Making the leap - D7000?
Discussion
My five year old daughter can draw better pictures than I can. She is also a much better musician. I was always utterly s
t at anything creative at school but I have had a few compliments about the photos I've taken.
Photography looks like a good way to be a bit artistic but also fiddle with technical stuff, so I want to get more involved with this, and reach beyond my Lumix P&S camera, nice though it is.
However, I recently moved house and have 3 young children with voracious appetites and a penchant for destroying things, so cash is tight. With a total budget of c. £350-400 to spend on a second hand DSLR and lens, I was thinking along the lines of a D7000 plus the 18-105 kit lens. The D5k and D3k series are newer, but they're annoying and small to hold.
Before I head to ebay and start looking around, is there anything elseI should be considering? Canon 60D is the obvious consideration and I have nothing against that, but the D7200 felt nicer to hold than the 70D so I'm expecting similar ergonomics in the older bodies too.
t at anything creative at school but I have had a few compliments about the photos I've taken. Photography looks like a good way to be a bit artistic but also fiddle with technical stuff, so I want to get more involved with this, and reach beyond my Lumix P&S camera, nice though it is.
However, I recently moved house and have 3 young children with voracious appetites and a penchant for destroying things, so cash is tight. With a total budget of c. £350-400 to spend on a second hand DSLR and lens, I was thinking along the lines of a D7000 plus the 18-105 kit lens. The D5k and D3k series are newer, but they're annoying and small to hold.
Before I head to ebay and start looking around, is there anything elseI should be considering? Canon 60D is the obvious consideration and I have nothing against that, but the D7200 felt nicer to hold than the 70D so I'm expecting similar ergonomics in the older bodies too.
D7000 + 18-105 is a useful combo, I've been happy with mine (along with a few other lenses). If you want to see examples, the majority of shots in my album here were taken with that combination: https://www.flickr.com/gp/gravelben/537C9P
AFAIK the D7100/7200 is still the same physical body as the D7000 so handling will be essentially the same, its the sensor etc that was the main upgrade with the new models.
The D7x00 bodies also have the advantage over the D5x00 and D3x00 that they have an AF drive motor in the camera body, so they will autofocus with older generation AF lenses whereas the smaller bodies need AF-S lenses. Gives you more options with older second-hand lenses.
AFAIK the D7100/7200 is still the same physical body as the D7000 so handling will be essentially the same, its the sensor etc that was the main upgrade with the new models.
The D7x00 bodies also have the advantage over the D5x00 and D3x00 that they have an AF drive motor in the camera body, so they will autofocus with older generation AF lenses whereas the smaller bodies need AF-S lenses. Gives you more options with older second-hand lenses.
I upgraded from a D3100 to a D7000 and haven't regretted it.
I would recommend getting a battery grip (the third party ones aren't too bad but can have a habit of draining the battery) as it helps the ergonomics no end.
I would personally recommend looking for a 35mm AFS lens on the second hand market as it works really well with the body.
I would recommend getting a battery grip (the third party ones aren't too bad but can have a habit of draining the battery) as it helps the ergonomics no end.
I would personally recommend looking for a 35mm AFS lens on the second hand market as it works really well with the body.
GravelBen said:
D7000 + 18-105 is a useful combo, I've been happy with mine (along with a few other lenses). If you want to see examples, the majority of shots in my album here were taken with that combination: https://www.flickr.com/gp/gravelben/537C9P
AFAIK the D7100/7200 is still the same physical body as the D7000 so handling will be essentially the same, its the sensor etc that was the main upgrade with the new models.
The D7x00 bodies also have the advantage over the D5x00 and D3x00 that they have an AF drive motor in the camera body, so they will autofocus with older generation AF lenses whereas the smaller bodies need AF-S lenses. Gives you more options with older second-hand lenses.
Thanks Ben, that's helpful. I like your photos. The reversed lens macro ones are ace; I had no idea you could do this!AFAIK the D7100/7200 is still the same physical body as the D7000 so handling will be essentially the same, its the sensor etc that was the main upgrade with the new models.
The D7x00 bodies also have the advantage over the D5x00 and D3x00 that they have an AF drive motor in the camera body, so they will autofocus with older generation AF lenses whereas the smaller bodies need AF-S lenses. Gives you more options with older second-hand lenses.
brman said:
D300 hands down if you don't need video. Spend the rest on decent glass......
Thanks for the suggestion. On ebay the prices seem not that far apart - what does the older D300 have that the newer (relatively) D7000 doesn't? Spec wise the D7k has better ISO range (I think) and looks a bit easier to use for a beginner (mode dial rather than menus)eltawater said:
I upgraded from a D3100 to a D7000 and haven't regretted it.
