Well thanks sir. (and now off topic) You live in Parke county? I am heading over to Terre Haute on Wednesday for work and will actually be out and about in Parke county before my meeting in Terre Haute.

I would post a picture I just took of a covered bridge this last weekend, but I haven't gotten around to messing with them yet.

(and back on topic)
I think most people want that priceless picture of the best quality. I think that people obsess with equipment so much in that we all believe we will make money or take that shot that everyone will buy or win photo contests. When in fact I personally see very little difference in any kit lens performance be it the 18-105 or 18-200...they are a bit different in their own respects, but does it matter that much...probably not.

We all want 36 MP to blow up billboard size pictures or super sharp glass to have them featured in national geographic. I mean I have been saying since I got my first dSLR that I was going to make money with it and shoot this and that. I might have taken some decent pictures, but I still haven't made a penny! I do blow up some pictures and have them around the house, but most are just desktop backgrounds of sitting on my hard drives.

I have mentioned it before though and even the lowly (insert whatever body you want here) and an 18-55 kit lens can take awesome pictures. I have opted as time went to get more and better glass. Each to fill their own niche for me and make taking pictures in certain situations easier. Each time spending more and more on the lenses. Now amassing nearly $5000 worth of stuff (now having made negative money since we have made prints for other people for presents), but some days I can't tell the difference from my 18-200 and my 17-55. I have now made educated and reasonable purchases in that I knew what I needed after a while and figured out what lenses to get to help with those needs. I started with my D5000 and 18-200. I think anyone starting out should do the same if they don't really know. I don't believe it is waste and you learn in the process. Gosh if I look back I know I made a similar thread to this when I was getting my D5000. Plus you can always spend more money later when you contract NAS (the need to buy more and more Nikon equipment all the time!). This weekend I did some nighttime long exposures for the first time in a long while and I was learning and struggling the whole time. Even with all my stuff and now several years under my belt I am learning all the time and it was fun. I also have slowly purchased and upgraded, but I don't have any equipment without a reason, I use it all, and they all have a known purpose.

tcole1983.........

A GREAT post, sir ! I was just thinking the same thing ! When I read all of the "requirements" people have, (and they want it ALL in one lens, (and preferably one which is "dirt cheap" ! My thoughts are, (after messing around with photography for about 60 years now)......if you don't "know about" photography, it's almost impossible to figure out which camera to buy to start out with, (let alone which 4 or 5 lenses to buy to go with this "starter" camera ! (And I just noticed someone up above mention that "don't pay any attention to Ken Rockwell, as he's a "schmuck", (whatever)......WoW ! I don't necessarily agree with Ken on every little thing, but if he's a "schmuck", he's certainly the single smartest "schmuck" I've ever run across !
Here's what I fail to comprehend; my fiancee's son and his wife, (with a total combined income of around 150 K, take more pictures than anybody I have EVER known.........he with his "Blackberry", and she, with her iPhone ! (and no children, no house payment, and yet another BIG promotion (that's imminent), Yet other people still in college, struggling to even survive, are "torn between" whether to "start out" with a D 7000, or a D 300 ? All while people "with means" are satisfied with cell phone photos ! (The world is a strange place, as are the people in it !

This is a TRUE STORY........I live in a dinky little village in western Indiana; our big "claim to fame" is.........we happen to have more wooden covered bridges than any other county in the U.S. So seeing people taking pictures of the covered bridge we have in OUR village, is a very common thing........people come from "all over" just to take pictures of OUR particular bridge, as it's the one most people "know" about. Anyway.......to illustrate how very different, different people are........one evening, just before dark I see this fellow with a fancy looking camera (on a tripod yet), about to take a picture THROUGH the bridge; (and it's almost dark)

