sevencrossing said:
nor can I

I think we have created enough confusion, right. My guess is, no matter which camera you decide on, you will enjoy. And if you really become a Knee-Cone addict, well they have just about all the equipment one can imagine.

So, get something, join us on NRF, and let us know how we can help.

spraynpray said:
.

There may be a better solution, but I can't see it.

nor can I

D7000 with 18-105 kit lens, Tokina 11-16/2.8, Nikon 35/1.8G and 70-300VR or if you don't want the long end of that, get the 18-200VR2 instead of the 18-105 and don't get the 70-300.

There may be a better solution, but I can't see it.

I tried the 18-105 when I bought it but it seemed too plasticky and fragile for my taste, though it's no worse than the 18-55. Optics were good, though. If you are looking for SOME telephoto, but can't afford cost/weight of 70-200, Sigma+Tokina make DX equivalents that are 50-150 or 50-135 that are constant 2.8. I have the Tokina and LOVE it- creamy bokeh, VERY sharp, beautiful colors- but it's not VERY light. The Sigma has a faster AF, a ittle more telephoto, and is not made of metal so considerably lighter. It doesn't have/need the built in mount so easier to hand hold as well. I picked up the Tokina for $600 used so not a very expensive lens. I like that it handles the DX portrait range. Personally haven't found that perfect inexpensive AF-S DX zoom lens so waiting for the new 16-85 to be revealed. In the mean time I ended up getting cheap light weight primes which actually work quite well with the D7000. Some of Nikon's AIS 2.8 lenses have sharpness between respectable and ridiculous are cheap ($100-200 each), beautifully built, compact, and light.

Wait for the D400, or if you do not want to spend $1500-2000, I have had great luck with my D90. The 12-24mm is super on it. And for long work, the 80-400mm is really nice. And, yes, the 1.5 factor on focal length is what one uses for DX vs. FX. SO the 12-24mm is like an 18-36mm.

I will be no doubt getting a D400 when available to replace my D90 which is a great camera but not as much "pro" as the DX00 series.

It is all about money. NIKON has several new lenses which are not as fast as some, but absolutely sharp as a tack. And the cost factor is in the 1/3rd ranges.

D400, the new Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 18-300mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR to be released soon, and a 50mm f/1.4 G Nikkor. That is how I would start.

Thanks for the link. Good stuff there, but I'm looking for something more than entry level.

http://nikonrumors.com/forum/topic.php?id=5337

Hi,

I currently don't have a DSLR but have owned both film and digital SLRs in the past, including an N80 and D70. I sold them a few years ago, but now I want to go back.

I don't need pro features/quality, but I want something good and am thinking of a D7000 and wondered what people thought of the kit lens.

I'm not real up to date on Nikon lenses, but I thought the kit lens that came with the D70 18-55 (I think) was pretty good. Plus I had a non DX 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G ED IF AF-S VR that I liked a lot.

For focal lengths, I still think of everything in terms of full frame am drawing a blank when I try to remember this stuff. Is the 18-105 that comes with the D7000 have a field of view as a 35mm/full frame 18-105 or is it more like a 27-157?

If it's the latter, I'd want something a bit wider because I like to shoot in the 20-24 range. When I had the D-70, I kept wanting to go wider and get the 12-24 or 10-24.

I don't take a lot of zoom pictures, but I liked the 70-300 and it's crop factor, though I'd prefer a bit wider f/stop if possible. Ideally, I'd love a 70-210 f/2.8, but that's out of my price range and kind of bulky.

What would everyone suggest? I don't have a ton of money, so I'd have to do it in stages and might be okay with the kit lens to start and then add on as I go.

Thanks!