine takes amazing photos with her simple ( albeit not cheap) Sony RX100. I can not match it with my Nikon.  Simply because she has a great eye.  She is a great photographer, but as she says she would never buy a DSLR. All she wants now is Sony RX1. Because it is small and convenient and she can always have in her bag. And I can not blame her.


----------



## goodguy (Feb 19, 2013)

sashbar said:


> All she wants now is Sony RX1. Because it is small and convenient and she can always have in her bag. And I can not blame her.



Oh man the RX1 is one small yet powerful camera..........lets see did I forget anything ?

Oh yeh its cost 3000$ 

If your friend can afford this kind of money on one simple non DSLR camera then she is a lucky lady!!!
I wish I could afford this camera too.


----------



## JDFlood (Feb 19, 2013)

A lot of times when folks as me for a recommendation on something, I ask about their personality because there personality runs through all interests. I for instance Need not look at a D600, as I know darn well I'll get into it and end up buying the D800 after the d600. So I try not to buy twice. I want the best if I have something ( you should see my collection of $1,000+ fountain pens, or Takahashi telescopes. Anyway, get the 7000. It's a good camera you will be impressed, and not doubt yourself. You'll grow into it. Buy a kit lens. They are really good for the money! You'll learn and you will be rewarded by having a better camera and buy more lenses when you start knowing the difference. The kit lenses are so good for the money, they are worth it as throw away. JD


----------



## sashbar (Feb 19, 2013)

goodguy said:


> sashbar said:
> 
> 
> > All she wants now is Sony RX1. Because it is small and convenient and she can always have in her bag. And I can not blame her.
> ...



   I am not sure she can afford it actually..   RX100 that she is using is about $550.


----------



## goodguy (Feb 19, 2013)

sashbar said:


> goodguy said:
> 
> 
> > sashbar said:
> ...


That is a good price, I saw it here in Toronto the RX100 goingfor 700$
The RX1 with its full frame sensor and small body is an amazing camera, the 35mm is an awsome lens tailor made for this camera but I need to admit while I dont need a lot of zoom being "stuck" with 35mm lens is a bit of a problem for me but this is very theoreticle because I cant afford this camera and if I could I would go for the Nikon D800!


----------



## bigal1000 (Feb 22, 2013)

snapsnap1973 said:


> Hi.
> 
> I have to admit I'm not a real photography "buff", but I do enjoy taking pictures when I go on (frequent) road trips.  I enjoy mostly taking landscape pictures and maybe pics of Historic buildings and flowers, wildlife, etc, when I see them.  I'm not into "HDR", editing photos to make them look like paintings, etc, I just like taking photos of things as they appear naturally, I don't wanna "mess" with them, as I think this defeats the purpose of photography.
> 
> ...



Time for tin foil hat maybe,I'd be more concerened with your cell phone vs a camera parnoid sounds about right


----------



## bigal1000 (Feb 22, 2013)

snapsnap1973 said:


> Hi.
> 
> I have to admit I'm not a real photography "buff", but I do enjoy taking pictures when I go on (frequent) road trips.  I enjoy mostly taking landscape pictures and maybe pics of Historic buildings and flowers, wildlife, etc, when I see them.  I'm not into "HDR", editing photos to make them look like paintings, etc, I just like taking photos of things as they appear naturally, I don't wanna "mess" with them, as I think this defeats the purpose of photography.
> 
> ...



Time for a tin foil hat maybe you are not serious?


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Feb 22, 2013)

Now you want the D7100


----------



## Streets (Jul 4, 2016)

YES!!!!! What you need is a digital "Brownie".


----------



## Solarflare (Jul 6, 2016)

Streets said:


> YES!!!!! What you need is a digital "Brownie".


 You are trying to gain levels as a Thread Necromancer ?


----------



## jake337 (Jul 6, 2016)

Used D700 and and a used 20mm f2.8D might be a good option if your strictly into landscapes.


----------



## Streets (Jul 6, 2016)

My good friend,Solarflare, do you use the term "necromancer" as being analogous to "wizard"?  If so, I can agree with you.  Do you know that you have an uncanny resemblance to Gandi?  I would add that, at the age of 82, I am no longer seeking levels of any sort other than birthdays.


----------



## robbins.photo (Jul 6, 2016)

Streets said:


> My good friend,Solarflare, do you use the term "necromancer" as being analogous to "wizard"?  If so, I can agree with you.  Do you know that you have an uncanny resemblance to Gandi?  I would add that, at the age of 82, I am no longer seeking levels of any sort other than birthdays.



I think he was using the term Necromancer in jest, meaning you resurrected a thread from the "dead", because the thread you responded too was last posted too 3 years ago, in 2013.


----------



## PaulWog (Jul 6, 2016)

I think I was dumb to buy my d750 and Tamron 15-30. And my filter and filter holder. But I did it all. 

I think the proper word is 'crazy'.


----------



## nerwin (Jul 10, 2016)

Well you could always bring your geiger counter into the camera store with you.


----------



## fmw (Jul 15, 2016)

PaulWog said:


> I think I was dumb to buy my d750 and Tamron 15-30. And my filter and filter holder. But I did it all.
> 
> I think the proper word is 'crazy'.



If you can afford it and you like it then all is well.


----------



## robbins.photo (Jul 15, 2016)

See, now I'm just intensely curious as to whether or not the OP actually bought a D7000 or not.  Three years ago.  When this thread was initially posted.


----------



## PaulWog (Jul 15, 2016)

fmw said:


> PaulWog said:
> 
> 
> > I think I was dumb to buy my d750 and Tamron 15-30. And my filter and filter holder. But I did it all.
> ...



"Afford" is an interesting word. It doesn't always mean the same thing to everyone. I didn't go into debt though.


----------