I would recommend getting a battery grip (the third party ones aren't too bad but can have a habit of draining the battery) as it helps the ergonomics no end.
I would personally recommend looking for a 35mm AFS lens on the second hand market as it works really well with the body.
That's good to know. In some cameras the battery grip increased the FPS in burst mode too which might be handy. Not sure if this works for the 7k.I would recommend getting a battery grip (the third party ones aren't too bad but can have a habit of draining the battery) as it helps the ergonomics no end.
I would personally recommend looking for a 35mm AFS lens on the second hand market as it works really well with the body.
I'm happy with second hand so thanks for the tip re: the 35mm. Seems more appropriate than a 50mm prime on a DX.
http://www.dpreview.com/products/compare/side-by-s...
Have a look at mpb photographic (http://www.mpb.com) who are really good for second hand equipment.
I suppose the biggest practical difference you'll find is that the D300 takes compact flash cards whereas the D7000 has dual SD card slots. I find those handy in cost terms and for having a secondary backup card for my images.
Have a look at mpb photographic (http://www.mpb.com) who are really good for second hand equipment.
I suppose the biggest practical difference you'll find is that the D300 takes compact flash cards whereas the D7000 has dual SD card slots. I find those handy in cost terms and for having a secondary backup card for my images.
Edited by eltawater on Wednesday 6th April 14:03
8Ace said:
Thanks for the suggestion. On ebay the prices seem not that far apart - what does the older D300 have that the newer (relatively) D7000 doesn't? Spec wise the D7k has better ISO range (I think) and looks a bit easier to use for a beginner (mode dial rather than menus)
I thought the D300 went for less than £200 vs the D7000 at about £250 to £280? body only?I have a D300 and a D7100 (and a D80). For general use I prefer the D300 - it is nicer to use (more buttons, less push/command, better feel in my hand), it is after all a pro body. The D7100 (and the D7000) is better spec'd in some respects (more pixels, supposedly better noise performance, more control options) but in other respects worse (much smaller buffer, slower fps). Note that I say the D7000 and D7100 are *supposedly* better noise performance. That is because I really don't notice that difference, in fact I find it easier to manage the noise in shadows with the D300.
Like I say, it really depends what you want. You may well find a more modern camera (ie D7000) is better for you as it has more bells and whistles and maybe a bit better as a point and shoot. But don't let anyone tell you an older camera isn't worth it.
Lets face it, even my D80 still produces some cracking images, and that could be got for less than £100.
Here is are a couple of examples:
https://flic.kr/p/efLmem
https://flic.kr/p/oiej2j
It is my skill that limits the image,not the camera!
Don't get me wrong, I like the newer cameras. In fact I use my D7100 much more often than my D300 nowadays, I just think the older and cheaper cameras are much better value. Spend the extra on lenses!
The D300 is a piece of st compared to the D7000, I stopped using my D700 in favour of the 7000
The problem the D300 has is ISO. It's rubbish over 1600 by comparison. Forget the 'but the D7000 has a dial, and the D300 doesnt, so the D300 must be better because it's prosumer' the D7000 wipes the floor with it.
I havent really found a reason to upgrade mine, and I bought it when they first came out, then sold my D700 and D300 because I didnt have a use for them. The only thing I'd fault it on is focusing with video, there's not enough focus points and you get a lot of noise from the lens focussing. Stick an external mic on and that goes away, but it's still slow to focus and can get it wrong fairly often with the AF
I used to have a 28-300 which was awesome, but now I just wander around with either a 35/85mm on it and it's more than adequate
There's no point in showing you photos I've taken with it as they're all Photoshopped to st anyway, but the WB needs a bump to warm it up in Auto and the custom modes on the dial are pretty much useless. Vivid setting on the jpeg is about right, and applies better colouring and D lighting than Standard, if you're not a RAW purist (I'm not)
The 18-105 isnt the best lens in the world, but it'll more than do
t compared to the D7000, I stopped using my D700 in favour of the 7000The problem the D300 has is ISO. It's rubbish over 1600 by comparison. Forget the 'but the D7000 has a dial, and the D300 doesnt, so the D300 must be better because it's prosumer' the D7000 wipes the floor with it.
