# Trying to decide on a starter Nikon DSLR



## behirab (Jun 18, 2011)

I am going to have to stretch my finances to afford either, but I am trying to decide between two starter Nikons.  I've read more than once that it's better to try to buy better lenses than an expensive camera with cheaper lenses, so here's my question.  Is the Nikon D5100 with the 18-55mm kit lens plus a moderately priced extra lens a more practical buy than the D7000 with it's 18-105mm lens for an equal amount of money?  Is the D7000's kit lens better than the D5100's as a starter lens?  If so, would it make sense to buy the D5100 body and get the D7000 kit lens and then later get a second lens after saving up for it?    According to Snapsort the D5100 is a pretty good camera, certainly better than the lower priced D3100, although the D7000 is better than both in terms of features.  Of course, there's the older D90, too.  I'm stepping up from a Nikon compact and have no lenses of any kind so I'm starting fresh in the DSLR market.  I'm interested in a fast lens for taking photos of my dogs in action and landscapes, especially in low light levels.  I love the zoom on my compact and would like to get some kind of a zoom if I could afford it.


----------



## Derrel (Jun 18, 2011)

I would buy the D7000 and the 18-105 zoom and call it GREAT!!!!!  The 18-105 is a much handier lens than the 18-55, and is more versatile than the 18-55, just due to the greater focal length range the 18-105mm has. The D7000 is a much higher-featured camera than the D5100. I'd say the D7000 would probably keep you happy for five years or so. Not so the D5100. The D90 is, right now, a very good value proposition, and if you do not eant to go the full price of the D7000, the D90 is a good Nikon to consider, especially given the performance-to-price equation the D90 carries with it.


----------



## behirab (Jun 19, 2011)

Derrel said:
			
		

> I would buy the D7000 and the 18-105 zoom and call it GREAT!!!!!  The 18-105 is a much handier lens than the 18-55, and is more versatile than the 18-55, just due to the greater focal length range the 18-105mm has. The D7000 is a much higher-featured camera than the D5100. I'd say the D7000 would probably keep you happy for five years or so. Not so the D5100. The D90 is, right now, a very good value proposition, and if you do not eant to go the full price of the D7000, the D90 is a good Nikon to consider, especially given the performance-to-price equation the D90 carries with it.



Which lens would you follow up the 18-105 with, say a zoom?  There doesn't seem to be a Nikkor that begins at 105mm--a 70-200, 80-300?  How heavy are these lenses?


----------



## Patrice (Jun 19, 2011)

behirab said:


> Which lens would you follow up the 18-105 with, say a zoom?  There doesn't seem to be a Nikkor that begins at 105mm--a 70-200, 80-300?  How heavy are these lenses?



I suggest you supplement the 18-105 with a 35 f1.8 (better) or a 28 f2.8 (good) for low light indoor family and friends occasions. These lenses won't break the bank and are quite nice.


----------



## behirab (Jun 20, 2011)

Thanks for your input.  Further research reveals that Ken Rockwell recommends the D7000 very highly; he also likes the D5100 but not as much, but it's cheaper.  I realize that there are some features I would have to grow into, especially with the D7000, but that will also keep the camera interesting, whichever I choose.  He recommends an ideal set of 3 lenses, neither of the kit lenses, but rather: 35mm, 55-200mm, and 10-24mm.  The first two are relatively light and inexpensive.  The third is more expensive than the D5100 body alone.  Will the lenses shoot differently on each of the models?  The 35mm appeals to me because it is so fast at 1.8, so I'm wondering if it will be more effective with the D7000 in terms of light gathering than the D5100 if the ISO, shutter and aperture, and other settings are the same?


----------



## Drake (Jun 20, 2011)

behirab said:


> Thanks for your input.  Further research reveals that Ken Rockwell recommends the D7000 very highly; he also likes the D5100 but not as much, but it's cheaper.


I wouldn't value his opinion that much, he's known for some controversial statements. But yes, the D7000 is one hell of a camera.


----------



## PJL (Jun 20, 2011)

behirab said:


> I'm wondering if it will be more effective with the D7000 in terms of light gathering than the D5100 if the ISO, shutter and aperture, and other settings are the same?


No, "light gathering" will be the same. This is a pointless tautology, but exposure is exposure. Assuming that the ISO ratings are accurate, the exposure on a D5100 set at 200 ISO, 1/500 shutter speed, and f/3.5 will be exactly the same as a D7000 with those settings or a 30 year old film camera using 200 ISO film and those shutter and aperture settings. It doesn't mean the lens will perform the same as far as autofocus (the D7000 has an on-board AF motor, whereas the D5100 does not; the D7000 also has more AF points), and there will be differences in color rendition and other things that don't have to do with exposure are concerned.

If you want opinions that are a little more stats and results-based than Ken Rockwell's gushing (I like some of his articles, especially regarding photo composition, but he seems very eager to label equipment he likes as the best thing ever), check out www.dpreview.com  You can do direct photo comparisons between the D5100 and D7000.


----------



## behirab (Jun 20, 2011)

This from the dpreview: that there's been an overexposure problem with the d7000 in bright high-contrast conditions.  Does anyone know anything about this?  Is it correctable with exposure compensation?


----------



## Drake (Jun 20, 2011)

behirab said:


> This from the dpreview: that there's been an overexposure problem with the d7000 in bright high-contrast conditions.  Does anyone know anything about this?  Is it correctable with exposure compensation?


Such things can be corrected. As PJL stated, every camera should produce identical image when used with the same settings. When a particular camera tends to over/under expose, it isn't really a problem with the ability to get a correct exposure. Every camera has a different meter which measures the light and gives the camera the right settings based on that. Some meters might think a particular scene should be a tad brighter/darker than it is in reality. It's usually not a big deal and pretty easy to correct, especially if you shoot in RAW mode.


