D7000

D

delboyfishing

Messages
12
Name
derek
Edit My Images
Yes
Would you buy a Nikon D7000 with Tamron 18-270 f/3.5-6.3 Di II VC PZD £1399.95
or
Nikon d7000 with 18-105 vr ,50 f/1.8 and remote £1200

Thanks

Derek
 
Option 2, but really it's not a question someone can answer for you.

It depends a lot on what you want to shoot. What sort of camera do you own at the moment? What are it's biggest shortcomings in your eyes?
 
I find both too expensive. You can get the camera for 800 (refurbed from cameraworld) or even cheaper if you try a bit and I wouldn't really pair a camera like that to the 18-270, it will need a better lens to shine.

The other offer is also kinda expensive but at least you get a good optically lens in the deal.

If I were you I'd try and find the D7000 either body only or on a very good price as kit with the 18-105 but I'd make sure to pair it with at least a 16-85 if you want the range, or even better something like a 17-50 Tamron. Much better optically than the 18-105.

For whatever is worth I bought a D7000 today refurbished for 650, I am pairing it with a Nikon 12-24, a 35mm and 50mm 1.8 a 17-50 Tamron and a 50-150 Sigma.
 
I wouldn't buy either option, but really only you know what you want and what your style of shooting is. Without stating that, it will be guess work.
 
vrapan said:
I find both too expensive. You can get the camera for 800 (refurbed from cameraworld) or even cheaper if you try a bit and I wouldn't really pair a camera like that to the 18-270, it will need a better lens to shine.

The other offer is also kinda expensive but at least you get a good optically lens in the deal.

If I were you I'd try and find the D7000 either body only or on a very good price as kit with the 18-105 but I'd make sure to pair it with at least a 16-85 if you want the range, or even better something like a 17-50 Tamron. Much better optically than the 18-105.

For whatever is worth I bought a D7000 today refurbished for 650, I am pairing it with a Nikon 12-24, a 35mm and 50mm 1.8 a 17-50 Tamron and a 50-150 Sigma.
Click to expand...

are you allowed to say on here where you found a great refurb deal?

I'm interested in a D90, wondering if they also have one of those
 
delboyfishing said:
Would you buy a Nikon D7000 with Tamron 18-270 f/3.5-6.3 Di II VC PZD £1399.95
or
Nikon d7000 with 18-105 vr ,50 f/1.8 and remote £1200

Thanks

Derek
Click to expand...

Nope



I'd spend more on lenses, less on the body
 
Not had dslr for about 3 years, going to join photography club local to me.Looking at landscapes,portraits and some wildlife (kingfishers) (foxes).Budget will be about £1400 -£1500 .Have 2 bags ,3 tripods ,2 monopods from last time.
 
Might I suggest maybe a D90 (£540 body only new, or even cheaper second hand), which would leave you about £1k to plough into a good telephoto lens for the wildlife (possibly with a teleconverter) and a wide-angle for the landscapes. The shorter end of a telephoto would probably cover portraits nicely.
 
delboyfishing said:
D90 bit old in the teeth now so i,ve read like feel of 7000 and the new sensor

Thanks any way
Click to expand...

The sensor gains over the D90 mainly come from the low light performance, something that has no effect on what you want to shoot. Newer doesn't necesssarily mean that the D90 won't still be an excellent performer for what you want, and having the D7000 and a worse lens over a D90 and a better set of lenses (especially considering that for your applications, the D90 will be excellent) is not a great idea. But up to you...
 
delboyfishing said:
D90 bit old in the teeth now so i,ve read like feel of 7000 and the new sensor

Thanks any way
Click to expand...

was exactly my reasoning. Couldnt see the point in spending so much money on albeit a good camera it is an end of line model. Than and the d7000 is exactly the same cost as my d70 was when it first came out.

id rather buy at the beginning of a products life than at the end.
 
delboyfishing said:
D90 bit old in the teeth now so i,ve read like feel of 7000 and the new sensor

Thanks any way
Click to expand...

The D90 might be a bit old in the tooth, but I've not yet come across a situation where the D7000 would leave the D90 for dead. Seriously the D90 still competes despite it's age.
 
^ and this is coming from someone who owns both cameras. Who cares whether the product is at the start or the end of the life cycle? For the price, and for the features it offers, the D90 is still a competitive and logical choice for many people - where they need a good performing prosumer body for anything other than very low light situations (like this one). Being older doesn't mean being obsolete at all.
 
blimey isnt there a sensitive bunch on here. Almost sounds like justifying their own purchases or green envy. Nobody said it is a bad camera, but afterall the op wants a d7000 obviously has the money for it like many others and is happy about that. What is the big deal. Or perhaps should he get fil, that still works too.
 
dejongj said:
blimey isnt there a sensitive bunch on here. Almost sounds like justifying their own purchases or green envy. Nobody said it is a bad camera, but afterall the op wants a d7000 obviously has the money for it like many others and is happy about that. What is the big deal. Or perhaps should he get fil, that still works too.
Click to expand...

