My first DSLR - making a good choice

[rpcrowe]

Maybe it might help Mike if someone familiar with Nikon equipment might delineate the differences between the Nikons with and without auto-focus motors in the body. I believe that is one of the limiting factors of some Nikon models. Being a Canon guy, I have never paid attention to what Nikon lens is compatible with which Nikon camera...

[MiniChris]

I would strongly NOT recommend the Nikon D7000 based on my personal experiences with hot pixels, major sensor dust issues, soft focus in every lens I use, and in general, it's just not what I expected for the price. Sorry, Nikon, but you suck beans!

[inkista]

Mike, just a few things to consider. You're definitely looking at the midrange bodies, and if you can easily afford to get a midrange model, that's probably going to get you the best feature/cost ratio, but you need to keep two things in mind.

A battery grip is a relatively inexpensive add-on that can substantially change the weight, balance, and feel in your hand of a smaller model camera. And midrange cameras tend to share sensors/processors with their smaller brethren. Speaking strictly on image, going up the tiers may not get you a lot, if both cameras are in the same sensor/processor generation (e.g., a 600D and a 60D are liable to give you similar image quality. Where the 60D wins out is in features and build quality).

Of the three cameras you're looking at (D90, D7000, 60D), the D7000 is the newest with the latest sensor/processor technology, and will probably give you the best high iso noise performance. The D90 is the oldest.

See Wikipedia tier/generation tables: Canon; Nikon.

Now, the reason a lot of models are out of stock is twofold. The first is probably simple shortages engendered by the tsunami/earthquake in Japan cutting into factory production. But the second is that fall product announcements are liable to be happening within the next three months. While it's not nearly as tightly clustered as in previous years, dSLR bodies tend to get announced in the spring, in the Feb/March timeframe, and in the fall around Sept/Oct. There have been some surprise summer announcements, but this is the way models typically cluster. Whether or not the D90 will see a successor, or if the tier has been completely replaced by the D7000, we're not sure, but fall will probably give us a clue. D3 and D700 successors are also likely, just given the timeline.

On the Canon side of the fence, the 7D is getting long in the tooth, and we seem to be on a yearly new dRebel model, so I'm guessing those two and, if there isn't a huge shakeup along HD video lines, possibly a 1Ds Mark IV (to be followed by a 5D Mk III next year). But these are guesses. There are always surprises in store.

But you do have to know that new models come out every six months, the average product lifespan of a dSLR product is maybe 18 months if you're looking at the entry-level and mid-range crop bodies. And dSLR bodies depreciate the second they're introduced. A D90 body today, new from B&H is $830. When it was introduced, the MSRP was $1000. The 60D MSRPed last year at $1100. You can get one today from B&H for $900.

The absolute best bang for the buck you're likely to get is to go one generation back, used, on the mid-tier. You won't get the newest and shiniest, but you'll get a great feature set for a great price. A Canon 50D is around $700 (or less) used. A D90, used, is about the same.

My advice (and it's hard when you have no camera to begin with, I know) is to get a used camera, or simply wait and see what gets announced, just so you aren't pulling a "D'oh! I shoulda' waited!" moment.

---
Chris: focus motor issue doesn't apply here: both the D7000 and D90 have a focus motor. But essentially, with the two entry-level tiers (the Nikon equivalents of the xxxxD and xxxD lines), the lens has to have the Nikon equivalent of USM (AF-S) in order to autofocus. The lenses are still fully compatible and usable, you just have to manually focus them. For Canon shooters like us, it means we can't recommend that Nikon users get a low-cost 85/1.8 or 100/2 for basketball, or the 100-400 equivalent for birding if the guy is shooting with a D3100 or D5100.

[Colin Southern]

possibly a 1Ds Mark IV

About time too if it is!

[Dizzy]

Chris: Your concerns are duly noted. I've been following your posts about the D7000 issue, and it does sound as if you got a true lemon of a camera. I can certainly understand how you must feel, as I've had a few of those lemons in life, too.

Kathy: Thank you for taking your time to share so much helpful information! I have taken your advice to heart, as you'll read about below.

Went down to Costco and spent considerable time looking over the D7000, and while it was all I had expected it to be, I also came to the conclusion that it was much more camera than I need right now as I am [honestly] completely lacking in any skills to take advantage of the advanced features that body offered over the D90.

