dotslash said:

But what in the world is the PAD?

YABA (Yet Another Bloody Acronym)

http://nikonrumors.com/forum/topic.php?id=7364

dotslash said:
indeed, they are lovely photos.

But what in the world is the PAD?

Photo-A-Day (PAD) forum

indeed, they are lovely photos.

But what in the world is the PAD?

You are ready....please post on PAD! Nice shots.

First off, thanks everyone who contributed here and helped me out! I got the D7k combo and am super excited shooting with it that I just couldn't find time to update stuff here.

The following is from my pre-DSLR days:

My Gear now:

My first shots from the D7K:

Someday soon I wanna be good enough to post on the PAD!

Cheers!

To answer the final part of your questions, $2000 doesn't seem bad, but you may be better off buying the D7000 kit (body and 18-105VR) and shopping around for the 70-300VR separately. I have seen some good prices on the web for that lens. Make sure you get the VR!

Where in the world are you?

JNA said:
... You're right about the choice paralysis, that is something I don't want to be found in! :) ...

I know I'm coming in late but it might be worth looking at the 18-200 & the 35mm 1.8. Those two will cover everything you are looking at doing to get started.

That can depend on the Kit (D7000 & 18-105) you are looking at in price as it could be priced as a no brainer to get it. If the price is right, I would go with what you started with. I love my 70-300vr and it has been in my bag for years and still is one of my go-to lenses a lot of the time.

35mm vs 50mm - depends on what you want it for. Both are equally good, and I'm guessing you will end up with both at some time. I would say try them both out at the store since the 50mm on DX is 75mm equiv and gets tight meaning the field of view is considerably less. Great for portraits but for group settings at parties etc, I prefer the 35mm as you can get more in. I vote 35mm to start. The 50mm 1.8 is cheap so that is easy to add.

Just don't forget about a Flash at some point as well;)

As for everything else - you are never "stuck" with the lenses you pick today and can add, sell and buy new ones at any time. If you stick with Nikon lenses, resale is good. I think all of us at some point when we started, thought that all we needed were two lenses. 12 years later and I think I have over 15 now and have owned at one time or another probably 30 different lenses. Once you figure out what you really like to shoot, you will learn what lenses will fit better for that type of shots or "look" you are going for. That is normal and means you are learning and getting better. Nothing to be afraid about.

@SquamishPhoto... I think you have a point. When I said the kit would not do it, I was thinking about shooting f/4 at 10,000 ISO with the D4 and 1/125th sec. But, I have shot a 300mm f/4.5 at 1/15th sec held against a tree. And have hand held the 24mm f/2.8 (old lens form the '60's) at 1/15th easily. We used to shoot ASA 80 B & W film, tripod, available light, and got great results. So, I was just lazy in my comment. I should have said, the fast primes make life a lot easier, but the kit lenses can be used wide open and hand held, just requires some good old fashion patience. And, in fact, when I hand hold shots now, if it is a still life object, I rarely breath. Usually exhale, hold and squeeze, so as to avoid any shake.

Good point, Squamish...

Exactly. Its utter nonsense to suggest that he couldn't get great results in low light with a kit and a consumer tele-zoom. Sure, for high speed action sports that have shit lighting, yes, but thats hardly the only circumstance where poor lighting is an issue. Also, if you aren't planning on selling the photo and/or don't care if you can't view it large, then you can get some very satisfying and amazing results with noise reduction software and downsampling. If its just to share on the web then you can really go nuts with your ISO on pretty much any modern DSLR offering from Nikon today.

But if its portraiture, landscape, etc, it can be quite simply to overcome a lot of poorly lit scenarios with creativity, careful planning and a sturdy tripod. And its something I always try and apply in my photography (even using cameras like the D700 & D800 that can both produce fantastic results SOOTC at high ISO in poorly lit scenes) because the lowest possible ISO is still the most desirable, so even in poor light I make every effort to take the shot as close as possible to the cameras native ISO - even if it means exposing the scene several stops too dark since I know I can save the shadows in post and get to keep the highlight detail from the more optimal ISO setting.