The curiosity got the better of me.......so I just HAD to "get nosey".....and and "casually" ask him.......whacha kinda camera yu got there , son ? The guy's got about a 3 day beard, but he ISN"T any "hillbilly", (even though he clearly assumes that I am "one" !
So he casually remarks, "Oh, it's a Sony A 900 (if I remember correctly) ( I'm not at all familiar with ANY of Sony's new D-SLR's (even though I AM a walking "catalog" of just about everything Nikon makes, from the D 40 on up. So we get into this conversation about "the latest and greatest" D-SLRS, and the guy happens to mention the Nikon D 700; and I'm like, "yeah, but for a full frame, FX body, and for only $2,700, it's a great deal.....and he looks at me (like he just saw a ghost), and proceeds to pull out of his bag......a brand new D-700 with a pretty decent lens mounted ! So we talk some more, and one of us mentioned the D3s (my camera to die for at that time, about 2 years ago; so he says, "let's step over here to my motor home, I want to show you something; (the "something" was a brand news D3s ! At this point, I'm thinking, this cat is either a rich millionaire who just buys every expensive camera he sees, and while I'm "pondering that", he's going nuts, wondering, "how the hell does this old hillbilly know so much about all the latest and greatest Nikon D SLR cameras ?

It was undoubtedly one of the most "unlikely" (while at the same time, very pleasurable conversations I've ever "blundered " into ) ! This fellow must have had easily 50 k worth of very expensive cameras in his bag, and in his motor home; (and we were just standing outside , by the door, but I could see inside )........and as I'm looking at this "strange looking contraption" on the floor.......trying to remember where I had seems something that looked like that.... I said.....Uh...is THAT by any chance... a Segway ?

And he goes.....good lord....don't TELL me you've ridden a Segway ! " No, never rode one, but I've seen a few, (mostly at Midway Airport in downtown Chicago) so he drags the Segway out, proceeds to un-fold the "steering "thingie".....and while I'm asking him "how long does it take to learn to ride those things", he's already telling me, any where from 30 seconds to about 6 months, just depending on the "prospective operator" ! ( It took me all of about a minute and a half to "master" the Segway ! By this time he's convinced I'm a camera salesman in some big shop someplace bigger than Terre Haute, and I'm realizing that this fellow is actually some kind of a pro photographer, who obviously isn't "broke", (what with 50 K in expensive new cameras, two Segways, and a pretty classy small motor home to haul it all around in. Turns out this guy's contemplating writing a book about our county's covered bridges, and I finally had to admit, after "several years of relative inactivity in photography, I was starting to get the "urge" to get back into it, and buy a decent new D SLR, and as is my nature, anything I get interested in, I tend to read everything in print about it, the better to determine how much to spend, and which camera to buy.

And my new "acquaintance" is thinking of photographing ALL of our 34 covered bridges for his "prospective new book........and I mentioned........it's been tried before, never been commercially successful, and HE says, Yeah, but I have something DIFFERENT......my pictures are ALL going to be taken from THE AIR ! Me........"good grief, don't tell me you have a helicopter ?" He..."Nope, no helicopter, but even BETTER ! I have a BLIMP ! (after the 50 K of hi-end cameras, 2 segways and a motor home, now this guy's got a damned BLIMP ? NO WAY ! ( Turns out the "blimp" is a huge "blimp-shaped" ballon, that takes TWO 200 lb cylinders of helium to fill it up, to lift the camera to the necessary height, (which is actually MUCH lower than any helicopter can safely go, and it's made specifically for doing ariel photography from very low altitudes; I forget what he said there blimp cost, but when I asked him what two cylinders of helium costs, and "isn't that pretty darned wasteful, having to "deflate" the blimp after every bridge, he explains, I only have to let one cylinder of helium out, THEN the blimp will fit into my cargo trailer ! Me......."looks to me like you need a bigger trailer ! " He........."yeah, you're right again, and I'm working on getting a bigger trailer !" ( And I'm thinking....."is there ANYTHING that this guy DOESN"T have" ? " A VERY wealthy girl friend, possibly ? "

And that's really what everyone should do; learn as much as possible about the "subject"; in this case, it's such a humongous subject, that one must first determine MANY "things" about one's self, before you have any hope of making an intelligent decision, regarding "which camera to buy"? Some people have more interest than others; some have more money than others; some have more "enthusiasm", and so on; It's really a daunting task to make objective suggestions about cameras, unless you first know a lot about the person needing the advice ! Some people may be ecstatic about photography one day, and almost equally as "enthused" about buying a boat the next day… (I'd hate to recommend someone buy what I like one day, only to find the next day that they really wanted to buy a boat ! Even though I know a bit about photography, (over many, many years), about all I can do, hell, all anyone can do, is to tell people what I like, and WHY I like it, and if you see any relation to our "likes and dislikes"....maybe you'll like what I like, and then again, maybe you won't ! I can only suggest to prople what I like, based on facts, as opposed to merely what my "taste" dictates that I like.