I havent really found a reason to upgrade mine, and I bought it when they first came out, then sold my D700 and D300 because I didnt have a use for them. The only thing I'd fault it on is focusing with video, there's not enough focus points and you get a lot of noise from the lens focussing. Stick an external mic on and that goes away, but it's still slow to focus and can get it wrong fairly often with the AF
I used to have a 28-300 which was awesome, but now I just wander around with either a 35/85mm on it and it's more than adequate
There's no point in showing you photos I've taken with it as they're all Photoshopped to s
t anyway, but the WB needs a bump to warm it up in Auto and the custom modes on the dial are pretty much useless. Vivid setting on the jpeg is about right, and applies better colouring and D lighting than Standard, if you're not a RAW purist (I'm not)The 18-105 isnt the best lens in the world, but it'll more than do
andy-xr said:
The D300 is a piece of st compared to the D7000, I stopped using my D700 in favour of the 7000
The problem the D300 has is ISO. It's rubbish over 1600 by comparison. Forget the 'but the D7000 has a dial, and the D300 doesnt, so the D300 must be better because it's prosumer' the D7000 wipes the floor with it.
I havent really found a reason to upgrade mine, and I bought it when they first came out, then sold my D700 and D300 because I didnt have a use for them. The only thing I'd fault it on is focusing with video, there's not enough focus points and you get a lot of noise from the lens focussing. Stick an external mic on and that goes away, but it's still slow to focus and can get it wrong fairly often with the AF
I used to have a 28-300 which was awesome, but now I just wander around with either a 35/85mm on it and it's more than adequate
There's no point in showing you photos I've taken with it as they're all Photoshopped to st anyway, but the WB needs a bump to warm it up in Auto and the custom modes on the dial are pretty much useless. Vivid setting on the jpeg is about right, and applies better colouring and D lighting than Standard, if you're not a RAW purist (I'm not)
The 18-105 isnt the best lens in the world, but it'll more than do
Really? You are saying the D7000 is better than a D700 for noise at high ISO?t compared to the D7000, I stopped using my D700 in favour of the 7000The problem the D300 has is ISO. It's rubbish over 1600 by comparison. Forget the 'but the D7000 has a dial, and the D300 doesnt, so the D300 must be better because it's prosumer' the D7000 wipes the floor with it.
I havent really found a reason to upgrade mine, and I bought it when they first came out, then sold my D700 and D300 because I didnt have a use for them. The only thing I'd fault it on is focusing with video, there's not enough focus points and you get a lot of noise from the lens focussing. Stick an external mic on and that goes away, but it's still slow to focus and can get it wrong fairly often with the AF
I used to have a 28-300 which was awesome, but now I just wander around with either a 35/85mm on it and it's more than adequate
There's no point in showing you photos I've taken with it as they're all Photoshopped to s
t anyway, but the WB needs a bump to warm it up in Auto and the custom modes on the dial are pretty much useless. Vivid setting on the jpeg is about right, and applies better colouring and D lighting than Standard, if you're not a RAW purist (I'm not)The 18-105 isnt the best lens in the world, but it'll more than do
I did a direct comparison up to ISO1600 between my D300 and a mates D7000 (I had it on loan for a while). The D7000 was *slightly* better at the higher ISOs in absolute terms but the noise was no-where near as nice looking so needed more processing to look right. Ditto my D7100, Yes it is better than the D300 but not enough to make a real difference.
Comparing any of my cameras, including the D7100 with my mates D3 (same sensor as the D700) and the D3 blows them all into the weeds for low light performance.
This is just physics, the D7xxx has smaller pixels than the D300 and MUCH smaller pixels than the D700. Small improvements in sensor technology between the generations make a difference, but not that much.
Just to be clear, I am talking about files processed from raw which takes the in camera processing capability out of it and shows the true capability of the camera. I do know that the noise suppression done by the later cameras is generally more aggressive and gives the impression of better noise in an image. But at a cost which I don't think worth having, hence the fact I use raw.
Each to his own of course, and if you only ever use jpgs then a more modern camera is probably a good idea. But to suggest a D300 is s
t compared to a D7000 is laughable. To suggest a D700 is st compared to D7000 makes me lost for words.......brman said:
Really? You are saying the D7000 is better than a D700 for noise at high ISO?
No, I'm saying comparatively it's better than a D300. I didnt find a use for my D700 when had the D7000. The focus point coverage in particular on FF vs crop, for what I wanted to focus on, was easier with the D7000andy-xr said:
The D300 is a piece of st compared to the D7000, I stopped using my D700 in favour of the 7000
The problem the D300 has is ISO. It's rubbish over 1600 by comparison. Forget the 'but the D7000 has a dial, and the D300 doesnt, so the D300 must be better because it's prosumer' the D7000 wipes the floor with it.