It all depends on what you want to shoot really, and even then a bit of care and diligence can allow you to overcome many perceived limitations. Buy the camera that you want and have fun shooting. :]

Low light is a bit like, low life . People have different definitions

get the D7000 crank up the ISO and see how you get on with the 18-105 F/3.5-5.6

IMHO if you want the 50mm f1.4 buy mine! I have the 35 f1.8 and the 50 f1.4 and I have to say I find the 35mm much more useful for general photography. If you want to do portraits, then go for the 50 or the 85.

@Eric Thanks for those details. I accept the far superior sensor is something that I would want to own.

@spraynpray Agree my question has been answered well, I just had to get this new comparison cleared out as I'd be investing for long time ownership so I guess it doesn't hurt to ask to understand what I do not know. You're right about the choice paralysis, that is something I don't want to be found in! :) I'm already looking at getting the 35mm f1.8 in addition to this kit as I can afford it in my budget now. should I go in for the 35mm or 50mm here?

@R8R Thanks!

spraynpray said:
JNA, all due respect here, but I think we answered your original question pretty well by the time we got to the fourth posting. The kit you selected is excellent for your needs - within your budget of $2k. Unless you buy a D4 and pro glass which will make the kit cost $10k, you will not get the best available results in low light, so the line has to be drawn somewhere. Whether you consider that line to be a level of light you can accept or a budget you can afford, only you can decide. What you do need to do is get some experience to base that decision on. If you don't have any DSLR experience and are not too familiar with the particular camera you mentioned (D7000), you are going to have to get some (experience). Your choices are hire the D7000/70-300VR set-up and decide where the line (in terms of light level) is based on the amount of ISO noise you find acceptable, or buy the kit you have seen and get used to getting the best out of it and learn to do post-processing well to reduce that noise. Buying body only and fast telephotos is an option, but covering the same range with fast glass will blow your budget wide open.

So, is $2k the limit? If it is, you don't need to get distracted (especially by the Canon), just buy the kit you started the thread with and start learning before choice paralysis sets in. Adding a 35mm f1.8 to it as soon as you can will show you the options presented by fast glass, then you can take it from there.

Good luck!

I agree, and I might add that the D7000 is made even better by the fact that it has the focus motor and aperture index ring so you can use literally MILLIONS of Nikkor lenses out there.

Go buy some used, cheap, fast glass and hone your skills.

JNA, all due respect here, but I think we answered your original question pretty well by the time we got to the fourth posting. The kit you selected is excellent for your needs - within your budget of $2k. Unless you buy a D4 and pro glass which will make the kit cost $10k, you will not get the best available results in low light, so the line has to be drawn somewhere. Whether you consider that line to be a level of light you can accept or a budget you can afford, only you can decide. What you do need to do is get some experience to base that decision on. If you don't have any DSLR experience and are not too familiar with the particular camera you mentioned (D7000), you are going to have to get some (experience). Your choices are hire the D7000/70-300VR set-up and decide where the line (in terms of light level) is based on the amount of ISO noise you find acceptable, or buy the kit you have seen and get used to getting the best out of it and learn to do post-processing well to reduce that noise. Buying body only and fast telephotos is an option, but covering the same range with fast glass will blow your budget wide open.

So, is $2k the limit? If it is, you don't need to get distracted (especially by the Canon), just buy the kit you started the thread with and start learning before choice paralysis sets in. Adding a 35mm f1.8 to it as soon as you can will show you the options presented by fast glass, then you can take it from there.

Good luck!

@JNA - The Canon EOS 7D has a DXOMark score of 66 whereas the D7000 has a score of 80 and the D3200 has a score of 81.
The respective low light scores are 854 ISO for the 7D and 1167 & 1131 for the D7000 and d3200 respectively. Color depth and dynamic range are both significantly better on the Nikons as well.

