Beginner, once used my uncle's d40 + sigma18-200, not satisfied with the combination. Now I have Enough money for fx body and a good lens,like d600+24-120. But if I buy a d7000 I can save money for a 24-70 or even my favorite 14-24. If I cut more off on body to buy a d5100 I can afford a used 70-200vr when summer break comes...
Mainly for hobby and travel. Really hope to get some nice pictures to share the experience.
It has confused me for a long time and still cant decide. It is a big deal for me so I must be careful enough..What will your choice be like?
Thanks!
I want to know what your choice is in this situation?
(42 posts) (15 voices)-
Posted 6 months ago #
-
Hi waterpork, welcome.
If you can run to the 24-70 f2.8 to go with the D7000, I would do that and only add f2.8 FX lenses to your gear range after. Then you can always change to FX later if you want and you only change one item (body).
From your description of your stage of knowledge etc., the DX bodies may suit you period.
Posted 6 months ago # -
I second the get the good lens now. you will keep it through more than 1 body.
Next year the D600 will cost less ;- )
Posted 6 months ago # -
I think the 14-24 would be wasted on a DX body. Better get a 10-24 DX for that if ultra wide is what you want.
Posted 6 months ago # -
kenadams said:
I think the 14-24 would be wasted on a DX body. Better get a 10-24 DX for that if ultra wide is what you want.+1 14-24 or any other FX Ultra wide is a waste when there are so many good DX ultra wide lenses out there.
There is nothing wrong with the 24-120VR f/4 and personally I would go for it over the 24-70 and use the extra $$ for a flash or more lenses.
waterpork said:
Beginner...Mainly for hobby and travel. Really hope to get some nice pictures to share the experience...Hate to tell you but if that is your only goal, a high end point and shoot will get you that.
If you are starting out, IMHO it is not smart to dump money at things you don't know if you will want to use them-i.e that range. For instance, I rarely use the 35-100 range on zooms at all - I use primes for that range. I put my money towards a 70-200, Macros, primes, flashes and ultra wides. Basing your experience on a low end 18-200 and an 8 year old camera to tell you to spend $4,000 is kind of like thinking you need a BMW at 18 when you learned to drive on a '72 Chevy pick-up to get you to work at McDonald's.
You didn't give us much to go on, every shooter is different. Why do you think you need a DSLR? Maybe your answer to that will help us tell what type of shooter you are.
Posted 6 months ago # -
Hi waterpork ,
Camera shake is probably the the most common cause of unsharp photos. Remember the the 24 -70 has no VR
The 24 -70 might make sense if you also have the 70- 200 f 2.8 vr
The extra reach of 24- 120 f 4, plus VR makes this Nikon's best stand alone FX lens
The D600 is going to give you much better results, particularly at high ISO values, than the D7000
putting an FX lens, on a FX body, does not make a lot of sense ( do you understand the difference between dx and fx)
IMHO Forget Point shoots, unless you always shoot in ideal conditions, eg bright daylight
In conclusion get the D600 and the 24 -120
Posted 6 months ago # -
@ waterpork....It is helpful to know exactly what you mean by "beginner". Are you someone who shot 35mm film? Or an individual in his teens or twenties who has some money and wants a nice camera?
What are your goals? What equipment have you used? What does not work for you with the D40? The recommendations will be more specific if we have this information.
With a $3400 budget (USA) you can get 28-300mm Nikkor, 10-24mm Nikkor and D5100 Body. And this might be what you want if you think you want a DSLR. If your plans are to expand, or you do not need the sophistication of a DSLR, then another answer is better, e.g.., what TTJ has said.
Posted 6 months ago # -
Why waste the money on a DX lens if he plans to go FX and can afford an FX lens ?
I'd like to undo half my collection.
Posted 6 months ago # -
Sounds like he is a student who doesn't have much money and whose only DSLR experience is with a D40 and third party extreme zoom lens. He is primarily looking for travel shots to show others. Sure a point and shoot would work, as might a high end cell phone camera.
I would recommend a D7000 or D7200 (when available) body with a general purpose zoom lens such as these "kits."
