Help to choose cam

[Cowseye]

why don't go for FF, D700 straight. Difference is not that much.
I have the same sentiment as yours, "there are some ergonomic issues which I feel is a small deterrence". (IMHO).

There are lots to consider between FX and DX. FX may not meet what DX can give (I'm not talking about weight here). Getting a lesser body might have stronger reasons than getting a greater body.

 

[erictan8888]

if you are only looking at DX body and do not mind the small buffer of the D7000 (you CANNOT take a lot of shots at continuous mode)
then D7000 would be the better choice here....
given that you mentioned that you do mostly macro and landscape, then D7000 is the one

 

[zane80]

Why not open your to more choices and include the 5100?

Then you might get a better lens, after all, lens last longer than bodies.

 

[bitdriver]

I appreciate all the suggestions and your insights on different cam models.

Since I'm not really keen (yet, or not really keen at all) to go FF, so I've limited my options to DX. FF cam is quite an investment already and is a bit overkill for my needs. Coming from a 50D user, I decided to give a try on either a D7K or D90. I thought these models might be just perfect for travelling too. Light enough to give way for packing extra lens; not too light to give a nice balance with a (not so) big lens when handheld.

Upgrading is not for me right now since this would be my first Nikon setup and I need to get a "feel" of the controls and interfaces first (not to mention the myriads of codes on Nikon products like the "G" or "D" on the lens codes). Although when looking at D7K, it's definitely better than my previous cam and is pretty much like an upgrade already.

@zane80, i'll try sampling the 5100 too, though I find the weight too light already for me. I can imagine it'll be smaller than D90. not sure. but thanks for your suggestion.

 

[bitdriver]

I appreciate all the suggestions and your insights on different cam models.

Since I'm not really keen (yet, or not really keen at all) to go FF, so I've limited my options to DX. FF cam is quite an investment already and is a bit overkill for my needs. Coming from a 50D user, I decided to give a try on either a D7K or D90. I thought these models might be just perfect for travelling too. Light enough to give way for packing extra lens; not too light to give a nice balance with a (not so) big lens when handheld.

Upgrading is not for me right now since this would be my first Nikon setup and I need to get a "feel" of the controls and interfaces first (not to mention the myriads of codes on Nikon products like the "G" or "D" on the lens codes). Although when looking at D7K, it's definitely better than my previous cam and is pretty much like an upgrade already.

@zane80, i'll try sampling the 5100 too, though I find the weight too light already for me. I can imagine it'll be smaller than D90. not sure. but thanks for your suggestion.

 

[kriegsketten]

In deciding between D90 or D7000 (and nothing else). Go for D7K... it can use a greater range of Nikkor lenses (including some legacy AiS) like D300S. The ISO is at least 1 stop better than D90/D300S - good for low light with fast action.

Although not official and denied on some websites, D7K is essentially a replacement model for D90 - don't think there will be a D90S or otherwise. However, having said that, D7K is a bigger jump from D90 so it will be a while before D90 completely disappears. D7k's settings are a bit more overwhelming, but it will last you longer than D90 once you master its controls. Take care of that loosey Mode knob and you'll be fine.

 

[zane80]

A good solution is to download all the online manuals from Nikon and take your time to read them.

 

[ExplorerZ]

since u are "upgrading" from 50d, go for the d7k. imho d90 is a slightly below the level of the 50d.

 

[TheChef]

In my opinion, a used D50 or D70 is all you need. You can use the money saved to buy a macro lens and a wide prime to further your photography interest.

 

[sf_kang]

TS is interested in shooting landscape n macro, and wanna switch to nikon. Many comments about body specs n body comparisons. Nobody asks about what lens he has in mind. If he chooses to buy say used AF-D lenses, he'll hv to stay w D90 or D300. If he is prepared to invest in the newer AF-S lenses, then any body will do. Nikon has lenses for landscape n macro in both AF-D n AF-S.