In summary the 7D sensor cannot compare to the Nikons'. I have a lot of confidence in DXOMark's senor testing methodology. Check out DxoMark.com for yourself.

The 7D does not have better low light capability than the D7000. Canon does process their jpegs to have lower noise and less detail than Nikon's in camera processing, but this is a distraction. The D7000 will produce cleaner sharper low light images if you process the RAW files. I can't speak to the build quality of the D7000 vs the 7D. However the 7D does claim 8fps whereas the D7000 only claims 6. I can say that the D7000 sensor is far superior to that in the EOS 7D.

The features are a matter of choice, taste and intended use. In my opinion the D7000 sensor is so far superior to that in the 7D, that I would have a hard time considering the 7D unless that extra 2fps was real critical for what I was doing.

@msmoto Thanks! Yup I agree once the discussion on the glasses start its gonna be a bit difficult to get the right balance with the best out there that fits your budget!

Ok a serious query again here: I was talking with my friend who owns a camera shop and he threw in the Canon 7D when he gave a hearing on my requirements that I've mentioned here.

The case he made was that its better on the low-light, fast fps for action, cost glasses being lesser, rugged body and flash mount being strong etc..

Now I'm quite a bit confused on the two. Searches on the google are not convincing enough too!!

so guys, what's your take on this? Which would suit me better based on my requirements? Anyone with hands-on with both these awesome cameras?

Oh, a thought....here is a thread worth looking at

http://nikonrumors.com/forum/topic.php?id=3285&page=4

I think they are both pretty close in performance in IQ, ISO, and dynamic range. That said the D7000 had the in body motor and could use a lens like the 80-400 that Eric suggested or some of the older AF lenses that are great bargains and still perform well.

What Eric said on the low light. VR is good for hand holding the camera at low shutter speeds. It makes a lens very usable in situations that you normally wouldn't be able to use it...say shooting the 70-300 at 300 mm with a 1/10 second shutter speed. BUT that is a lot of time for something to move. So even though you can get a sharp picture of a building at 1/10 any sort of movement will be blurry. So VR is helpful, but not foolproof.

In my opinion all the kit (variable aperture) zooms perform about the same. Until you step up to the constant F4 or faster (F2.8, F1.8, F1.4) lenses you won't really notice that much difference. The kit you originally suggested gives you a pretty wide range to shoot with and is good if you aren't exactly sure what you want...fast primes, macro or to save up for a pro super telephoto.

Also to expand on what msmoto said...you don't have to buy it all at one time. You might be better off just getting one lens and then going from there. That way you don't waste money in the end with a lens you don't like. Everyone has a least one lens they don't use much or wish they hadn't purchased :)

Yup, the kit described will not get it in low light. Maybe a 50mm f/1.4G and a 135mm f/2.0 would do it. Remember with the D7000 you can use all the AF and AF-S lenses from Nikon. Some used glass may be possible. Maybe even a 200mm f4. As noted with the D3200 one must use AF-S lenses and this eliminates the used lens group to a great extent.

You might try the kit lens 18-105mm as a starter, shoot about 5,000 clicks and see what you think you need. Buying before you have done much experimenting can be and expensive way to collect glass. Of course everyone needs a 35-50 f/1.4-1.8, ha, ha, ha...

If I were to start over with a cropped sensor camera, limited budget, I would go for the D7000, and an AF-S Nikkor 35mm f/1.8G DX Lens. Maybe a 105mm f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S VR Lens or an AF DC Nikkor 105mm f/2.0D Lens.

@tcole1983 - I just came back to this thread in a panic because of the AF issue with the D3200., Thanks!

@JNA - My thought was to consider investing in good glass as it will last way longer than whatever body you buy and will have higher resale value as well.