This is a fantastic website, and I love it dearly, HOWEVER.........there are a couple of VERY "vexing" things about it......(or is it just me?) ... that tend to drive me "batty".....??

A. first of all... many (or most?) of the questions being asked, were asked one, two and even three years ago ! Yikes! what use is there in answering someone's "year old question" about "which camera to buy ? ( Nikon has probably come out with two more models by now ) !

B. and the passwords ! the password that I'm obliged to type in, would probably be great (if I was a spy, working for the National Security Agency ! I mean...talk about SECURE passwords ! This thing is so "secure" that NSA would take six months trying to crack it with their super-duper-computers !

(and it's real hard to even type in, what with upper case. then lower case, then "punctuation" marks, followed by more upper and lower......Whew !

The website I'm "used to" has 900, 999 members, so when a thread gets started, 637 people answer it in the first 3 minutes........ and here, i/10 of that take about 9 years ! (but at least I like what people like to "talk about" on here a lot better )!

C. my third and final "rant" for the moment.......every time I try to change pages, I somehow become "logged out", thereby necessitating going through all of that laborious password nonsense all over again ! I think I need a simpler password ? like maybe "1,2,3,4" ? (if I can just find the password department !)

kceezie said:
...I think the pictures turn out better without the flash, so I haven't been using it (but could just be like everyone said and the onboard flash just sucks)...

One thing the on-board flash does a decent job of is fill flash in harsh light. If you're in a situation where someone's face has harsh shadows, try setting the flash to TTL and set flash exposure compensation to somewhere between -1.3 EV and -2.0 EV. It will fill the shadows nicely and put a little catchlight in their eyes (which you may or may not like).

The other thing you might want to try for indoors is just taping a piece of white paper under the flash so that the paper is at 45 degrees to horizontal. That will bounce the flash up and off a white ceiling if there is one. If that gives too much direct light, fold the paper over once so you have two layers. You could also try attaching a mirror or aluminum foil the same way. It's not really a substitute for a good speedlight if you like that sort of thing (and I do), but it's a free "upgrade" and there are precious few of those.

I'm glad to hear you're enjoying your new camera, kceezie.

kceezie said:
I did end up getting the d7000 with the kit lens.

Ha! That's exactly what I was going to suggest before I read your post above!

Nikon's kit lenses are pretty impressive. They get you off to a sound start and you can choose what else you need as your experience builds.

I'm certain you'll love it. Enjoy!

I did end up getting the d7000 with the kit lens. Partly, b/c that is all Best Buy sells and after hearing you guys advice needed to find what range I like. I also got the 35mm 1.8, which has turned out to be awesome; I think the pictures turn out better without the flash, so I haven't been using it (but could just be like everyone said and the onboard flash just sucks). I am still figuring out everything I can do and loving it so far. I also got a Lowepro 250 backpack, which I like for the extra room and a lower end Manfrotto tripod, I think it is a 7302YB.

By all means go with the D7000. I have been with Nikon since the beginning of digital and have owned all of the cameras from the D1x, D100, D200, D300, D700,D3s, and D3x. I am buying a D7000 myself, because it is (IMO) a landmark camera as far as size and features go. You will not regret it. I would not consider the D3100. With the D7000, you are getting the equivalent of a pro camera for $1100! What a bargain. And they are easy to use. I only wish my D7000 would arrive.

As for lenses, it depends on what you want to photograph. I would not buy the kit lens, but that is just me. I would buy a good 50mm lens and (since I like close-ups) probably a used Micro-Nikkor 105mm f/2.5 lens.... for starters.

paeataa said:
Hi,

I am getting a D7000 very soon (once the dead pixel issues are resolved). My questions are very similar to others who are new with DSLR: which lens should I go with the D7000?

My budget allows me to have only one lens right now. And I am thinking about the kit lens (18-105mm), 18-200mm, or 16-85mm. I'll use the camera mostly for travel.

I would prefer a sharp, good-quality-picture lens that covers range for most of the pictures, and can take good shots in the low-light environment. Which one has the fastest focus? The weight matters, but not too much since I will only have one lens.

I am not sure how big the difference between 16mm and 18mm. I love the wide angle, but is 85mm long enough for landscape and portrait?

Reading through the forums, it seems that 18-200mm does not produce sharp photos. What about comparing the photos from 18-200 to the 18-105?

I'd appreciate your advice/recommendations.

Thanks so much!

Lets see here. None of the lenses you listed are "fast" lenses. They will have limited low light capabilities, but they can be usable with limitations. I think you are asking too much out of one lens. As you will learn there isn't really a one lens option that does everything that people want. Say for example the 70-200 VRII Nikon lens is great, but you would still need a wider angle lens for landscapes. If you like macro work you need a separate lens for that. I think the biggest challenge for most amateur photographers such as myself is finding something you can afford that will work for you. I have the 18-200 and like it. I hear the 18-105 is sharper, but you also lose the upper 95 mm that the 18-200 will provide. Least of all would I get the 16-85. I haven't really heard much good about it (not that it is bad, but it doesn't get the press the other do), but I guess you would gain a little wide angle, but lose telephoto over the other two lenses. Trust me in saying you will want additional lenses and will probably want to upgrade at some point, but you don't need it all at one time. If you get a discount for getting a package with the lens then do that as you can always sell it later if you like. Indoors shooting portraits a flash can help offset the lenses not being fast like a f2.8.

Vall said:
If the range satisfies you the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 is one good lens. Do a search on the forums, there has been quite a lot of discussion about it.

The 18-105 is a good lens (as far as people say), but it's relatively dark. But you get a nice walkaround zoom if you need the additional reach. If not I believe 17-50+70-200 would be very good. Plus some primes.

The tamron is a good suggestion or one of the other fast lenses in that range...I personally like the Sigma 17-55 f2.8, but it was a little more expensive. Your lens suggestions are a little expensive and probably out of the price range especially for someone just entering the dSLR market and not knowing what they really want yet.

I think SO many people try to do too much right from the start. Everyone buys a dSLR and wants super sharp pictures like you see in magazines where people have taken the pictures using a $6000 lens. People want perfect pictures in all situations. Most people that are just getting a dSLR (including myself when I was purchasing my camera) need to get a kit lens and figure out what they need and later come back and add to what they have. Primes can be good, but some people hate them. Fast lenses are nice, but you might want to know what you really need before you spend the money on them. It really helps to have the camera in hand and have taken shots with it before you just go out buying tons of lenses and things. Personally unless you are asking a comparison question between 2 lenses then you should just go with a kit lens and body. If you really don't know enough to be able to determine what you want/need then take baby steps and learn first. I would assume most people don't have tons of extra money just sitting around or they would just buy the biggest and best from the start. Also don't get me wrong. Nikon makes great lenses and even the cheapest Nikon kit lenses will still take great pictures (there are a handful of bad ones, but for the most part), but you can tell the difference between the 18-200 f3.5-5.6 and the 70-200 f2.8.

If the range satisfies you the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 is one good lens. Do a search on the forums, there has been quite a lot of discussion about it.

The 18-105 is a good lens (as far as people say), but it's relatively dark. But you get a nice walkaround zoom if you need the additional reach. If not I believe 17-50+70-200 would be very good. Plus some primes.

Hi,

I am getting a D7000 very soon (once the dead pixel issues are resolved). My questions are very similar to others who are new with DSLR: which lens should I go with the D7000?

My budget allows me to have only one lens right now. And I am thinking about the kit lens (18-105mm), 18-200mm, or 16-85mm. I'll use the camera mostly for travel.

I would prefer a sharp, good-quality-picture lens that covers range for most of the pictures, and can take good shots in the low-light environment. Which one has the fastest focus? The weight matters, but not too much since I will only have one lens.