No matter where I've looked, the D7000 w/18-105 was about $500 more than than the D90 with the same kit lens, and that did not include any memory card, case, etc. It's a sweet camera, no doubt, but as hard as I tried to talk myself into it, I just couldn't rationalize that extra technology.

Best Buy was across the street, and they had a D90 on display, so, after helping the wife with the shopping we headed over there to get a closer look at it. The D90 feels very much like the D7000, and seems much more appropriate for a rookie like me.

My target budget was still $1500, so I checked B&H and Adorama, and then Amazon. Amazon had the best offer, by far, and was offering a $200 discount on an extra lens when you bought a Nikon camera body or kit that would ship direct from Amazon. Hoping I made a good selection on the extra lens, as I would like to have that 300mm capability for shooting pics of the Bald Eagles, Cormorants, etc. that congregate across the river from our backyard. (I live in a critter paradise, Oh Yes!)

Here's what I ordered:

Nikon D90 12.3MP DX-Format CMOS Digital SLR Camera with 18-105mm f/3.5-5.6G ED AF-S VR DX Nikkor Zoom Lens

Nikon 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G ED IF AF-S VR Nikkor Zoom Lens

Transcend 16 GB Class 10 SDHC Flash Memory Card

AmazonBasics Wireless Remote Control for Nikon D90

Not sure if it will get used, but they were also offering a free Tiffen 67mm UV Protection Filter lens filter, so I had nothing to lose by adding it to the order.

2 day shipping was free, so the total spent was $1506...

I have no doubt that the D90 will be an awesome camera for me to learn on, and perhaps in a couple of years I'll be able to appreciate the capabilities of a D7000 or the like.

In the meanwhile, plan is to shoot lots of pics and have tons of fun learning.

Mike

[RockNGoalStar]

Here's what I ordered:

Nikon D90 12.3MP DX-Format CMOS Digital SLR Camera with 18-105mm f/3.5-5.6G ED AF-S VR DX Nikkor Zoom Lens

Nikon 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G ED IF AF-S VR Nikkor Zoom Lens

I have all of this too and can almost guarantee you won't be disappointed! It took me a while to decide on the 70-300mm but it has surpassed all my expectations and I love it!

Not sure if it will get used, but they were also offering a free Tiffen 67mm UV Protection Filter lens filter, so I had nothing to lose by adding it to the order.

Some people put UV filters on all of their lenses to protect them, some don't. Personally I do and in your case I'd slap it on the 70-300mm as it's the more expensive of the two.

Happy shooting! And I look forward to seeing some of your shots!

[Dizzy]

Hi Tommy,

I had read good things about that 70-300, and that was a big factor in it being the chosen lens to add to the 18-105 kit lens. There's a bit of overlap, but that just makes life more interesting as I can try shooting the same shots with both lenses and with essentially the same settings and see if they appear different. Just more cool stuff to mess with..

Most definitely will not be disappointed with the D90; it has more than enough features, and it'll take me a couple years just to understand them all. Even better, it isn't so complicated that I won't be able to get right out there and start shooting some pics.

Is it Tuesday yet?

[RockNGoalStar]

Mike,

Here's an example of the D90 and 70-300mm form a recent trip. I do not claim to be a good photographer (yet ) but as someone said on another forum when I posted this, he said, "It's difficult to take a bad shot with this camera / lens combo!". While I don't entirely agree with him as I managed to do it! He kinda has a point!

Hopefully this will show you better what I mean...

This female proboscis monkey was quite high up in the trees, and I was standing in a small fibre-glass boat full of tourists rocking the sh*t out of it! Luckily the VR (Vibration Reduction) on this lens is brilliant! IMO.

So this is the pic striaght out of the camera (not a particularly good shot):



And here is the final, cropped, processed image (which I am quite pleased with):



I know you will be happy with this combo! And I can't wait for Tuesday either for you!!!

[inkista]

Mike, happy I could help, and happy new camera!! The 70-300 will be a great addition. I think the only basic (low-cost) lens you may want to consider adding to the two you have is a fast prime lens, like the 35mm f/1.8 or AF-S 50/1.8G, so you'll have available light/portrait capability as well, but that can wait. Always good to learn the gear you've got thoroughly before adding more.

