Hello everyone.
I've just registered so thought I'd say a quick hello and introduce myself. I'm 51 years old and live in Alsace France. My current camera is a D40, albeit with a standard lens. I recently fell over watching the WRC and broke the lens. So I've thought about upgrading both camera and lens. I already have a lowepro rucksack and a Manfroto tripod. Future plans are to buy an SB900 to complete the basic equipment. Now my first thought was to buy a D7000 and some lenses (50mm F1.4 and a 70-200 F2.8). Cost is not really an option, but I wondered how these would perform on the D7000. If you have any other suggestions, they would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks in advance.....Mike
Hello and advice needed
(28 posts) (14 voices)-
Posted 1 year ago #
-
Hey and welcome:) ive never given advice since I usually keep it for myself, but in case it helps. I would go for the d7000, i think it would be a nice upgrade from the d40, and it produces good images, although i do not use this camera myself, a lot of people here can vouch for that.
As for lens, i use fixed focal lens and stray away from zooms, but it depends on the type of photography you would like to take.
I guess the 18-200mm 3.5-5.6 would save you from having to change lenses as much as I do, and it will cover a wide range of angles. Then you could get of course the 35 1.8 dx or the 50 1.4 as primes. Otherwise I would suggest the 35mm 1.8 and the 70 - 200mm 2.8 if you want that telephoto.
I do not use flash at all, and if I do use it, it is for fill flash in daylight, and I use the one on the camera. But that is just me, on low light, ill let the ISO do the work, and the d7000 has a good base ISO compared to my d300s. So if it was me, i would skip that SB900 and add another lens.
That just my 2cents, and hope i hope it helps.
Posted 1 year ago # -
MikeFrewer said:
Cost is not really an option,Do you mean price is not a problem
Both the 50mm F1.4 and the 70 -200 are first class lenes and will be fine on a D7000
but If price and weight is not an issue and you do not want vidio, depending what you shoot, you would get better results with a D700
the SB 900 is a great gun but it will overheat, if used continuously on full power
Posted 1 year ago # -
Thank you both for your input. My choice of photography is varied. I take landscape, wildlife, Motorsports and family portraits. Changing lenses wouldn't be a problem, choosing the correct ones is :) (any advice would be great). The D700 and D7000 are my two choices of camera. I'm undecided which one at the moment. Again, knowing my choice of photography, any advice greatly apreciated.
Posted 1 year ago # -
The 70-200mm is a must for motorsports and wildlife. The 50 is what you will need for portraits. Id recommend the D700 but the D7000 is lighter and has video...
Posted 1 year ago # -
I love the 70-200. Certainly would recommend it.
Camera body, though ... hmmm. Lot of difference between the D700 and D7000. For motorsports and such, I'd think hard about the D7000 (or D300s) as the 1.5x lense factor helps a good bit extending the reach of the lense and the D7000 shoots slightly faster fps.What size prints are you looking to get?
Posted 1 year ago # -
Thank you both for your advice. Warprints, I have been so used to looking at my pictures on my laptop, I'd not even thought about printing them ! I suppose if I had a really good photo, maybe I'd want to print it about 3' by 2'. Something else I have to think about now !
Posted 1 year ago # -
The two lenses you mentioned are great ones, but if you like landscapes neither of those will do. 50mm is not nearly wide enough.
Posted 1 year ago # -
if you only look at your photos on a laptop and dont crop much, the D7000 should be fine but, if you shoot landscapes and want to go up to 3feet x 2 feet, then you should seriously consider the D700
Posted 1 year ago # -
MikeFrewer said:
Thank you both for your input. My choice of photography is varied. I take landscape, wildlife, Motorsports and family portraits. Changing lenses wouldn't be a problem, choosing the correct ones is :) (any advice would be great). The D700 and D7000 are my two choices of camera. I'm undecided which one at the moment. Again, knowing my choice of photography, any advice greatly apreciated.For landscape at least I'd imagine you want a wider lens than 50mm (75mm with the crop factor). I use the Tokina 12-24mm/f4 and the Nikkor 20mm/f2.8. I tend towards the Nikkor nowadays since it is much smaller and that is great for hiking, and the ultrawide on the Tokina usually sucks up too much of the foreground for my liking. There are any number of great ultrawide - wide zooms and primes out there, but my experience with those two has been great and at ~500 USD they perform very well for their price.
Posted 1 year ago # -
So, taking all of your good advice into consideration. I have opted for the following lens choices.
70-200 f2.8 Motorsports and wildlife.
50 mm f1.4. Portrait and low light
14-24 mm f2.8 LandscapesI've had thoughts about printing photos, and there will only be the odd few to be printed 3' x 2'. I reckon that most would be printed slightly larger than 10" x 8". So that still leaves me with a choice of 2 cameras.
D700 Good lowlight capabilities and good for large prints.