 

[kriegsketten]

TS is interested in shooting landscape n macro, and wanna switch to nikon. Many comments about body specs n body comparisons. Nobody asks about what lens he has in mind. If he chooses to buy say used AF-D lenses, he'll hv to stay w D90 or D300. If he is prepared to invest in the newer AF-S lenses, then any body will do. Nikon has lenses for landscape n macro in both AF-D n AF-S.

That's probably because he is new to the Nikkor line-up. Too much info may cause more confusion than what was asked for.

No point investing in all AF-S lenses - not all of them are superb anyway.

I wouldn't seriously recommend entry level models to TS, strictly because they are only limited to AF-S lenses. I doubt Nikon wants anyone who started with the entry-level DSLRs to move up to the heavier and professional-grade lenses eventually, even if it's possible. In my opinion, (which may not be true) the entry-levels are there because they are cheaper to produce (without the in-body motor) and easier to package with the kit lenses which are AF-S types in the first place. And most newbies who just wants to dabble with DSLRs probably get stuck to the kit lens for a very long time.

 

[nic67]

I suggest the D7k, as you know the D90 is probably on its way out already, despite the fact that Nikon denies the D7k is not the D90 replacement. The D7k that I held at the shop feels much more refined as a mid-level camera, compared to the D80/90. The D300s is also probably on its way too, as it's basically a D300 with a Video function, that in itself is also a 3 year old design. Thus, in all truth and function, I feel the D7k is the way to go imho.

 

[skyhawk88]

i will highly encourage the d7k. because when fitted w small lens its a very handy package without the battery grip. Picture quality is also very good note that it has a natural iso of 100 unlike the older d300s (however at iso 100 or 200 the IQ is more or less very good ardy) and also i find that its 39 AF point makes it very versatile. I found the d90 AF points to be quite a limitation when tracking a fast subject. (saying this also means the lens af speed needs to be fast as well)

 

[bethpapa74]

As a previous d7000 user myself ... no doubt its a good cam but if given another chance, i will choose D300s anytime.
Reason being
1) 51 vs 39 AF pt ...
2) build, weight, ergonomically d300s is much superior

try fitting a n24-70 f2.8 on d7000 and you will know what i mean ...

 

[skyhawk88]

Haha actually i moved from a d300s to d7k. I had a d90 then went for a d300s because i loved the feel of the camera. But i in the end went back for a d7k (didnt lose money in swopping d300s for d7k) because i did not need the speed of the camera. And although people might say that the imagine quality does not really matter, it matters quite alot to me.
The d300s was only usable pass iso1600 which really threw me off it. I understand how a 24-70 feels on a d300s, it feels made for it but when i use a 24-70 on a d7k with battery grip its equally nice to use yup. I also felt that sd cards were much more convenient for me to use, and nowadays high speed sd cards make the gap between CF and SD not that big anymore. I just love the convenience of the SD card fitting into my laptop. And yes to the 51 Af, that was pretty shiok to use however i found the jump from 39 AF pts to 51 pts not as great as the jump from 11 to 39 pts from a d90.
The thing is the d90 when u tracking an object if it lies in between the points u will find that the camera gets confused sometimes. Thats why i found 39 af pts onwards to be useful because the graduation between each point was much smaller. But at the end of the day i would advise getting a cheaper body and at least a 17-55 f2.8 for dx bodies if not the 24-70. No point having a good body with lousy lens. You are better off with a d90 and decent lens

 

[bethpapa74]