I am not sure how big the difference between 16mm and 18mm. I love the wide angle, but is 85mm long enough for landscape and portrait?

Reading through the forums, it seems that 18-200mm does not produce sharp photos. What about comparing the photos from 18-200 to the 18-105?

I'd appreciate your advice/recommendations.

Thanks so much!

One piece of advice for the op: leave the 55-300 in the store, go for the 70-300 VR instead. Or wait for the new Tamron 70-300 which has a bit of advantage compared to the Nikkor 70-300VR : it does not elongate when zooming or focusing -> the lens is more resistant to hits and gathers less dirt inside.

Hey all,

I'll add to this setup, what about the new SB-700?

(btw would that support rear curtain sync with the D7000?)

Lets please keep the discussion on the D7000 and not on which lenses are best for the D90.

@Doodly,

It is a great buy! For what it is worth, the 18-105VR is one of my least used lenses. But it is an excellent lens to combine with a tele and a 12-24 later. To start, I know people who only own the D90 and the 18-105VR and they have had very, very good results. The D7000 promises to be even better!! For the price you are getting......it is a steal!!

hey guys so i decided to get the d7000 b/c i gota 10% discount from bestbuy b/c they were having a sale! so it came out to 1439 + tax or something which i thought was prety decent, lemme know if u guys think the 1439 price tag for 18-105 d7000 is worth it, thx!

Another nod to the 35mm 1.8. Great lens for the price!
I've used a friends 18-105mm and it is a pretty spiffy kit lens. If I didn't already have an 18-200mm VR, I'd be getting the D7000 & 18-105mm kit to go with my 35mm 1.8.

If your budget is 1100-1200, then id go for the D90. I was going to say get the D7000 untill i saw your budget.

The D90 would be great and if you want to do low light photography then i suggest picking up the 35 1.8 and also the 50 1.8. Alot of people diss the 18-105 but i find it a great kit lens.

hey everyone, this is my first post and its doesn't have to do completely with the current one but its along the same lines,
i'm planning on getting my first DSLR within the next month and am leaning towards the nikon D90 but am open to other ones if they may be better for me. I plan on doing some low light photography, portrait and probably just using it as an everyday thing, not getting very specific yet. However, i'm having trouble deciding what I should go with. My options current are: the d90 w/ a kit lens, either the 18-55 or 18-105, or I can get just the body and buy a different lens that would be more suitable, I've looked into the 18-50sigma, and 17-50 tamron but am not sure aobut the 3rd party lenses, especially b/c i have never tried them.
I would appreciate any suggestions in regards to my questions whether it be lens recommendations of maybe going with a different camera. I do want to add that I have considered the D3100>D90 but was reluctant b/c it does not have the AF motor and so some of the lenses ex. 50mm 1.8 cost more for AF-S, and I've never tried my hands at manual focusing. Anyways thanks again, and any advice is appreciated!
edit: my current budget is hopefully <1100-1200 at most. keep in mind I also need to get additional accessories, ex. memory card, bag, filters and whatever else i might need. don't hesitate to let me know about what accessories you think I should pick up as well!

@Alastair: I have used the D3100 for both video and stills. I think you had better get the D7000. Also I'd say the same to kceezie. The D3100 is just plain a good entry level camera but if you have a $2,000 budget and are serious enough to start or post to these forum discussions I think you had better wait and get the D7000. I own and use the lens Heartyfisher has and I also think his comments on the resolving power of the 18-200VR Nikkor are accurate. I still use the 18-200VR more than any other lens but within the 18-70 Nikkor range or the 18-105VR Nikkor range those lens are at least as sharp as the 18-200VR. I do feel that the D3100 is pretty much a great entry level camera and a more serious photographer will ultimately be held back by the features. The kit 18-105VR lens is very good for what you will pay for it. I always say the 16-85VR and the 70-300VR are the combination I would select for the D7000 and that is how I would use it in the field. I don't have the D7000 yet nor have I actually shot with one or seen one. But I am buying that camera. The D7000 by all reckoning is an amazing camera. A whole lot of photo enthusiasts have already pre-ordered one or will get it when it is available to them. Yet lens do make a big difference. I am used to buying very highly rated lens but I sure have a lot of kit lens. I tend to keep those. I do not now buy prime lens although I own a dozen of them as I simply do not use them. However zooms, though wonderfully convenient, do require some study before purchase. Also make sure you can return any lens that proves to be defective.