Two words of advice on using the 70-300: it's a great lens, but nearly every lens is at its softest wide open. If you have enough light, stopping it down to f/8 or f/11 is likely to increase the sharpness of the lens. Secondly, there's a rule of thumb that, with good handholding technique, with an unstabilized lens, you want the shutter speed to be 1/focal_length or faster to mitigate camera shake blur. So, for a 300mm lens, that means 1/300s or faster. With VR, you can probably take that down to 1/100s, but if you start seeing softness with the lens at 300mm, chances are good you need to check your shutter speed.

Enjoy!!

[lizzy310]

Going to re-activate this thread because I also have questions about getting a new camera. I have been using the Cannon G10 since it came out, and the quality for a point and shoot is really good. I want to upgrade now because I want to be able to take pictures using different lenses...especially telephoto and macro, and I want to be able to use different filters. I am thinking of either the Nikon D7000 or the Canon 7D. I would appreciate any input anyone has on the differences. I also want to get a lens so I can take pics of things like birds from a distance. It's so disappointing when they are just too far away. I'm going to sign up for some classes at the local college to really learn all the things I need to, but I need the camera first. Then I need to know more about telephoto lenses. There are a gazillion and I really don't know the difference between them. I appreciate any input anyone has.

[Dave Humphries]

Hi Liz,

I am thinking of either the Nikon D7000 or the Canon 7D. I would appreciate any input anyone has on the differences.

This could be tricky, not many have experience of both manufacturers current models.

TBH it probably makes little difference, either will be admirable.

I also want to get a lens so I can take pics of things like birds from a distance.

In both cases, from what I have seen here, 70-300mm is the mass market long telephoto and anything longer is going to cost quite a bit, starting with their respective 100-400mm models.

Will it ever be more than a hobby? and what kind of budget do you have?

[accystan]

Mike:

I, like many others, went through this (Nikon vs. Canon thing) and one day I realized that whichever I chose - the camera would be better than I am. Much better!

I also read some wise words on this site wherein the poster made the point that camera bodies date more quickly than lenses and perhaps your money is better spent on something that you'll use for 5 or 10 years rather than something that will be updated and improved in 2. He/she was referring specifically to digital of course where every few months a better meter, sensor, focussing system etc., etc. is announced. I sometimes think that digitally we're not much beyond the Model T stage.

Enjoy your purchase, Dave D

[amolsan]

Hey Mike,
Just go for D7000 Nikon. Do not think twice. Also, 18-105 is a great lens so go for it too.
Nikkor 35mm 1.8G is a wonderful lens to your kit , and very reasonable.

With this set up you are on man ! Later you may add Nikkor 55-300mm VRII , a great value for money lens.

Have fun and keep shooting.

Amolsan

[lizzy310]

Thanks Dave...
I think I have taken some really good photos at times, possibly would have been good enough to sell with the composition, and all, but I need to learn more and have better equipment. I have a good budget...about $2500. I'm fortunate that I get a trust payment once a year, so that is what I am going to use part of it for. I would like to make it more than a hobby. Going to take classes at my local jc to learn as much as I can. I wil confess that I am a novice and don't really understand all the different lenses and what they mean. Looking at what is out there, I feel totally out of my depth. I just know that I want to be able to take a picture of something that is pretty far away and be able to see it. I photograph birds, and wildlife at times, and it is disappointing when they are too tiny to see clearly, or there is too much noise because I have moved past the range on my camera. Probably a market one will be so much better than what I am using now, that I will be happy with it. Forgive me for my ignorance, but can you explain what 70-300mm means? I also like to do flowers and stuff close up, and my G10 will get really close...like an inch away, and I want to do that with whatever camera I buy so a macro lens is also something important to me.
Going to go look at your slide show now. Thanks so much for responding to this.

[lizzy310]

Dave....looked at your albums. Love your photos. I am truly an amateur, but want to learn as much as I can. Love your sports photos. You truly captured the spirit of the events as well as just getting good pictures. Hope I can do that too. Where I live in Coeur D'Alene ID we have the Iron Man Triathalon qualifier every summer. I hope to be ready next year to get some really great pictures. So far I have been more about landscapes, wildlife and flowers but there are many other things I want to do.