Haha actually i moved from a d300s to d7k. I had a d90 then went for a d300s because i loved the feel of the camera. But i in the end went back for a d7k (didnt lose money in swopping d300s for d7k) because i did not need the speed of the camera. And although people might say that the imagine quality does not really matter, it matters quite alot to me.
The d300s was only usable pass iso1600 which really threw me off it. I understand how a 24-70 feels on a d300s, it feels made for it but when i use a 24-70 on a d7k with battery grip its equally nice to use yup. I also felt that sd cards were much more convenient for me to use, and nowadays high speed sd cards make the gap between CF and SD not that big anymore. I just love the convenience of the SD card fitting into my laptop. And yes to the 51 Af, that was pretty shiok to use however i found the jump from 39 AF pts to 51 pts not as great as the jump from 11 to 39 pts from a d90.
The thing is the d90 when u tracking an object if it lies in between the points u will find that the camera gets confused sometimes. Thats why i found 39 af pts onwards to be useful because the graduation between each point was much smaller. But at the end of the day i would advise getting a cheaper body and at least a 17-55 f2.8 for dx bodies if not the 24-70. No point having a good body with lousy lens. You are better off with a d90 and decent lens

wah ... from d300s to d7000 .. that consider an up/downgrade har??
but true la, d7000 is newer and smarter ... you wun go wrong buying the latest gadget
Yes, I agree ... the kit lens is kinda plain, no point buying a semi-pro body and use a $300 lens ... in the end, your IQ will feel ''discounted''.
The n17-55 is a good dx lens, buy it only if you intend to stick with dx for a longtime.
I would suggest 3rd party mid range zoom or save up to buy a n24-70.
one thing to notice ... the n24-70 has no VR, hence you will need a body with high iso capability to compensate for faster shutter speed, in order to avoid image blur.

for me, i sold my d7000, top up money to buy a near 3 years old body ... the d700

 

[bitdriver]

That's probably because he is new to the Nikkor line-up. Too much info may cause more confusion than what was asked for.

No point investing in all AF-S lenses - not all of them are superb anyway.
...

Exactly! And I try my best not to get inflicted w/ BBB virus.

I've been watching video reviews about the D7K and reading up forums and articles and I must say, this body is definitely more than enough to my needs. Good ISO handling, plenty of AF points (39 vs. 9 of 50D, which is not necessarily needed for landscape, but may be useful for macro), light enough for travelling...

And about the lenses, I'm pairing this up initially w/ a Nikkor 12-24mm f/4 and a Nikkor 35mm f/1.8 (or, maybe, a wider Sigma prime), which both lenses have good reviews so far. I pick the 12-24mm for its fixed aperture, and reviews are saying its IQ is better than the 10-24. The 35mm for indoors. For casual shoots, either lens I can use.

Anyway, I'm already poised to buy my first Nikon gear later after work. It's gonna be a D7K for sure, no changing of mind now lol I need to start shooting soon coz been a while since I held a camera and the withdrawal symptoms have started to show!

 

[bitdriver]

I appreciate all the suggestions and your insights on different cam models.
...
@zane80, i'll try sampling the 5100 too, though I find the weight too light already for me. I can imagine it'll be smaller than D90. not sure. but thanks for your suggestion.

I just realized the 5100 isn't even out in SG yet. Just shows my noob-ility :bsmilie:

 

[Alan Chan]

just to sidetrack abit on the note of FF for TS.

1) FF is better for landscape as its wider, and no distortion coz by lens. eg 18mm on DX = 28mm on FX. pls correct me if i'm wrong.

2) FF can also be useful for marco of insects and plants in low light due its ISO. again, pls correct me if i'm wrong.

my 3cts.

 

[daredevil123]

just to sidetrack abit on the note of FF for TS.

1) FF is better for landscape as its wider, and no distortion coz by lens. eg 18mm on DX = 28mm on FX. pls correct me if i'm wrong.

2) FF can also be useful for marco of insects and plants in low light due its ISO. again, pls correct me if i'm wrong.

my 3cts.

For DX, same wideness can also be attained by getting lenses appropriate for that field of view. And dx lenses are cheaper to boot, not to mention the selection for dx lenses is actually wider.

For macro, dx is more useful due to the crop factor. It gives the impression of more magnification on the same focal lengths and working distance. As for high iso performance, most macro shooters will stop down for maximum dof and many will use artificial lighting.

Fx will be advantageous in low light shooting, recoverable dynamic range as well as thinner dof for same lenses with the same field of view.