Alastair said:
OK. I have decided to go with the D3100, the 18-200 and potentially the SB600. Thanks for all the advice and input. My next question is....any one know when the D3100 will hit the stores?

Good. But I was actually addressing the original poster. ;)

Glad you made your choice. Don't forget a memory card, lol. that would be a bummer to receive your camera and not have a memory card.

It should be any day in the US. The press release said mid-September, which leaves them some wiggle room but should be soon.

edit: someone on the photo-a-day thread just posted a photo taken with a D3100. I'd say it should be available now. ;-)

poster said:
So far the voices of reason have advised you to get D3100. You still want the D7000. Fine. Just do it. Otherwise this thread will go for another 5 pages recycling same common sense arguments. You don't need us to reinforce your idea. You have money, you received advice now use those brain cells of yours and buy what is best for YOU.

Enjoy your camera, post some pictures here, and if you have problems ask here.

OK. I have decided to go with the D3100, the 18-200 and potentially the SB600. Thanks for all the advice and input. My next question is....any one know when the D3100 will hit the stores?

Drab said:
Resolving power is a component of, but not the entirety of, sharpness. My insistence that a lens is not out-resolved by the D7000 is not the same as my insistence that a lens is sharp.

EDIT:
My point is - if you want to argue the technical merits of gear (a debate I think is not fruitful) have the facts to back up technical merit claims. The OP's experience will be much more dependent upon composition, lighting, vision, technique, all the things that make a great photo. The idea that the 18-200 is somehow a bottleneck to a D7000 owner on resolution matters is silly.

It's slow, it distorts, it vignettes, it arguably encourages bad behavior, but those are other issues. ;) (It's also $760).

Agree mostly :-) But the 18-200 IS a "bottleneck on resolution matters" even on my 6MP camera the 18-70 kit lens I have is noticeably almost across the board sharper than the 18-200 at the same focal lenghts and apertures. (and I would assert that it would be much more noticeable on a 16mp sensor) But what I am saying to the OP was that if he has decided on the 18-200( which I support as a good lens to learn photography on) then the MP count on the D7000 vs the D3100 is a non issue as even on my 6mp camera the non-sharpness of the lens is evident . Again sharpness is not the be all of photography other wise I wont be using my 18-200 more than the 18-70. even when I get my D7000 I will probably be using that unsharp lens a lot! If I need a super sharp photo I wont be using that lens. :-) but then I dont need a super sharp photo most of the time :-) yes that 18-200 is sharp enough most of the time.. and yes it does outresolve my 6MP sensor and probably the 16MP sensor at some optimal settings.

heartyfisher said:
Like I said I have the 18-200 and I used it on my D70 which is 6MP and even on that camera its not sharp at some apertures and some focal lenghts.. look at mtfs all you like..:-)

Resolving power is a component of, but not the entirety of, sharpness. My insistence that a lens is not out-resolved by the D7000 is not the same as my insistence that a lens is sharp.

EDIT:
My point is - if you want to argue the technical merits of gear (a debate I think is not fruitful) have the facts to back up technical merit claims. The OP's experience will be much more dependent upon composition, lighting, vision, technique, all the things that make a great photo. The idea that the 18-200 is somehow a bottleneck to a D7000 owner on resolution matters is silly.

It's slow, it distorts, it vignettes, it arguably encourages bad behavior, but those are other issues. ;) (It's also $760).

Haha! Drab, I think you must be some kind of scientist or maybe a lawyer. Am I close? (No offense intended, of course. I've always liked people who stand up for themselves.)

I've always wondered about MTF50. Doesn't it mean it can resolve that many line widths per picture height at 50% of the contrast of the original black and white lines? I have to admit I don't even know how that translates to real life when not shooting at black and white lines, so to make sense of MTF numbers of an unfamiliar lens I usually compare them to a lens I have experience with. I'd love to be enlightened, though.