[Dizzy]

Hey Mike,
Just go for D7000 Nikon. Do not think twice. Also, 18-105 is a great lens so go for it too. Nikkor 35mm 1.8G is a wonderful lens to your kit , and very reasonable.
Amolsan

Hi Amolsan: I believe that Liz (lizzy310) is the one about to make a purchase. I made the choice for a D90 about 3-1/2 weeks ago, and am very, very pleased with the camera.

**********

Liz: FWIW, I too went from a point & shoot to the DSLR, and did not choose the D7000 because of 2 reasons.

First was that the cost was about $400 higher, and the camera and basic kit lens package would have taken all of a preset budget. I used that extra $400 to buy a good quality Nikkor 70mm-300mm.

Second reason was that, as I read more and more about the operation of a DSLR, taking images in RAW, processing, and all of the other critical details involved with taking a more advanced step into photography, I realized that the odds were quite high that a beginner at my level wouldn't even be able to appreciate the technical differences between the D7000 and the D90.

I used to do a lot of fishing, and even a bit of guiding here on the river. A client one time asked me what was the difference between a $50 fishing rod and a $500 fishing rod, as both were the same dimensions, line weight rating, action, etc..

Told him that until he can feel the difference, odds are he won't understand the difference, and that a $50 fishing rod would do him a wonderful job. It did, and he was very happy with the fish he caught..

In other words, I got all the camera I can handle (or appreciate) in the Nikon D90, plus extras, and for the same money as would have been spent on the D7000 less the added lens and "goodies".

You might also find this thread helpful:

Basic Accessories - what's needed?

No matter which you choose, be patient with yourself as it's a little bit daunting at first with all the menu's and technical settings we now have to consider in order to get a good picture (not sure I've taken a "good" picture yet.., but every day brings loads of enjoyment while learning..).

Most important is go out and have lots of fun with your new camera!

Mike

[inkista]

This is just me, but given your budget, if you're going the Canon route and buying new, I'd look at going down to the 60D (or possibly a used 50D), rather than the 7D, and throw the extra money towards glass. Birding lenses aren't cheap. Among birding photographers, the general advice is that a 400mm lens is going to be the minimum reach you're going to need, and you'll probably want more (or you'll end up adding a teleconverter). Most of the really fantastic birding shots you see are taken with superteles in the 500mm-800mm range. These are EXPENSIVE. A 400mm lens tends to be in the $1000-$2000 price range, and those are the cheapest superteles. When you start looking at 500mm and longer lenses (Sigma aside), or something faster than f/5.6, the prices will leap up into the $3000-$8000 range.

My recommendation would be to get a $1000 camera or below, and go for a 100-400L (EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM, which is around $1600 new. Bodies come and go--they're updated like most other digital electronics every three to five years and they depreciate like crazy (when a 50D was new, it cost around $1200, three years later, you can get one used in the $700 price range). Your lenses are where the bullk of the money you spend is going to stay with you. Their resale values stay high. In three years, you may only lose $100 (or make a small profit, actually, with the price increases going the way they are) on a 100-400L.

On the Nikon side of the fence, a D90 would be similar to get a 50D on the Canon side of the fence, but lenswise, you're probably going to end up looking at Sigma choices (120-400 OS or the 150-500 OS or 50-500 OS), since Nikon's 80-400 VR is not an AF-S lens, and the complaints are generally about autofocus speed--something you really want if you're going to be shooting flitty little passerines, and Nikon's AF-S supertele choices are going to be well past the $1500 price point.

BTW, 400mm is not magic, and it still won't be close enough. I have the $1100 EF 400mm f/5.6L USM prime lens (no stabilization, no zooming) for birds in flight, and I still crop all the time.

Now, you don't have to start with a four-figure 400mm lens. You can work your way up there gradually via a much smaller and more affordable (~$600) EF 70-300 IS USM (the black non-L version). But at a certain point, if you're really into bird photography, the need for the reach and an ultrasonic focus motor is going to consume you. At least, that's been my experience. I went from the el cheapo EF 75-300 III (non-USM, non-IS version) to my L prime, and I've never looked back.


Canon 50D. EF 400mm f/5.6L USM, iso 800, f/5.6, 1/640s. handheld.
White-Tailed Kite, juvenile.