I havent really found a reason to upgrade mine, and I bought it when they first came out, then sold my D700 and D300 because I didnt have a use for them. The only thing I'd fault it on is focusing with video, there's not enough focus points and you get a lot of noise from the lens focussing. Stick an external mic on and that goes away, but it's still slow to focus and can get it wrong fairly often with the AF
I used to have a 28-300 which was awesome, but now I just wander around with either a 35/85mm on it and it's more than adequate
There's no point in showing you photos I've taken with it as they're all Photoshopped to st anyway, but the WB needs a bump to warm it up in Auto and the custom modes on the dial are pretty much useless. Vivid setting on the jpeg is about right, and applies better colouring and D lighting than Standard, if you're not a RAW purist (I'm not)
The 18-105 isnt the best lens in the world, but it'll more than do
I don't think it's quite as clear cut for everyone. As with all things, it's down to usage. I bought a D300 over a D7000 for the better burst rate, better view finder, weather sealing, direct controls (especially a dedicated AF-on button), better AF system, more robust build and bigger buffer capacity. I was shooting a lot of motorsport at the time and all of these things were big advantages. t compared to the D7000, I stopped using my D700 in favour of the 7000The problem the D300 has is ISO. It's rubbish over 1600 by comparison. Forget the 'but the D7000 has a dial, and the D300 doesnt, so the D300 must be better because it's prosumer' the D7000 wipes the floor with it.
I havent really found a reason to upgrade mine, and I bought it when they first came out, then sold my D700 and D300 because I didnt have a use for them. The only thing I'd fault it on is focusing with video, there's not enough focus points and you get a lot of noise from the lens focussing. Stick an external mic on and that goes away, but it's still slow to focus and can get it wrong fairly often with the AF
I used to have a 28-300 which was awesome, but now I just wander around with either a 35/85mm on it and it's more than adequate
There's no point in showing you photos I've taken with it as they're all Photoshopped to s
t anyway, but the WB needs a bump to warm it up in Auto and the custom modes on the dial are pretty much useless. Vivid setting on the jpeg is about right, and applies better colouring and D lighting than Standard, if you're not a RAW purist (I'm not)The 18-105 isnt the best lens in the world, but it'll more than do
andy-xr said:
The D300 is a piece of st compared to the D7000, I stopped using my D700 in favour of the 7000
The problem the D300 has is ISO. It's rubbish over 1600 by comparison.
Calling a camera a 'piece of st compared to the D7000, I stopped using my D700 in favour of the 7000The problem the D300 has is ISO. It's rubbish over 1600 by comparison.
t' because it's no good over ISO 1600 is a bit harsh. There's much more to a camera (and photography) than high-ISO performance.I appreciate that high-ISO has taken over from megapixels, and that people now have to take noiseless photos in absolute darkness, but is that what photography is about?
I wasn't a fan of the D300 because the CMOS sensor seemed to give slightly odd colours and the exposure seemed unrelated to the histogram, but I can cope perfectly well below ISO 1600.
Simpo Two said:
Calling a camera a 'piece of st' because it's no good over ISO 1600 is a bit harsh. There's much more to a camera (and photography) than high-ISO performance.
I appreciate that high-ISO has taken over from megapixels, and that people now have to take noiseless photos in absolute darkness, but is that what photography is about?
I wasn't a fan of the D300 because the CMOS sensor seemed to give slightly odd colours and the exposure seemed unrelated to the histogram, but I can cope perfectly well below ISO 1600.
LOL. And there was me thinking my D300 gives nicer colours than my D7100! Although, to be fair, I do think the D7100 definitely has the edge on exposure accuracy.t' because it's no good over ISO 1600 is a bit harsh. There's much more to a camera (and photography) than high-ISO performance.I appreciate that high-ISO has taken over from megapixels, and that people now have to take noiseless photos in absolute darkness, but is that what photography is about?
I wasn't a fan of the D300 because the CMOS sensor seemed to give slightly odd colours and the exposure seemed unrelated to the histogram, but I can cope perfectly well below ISO 1600.
I think this only goes to prove to the OP that camera choice is very personal. Get one you like, get used to it and have fun
Just an update in case anybody cares.
Decided to go for the D7000 in the end. Wasn't sure about lenses and there was a really good deal on a second hand 16-85 lens, but I missed that, so went with a kit with the 18-108. Looks pretty god for what I need right now
Ebay was duly perused and bids were made. I received the one I won yesterday and it's absolutely bloody immaculate. Looks brand new, everything still all wrapped and a only 1162 shutter actuation. Very, very happy.
Now need to read the massive manual and get started. Downloaded gimp too so I can do funky photoshop type stuff.
Decided to go for the D7000 in the end. Wasn't sure about lenses and there was a really good deal on a second hand 16-85 lens, but I missed that, so went with a kit with the 18-108. Looks pretty god for what I need right now
Ebay was duly perused and bids were made. I received the one I won yesterday and it's absolutely bloody immaculate. Looks brand new, everything still all wrapped and a only 1162 shutter actuation. Very, very happy.
Now need to read the massive manual and get started. Downloaded gimp too so I can do funky photoshop type stuff.
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff