I have 6 prime lenses+3 2.8 zooms. If I owned the D5100, 1 lens would AF (and 3 wouldn't meter...).

Amazing how important that AF screw is. Shooting w/ older lenses is a huge benefit if you are on a budget.

Personally I know 5 people with D7000 (hobbyists) which speaks more to my income bracket.-- None of us had discussed cameras until we all had the same one.

3 bought the D7000 early to replace D80 or D300: 2 gave up waiting for a $2000 full frame when the D7000 high ISO reviews came out; 3rd was so impressed the out of camera image results vs. his D300 that he had to buy it.

For the other 2 (myself included) the AF screw and many of D7000 capabilities (video, high continuous AF rate, Flash control) were extremely useful to get a good tool for photography at a very low price.

With the D3200 apparently right around the corner, I'd probably hold out on buying anything. If Nikon can get this WiFi thing right (I know they probably won't) then it could be a game changer.

I want to be able to shoot a photo, edit it on my iPad, and upload it to wherever right away. That's all I really want. Shouldn't be so complicated.

Willis said:
I'm kicking around retiring my D40 as well. I love that camera for its size, but the 3 point auto-focus is pretty much a deal breaker. The lack of in-camera CLS is also a bit of a drag.

Maybe when the D800 comes in, my wife will actually let me shoot with our D90 from time to time. I figure between that and my V1 (which compares very favorably against the D40) for times when I want something smaller I should be able to stay happy.

That said, the D40 + the 35mm f1.8 is awesome. Great photos in a very small light package. And its cheap to boot! Thanks Nikon.

I went from a Coolpix E3700 to a D40, which is pretty much for me as big a jump from a P and S to a D7000 when I got it. Glad I did it too.

I still shoot with the D40. I'm looking into getting a D7000 when the D7000 replacement rolls around. I do agree- the 3 point autofocus is the most tiring aspect of it. I have also yet to take advantage of the 1/500th flash sync speed with speedlights and all. So I'll still keep it around, especially when I need a smaller package.

No point in me getting a D3100 though.

I'm kicking around retiring my D40 as well. I love that camera for its size, but the 3 point auto-focus is pretty much a deal breaker. The lack of in-camera CLS is also a bit of a drag.

Maybe when the D800 comes in, my wife will actually let me shoot with our D90 from time to time. I figure between that and my V1 (which compares very favorably against the D40) for times when I want something smaller I should be able to stay happy.

That said, the D40 + the 35mm f1.8 is awesome. Great photos in a very small light package. And its cheap to boot! Thanks Nikon.

The Man From Mandrem said:
Waloshin,

An obscure Canadian(?) blogger prognosticates D7100 coming soon so you may want to wait for that instead.

Yes, I agree, but if a D7100 or D7200 came out I am sure it would cost more then the D7000.

Waloshin,

An obscure Canadian(?) blogger prognosticates D7100 coming soon so you may want to wait for that instead.

Hi kyoshinikon,

I hope that Pros and students are also enthusiastic about what they do. ;-)

That was more in the meaning of what I meant, but interesting in how it was taken.

My best,

Mike

The only people I know personally who have a D7000 are Pro's and students... Most of the enthusiasts have D300's and soccer moms D40/D50/D60/D5000. D3/D700/D200/D90/D7000 seem to be what the pro's I know have

Hi,

Maybe they shop at Costco. ;-)

But seriously, really, far more pictures are taken with cell phones than P&S and P&S than DSLRs.

Some folks have antennae that are tuned in to watch what others use to take photos.

I've enjoyed my D7000 and use both the still and video functions a lot, and there are features on it that make it a desirable camera for a enthusiast who can afford it.

My best,

Mike

I haven't seen anyone out shooting a D7000 actually. I usually see many with older bodies such as the D40 or D60 and hardly ever anyone with an semipro or pro body unless it is a big event.

I think the D7000 does offer some room to grow though...if you have the extra money it has more features. I think people are on the fence like I was with the D90 and D5000. I opted to save some money on the body and get some more expensive glass. I am glad I did it, but I do miss some of the features on the D90...but since image quality was comparable I didn't feel like I sacrificed too much. Mostly it has forced me to get the newer AF-S lenses is about my only annoyance. I am sure if I had the easy buttons and knobs for the ISO and things I would miss those going back the other way in the body line.

I think the D7000 is the sweet spot in the Nikon line up, I'd say you get the most for your money. I'm waiting for the D400 but I have considered going from my "getting long in the tooth" D200 to the D7000. Back when I got my D200 the D80 had the same sensor and same image quality for less money.

I went from a P&S (or what I would call a POS) to a D7000. P&S sucks at just about everything, so I bought a D7000 that can do just about everything. The D5100 wasn't out when I bought mine, and I'm glad I didn't have that option since I have made use of features like the in-body motor for AF-D lenses. The only reason I can think of not to buy the D7000 is the only reason that I didn't order a D800 -> not enough money in the bank.

Out where I am everybody has the D5100... I see your point tho. Everybody and their mother seems to have a DSLR now.

I have a D7000, but my kid has a D60. :)

Where do you live that "everyone and their kid" buy >$1000 cameras? It's a good camera but so is the D5100.

Erm, that may be because it is an excellent camera with a great sensor.

Just guessin' tho.

I have been using a D40 for a number of years now and wouldn't mind upgrading to the D7000, but it seems like everyone and their kid has a D7000. Why?