D7000 Extends lens reach with crop factor and faster fps.Option 1
Or do I buy the lenses and use on the D40 until the eagerly awaited D800 arrives and see the full specs on that.Option 2
Buy the D7000 and lenses, wait for the D800 and compare it with the D700, then buy the one which would be better for my type of photography.I'm leaning towards option 2 at the moment.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Wow you are taking a big leap. From a D40 with kit lens to a $1000+ body and around $5000 worth of lenses.
Either one is a pretty good setup. I would maybe opt for the D7000 and get a teleconverter with the money you would save over the D700. When used on the 70-200 it can produce pretty good results and 200 mm isn't usually long enough for wildlife. Also if you get the D700 you will lose the 1.5x crop factor and then 200 mm really isn't long enough for wildlife and might be pretty short for motorsports as well.
Posted 1 year ago # -
ignoring video the D700 is going to be better than the 7000 for both sports and Landscapes and when/if the D800 comes out, it will be better than the 700
but the 800 is still just a rumor
If the money is burning a hole in your pocket. Get the 700 and learn how to used it, when the 800 comes out, sell the 700 or keep it as a spare
As other have said, the 70 -200 may be a bit short for sports and wildlife
if you are shooting large birds or mammals,and sports the 200-400 f4 is the lens for youA teleconverter on the 70-200 will work in bright sunshine, but it's far from an ideal solution, if you are serious about wildlife and sports get the big zoom
if I have blown your buget then maybe the D7000 and a 70-300
Posted 1 year ago # -
tcole1983 said:
Wow you are taking a big leap. From a D40 with kit lens to a $1000+ body and around $5000 worth of lenses.While I agree, there are those of us who get to a point in life where our options open up. I went from a D70s and 18-200 lens to a D700, D7000 and the three f2.8 zooms in a year. Mostly because I now have the time and money to spend on photography (purely as a hobby).
So, given all that. Mike, if you think you want to go to two bodies, then definitely opt for option 2. The D7000 is a great camera and if the D800 provides something you really want, they would make a great team. Personally, I would still opt for the D700 in favor given the specs I've seen. I don't want to deal with the larger files and high ISO is the #1 criteria for me (that's what got me started down the upgrade path).
Personally, I think the 70-200 is a bit big on the D7000 without the battery grip, but if you are shooting from a tripod it won't matter. That lens balances beautifully on the D700, especially when using the battery grip.
The 14-24 is a bit disappointing to me on the D7000 (21mm equiv isn't very wide), but has come in very handy when I need to video a performance from the front row in a small room (it can still get a full Marimba into the frame from 4 feet). It is spectacular on the D700 and gives you the very wide angle that you want for landscapes or for super close quarters pictures. That lens on the D700 would rock in Venice with the small streets and tall churches in small courtyards.
If you are going with a prime in the middle, I would opt for the 50mm. I have the old 50/f1.8D and it works well on both cameras. A standard lens on the D700 and a short tele on the D7000. Great for portraits either way (if you like to work close).
Personally, I'm thinking the D800 is going to be a pass for me with the specs that it has. I don't need the higher video spec (in fact the video from the D7000 is awesome and already very large files as it is). For most video that I post to YouTube or such for friends gets cut way, way down from the original anyway. So, unless the D800 can provide a stop or two better ISO performance than the D700, it would be a non-starter for me. If you shoot WRX, you may find that higher ISO is also more important. An overcast day may require shooting at 3200 ISO just get the shutter speed and f-number that you want.
Posted 1 year ago # -
sevencrossing said:
ignoring video the D700 is going to be better than the 7000 for both sports and Landscapes and when/if the D800 comes out, it will be better than the 700but the 800 is still just a rumor
If the money is burning a hole in your pocket. Get the 700 and learn how to used it, when the 800 comes out, sell the 700 or keep it as a spare
As other have said, the 70 -200 may be a bit short for sports and wildlife
if you are shooting large birds or mammals,and sports the 200-400 f4 is the lens for youA teleconverter on the 70-200 will work in bright sunshine, but it's far from an ideal solution, if you are serious about wildlife and sports get the big zoom
if I have blown your buget then maybe the D7000 and a 70-300
I guess instead for the $1000+ difference in bodies you could get the 300 F4 and not the telecoverter if you get the D7000.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Mike, the truth is, alot of people worry so much about equiptment and they may have great equiptment but horrible exposures and skills.
Honestly, one of my best friends builds his own lenses at times, and uses non pro cameras for his photos and the end result is quite magnificent. I have alot of respect for him because i know the equipment he has and he does not worry as much as other people, he uses what he has to make great pictures.
Your equipment is broken, fair enough, but you dont need to deck it out with a D3s in order make great pictures, nor do you need $5000 lenses. Sure, it makes it easier...and it requires less post processing perhaps. But in the end, it boils down to what you can do with what you own. And i repeat this to myself as often as possible when i begin to think about getting a new body for example. Truth is, Lens > Body.
