Advice on Camera and Lens D90 or D7000

Nikon Rumors Forum » Nikon DSLR

Advice on Camera and Lens D90 or D7000

(28 posts) (12 voices)

Tags:

No tags yet.

12 Next »

Rosie

junior member
Joined: Sep '10
Posts: 5
offline

Hi,
I've been waiting for the D7000 to come out and think I'm going to go with that model but want to make sure its the right choice.

I'm not a professional and will use the camera mostly for taking individual photos, photographing hummingbirds and spinning dolphins while on vacation (when they jump out of the water), landscape photos, flowers, and occassionally some sports photos. My sister's wedding is this May so I want to try and capture some good group photos and some great photos overall at the wedding. I do like the video option as if I can have a camera and video in, its one less peice of equipment to carry:)

Secondary use will be underwater photography, mostly macros, but at the moment the housings (in general) are too expensive for me to go that route at the moment. Right now we have a cheap Sony for underwater which actually does pretty good but a Nikon would definately be better!

Would the D7000 be okay? It seems that the lenses also make a huge difference, so what lens would everyone recommend?

Thanks everyone, I'm really getting excited about getting my new Nikon:)

Posted 2 years ago #
aslightdelay

preferred member
Joined: Jul '10
Posts: 327
offline

Welcome to the forum, Rosie.

The kit lens (18-105) should do you just fine for most of the purposes you describe. On the other hand, when you're dealing with wedding photos (reception halls and, especially, churches, aren't exactly known for their great lighting; the latter also won't usually allow tripods and you don't want to use flash if you can help it), you may need something faster than a kit lens. A fast prime (35/50/85) is also an option if you don't want to plunk down the cash for something fast in the 17-55 (ish) range, but those come with their own limitations.

As to macro -- in or out of the water -- there are plenty of options, but the standouts seem to be the 60 and 105.

These responses may not be as detailed as you'd like, but if you do a quick forum search (start with http://nikonrumors.com/forum/forum.php?id=10 ) you'll find enough advice on lenses for nearly every situation and price range. Good luck!

Posted 2 years ago #
veghead61

new member
Joined: Sep '10
Posts: 1
offline

I think you would be just as happy with the D90 especially with th price there at. then you can use te money you save to up the lens

Posted 2 years ago #
heartyfisher

preferred member
Joined: Apr '09
Posts: 1,701
offline

LOL! sorry I am laughing at my self.. I am such a paranoid.. Rosie are you niko playing a trick on us?

OK, :-) discounting my paranoia, Rosie what experience do you have with DSLR is this your first one? Some background re your experience would be helpful... to decide if a D3100 may be the camera for you rather than a D7000 or a D90. What is your budget? that would help as well.

Posted 2 years ago #
Rosie

junior member
Joined: Sep '10
Posts: 5
offline

LOL, no I'm not a Niko:) I've been lurking on this forum for a few years and just never posted.

Experience: I've had a Sony F800 and had a Nikon D90, which I returned. I wanted faster shutter speed to photograph the hummingbirds. (Problem could of been me, my lack of experience to be fair).

Budget: D90 vs D7000? D7000 seems better, D3100 is out of the question since I can afford better (no offense to anyone). I'd like to stay around $1500'ish but don't mind spending a bit more for a great camera. From reading the forums, seems like alot of people buy one camera then another, and another etc. If I just got one good camera in the long run it's cheaper in my opinion. This gadget gal realizes there's always going to something even better coming out down the road. Even considered waiting for the D400, not sure if its worth it or overkill for what I want to do.

The wedding is going to be outside with the reception indoors. My wedding photographers were HORRIBLE!!! Those experienced photographers would be utterly shocked as were we. So for my sister, I want to be a "back up" so to speak since you can't recreate that day.

Agin, thanks for the help! Reading the posts sometimes can become information overload with all the great info posted.

Posted 2 years ago #
Krevlin

preferred member
Joined: Jun '10
Posts: 316
offline

I would say get the D7000 or a used D300S which should be about the same price.

As for lenses, forget the kit lens if you go D7000, get the 35mm f/1.8, which is really a 52mm lens.

Or if you can spend a bit, the Tokina 16-50 f/2.8 is an amazing lens for a low price as well as the Tokina 100mm macro f/2.8.

As for down the line, my friend got a water housing for his D90 and a lot of underwater stuff is done with the 10.5mm fisheye so... there's that.

Posted 2 years ago #
timmytimer

junior member
Joined: Jul '10
Posts: 8
offline

I looked at underwater housings as well. The cost for dSLR housings alone can be significantly more than an underwater camera and flash. You can buy a Sealife DC1200 with flash (kit) for $800. You're likely to spend more on the dSLR housing than you are on the actual camera body. If you have the $$$ to drop and dive enough it may be worth spending the money on the dSLR housing. In my opinion spend the money on some good glass or D7000 and leave the under water on the low budget solutions.

Posted 2 years ago #
NSXType-R

preferred member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 2,803
offline

If you need faster shutter speeds, you need faster glass, not a higher end camera. The D90 would have served you fine in that respect.