According to DXOMark, low light on both cameras is comparable. VR is only good for stationary subjects though, so for sports in low light you need a fast lens. VR allows you to hand hold at lower shutter speeds but doesn't freeze moving subjects.

If the low light is really important, have you considered the AFS 85mm 1.8G? It has a bit of reach and is pretty fast.

Have you considered looking at a Body and a 18-200 and a low light lens like the AFS 85mm 1.8, AFS 50mm 1.8 or the AFS 35mm 1.8DX? I think you might be able to get the D7000, the 18-200 and the 35 f/1.8 for about the same price as the kit you are considering, but you end up trading low light capability for the reach of the 70-300.

Its a tough call. You can't go wrong with the kit, but the shopping is kind of fun.

JNA said:
@Eric Thanks! I read that the 7000 is way better than the 3200 in terms of features that it provides and also I plan to hold on to my purchase for quite a while so would need the latest technology as far as I can get.

So this brings to picture the new 7000 that's soon to be released. So got a couple questions here:
1. Will it be released into the market in the next 1 or 2 months. Will it be a major release (feature wise)
2. If the new one is released is it going to affect the pricing of the older 7000 drastically?

@tcole Thanks! I was also wondering about the autofocus part. Good you pointed it out. So for the low-light which of the two (3200/7000) is better? As bowen pointed out the D7000 and VR on both lenses will compensate nicely

Also, is it better to go with two of these VR lenses or 1 NIKON 18-300 AF-S DX VR F/3.5-5.6 LENS

@Eric Thanks! I read that the 7000 is way better than the 3200 in terms of features that it provides and also I plan to hold on to my purchase for quite a while so would need the latest technology as far as I can get.

So this brings to picture the new 7000 that's soon to be released. So got a couple questions here:
1. Will it be released into the market in the next 1 or 2 months. Will it be a major release (feature wise)
2. If the new one is released is it going to affect the pricing of the older 7000 drastically?

@tcole Thanks! I was also wondering about the autofocus part. Good you pointed it out. So for the low-light which of the two (3200/7000) is better? As bowen pointed out the D7000 and VR on both lenses will compensate nicely

Also, is it better to go with two of these VR lenses or 1 NIKON 18-300 AF-S DX VR F/3.5-5.6 LENS

@Eric Thanks! I read that the 7000 is way better than the 3200 in terms of features that it provides and also I plan to hold on to my purchase for quite a while so would need the latest technology as far as I can get.

So this brings to picture the new 7000 that's soon to be released. So got a couple questions here:
1. Will it be released into the market in the next 1 or 2 months. Will it be a major release (feature wise)
2. If the new one is released is it going to affect the pricing of the older 7000 drastically?

@tcole Thanks! I was also wondering about the autofocus part. Good you pointed it out. So for the low-light which of the two (3200/7000) is better? As bowen pointed out the D7000 and VR on both lenses will compensate nicely

^^^ the 80-400 won't autofocus on the D3200. There really aren't any cheap options for a better low light sports setup (long lens). It is really bite the bullet and get a better body or better lens. Either way you will need to use a higher ISO indoors and shoot wide open.

The package you suggest is a good starting point with a large range to work with. You can always add to it later. I would think a prime lens would be your next addition down the road for better portrait work or wherever you decided you needed to expand.

The D7000 kit is a great choice.

Trying to do a good job with low light sports can quickly get into significant money as it is easiest with fast lenses and high frame rate bodies.

Another option might be to pick up a D3200 w/ 18-55 for $700 and then add the Nikon 80-400. The 80-400 is a great piece of glass and will handle nature, outdoor sports, portraits and landscapes. The D3200 has a high resolution sensor and equivalent low light capability (DXOMark) to the D7000. I think the D7000 is a better body with a higher frame rate, but it is due to be replaced soon with a newer model. A different option is to invest in the higher quality glass, and see what DSLR features are important, then in a year or so get a new body.

... Just expanding the options. Either way you can't go wrong.