----------



## behirab (Jun 20, 2011)

I'm reconsidering the D90, which I could get so much cheaper than a D7000, today after looking at the prices of lenses.  I like the theory of not having overlapping lens ranges as suggested by Ken Rockwell, but does this work out In practice?  I've seen cameras packaged with lenses with overlapping or seemingly redundant lengths, such as one I saw on Adorama packaging a D90 with an 18-105 and a 55-200 lens.  Does it make sense to buy these two lenses together?  Wouldn't you want an 18-55 with a 55-200 or an 18-105 with say an 80-200 that would have less overlap?  Maybe there's something I don't understand about all this.  I realize that even in an overlapping length a lens might be faster or slower too, so maybe a 50mm lens is f/1.4 and the 18-105 has a range beginning with f/3.5.  Anyway, buying the D90 could allow me more flexibility in lenses and still have a better camera in some ways than the D5100.  Thomas Hogan says the 16-85 lens is better than the 18-105. I know it's more expensive, but is it better?


----------



## digital flower (Jun 20, 2011)

To me a little overlap in focal lengths isn't that big a deal. Remember you can only use one lens at a time. The D90 is kind of a steal now IMHO.


----------



## Drake (Jun 21, 2011)

behirab said:


> I'm reconsidering the D90, which I could get so much cheaper than a D7000, today after looking at the prices of lenses.  I like the theory of not having overlapping lens ranges as suggested by Ken Rockwell, but does this work out In practice?  I've seen cameras packaged with lenses with overlapping or seemingly redundant lengths, such as one I saw on Adorama packaging a D90 with an 18-105 and a 55-200 lens.  Does it make sense to buy these two lenses together?  Wouldn't you want an 18-55 with a 55-200 or an 18-105 with say an 80-200 that would have less overlap?  Maybe there's something I don't understand about all this.  I realize that even in an overlapping length a lens might be faster or slower too, so maybe a 50mm lens is f/1.4 and the 18-105 has a range beginning with f/3.5.  Anyway, buying the D90 could allow me more flexibility in lenses and still have a better camera in some ways than the D5100.  Thomas Hogan says the 16-85 lens is better than the 18-105. I know it's more expensive, but is it better?


I wouldn't be too crazy about the overlapping thing. You want to get the 80-200 just because it's less overlapping with the 18-105? There are more important factors, such as lens quality and price. The 80-200 is a fast, very sharp lens, and the 55-200 is... well, cheap. It's not a bad lens, but not really a substitute for 80-200. The 25mm of overlapping focal length is not really worth your time to think about. As for the 18-55 vs 18-105mm dilemma - again, the 18-55 is a good starting lens, not brilliant, but really good for it's low price, whereas the 18-105 is a bit sharper, has a much useful focal length for the times you want to take only one lens with you, and of course it's pricier. My advice? If the two lens package is not a lot cheaper than getting the D90 with 18-105 and than the 55-200 lens separate, than I'd just forget about the tele for now. The kit lens is pretty versatile, start shooting with it and in a couple weeks/months you'll know exactly if you need a tele, or perhaps something different like a fast prime or ultra wide angle lens.


----------



## behirab (Jun 21, 2011)

One thing against the D90 is that it has less ISO sensitivity and I like to shoot in low light outdoors at night without flash.


----------



## PJL (Jun 21, 2011)

behirab said:


> One thing against the D90 is that it has less ISO sensitivity and I like to shoot in low light outdoors at night without flash.


Do you want to shoot in low light or at night?  They're not the same thing ("at night" assuming that it's dark out).  High ISO is useful for shooting, say, inside without a flash, or around sunset outside when the light is diffuse.  If you're shooting at night using long exposures, you wouldn't use high ISOs anyway.  By the way, have you looked at samples from the D5100 at its higher ISO settings?  The results aren't exactly stellar (at the very high end, they're almost unrecognizable).  You'd have to go up to a D700 or D3 to truly get usable high ISO figures.  I'm not trying to dissuade you, but high ISO numbers can be as meaningless as high megapixel numbers -- more doesn't necessarily mean better results.


----------



## behirab (Jun 21, 2011)

Thanks. Good point. This gives me reason to reconsider the D7000. I was reading today an article about how great the Nikon 85mm f/1.4 was for poor light, I guess any fast lens would be, right? And how that would be a great combination. Can you use an FX lens on a D7000?


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Jun 21, 2011)

behirab said:


> Thanks. Good point. This gives me reason to reconsider *the D7000*. I was reading today an article about how great the Nikon 85mm f/1.4 was for poor light, I guess any fast lens would be, right? And how that would be a great combination. Can you use an FX lens on a D7000?


----------



## PJL (Jun 22, 2011)

behirab said:


> Thanks. Good point. This gives me reason to reconsider the D7000. I was reading today an article about how great the Nikon 85mm f/1.4 was for poor light, I guess any fast lens would be, right?


Yep



> Can you use an FX lens on a D7000?


Yep

But notice I said "D700" and not "D7000" -- the D7000 actually has about the same high ISO performance as the D5100 (you can compare the two directly on dpreview).  The D700 is different because its full-frame; less megapixels overall combined with larger surface area means some nice fat light-sensitive pixels.  Dxomark (see below) puts the usable ISO of the D700 at 2303, compared to the 1180 +/- of the D7000 or D5100.

What's interesting is that the D5100 actually scored better than the D7000 (albeit very slightly) on an objective ISO test.  Both outscore the D90, however.

DxOMark - Sensor rankings


----------



## behirab (Jun 22, 2011)

This is just the kind of information that is helpful to me.  I'm afraid the D700 is way too expensive for me, however.  That's interesting about the D5100 faring a little better than the D7000.  But the D7000 seems to have better layout of buttons and dials which would make it appealing to me, not having many options buried in menus.  I'm still trying to decide about the lens. Alas that fast 85mm, as great as it sounds, is also too expensive...  Thomas Hogan doesn't dis the basic 18-55 and 55-200 except that they don't have an override for the automatic focus, I think it was.  He says the 18-105 is better, and the 16-85 even better than that.  So I just may go for the D7000 with one of those more basic lenses to start and save up for as fast a lens as I can.  Thomas Hogan listed a couple of lenses for low light: Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 (eventually doable), Nikon 50 f/1.8 (inexpensive and very doable) and Nikon 70-200 f2.8 (way too much $$).  Any other ones I should consider?


----------



## Patrice (Jun 22, 2011)

behirab said:


> .  Any other ones I should consider?




Not for me to say what you should or should not do, but here are some other options from Nikon.

20 f2.8 AF-D
24 f2.8 AF-D
28 f2.8 AF-D
35 f2.8 AF-D
85 f1.8 AF-D
105 DC f2.8 AF-D
135 DC f2.0 AF-D
80-200 f2.8 AF-D

All fixed max aperture, all f2.8 or faster, all auto focus on D7000, all in the same price range or lower than the 16-35 you're looking at ([less than $1400] there is no current 16-85 Nikkor that I know of) and all are current.


EDIT:  Big Big sorry, just looked at nikon imaging site and there is a current 16-85 in dx format. Now to cut myself a piece of humble pie.


----------



## PJL (Jun 22, 2011)

If you can swing the D7000, buy it and never second-guess your choice. It's a much better body than the D5100, regardless of slight ISO differences.As for glass, it's really up to you. Primes usually represent better value for low f-stops with good sharpness and low distortion, while zooms have more versatility. Completely depends what you feel comfortable spending and what you're main intent is.


----------



## Kerbouchard (Jun 22, 2011)

I would go with the D90, the 18-105, an SB600, and a 50mm 1.8.  That would cover about 80% of normal shooting conditions for most photographers.  From there, a tripod, and either an 80-200 2.8 or the 70-300 VR would just about round out the kit.  Once you've mastered that, you won't have to ask what your next upgrade should be.  You will know where you need more performance and what other options you want available.

Oh, and stay away from Ken Rockwell until get a bit further along in your photography journey.  He has some good stuff to say, but he also fully admits that the website is for his and his cats' entertainment only, that he reviews stufff without using it, and that he flat out makes stuff up for entertainment.  I believe that is all on his about me page.  Not exactly a good resource for somebody starting out.


----------



## behirab (Jun 23, 2011)

PJL said:
			
		

> If you can swing the D7000, buy it and never second-guess your choice. It's a much better body than the D5100, regardless of slight ISO differences.
> 
> What is better about the D7000 body over the D5100?  I know the D7000 is sealed against moisture.  Anything else?


----------



## Kerbouchard (Jun 23, 2011)

behirab said:


> What is better about the D7000 body over the D5100?  I know the D7000 is sealed against moisture.  Anything else?


They aren't even in the same league.  The D7000 has a built in commander mode to control off camera flashes.  It has a built in focus motor to control older Nikon lenses.  It has dual control wheels to give you faster access to changing shutter speed and aperture.  It has more external controls so you don't have to go into menus to change things.  It has a much better view finder.  It has a better focusing system.  It can make micro adjustments to lenses to account for manufacturing tolerances.  The list goes on and on.

It's like night and day.  If you can swing the D7000, I would definitely recommend it over the D5000/5100.  If you can't, I would still go with the D90 before I went with the D5000 for most of the same reasons.


----------



## behirab (Jun 23, 2011)

Kerbouchard said:
			
		

> I would go with the D90, the 18-105, an SB600, and a 50mm 1.8.  That would cover about 80% of normal shooting conditions for most photographers.  From there, a tripod, and either an 80-200 2.8 or the 70-300 VR would just about round out the kit.  Once you've mastered that, you won't have to ask what your next upgrade should be.  You will know where you need more performance and what other options you want available.
> 
> Oh, and stay away from Ken Rockwell until get a bit further along in your photography journey.  He has some good stuff to say, but he also fully admits that the website is for his and his cats' entertainment only, that he reviews stufff without using it, and that he flat out makes stuff up for entertainment.  I believe that is all on his about me page.  Not exactly a good resource for somebody starting out.



Wow.  I hadn't even thought about a flash, but that opens up possibilities.  Good to have room in my budget for it....eventually!  So this takes me back to the D90 with the 18-105 lens or the D5100 with the 18-55 lens which are the same price ($900 on the Nikon website, but better deals available elsewhere I'm sure), with the D5100 having an edge in the ISO, but the D90 being more advanced in other ways and is actually cost-wise a better deal.   So many people love their D90s, I know it must be a great camera.  Who is the best online seller of camera equipment, most reliable, follows through with customer service, etc?

There are about 6 50mm Nikon lenses.  Does the D90 take only DX lenses, or FX too like the D7000?  The AF 50mm f/1.8 D (What does the D stand for?) is only $135.  This seems to be a very popular lens for Nikon to make so many of them.

You say the camera, lenses and flash listed above would take care of 80% of normal shooting conditions, what would take care of the remaining 20%?

I ask questions here on this forum because there is a lot information and so many opinions that it's difficult to sort out the quality.  What resources, websites, books do you recommend for learning more?  I found David Pogue's book on digital photography helpful in understanding my Nikon compact P500.  My previous SLR was a 35mm film camera, so I've had to learn a lot to get up to speed on digital.  And I haven't even explored processing.

Thanks to all of you who have contributed to this thread!


----------



## ariel_ (Jun 23, 2011)

I like my D90 because it has the dual control dials to change aperture and shutter without having to look at my menus.  This was one of the main reasons why I upgraded from a D50 to D90.  The D90 will take FX lenses and will FX camera's take DX lenses, but I'm not sure what the impact will be, I'm assuming the crop factor.  The people here in the forum will be able to tell you more.  You've asked a lot of good questions about different bodies and features, why not try renting a few camera bodies with a 50mm lens and try it out?  