Posted 2 years ago #
stanlm

member
Joined: Jul '10
Posts: 40
offline

Yea, I couldn't stop hummingbird wings at my camera's limit, 1/4000. It would be nice to have the 1/8000 on the 7000. I'll be envious of the new custom user modes too. My vote would be 7000.
Like nsxtype-r said, I don't think you'll find the 3.5-5.6 lenses completely satisfying.. your lens budget may need to match or exceed your camera budget to be the most fun at higher shutter speeds :)

Posted 2 years ago #
aslightdelay

preferred member
Joined: Jul '10
Posts: 327
offline

Are underwater housings available for rental, the way bodies and lenses are? That might be another option if it's something you'd like to do but don't plan on doing all that often.

Posted 2 years ago #
Rosie

junior member
Joined: Sep '10
Posts: 5
offline

We have an underwater setup, a Sony DSCW300(?) with either a Sea & Sea or Sealife housing and a strobe. Does great with close ups considering the total cost of the setup is less than $600. I would post a photo but dont know how just to give you an idea of the quality.

Primarily want the camera for above ground photography. Eventually, will get a housing since we spend 4-5 weeks each winter diving the caribbean but for now, we'll keep using the Sony.

Sounds like the D7000 with some good lens is the way to go. Any thoughts about waiting for the D400?
Thanks!

Posted 2 years ago #
aslightdelay

preferred member
Joined: Jul '10
Posts: 327
offline

Call me silly, but if the 7000 with good lenses sounds viable for your needs, why wait longer for another camera? Will the D400 be a great camera? Probably. What you have to ask yourself, though, is whether it'll be so good that it's worth passing up the great shots you could be getting in the meantime with a 90, 7000, or 300(s).

Posted 2 years ago #
heartyfisher

preferred member
Joined: Apr '09
Posts: 1,701
offline

@ Gadget Girl (aka rosie) : Does sound like the D7000 is the camera for you. It will be able to take all the photos you need at the qualities almost as good as (in many cases better than ) what you see in magazines. (for you the D90 would have been almost as good)

The limiting factor would be you... :-) just persevere and keep learning .. there is heaps to learn in terms of techniques and setups etc. just like for underwater photography there is also some specialised gear that you will need for specific subjects (though probably not as expensive) Patience is also important for some subjects.

For example the humming birds.. it may be good to investigate how best to take humming bird photos.. The D90(or D40) would have been more than sufficient for good humming bird photos. (Hint: The key there would have been flashes)

One reason for my original paranoia was that each of your mentioned subjects are a whole different world of photography with its own set of techniques and specialised equipment and unique lenses. I think one or 2 lenses is not going to cut it for your range of interests. Luckily you seem to have the funds for them :-)

Good luck with your DSLR adventures!

PS: oh and welcome!
PPS : I would be really looking forward to seeing some of your photos!

Posted 2 years ago #
DaveyJ

preferred member
Joined: Jun '10
Posts: 452
offline

I shoot underwater professionally and so do my son and grandson's. UW is a specialty field and costs way more than most would realize to do right. Sealife, etc. in my opinion is a waste of money. Better go digital as i have a lot of film experience UW and digital has great advantages. Also video UW works., Period! We use housings and purpose built UW still and video cameras. I rarely see shooters using less than big bucks gear doing well UW. A D90 is a good UW camera but our housing cost way more than the camera. My D90 was from B&H and they have housings that can fit it. The D7000 will fit in the same housing and you need a separate lens port on most housings. 12-24 DX Nikkor works very well in our gear with both still and UW video. There are better still UW cameras and we have them. Also same case for video. Some of the UW disposables with film were good, both Fuji and Kodak for what they were. Do not expect to get much in the way of results though. i had spent thousands before it yielded almost a single marketable image. The D7000 is going to be a pretty good UW camera but I am NOT going to use mine that way. Topside for D7000 for now thank you!!

Posted 2 years ago #
NikoDoby

The Terminator
Joined: May '09
Posts: 6,598
offline

heartyfisher said:
LOL! sorry I am laughing at my self.. I am such a paranoid.. Rosie are you niko playing a trick on us?

??? Hearty did you forget to take your medication again? ;^)

Posted 2 years ago #
jonnyapple

Goldfingers
Joined: May '09
Posts: 3,400
offline

Another vote not to wait for the D400. It's still not clear to me what Nikon is planning with that (FX?) and as far as I know neither the date nor even the release has been rumored. If money isn't a consideration I'd get the d7000 over the d3100 because of the extra lens possibilities.

Posted 2 years ago #
heartyfisher

preferred member
Joined: Apr '09
Posts: 1,701
offline

LOL ... You are not helping niko..

Posted 2 years ago #
NikoDoby

The Terminator
Joined: May '09
Posts: 6,598
offline

heartyfisher said:
LOL ... You are not helping niko..

What do you mean? Anyway there will be a D400 but it might not be DX. There will be another DX camera above the D7000 but it might be called D9000. I don't understand why people get so "angry" when the subject comes up? I think the D7000 is a good camera for you Rosie.

Posted 2 years ago #
Ron

senior member
Joined: Sep '10
Posts: 53
offline

To photograph the hummingbirds, you do not need a faster lens or faster shutter speeds.
I have seen hummingbirds stopped with 1/250 sec using a Nikon 55-200mm kit lens. What you need is an SB600 flash (one that will get off camera and be controlled and able to run at less than full power. 1/64 power has a flash duration of about 1/25000 sec and 1/128 power is about 1/40000 sec. That will stop the hummingbirds cold.

Posted 2 years ago #
Rosie

junior member
Joined: Sep '10
Posts: 5
offline

Whats the big difference between DX and FX?

Posted 2 years ago #
NikoDoby

The Terminator
Joined: May '09
Posts: 6,598
offline

FX (aka full frame) is equal to 35mm film. In layman's terms that means the sensor inside the camera is the same size as a 35mm film negative. A DX (aka cropped) sensor is smaller than 35mm film negative. It is the same size as APS film so that's why you'll hear a DX sensor also get referred to as an APS-C sensor.

FX gives you "better" image quality and isn't as "noisy" in higher ISO or low light shots. That's why all of the new high-end Nikon cameras are all FX. However DX is catching up to FX image quality and noise performance. The D7000 is said to be equal to the D700 in low light performance. The biggest "advantage" for DX is that it has a 1.5X crop. Meaning your lenses will reach out farther than they normally would if they were FX (aka full frame). In simple terms that means a 50mm lens on an FX camera is 50mm. However on a DX camera you multiply 50mm by 1.5 to get the "actual" length of 75mm. (it's still really 50mm but the view gets cropped).

However DX can be seen as a disadvantage because at the wide end your lenses aren't as wide as they could be. A 16mm lens is 16mm on an FX camera but on a DX camera it's 24mm. That's why the 35mm lens is more popular for DX cameras than the 50mm. 35mm is equal to 52mm on a DX.

The advantage with buying FX lenses instead of DX lenses is that they can be used on both FX and DX cameras no problem, but DX lenses can't be used on FX cameras because they don't cover the entire sensor with enough light. That's why some photographers don't buy DX lenses because they want a full frame camera in the future. They only buy FX lenses for their DX cameras.

This is also why there's such an intense debate on whether the future "D400" will continue to be DX or if Nikon will finally give us a "D7000" with a FX sensor for $1800USD. Sony is the only company who offers a full frame camera for under $2000. The D700 is basically a D300 with an FX sensor, but it's price is closer to $3000. Well it was when it was first announced. The price has dropped closer to $2500 now.

Posted 2 years ago #
jonnyapple

Goldfingers
Joined: May '09
Posts: 3,400
offline

Bravo, Niko! I think you summarized about 12 other threads in that one post. Well done.

Posted 2 years ago #
Rosie

junior member
Joined: Sep '10
Posts: 5
offline

Thanks Niko!! Great post and it explains alot! Thanks to everyone who posted, it's been very helpful!!

The D7000 is tempting but perhaps I'll just wait and see what the new "D400" brings. Either way, I'll get some great lens as it seems the lens is just as, if not, more important than the body.

Again, thanks everyone!

Posted 2 years ago #
DaveyJ

preferred member
Joined: Jun '10
Posts: 452
offline

Ron said:
To photograph the hummingbirds, you do not need a faster lens or faster shutter speeds.
I have seen hummingbirds stopped with 1/250 sec using a Nikon 55-200mm kit lens. What you need is an SB600 flash (one that will get off camera and be controlled and able to run at less than full power. 1/64 power has a flash duration of about 1/25000 sec and 1/128 power is about 1/40000 sec. That will stop the hummingbirds cold.

I have hummingbird shots with even Micro Nikkor 60mm on D300 at ISO 1000.It is rare to get that close and it happened when i was shooting sunflowers, niot trying for hummingbirds. I also have them on D300 at the same ISO with the Nikkor 70-300VR. Those photos were taken to document hummingbird use of certain flowers such as scarlet beebalm. ALso called Oswego Tea.

NikoDoby's summarization of the FX and DX lines is really good. I myself need both FX and DX but shoot most with DX. If the D400 gets introduced and since I was one of the most frequent users of the D400 News before I started to visit NR (which had far more info and posters!) I have always been interested it that. I believe that the D400 should be FX and a less expensive version and leave the D700 upgrade to be called say D800. Those are just my thoughts but it does seem to jive with NR posters. To have FF below $2,000 US I believe is a way of creating a nearly best seller.

Posted 2 years ago #
aslightdelay

preferred member
Joined: Jul '10
Posts: 327
offline

DaveyJ said:
To have FF below $2,000 US I believe is a way of creating a nearly best seller.

Judging just by this forum (not to mention what I've seen on the blog and elsewhere), I don't think there's any "nearly" about it.

Posted 2 years ago #