That level of DX body gives you plenty of control over your image and a very high quality image at the sizes he will be showing people. He can even make posters with that equipment if he wants and they will look fine. If he finds he wants to use f1.8 then add the 35mm f1.8 or the 50mm f1.8. Those three lenses and a DX body of that quality should be able to produce all he needs to impress people with his travel photos. Later, when he has more experience and wants to do things these lenses don't allow him to do, he can add items knowing how he really would use them. At this time he does not need "pro" glass or an FX sensor and probably wouldn't produce photos which look any different if he had them. A photo shot at f5.6 or f8 with high priced "pro" glass is going to look identical to the same photo shot at f5.6 or f8 with lower priced Nikon "consumer" glass; especially on a monitor or HDTV or printed 8x10. Let's be realistic. Is he going to make hundreds of 20x30 prints of his travel shots to show to his friends? No. Not even hundreds of 8x10s. They will be shared on a laptop or desktop monitor or tablet computer or cell phone. They will not be displayed at greater than about 2 megapixels when shared.
Posted 6 months ago # -
@msmoto:
1.Reason for buying my own dslr is that d40 and sigma18-200 are my uncle's.I used that combination but disappointed with the picture.
Actually I just had used them for several days. That was my only experience using dslr. Now I don't have any equipments - except a phone camera.
Besides getting better pictures I also want to develop photographing as a hobby.I think I'll mainly shoot landscapes and portraits, not sports or video.
"Beginner" means I have only basic knowledge about dslr,like range and aperture.Posted 6 months ago # -
@donaldejose
Yeah, travel is main purpose but besides travel I'm planning to develop it for long term, so I'll upgrade equipments. I think to get a better combination in first step can help me save some money to sell used equipments. Thanks!Posted 6 months ago # -
waterpork: those D7000 combinations will produce images 10 times better than the D40/sigma combo you used for a few days. Perhaps you can rent one and try it out?
Posted 6 months ago # -
@donaldejose
I was wrong...it was a d40x..I think these combinations are all good for only traveling, but I have no idea which is better for a long term hobby developing, for developoing skills, getting better pictures and saving money.
I once sent a topic about d600 kit or d7000+24-70 here but it even made me more confused..so I came back again to ask for help..Posted 6 months ago # -
The D40x was a very minor, almost insignificant "upgrade" of the D40: just added a few more megapixels to the sensor.
Posted 6 months ago # -
I think if you don't know what you are doing that much, haven't tried much equipment and want to invest in something that will be good for a while...
The D600 + 24-120 F4 gets my vote. Good range and single lens option for the meantime. New body with great performance. Give you room to grow and add later when you figure out you really need 5 other lenses :) Should be lightyears better then an outdated camera and a soso third party lens.
Just an FYI any "super zoom" lenses...18-200, 28-300, etc etc...all have weaknesses. They are ok for the most part and general shooting, but they can be disappointing also. I was a bit disappointed with my Nikon 18-200 at first and then learned to love it...I recently sold it for my 17-55 F2.8 and I wouldn't go back now. They are convenience lenses that do all, but don't do anything great.
Posted 6 months ago # -
waterpork said:
but it even made me more confused..so I came back again to ask for help..D40 a DX camera, now very dated
D7000 also a Dx camera, but a huge improvement on the D40; lots of bangs for your bucksD600 Nikon's cheapest FX camera (FX = full frame, bigger sensor generally = higher IQ)
DX cameras and lens are generally cheaper than FX cameras and lenses
you can put a Fx lens on a DX camera but you not using the lens its full potential
If you want really high image quality, for landscape, FX is the way to go, the only disadvantage is cost and may be weight
as tcole 1983 says; the 18 -200 is a very useful lens, but not what you want for high resolution landscapes, and will give you poor Bokeh for portraits
Posted 6 months ago # -
@sevencrossing
I have considered a canon 5d mk ii + 16-35 ii, but I love 14-24mm very much, and that's why I choose Nikon. However if I buy 14-24 I have to buy a cheaper body, not fx. I personally prefer more on lens and less on body and give up fx, but for landscape fx is better...that's why I can not decide. I'll upgrade equipments but not sure about the date, maybe half a year, maybe one year.Posted 6 months ago # -
if you want an ultra wide angle and cant afford a D600 and the 16 -35 f4 vr
then a D7000 or D5200 and a Nikon 12-24mm or Tokina 11-16mm makes sense
Posted 6 months ago # -
Starting out I'd opt for the D600, the D7000 is older tech D600 latest out. For a lens start out with a 50mm f1.8 AFD it's cheap like $135.00 and it will take great sharp pictures. Then when you get your feet wet you can explore other lenses to find what you want or need.
framer
Posted 6 months ago # -
waterpork said:
@sevencrossing
I have considered a canon 5d mk ii + 16-35 ii, but I love 14-24mm very much, and that's why I choose Nikon. However if I buy 14-24 I have to buy a cheaper body, not fx. ..I'm getting confused - have you used this lens or any other DX equivalents?
Unfortunately you are probably the 10th Beginner who has started a thread in the last week who thinks they need to spend $4,000+ to "get good pictures." With each one of these posts I am seeing members becoming exhausted on trying to find new ways how explain to beginners that their photos do not have a "pop" because the lack of experience, not the equipment. There are users on here that post D40 photos that are amazing. Getting "the best" equipment is not going to make you a better photographer - that only comes from experience and time.
That said, beginning out you are going to want to try different lenses, flashes, accessories, filters, bags, tripods, straps, etc. This hobby is expensive starting out and stretching your $$s so you can try new things, will make it more enjoyable. If you are stretching your pocketbook, go DX (D5200/D7000) with a 18-105vr. Shoot for a few months and then figure out from what focal length the majority of your photos are shot at to figure out what FX lens would work the best for you. Let the "use" dictate your lens, not an inexperienced desire.
Posted 6 months ago # -
I hate to go against the flow but I primarily shoot the 14-24mm on my D7000. No other nikon superwide does a constant 2.8. It is not a waste if you know what you want... 28mm is better than a 50mm equiv start.
I do agree with TaoTeJared on one part "Shoot for a few months and then figure out from what focal length the majority of your photos are shot at to figure out what FX lens would work the best for you. Let the "use" dictate your lens, not an inexperienced desire."
I personally never reccomend kit lenses as it is a wasted $100 but you can always sell it later. I find it more informative to suggest a 35mm prime. That will be more obvious in determining what lens you need as you wont have the luxury of zoom. It will also tell you what f-stop you shoot at the most.
Posted 6 months ago # -
Waterpork says he loves and wants "wide angle." For comparison sake here is a photo shot with the Tokina 11-16 f2.8 on a D90.
A D7000 will be much better in rendering more detail and better image quality at high ISO.
Waterpork can click on this photo, click on it again and obtain much larger sizes to examine.
Posted 6 months ago # -
Hi Waterpork,
Welcome to NR. and the wonderful world of NAS!
There are so many varied suggestions here ... I would be
even more confused now ! :-)The D40x and a 18-200 sigma is actually quite a good
combination.. What exactly didn't you like about it?Regarding the 14-24 .. it is an awesome lens! but I
will never get one cos I KNOW I dont get my buzz
from wideangle shots.When I started out I knew the theory that you
needed the wideangle for landscapes, the 50mm for
general lowlight and the medium tele for portraits.
and I endeavored to get a lens for each of the categories.However, nowadays i use the 18-200 VR for my P&S travel lens.
and only one other prime. Bec I KNOW I like that focal length.I would suggest the same as TTJ and go with a D5200 and
a 18-105 VR. and play with that until you really know what you
like. Maybe like me all you really need is one prime lens.Good luck with the NAS ! (Nikon acquisition syndrome)
:-)
Posted 6 months ago # -
My advice: Get the D7000. It has all the features and layout of the D600 (meaning it's going to be a great place to learn) but NOT the 24-70. 24 is not wide enough on DX and $2000 for a lens is too much when your a beginner... same goes for $2100 bodies...
If you go with the D7000 and want a high-grade f/2.8 lens I would get the 17-55 f/2.8. It is going to feel like a 24-70 on FX. 17 is plenty wide on DX such that you won't need to always carry a wide angle lens and the price tag is good. Don't worry about FX compatibility. Firstly the D7000 is going to last you for many years, but secondly you'll be able to sell a 17-55 without any trouble should you want to upgrade.
If you want more reach, you could look into either the 85mm f/1.8G (which is crazy cheap for how optically great it is) or check out the new 70-200 f/4 coming out soon.
Posted 6 months ago # -
Agree with friedmud.
From what I've seen from your description, it seems like you are still deciding on what kinds of genres you want to shoot, but at the same time, you want good quality equipment that can help you develop your hobby further.
D7000 + 17-55mm 2.8 sounds like a good choice. You get a great DX body + DX lens w/ money left over to spare. With the 17-55mm you are essentially emulating a 24-70mm for FX; you get a wide angle, plus a standard focal length for more detail shots. Not to mention, its 2.8 as well for a shallower depth of field. As mentioned, the lens will also hold its value well in the event you to decide to move to FX in the future. I believe this is a good combo as it gives you both flexibility and quality while still staying within your budget range.
Posted 6 months ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