All I'm trying to do is argue the case for the D90, because in my personal opinion the reasons why Derek is ruling it out to get the D7000 are slightly flawed. This is a discussion forum after all, and it's not against the rules or even conventions to suggest possible alternatives - if I was asking about equipment for a certain task, I'd actually quite appreciate it if someone believed that there was another possible option, and validated that with reasons and explanations. It is his own money, feel free to go and buy the D7k tomorrow and you'll be very very pleased! But that doesn't necessarily mean there aren't other good options for the task to be fulfilled.

Justifying my own purchase? This is the best bit, I own a D7000 :lol: :thumbs: - but nice try I guess :D

And as a frequent poster on the Talk Film & Conventional forum, I'd happily agree with your sarcastic comment - some of the best landscape, portrait and wildlife photography in the world has been shot on film. And the telephoto lenses would probably be significantly cheaper... but I digress.
 
Thanks for all the comments.Didn't mean to start a heavy debate.
Also thinking secondhand 18-70 nikon coupled with a 70-300 vr with the 7000

Wife says I can have another lens next year.
 
glass > body

I'm not especially familiar with nikons lineup but surely a £500 body will leave you money for some f2.8 zooms?

Pretty sure that'd kick the arse of a newer body with a kit lens and a consumer zoom?
 
freecom2 said:
All I'm trying to do is argue the case for the D90, because in my personal opinion the reasons why Derek is ruling it out to get the D7000 are slightly flawed. This is a discussion forum after all, and it's not against the rules or even conventions to suggest possible alternatives - if I was asking about equipment for a certain task, I'd actually quite appreciate it if someone believed that there was another possible option, and validated that with reasons and explanations. It is his own money, feel free to go and buy the D7k tomorrow and you'll be very very pleased! But that doesn't necessarily mean there aren't other good options for the task to be fulfilled.
Click to expand...

I started another thread as I was considering a 7000 or the 5100. Got some great replies and some suggested the D90. I went to try all three and now I'm after a D90 :) So I definately appreciate all and any information offered by you guys besause I have a lot to learn.
Steve
 
This is the last time I'll even suggest a D90, but I agree with Nano.

Let's spec something based on some second hand threads here, since it sounds like you are open to the idea of second hand kit. I appreciate you can't see these threads, but maybe it will be of use once you hit the magic 100 post mark, but to be honest the content isn't that important, just the price of the kit. Firstly a lightly used D90, let's put it at £400. Then, say round up to £600, the Nikon 80-200 f/2.8, to cover portraits and wildlife. On a D90, that would give an equivalent 35mm focal length to 300mm, which is hopefully long enough. Now, £500 to cover the rest, so how about a walkabout zoom lens? The highly reputable Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 for £200.

So for £1,200 you have an excellent camera body, f/2.8 lenses that cover 17-50 and 80-200 (and to top it off, the 80-200 was the top end professional lens in the Nikon line-up for years - it was the go-to lens for that focal length range), and that leaves you £300 to enjoy, buy a bag/tripod/memory cards, or you could even buy a "nifty fifty" 50mm f/1.8 for another £100, so you could have a prime lens for low light conditions where the f/2.8 lenses don't cut it. That still leaves you £200 in the kitty, and in my opinion, a far better combination than a D7000 + 18-70 + 70-300. If the 80-200 wasn't long enough for your wildlife stuff, you could then buy a teleconverter to give your lens a longer focal length.

I'll also spec you a D7000 combination since I might be trying to push a lost cause here, but you could still have those two pieces of glass and a D7000 body (there's a refurbished one on CameraWorld for £800), so £800+£600+£200 pushes you slightly over budget, but that would get you great glass and the body you want? If that was too painful for your wallet, then you could drop the 80-200 and buy a new 70-300 (£360), which would leave you with plenty of change - albeit, IMO, a worse telephoto lens by far.

That's very nice to hear Steve, even if I didn't personally make any contribution to that thread - hope you find a nice D90!
 
Last edited:
Hi freecom2
I'm short of the magic number too otherwise I would be getting a used D90 from the classifieds here (hopefully) but I'm 50 posts short and I am not that knowledgeable that I'll have enough to say on another 50 posts before I get to buy my 90
Steve

PS you sold me on the costings of the 90 and the 7000 in your post. Now where can I find some extra cash for those lenses you reccommend
thanks once more:)
 
D40 Guy said:
Hi freecom2
I'm short of the magic number too otherwise I would be getting a used D90 from the classifieds here (hopefully) but I'm 50 posts short and I am not that knowledgeable that I'll have enough to say on another 50 posts before I get to buy my 90
Steve

PS you sold me on the costings of the 90 and the 7000 in your post. Now where can I find some extra cash for those lenses you reccommend
thanks once more:)
Click to expand...

I'm sure you'll be at 100 before you know it, I shot past before I'd even realised (then again, evidently, I appear to have the gift of posting a tad too much). There's plenty to contribute to in the forum!

Whilst photography is an expensive hobby, there's some serious glass that can be had for relatively cheap (we're all broke, so I use that term sparingly). It's all about knowing and hunting down those offers.
 
Depending on what kind of wildlife stuff you do a 50-150 Sigma might just about cut it and it will save you 250 from the 80-200 plus a fair amount of bulk :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top