[Dave Humphries]

Dave....looked at your albums. Love your photos. I am truly an amateur, but want to learn as much as I can. Love your sports photos. You truly captured the spirit of the events as well as just getting good pictures. Hope I can do that too. Where I live in Coeur D'Alene ID we have the Iron Man Triathalon qualifier every summer. I hope to be ready next year to get some really great pictures. So far I have been more about landscapes, wildlife and flowers but there are many other things I want to do.

Hi Lizzy,

Glad you like the pictures thanks.

Perhaps it is my engineering background and always wanting to know how things work, that the thought of you buying anything until you 'understand the lingo' frightens me - you'll be putting a lot of faith in whoeevr you take advice from, I just hope it isn't a high pressure saleman on commission. Although the G10 was a good choice, please don't rush the DSLR and lens decisions.

but can you explain what '70-300mm' means?

OK, this could get confusing because what lenses are labelled and what it means looking through the viewfinder differs. All the bold figures are comparable (to each other and your G10), but not what you'll see in the shops.

The '70-300mm' equates to 105mm to 450mm (when 'converted' to Full Frame figures) while your G10 is 28mm to 140mm (in the same figures). This means the '70-300mm' lens on a D90 or D7000 body will be much better at bringing those distant birds closer, but too 'telephoto' for normal use.

If you got the 18-105mm kit lens (equivalent to 28mm to 157mm) it will be about the same as what you're used to.

However, as you guessed, these won't do the macro, I'd suggest the Nikon '105mm' VR macro as a good compromise for insects or flowers, although it isn't particularly light or cheap. You'll be more than an inch away from the subject, about 6 I think (from end of lens), but that will make something about 3/4 of an inch tall fill your frame. In focal length terms (at 157mm), it'll be a duplicate of what is available with either of the other lenses, except they won't be as bright.

Do ask more questions if anything here doesn't make sense.

Cheers,

[Dave Humphries]

FWIW, I too went from a point & shoot to the DSLR, and did not choose the D7000 because of 2 reasons.

First was that the cost was about $400 higher, and the camera and basic kit lens package would have taken all of a preset budget. I used that extra $400 to buy a good quality Nikkor 70mm-300mm.

Very wise Mike, and I'd given Liz's need for more lenses, I'd recommend her not going overboard on the body either; the D90 will do fine - or the D5100, but that gives less lens choices (the only reason I wish I had gone D90)

Second reason was that, as I read more and more about the operation of a DSLR, taking images in RAW, processing, and all of the other critical details involved with taking a more advanced step into photography, I realized that the odds were quite high that a beginner at my level wouldn't even be able to appreciate the technical differences between the D7000 and the D90.

True, and partly why I didn't stretch to the D90 when I was buying my D5000. Now, two years later, I could appreciate the feel of the D7000 (and I'd like the wider AF lens choices)

But I probably won't, because my D5000 is fine for what I do and another lens (or two) will give more versatility to my picture taking.

Cheers,

[inkista]

One more word of advice: not all 70-300s are the same, even if they have the same focal lengths and max. apertures.

Canon has three lenses that have names that are very similar. Their prices and performance, however, are not.

EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III, less than $200
Consumer-grade lens, really good at being cheap as dirt. Slow to autofocus (no USM), relatively soft at the long end, unstabilized. Limited in what it can do. Good, but not great, and requires some extra care and attention to technique. Small, black, plastic build. The low cost Sigma 70-300 is going to be more similar to this lens than the others. The 75-300 III is a 30-year-old design and came in several flavors, including versions that had USM and IS, so prices will vary accordingly.

EF 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS USM, about $500
Mid-grade lens. Updated design over the 75-300 III, so better optical quality at the 300mm end of the range. Also has a USM focusing motor for faster autofocus, and IS for stabilization so that you can use slower shutter speeds than 1/focal_length and not see camera shake blur in the image. Small, black, plastic build.

EF 70-300 f/4-5.6L IS USM, about $1500.
Pro-grade lens. Updated design over the 70-300 non-L. Has 2 UD elements over the non-L's single UD element. Better image quality and sharpness. Also has USM and IS. Focus limit switch to help speed up autofocus for distant subjects. White, metal build. While the smallest of the white Ls, it's appreciably larger/heavier than the other two lenses.

Individual lenses have individual characters. And that little "L" can mean a big difference in price.