Now, if you say price is irrelevant and you just want to buy some great equipment, then go for the D700, a 14-24 2.8, 24-70 2.8 and 70-200 2.8 and all you will have to worry about is making the best of it, and I am sure it will last you for quite some time.
Posted 1 year ago # -
OK guys.
Once again a very big thank you for all of your help and advice. I am not a professional photographer by a long shot, and don't claim to be. My photography is a huge hobby and hopefully will be for a long time. I have decided with all of your help to do the following. My next camera will be the D700. I will start off with the 50mm 1.4 prime lens and learn the new camera with this lens. I will follow up with the 70-200 2.8, and as mentioned above the 14-24 2.8 and 24-70 2.8 at a later date. Please don't think that i have very deep pockets, far from it. I have spent most of my life working hard (as we all do) looking after my family, and think that it's about time I treated myself.
Thanks again.....Mike
Posted 1 year ago # -
Mike, Enjoy your 700 I took exactly the same route, a 50 1.4 and the fabulous 70-200 but next bought the 24- 120 f4 VR and since buying it, I have only used the 50 1.4 once, but I do not shoot any low light action stuff with out flash
Posted 1 year ago # -
MikeFrewer said:
My next camera will be the D700. I will start off with the 50mm 1.4 prime lens and learn the new camera with this lens. I will follow up with the 70-200 2.8, .....this is exactly what i did. got the 50 1.4 to learn, then the 70-200 to extend my possibilities.
now i seldom use either lens, but i have many more to choose from.
the 50 1.4 isn't really sharp until 2.0, though 1.8 is passable. so keep that in mind when shooting. if you want tack sharp 1.4, you need to get the new 24, 35, or 85 (or the old 85). the 50 is pretty handy though and great for what you describe.
the 70-200 is a good lens, but it's pretty big and still "only" 2.8.
the 14-24 is a must for landscapes, unless you decide on a pc lens.
as far as the 24-70 is concerned i would actually listen to ken rockwell. imo the 1.4 primes are a much better option.
if you have the option to rent, i would buy the 50 1.4 or 85 1.4 (even the D is better than the 50 1.4G for sharpness wide open and lovely shallow depth of field) and rent other lenses for a week each to try and decide.
Posted 1 year ago # -
in fact, i would buy the camera "body only" and rent the 50 1.4G and the 85 1.4D for a week.
I am pretty sure you will choose the 85 after that, and if you don't you will know you needed something wider, so either way, you made the right choice.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Gareth said:
...
as far as the 24-70 is concerned i would actually listen to ken rockwell. imo the 1.4 primes are a much better option.
..and I wouldn't, 50/1.4 is neither as sharp (even closed down) nor fast enough to compete with 50/1.4, 24/1.4 is nice as 35/1.4 is but the price tag they carry is twice as high as the one form 24-70. so, IMHO, if You don't need 1.4 there's no better option than to go for 24-70/2.8
Posted 1 year ago # -
oh, and the sb-900 can bend the hotshoe of the d700. a sb-800 or sb-700 is a better choice (for you most likely the sb-700, which is far easier to use).
Posted 1 year ago # -
Or get the 50 1.8D and the 85 1.8D. I'd try the 1.4 and 1.8 and see if you think it's worth it. You may be surprised.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Gareth said:
this is exactly what i did. got the 50 1.4 to learn, then the 70-200 to extend my possibilities.now i seldom use either lens, but i have many more to choose from.
the 50 1.4 isn't really sharp until 2.0, though 1.8 is passable. so keep that in mind when shooting. if you want tack sharp 1.4, you need to get the new 24, 35, or 85 (or the old 85). the 50 is pretty handy though and great for what you describe.
the 70-200 is a good lens, but it's pretty big and still "only" 2.8.
the 14-24 is a must for landscapes, unless you decide on a pc lens.
as far as the 24-70 is concerned i would actually listen to ken rockwell. imo the 1.4 primes are a much better option.
It would appear that our dear friend Gareth is in the "prime-lens" category here. Which to me is all good and dandy, so long as one has the funds in getting them; however, from what you have shared with us regarding your "family" responsibilities these lens are not practical (24, 35, 85 1.4 total cost $5320).
Personally, the lens and the camera combination you have chosen to go with Mike are excellent! You are going to love the result and those you share them with.
As for future lens consideration/purchases, I would throw the yellow flag on what Gareth has said regarding the 24-70mm only "2.8." I love this lens and has served my need, as well as many that have used it for portraits and landscape, to a tee. I hope one day you can get your hands on it and give it a run. I would agree with Gareth on the following: the 14-24mm 2.8 and the SB-700. Own both and are outstanding for what they allow me to accomplish.
Welcome to club and don't be a stranger.....Au revoir.
Posted 1 year ago # -
I just got the Nikon D3100, please advise what is the best setting to start amature shooting
Posted 1 year ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
