Just bought a D7000 and 70-200mm F2.8 VRII

[Beardy10]

Been mulling over my options to upgrade my camera equipment (been using a D70 pretty much since they came out) and pulled the trigger today on a D7000 and 70-200. Really can't wait to get my hands on them....will be an absolute night and day difference. I am sure a lot of the pro's think an amateur buying the 70-200 is massive overkill but everything I have read is that you should invest in glass and certainly these lenses hold their second hand value bears that out. My main interests and uses are portrait and sports/action and I also have a 50mm F.14 G so I think I have most things covered. Also have my old 18-200 for walkabout/holiday when weight is an issue (young family so I have to travel light!). I really mulled over going for the D700 or even D300s but I am not sure I really need full frame (and couldn't have afforded the D700 and the 70-200 VR II) and I just thought the D300S despite being more robust and having the pro body the D300S seems to have been overtaken technically by the D7000.

[minky monkey]

That's a lovely lens. I know what you mean about overkill, but if you can cover the cost go for it.

Afterall, what's the point of buying something lesser and being unhappy?! lol.

Nice purchase!

[itsnotarace]

Beardy10 said:

I just thought the D300S despite being more robust and having the pro body the D300S seems to have been overtaken technically by the D7000.

The sensor has higher pixel density (being a newer model), it will be crippled in other ways. Consumer cameras always are compared to the Pro bodies

[Beardy10]

itsnotarace said:

Beardy10 said:

I just thought the D300S despite being more robust and having the pro body the D300S seems to have been overtaken technically by the D7000.

The sensor has higher pixel density (being a newer model), it will be crippled in other ways. Consumer cameras always are compared to the Pro bodies

I wasn't so interested in the pixel density...more that it seems to have better low light performance. Certainly some of the Nikon Dealers I spoke to thought so but I guess there are probably higher margins on newer cameras ...certainly the D300S is being discounted a lot. Unless you but the very best any camera is going to be crippled in some way of course especially if you go DX and not FX....you could say that of the D700 against the D3S too though for me the D700 is all the camera I would ever "need".

[Simpo Two]

Beardy10 said:

though for me the D700 is all the camera I would ever "need".

Though stick your new 70-200 on one and it will suddenly seem like a 47-135mm

One reason why I stayed with DX.

NB: One difference between consumer and pro bodies is that the latter have the right buttons on the body, not buried in menus.

Edited by Simpo Two on Tuesday 25th January 18:27

[Beardy10]

Simpo Two said:

Beardy10 said:

though for me the D700 is all the camera I would ever "need".

Though stick your new 70-200 on one and it will suddenly seem like a 47-135mm

One reason why I stayed with DX.

NB: One difference between consumer and pro bodies is that the latter have the right buttons on the body, not buried in menus.

Edited by Simpo Two on Tuesday 25th January 18:27

Fair comment about the buttons...it is a major difference normally though I think the D7000 may actually be the equal of the D300S. It also has the two user defined settings where you can just store your preferred settings for two separate modes which I think is great.

I totally agree if the "reach" of a cropped sensor....though of course the FX guys would tell you that you can also crop the image much better with a full frame sensor especially with good glass.