Remember camera bodies come and go, but lenses last forever.   I suggest you go with the D90 and save your money for glass. IMHO


----------



## Kerbouchard (Jun 23, 2011)

behirab said:


> Kerbouchard said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Generally, KEH.com, adorama.com, and B&H are regarded as the big three.  With the crisis in Japan, everybody's prices have been rising, so you may have to do a bit of research on who has the best deal for what you want.  Stay away from the all in one kits that include a tripod/filter/cleaning kit/back scratcher.  The back scratcher works okay, but the rest is usually cheap junk.


> There are about 6 50mm Nikon lenses. Does the D90 take only DX lenses, or FX too like the D7000? The AF 50mm f/1.8 D (What does the D stand for?) is only $135. This seems to be a very popular lens for Nikon to make so many of them.


  The D means it translates distance info to the camera.  All FX lenses and older Nikon lenses will mount on all modern DSLRS.  There are a few compatibility issues that you can run into, though.  Some older lenses do not transfer exposure info to the camera body so the meter doesn't work, but those lenses are becoming more and more rare.  Also, some lenses don't have focus motors inside of them and instead depend on the camera body to have a focus motor.  FX vs DX basically refers to how big of an image the lens projects onto the sensor.  An FX lens projects a bigger image than a DX lens so an FX lens will work for any sized sensor while with a DX lens, if you put it on an FX camera, part of the sensor may not have any signal to work with.  In any case, this isn't a concern for the D7000 or D90 since both will take DX and FX lenses.


> You say the camera, lenses and flash listed above would take care of 80% of normal shooting conditions, what would take care of the remaining 20%?


 Reflectors, soft boxes, more lighting, macro lenses, telephoto lenses, extreme wide angle lenses, and the list goes on and on.  It really just depends on what you want to shoot and how much control you want over how the photo turns out.


> I ask questions here on this forum because there is a lot information and so many opinions that it's difficult to sort out the quality. What resources, websites, books do you recommend for learning more? I found David Pogue's book on digital photography helpful in understanding my Nikon compact P500. My previous SLR was a 35mm film camera, so I've had to learn a lot to get up to speed on digital. And I haven't even explored processing.
> 
> Thanks to all of you who have contributed to this thread!


My favorite books have been 'Light, Science, and Magic', 'National Geographics, Field Guide to Photography', and pretty much anything by Rick Sammon.


----------



## behirab (Jun 23, 2011)

Whoa.  After pricing the D90 at several online sellers, it appears that Nikon USA has the cheapest price for a brand new camera.  This isn't what I expected at all.  It's about $900 at the Nikon website, including the 18-105 lens, cables, battery, charger, etc.  Not refurbished or slightly used.  $899.95.  It pays to shop around.


----------



## ariel_ (Jun 23, 2011)

behirab said:


> Whoa.  After pricing the D90 at several online sellers, it appears that Nikon USA has the cheapest price for a brand new camera.  This isn't what I expected at all.  It's about $900 at the Nikon website, including the 18-105 lens, cables, battery, charger, etc.  Not refurbished or slightly used.  $899.95.  It pays to shop around.



Really?  Which Nikon site did you go to?  I went to Digital Cameras | Nikon Digital Camera, Lenses & More and added the D90 to the cart.  On the next screen it says *"D90 (Body Only) has been successfully added to the cart" *and its asking to choose a lens.  Might wanna double check.


----------



## behirab (Jun 24, 2011)

Yes, once you add it to the cart it tells you that it's body only, where on the previous page it simply shows you the camera with a lens.  However, once you've got it in your cart it reduces the price by $100.  Still not the deal I thought it was.  And it then offers you some discounted lenses, but curiously not the 18-105mm lens you might want to start off with.  As they say, if it seems to be too good to be true...  Further research finds Adorama with lower prices than Nikon USA, B&H and KEH.  I wonder if they're going to discontinue the D90 soon, thus the $100 discount?


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Jun 24, 2011)

If you purchase the D5100 you'll be selling it soon to buy something else.  I sold my D5000 and bought a D7000, and typing all the reasons I did so would be outside the scope of this thread so take my word for it. Just the menus/controls are night and day, plus all the other stuff already mentioned.


----------



## behirab (Jun 24, 2011)

Thanks for your input.  I still haven't made up my mind.  I'm pricing various combinations of cameras and lenses from various sellers to see what I  can get and feel comfortable with.  Today I was looking at prime lenses and speed and thinking about bokeh.  I need to go to a shop where I can put my hands on them and look through them.  I'm not really in a hurry to buy, and the longer I wait the more I can save...and spend.  My P500 is out of the shop now so I have a toy I can play with in the meantime which has a ridiculous 36x zoom.


----------



## behirab (Jun 24, 2011)

Here's what Thom Hogan said about the D5100 and D7000:
In terms of basic image quality, the D5100 and D7000 are the same: they use
the same sensor. But one difference occurs in raw files, where the D7000
keeps all the data and the D5100 throws away highlight data.
Something to keep in mind.


----------



## ShaunMK (Jun 25, 2011)

If you are looking for "bang for the buck", the Nikon 18-55 vr and 55-200 vr are probably your best values.  

I purchased these two refurbished (pristine) lenses on eBay for $90 and $124 respectively.  Ecstatic with the performance and capabilities of each.  Both are sharp, contrasts lenses.  The vibration reduction feature is awesome.  The 18-105 is a little soft at higher focal lengths. 

Down the road consider a 50mm f1.8 for low light and portraiture. This goes for about $120 new.  The f1.4 lens is three to four times as expensive.  I own one, like it very much, but would not pay that much more if I had to do it over. 

Purchased a D7000 a week ago today.  Best camera I've owned in 30 years of being a photo enthusiast.  It handles like a dream.  It has all the features you would want when you explore the what a camera can do.


----------



## behirab (Jun 25, 2011)

That sounds great.  What camera did you have before the D7000?


----------



## ShaunMK (Jun 25, 2011)

I started with a Nikon F2 in '76.  A Nikon N6006 in the 90's. An N90 shortly after. A D200 -  this one was stolen out of my luggage three months ago (never carry a camera in checked luggage - no one covers the loss except you).   A loaner D300.  Great camera, but the D7000 spoiled me. I was very close to purchasing the D300, but I'm very happy I went with the 7000.  It performs better, costs less and has a sensor that is nothing less than amazing.   The 5100 has the same sensor, but fewer features than the 7000.


----------



## behirab (Jun 25, 2011)

Sorry to hear about the loss of your camera.  That's a real bummer!  Glad you could replace it with a model you like so well.

I thought about the D7000 today when I saw one in use at an event.  The owner had only had it a week and he was still getting to know about it.  His previous camera was a D90.  The D7000 is faster he said.  I guess that should be no surprise, but it immediately made me want a D7000.  I was trying to see what kind of a lens he had, it wasn't a monster.  Did it say 70-200?  Maybe 70-300?  He didn't seem to want to talk very much, so I didn't ask.  Still, as I looked at the not quite in focus photos I got of my dogs herding some sheep with my P500, I was a little envious.  Also, I forgot to put the memory card back in it when I got it back from the repair shop, so I could only take a few shots.  Humph.  

Let's say I spent $1200 on a D7000.  It has two slots for memory cards.  What size memory cards would you get for it?  I have a 4GB in my present camera.  I don't take movies, so I wouldn't need a card for that.  But let's talk about the D7000 and shooting in RAW, not a capability I have now.  And that takes up more memory, so I would want to get plenty of memory, say at least 8GB? in case I want to shoot in RAW, and I need to figure this into the cost.  The camera probably won't come with memory cards.  Do people shoot everything in RAW to give you the most options or only when you know you're going to take a fabulous picture that you're going to want to blow up to 16x20 or more?  ;-).  Actually I don't want to do a lot of post processing, I want to learn to take really good pictures.  In any case, I don't have Photoshop, only iPhoto, which is probably as fancy as I want to get right now. 

So any advice about memory cards?  And would a 50mm 1.8 lens allow me to get shots of my dogs with less blur?


----------



## behirab (Jun 26, 2011)

There is a good comparison between the D5100, D7000, D3100 and D90 on amazon.com in the ratings and comments section by dojoklo.  I don't think there is any way to search for dojoklo, but if you search for D5100, not the D5100 kit, you can find it.


----------



## PJL (Jun 26, 2011)

behirab said:


> Let's say I spent $1200 on a D7000.  It has two slots for memory cards.  What size memory cards would you get for it?  I have a 4GB in my present camera.  I don't take movies, so I wouldn't need a card for that.  But let's talk about the D7000 and shooting in RAW, not a capability I have now.  And that takes up more memory, so I would want to get plenty of memory, say at least 8GB? in case I want to shoot in RAW, and I need to figure this into the cost.  The camera probably won't come with memory cards.


The camera won't come with a memory card.  As far as how much you should get, from a basic search, I'm seeing that people are getting around 115 shots for every 4 GB in RAW in 14 bit on their D7000, so with an 8 GB card, you'll get about 230 14-bit RAW pictures.  If you shoot maximum size jpeg, you're probably looking at almost 1,000 on an 8 GB card.


> Do people shoot everything in RAW to give you the most options or only when you know you're going to take a fabulous picture that you're going to want to blow up to 16x20 or more?  ;-).  Actually I don't want to do a lot of post processing, I want to learn to take really good pictures.  In any case, I don't have Photoshop, only iPhoto, which is probably as fancy as I want to get right now.


I personally shoot in jpeg most of the time because most of my pictures are of my son that I don't really do any post-processing of, and it's easiest to just transfer a jpeg from the memory card directly to a facebook page or a digital frame or send it to a family member.  The greatest benefit of shooting in RAW is the ability to do post-processing without losing data -- every time you manipulate a jpeg you lose information.  You also have greater ability to adjust white balance and other technical aspects of the photograph after the fact with RAW.

As far as print size, I've done beautiful 11x14s from a 10 MP point and shoot in jpeg.  At 18 MP, you'll be able to do 16x20 in either fine jpeg or RAW without a problem.


> So any advice about memory cards?


I shoot a Sandisk Extreme 4 GB in my 40D and I've been happy with it.  Good transfer speeds with not too much lag with long bursts.  If you don't plan on doing video, transfer speed isn't necessarily as important, so you should probably just get the most memory for your dollar.   Basically, better transfer rates for just shooting photos means that it will take less time for a large burst of shots to transfer to your card, so your camera will be ready to take pictures again faster.


> And would a 50mm 1.8 lens allow me to get shots of my dogs with less blur?


It will allow you to use faster shutter speeds in low light, yes, so that should result in less blur if you're shooting indoors or in low light without a flash.


----------



## ladynikon (Jun 27, 2011)

Just thought I'd put my 2cents in since I just upgraded from a d90 to a d7000! The d7000 is an amazing camera!!! I can't say that enough! The iso performance alone was what sold me! With the d90 u can't get above iso 800 without getting terrible noise! With the d7000 I can shoot at 3200 with no problem at all!!! That combined with other features is worth spending the extra $$$. If I were you I would buy the body only and pick up either the 50mm 1.8 lens or the 35mm 1.8. You will not be disappointed!!!


----------



## behirab (Jun 27, 2011)

In practice, what is the difference between shooting with a 35mm vs 50mm?  I've also seen D7000s for sale packaged with 85mm lenses, and I've been wondering about prime lenses.   My P500 doesn't have any markings, so I don't know how many mms I'm shooting at.


----------



## ladynikon (Jun 27, 2011)

On the d7000  the 35mm becomes more of a 55mm and the 50 becomes a 75mm because of the cropped sensor. They are both great starter lenses the one you choose is really up to personal taste since the only difference is focal length they are both very sharp and will have you looking like a pro in no time! 
I also saw the d7000 packaged with the 85mm lens but be careful because the 85 I saw it with was the 3.5 not the 1.4. Which I guess wouldn't be bad for a starter kit but if photography is something you are truly into then I guarantee u, u will out grow any lens thats not a at least a 2.8 very quickly!!!!! Saving up to buy that 1.4 will save u money down the road if you don't waste the money buying something ur going to want to replace a few months from now.
I have read that prime lenses tend to be sharper than zoom lenses because their is less elements and or glass to shoot threw. And also they make the best starter lenses because since they dont zoom it forces the photographer to move in and out and try different angles to get a good composition. I hope this was helpful!


----------



## Kerbouchard (Jun 27, 2011)

ladynikon said:


> Just thought I'd put my 2cents in since I just upgraded from a d90 to a d7000! The d7000 is an amazing camera!!! I can't say that enough! The iso performance alone was what sold me! With the d90 u can't get above iso 800 without getting terrible noise! With the d7000 I can shoot at 3200 with no problem at all!!! That combined with other features is worth spending the extra $$$. If I were you I would buy the body only and pick up either the 50mm 1.8 lens or the 35mm 1.8. You will not be disappointed!!!


  I shoot with my D90 at ISO 2000 pretty often.  If you care to look at some of the threads I started, you'll see shots at ISO 2000+ in fairly dim conditions.  I won't push ISO 3200, but if you weren't comfortable going above 800 on the D90, I would say it was more of a technique issue than an equipment issue.



ladynikon said:


> On the d7000  the 35mm becomes more of a 55mm and the 50 becomes a 75mm because of the cropped sensor. They are both great starter lenses the one you choose is really up to personal taste since the only difference is focal length they are both very sharp and will have you looking like a pro in no time!


Really?  Is that all it takes?


> I also saw the d7000 packaged with the 85mm lens but be careful because the 85 I saw it with was the 3.5 not the 1.4. Which I guess wouldn't be bad for a starter kit but if photography is something you are truly into then I guarantee u, u will out grow any lens thats not a at least a 2.8 very quickly!!!!! Saving up to buy that 1.4 will save u money down the road if you don't waste the money buying something ur going to want to replace a few months from now.


Nikon lenses hold their value pretty well and a used 85mm 1.8 would be more in line with a half decent suggestion.  There is no way I would recommend an 85 1.4 as a first lens.  For one, it takes very good technique to shoot at 1.4 and there just isn't any reason for any beginner who doesn't know what focal length they normally shoot at to buy such a lens.





> I have read that prime lenses tend to be sharper than zoom lenses because their is less elements and or glass to shoot threw. And also they make the best starter lenses because since they dont zoom it forces the photographer to move in and out and try different angles to get a good composition. I hope this was helpful!


So, what else have you read?

You know what I have learned from experience, people should probably start out with a kit lens because it is the most economical and they can find where they want to further invest their money.  Turns out, not everybody can just go pick up an 85 1.4 or the newest 2.8 lens.  If they could, they probably wouldn't be weighing the options between a D5000 and a D7000.  You know what else I have learned from experience?  Not to trust anybody who claims that somebody should buy a camera and a lens that will have them 'looking like a pro in no time!'  Experience has also taught me that pretty much anybody who is advising a new shooter on a budget of what gear to buy, wants to spend the very top end(or in this case much, much higher) of the OP's budget and doesn't mention reflectors, flashes, modifiers, tripods, or books probably doesn't know why those devices are valuable or why they should be part of the overall budget plan.  

But then again, why would you care about any of those things?  Heck, slap a 35mm 1.8 on a D7000 and you'll be shooting like a pro in no time...  :roll:


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Jun 27, 2011)

Kerbouchard said:


> But then again, why would you care about any of those things?  Heck, slap a 35mm 1.8 on a D7000 and you'll be shooting like a pro in no time...  :roll:









 Why didn't that work for me, I'm having to take classes!? 

And the 35mm F1.8 G I used with my D7000, I sold it! Something about those pretty aberation colors that didn't agree with with me.


----------



## Kerbouchard (Jun 27, 2011)

2WheelPhoto said:


> Kerbouchard said:
> 
> 
> > But then again, why would you care about any of those things?  Heck, slap a 35mm 1.8 on a D7000 and you'll be shooting like a pro in no time...  :roll:
> ...


I guess you should have went with the 85mm 1.4.  I hear it's a good lens to start with.


----------



## ladynikon (Jun 27, 2011)

Wow! I'm terribly sorry to have offended you, who ever you are...

Of course it takes more than "slapping" on 35 1.8 to shoot like a pro. But I'm assuming that a person who wants to invest in a DSLR isnt just looking to buy the camera but to also LEARN HOW TO USE THAT CAMERA!!!! and after this person learns how to shoot, which isn't really all that complicated they are going to wish they had some good glass to go along with that camera! Whats so wrong with that??? If this person is interested in an 85 they shouldn't waste $500 on the 3.5 at least spend the extra $100 or so on the 1.8 but honestly in the long hall that 1.4 is worth EVERY PENNY! No experienced photographer would deny that! I do apologize to the op for suggesting such and expensive lens with out regard to your budget. But would also like to note that photography it self has no regard to budget!!!!  Experience has taught me that I need to invest my money where it's going to last!!! Starting off with a kit lens is fine and dandy but good glass is more important starting out than getting bogged down with reflectors and other accessories. Bottom line, learn your camera get good glass and photography will pay for itself!


----------



## Kerbouchard (Jun 27, 2011)

You didn't offend me.  Since the OP is relatively new to photography, I just wanted to give him an alternate point of view.  

Obvioiusly, I disagree with just about everything you said.  If I'm shooting indoors, I would take a kit lens and a flash over a D7000 and a fast prime any day of the week.  If I am shooting portraits outside, I would take a kit lens and a reflector over the D7000 and a fast prime any day of the week.  If I am shooting waterfalls or landscapes or city lines, I would take a kit lens and a tripod over a D7000 and a fast prime any day of the week.

You seem to have a pretty limited view of photography and judging by your opinion that a good lens and a camera are more important than getting 'bogged down with reflectors and other accessories' leads me to believe you may be missing out on quite a bit.

In any case, we have hijacked this thread long enough.  Best of luck to the OP on whatever decision he makes.  To Lady Nikon, whenever you decide to start a thread with some of your work, I would love to take a look.


----------



## ladynikon (Jun 27, 2011)

Kerbouchard said:
			
		

> You didn't offend me.  Since the OP is relatively new to photography, I just wanted to give him an alternate point of view.
> 
> Obvioiusly, I disagree with just about everything you said.  If I'm shooting indoors, I would take a kit lens and a flash over a D7000 and a fast prime any day of the week.  If I am shooting portraits outside, I would take a kit lens and a reflector over the D7000 and a fast prime any day of the week.  If I am shooting waterfalls or landscapes or city lines, I would take a kit lens and a tripod over a D7000 and a fast prime any day of the week.
> 
> ...



 I agree we have hijacked this tread long enough!  And maybe I aught to post some of my work, I wouldn't doubt you'd give me your honest opinion ;-) 

I must say to the op that a lot of  photography is about personal taste. Every one has their own personal style.  That's what makes it an art. You will go out and use your camera to capture life and create your own art so you should buy equipment you are comfortable using. But know that photography can be very rewarding not just on a personal level but financial as well!


----------



## behirab (Jun 28, 2011)

I know a chiropractor who also shoots weddings.  Really, she's not bad--has a knack for interacting with people in such a way as to get good photos from them, and she has an eye.  I've seen some of her poster size images and I thought they were good quality.  Point and shoot or top of the line, there's obviously more to photography than the gear.  And I'm not saying she doesn't have good gear, I don't know what she has.

Then again there's only so much you can get from a Holga, even if they are popular with the art crowd, nevertheless they do have their place...  There seems to be a lot of snobbery among the technical cognoscenti, but really, when you're talking about vision as opposed to technical prowess, that's something you can't buy.  Though you can educate yourself.

 I recently looked at a site that sold "stock" photographs, and some of them weren't very good. I don't know much about how they obtained their stock or how one sells to them, but I would like to know more about making photography more "rewarding."  Although that's not my main aim at this point.  First the camera, and maybe not a fast 85mm lens to start out with, but there's nothing wrong with gathering information.  Why not dream?  Why not dream bigger?  

I've checked out dpreview, but some of their information requires Flash which I can't use on my iPad.  Adorama also has info requiring Flash.  I like my iPad in spite of that.  No camera or lens is perfect either.  But I can like what I get.  My checking account has almost enough for a D90 and a 105mm lens (if I don't mind draining the account), though I haven't fully decided on a lens yet.  I may not stop there though.  Not likely to be very soon, but maybe the D7000 will come down in price by the time I'm ready to take the plunge.  Ha!  In the meantime, I decided to check a book out of the library describing the operation of the D90, just to see what it was about, what it was capable of and how to get around to its various options before I go to a store so I'll have some idea of what to ask and try out.  The library doesn't have a D7000 book yet, but the D90 operation should give me a step up to that model when I try one out.

It was written above, and I've also come across information about some chromatic aberration in the 35mm.  Is this also true of the 50mm 1.8 ?


----------



## o hey tyler (Jun 28, 2011)

ladynikon said:


> On the d7000  the 35mm becomes more of a 55mm and the 50 becomes a 75mm because of the cropped sensor. They are both great starter lenses the one you choose is really up to personal taste since the only difference is focal length they are both very sharp and will have you looking like a pro in no time!



The 35mm lens doesn't "become" a 55mm lens. And the 50mm doesn't "become" a 75mm lens. They're both 35 & 50mm, however the FIELD OF VIEW changes. Focal length is consistent, FoV isn't.


----------



## o hey tyler (Jun 28, 2011)

Kerbouchard said:


> You didn't offend me.  Since the OP is relatively new to photography, I just wanted to give him an alternate point of view.
> 
> Obvioiusly, I disagree with just about everything you said.  If I'm shooting indoors, I would take a kit lens and a flash over a D7000 and a fast prime any day of the week.  If I am shooting portraits outside, I would take a kit lens and a reflector over the D7000 and a fast prime any day of the week.  If I am shooting waterfalls or landscapes or city lines, I would take a kit lens and a tripod over a D7000 and a fast prime any day of the week.
> 
> You seem to have a pretty limited view of photography and judging by your opinion that a good lens and a camera are more important than getting 'bogged down with reflectors and other accessories' leads me to believe you may be missing out on quite a bit.



Now I don't disagree with you that LadyNikon is a bit overzealous, however only using a "D7000 and kit lens" is kind of naive and also a very limited view of photography in it's own respect.


----------



## ladynikon (Jun 28, 2011)

After reading my posts I suppose I do sound a bit overzealous! I'd like to clear up the idea that I was recommending he by the 85 1.4 as a starter lens that is NOT what I ment!! I actually said that the 35 or 50 would make a good starter lens!!!! The only reason I even brought up the 85 1.4 was because he had mentioned the 85 being in a package with the d7000. And my advice was to save up for the best one. Anyway I dare not give anymore advice as I don't want to send anyone else off on a tangent!!! I will say that after owning the both the d90 and the d7000 that the d7000 is worth spending the extra, what is it like $200?!?! I mean come on that's a no brainer thier is a reason why nikon replaced the d90. And if you would like to learn how to use the d7000 u can buy the d7000 for Dummies app for your iPad  its only 99cents.


----------



## Kerbouchard (Jun 28, 2011)

o hey tyler said:


> Kerbouchard said:
> 
> 
> > You didn't offend me.  Since the OP is relatively new to photography, I just wanted to give him an alternate point of view.
> ...



You are right...which is why I didn't advise the OP, nor have I ever advised anybody to max out there budget with a camera body and a kit lens, or a camera body and a prime lens.  

I think anybody who is beginning photography who thinks that they might have a passion for it should spend less than their max budget on a decent camera body with a general purpose lens, shoot with it for a while, and then spend the rest of their budget once they have a better idea of what they want to shoot and what limitations they are recaching.


----------



## behirab (Jun 28, 2011)

Since I have about $1000 to spend right now, which camera and lens would you recommend then?


----------



## behirab (Jun 29, 2011)

I just read today on Nikonians that the D90 has been discontinued.


----------



## o hey tyler (Jun 29, 2011)

behirab said:


> I just read today on Nikonians that the D90 has been discontinued.



So?


----------



## bentcountershaft (Jun 29, 2011)

For $1000 I'd get a D90 and a Tamron 17-50 non VC.  I haven't check prices in a while but I think that can still be pulled off.


----------



## behirab (Jun 29, 2011)

Around $1200 on B&H.  Why you want non VC?


----------



## Kerbouchard (Jun 29, 2011)

behirab said:


> Around $1200 on B&H. Why you want non VC?



Probably to get closer to your budget.


----------



## bentcountershaft (Jun 29, 2011)

Kerbouchard said:


> behirab said:
> 
> 
> > Around $1200 on B&H. Why you want non VC?
> ...



Yes, that and I don't find it necessary on shorter focal lengths.  With a little hunting you could probably find both of those used in excellent condition allowing you to stay under $1000 and have a little left over for memory cards and batteries.


----------



## mayhem7 (Jun 30, 2011)

I can warmly recommend Nikon D7000 with a 16-85mm VR-II lens.. You can of cause use a FX lens, so you don't have to upgrade that too, if you decide to go pro one day.. But if I was you, I would start with a DX.


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Jun 30, 2011)

I bought a D5000 and a kit lens. VERY soon after, I bought a D7000 and a 24-70mm which is what i should've started with and saved some time buying/selling, and a few bux loss.

D7000 is entry level that will still focus most lenses, has buttons and one won't be in "menu hell" setting up each shot, and a plethora of other things mentioned in this thread over and over.  Plus the viewfinder is 100% and better quality than the 5100. Glad I stepped it up.


----------



## behirab (Jul 1, 2011)

The D7000 sounds great.   Maybe by the time I save up enough for the D7000 it will have come down in price!   Did you get the Nikkor 24-70 f/2.8?


----------



## behirab (Jul 3, 2011)

B&H has a refurbished D90 and 18-105 lens for about $890.  I'd go for this, but I'm still worried about the ISO capability.  I shoot everything and everywhere.  But I only have the built-in flash on my P500.  I could get a Nikon SB400 flash or maybe another brand not too expensively.  But most of my interest right now is outdoors or in ambient light.  I'm still checking on this thread, so if anyone has additional advice, please add it.  Thanks!


----------



## ladynikon (Jul 3, 2011)

If iso performance is what ur worried about then DO NOT get the d90!! I love shooting with natural light and very rarely use flash. After owning the d90 for only 6 months I grew to hate it!!! Iso at 800 is  ok as long as lighting conditions are decant but anything above that u will need to edit out the noise. I sold it just a few weeks ago and got the d7000. The iso capabilities of the d7000 surpass those of the d90 by far!!!!! And yeah sure it may have just been my " technique" but I'll you what, I no longer have a problem shooting in low light and I don't need a flash!!!!!! 

p.s. It's not ALL the camera tho u will need a fast lens too. A kit lens won't cut it in many low light situations you might find yourself suck in.  That's y I recommend the 35mm 1.8 or 50 1.8 since they are both pretty inexpensive.


----------



## behirab (Jul 3, 2011)

Thanks, that was helpful.  I'm sure your technique didn't change with the D7000.  And I think I'd like to get one of those lenses, they're relatively inexpensive and faster than the kit lens.


----------



## behirab (Jul 6, 2011)

After holding the D5100 in my hands at a camera store, I decided that I didn't like the position of the menu button which was an uncomfortable stretch for my left thumb.  I also decided after looking through the 18-55mm lens that I would like something with more reach.  I found the D7000 rather heavy (but not that much more than the D90) and besides it's price, thought the D90 was a better deal with its 18-105mm lens.  It's also a little lighter.  So my original question about whether it made sense to get a D5100 with the 18-105mm lens, I've decided is no.  I think I am going to get the D90, in spite of it's lower ISO, etc.  The D7000 isn't going to come down in price any time soon, but in the meantime I can use the D90 and experiment with a fast prime when I can afford it.  Thanks to everyone who contributed to this thread.  It helped me think through what made sense about choosing between these Nikons for me.


----------



## Kerbouchard (Jul 7, 2011)

behirab said:


> After holding the D5100 in my hands at a camera store, I decided that I didn't like the position of the menu button which was an uncomfortable stretch for my left thumb. I also decided after looking through the 18-55mm lens that I would like something with more reach. I found the D7000 rather heavy (but not that much more than the D90) and besides it's price, thought the D90 was a better deal with its 18-105mm lens. It's also a little lighter. So my original question about whether it made sense to get a D5100 with the 18-105mm lens, I've decided is no. I think I am going to get the D90, in spite of it's lower ISO, etc. The D7000 isn't going to come down in price any time soon, but in the meantime I can use the D90 and experiment with a fast prime when I can afford it. Thanks to everyone who contributed to this thread. It helped me think through what made sense about choosing between these Nikons for me.



Sounds like you made a good decision.


----------

