Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

I want a Nikon D7000

dime21 said:
Ok, now I'm really confused. :p Keeping in mind that I'm a complete camera and photography newbie, yes, I was actually looking at this 18-200 lens because it seemed so flexible.

As for what I want to shoot, maybe it's a lame answer, but well, everything. I want to do close-ups, far distances, stills, things in motion, day shots, and night shots. Is that vague enough? :D Oh and I really want to take some cool DOF pics, that's high on my list.

Is the 18-200 is a good newbie lens that will deliver reasonably good performance in most scenarios? My thinking was to get this one to start, and then once I've gained enough experience to appreciate the difference, to go and get some more special purpose lenses. Good idea, or no?
Click to expand...
The real issues with the DX 18-200mm VR II that it has some distortion (mostly easy to correct in software) and that it's fairly slow (f/5.6 from about 100mm to 200mm) but both of those caveats are the price to be paid for a super zoom lens like this.

The big advantage is that, as a new dSLR user, you'll be able to learn a good bit about what focal lengths you are inclined to use and that you'll have a wide range to start with, and without having to change lenses. Though you'll probably find you take a lot of shots at 18mm and 200mm, at least at first. You can to back later and look at the EXIF data from your shots to see which focal lengths seem to get the most use -- and which ones tend to "work" for you.

IMO, you could do a lot worse than to start with the 18-200mm VR II and use that $250 rebate toward a faster prime like the 35mm f/2 or maybe the 35mm f/1.8 DX for low light/indoor shooting. And, if you decide to upgrade later, you'll be able to get a good chunk of the cost of those lenses back (which isn't as true for the camera body).

Good luck on whatever you decide.
 
Some 18-200mm pros and cons

Pros:
  • Very versatile - a decent leave-it-on-the-camera-much-of-the-time lens
  • Image stabilization
  • Decent wide angle
  • Decent telephoto
  • Ok close-ups (not really what would be called macro though)
  • Pretty good control of depth of field - if you zoom to 200mm, you can get that shallow depth of field that I think you were referring to
  • Pretty sharp (but see cons)
  • Pretty quick focus (but see cons)
  • Good manual focus over-ride
Cons:
  • Not the sharpest as the best lenses at any given focal length, but especially for critical sharpness at close to 200mm
  • Not the fastest lens for autofocus
  • Not a wide aperture lens, so less capable in low light (but not so bad with cameras with good high ISO), and
  • not very good shallow depth of field at shorter focal lengths
  • Lens creep
  • So-so bokeh
  • Distortion at wide angle, especially of brick walls or horizons near the edges.

I highly recommend this lens if you want a single lens that does a lot well, and are less in need of something that is technically the best at anything specific.
 
Dan, I agree with what you said. The 18-200 is a good compromise for many things. I do miss having anything over 85mm for quite a few moments - hence why I'm selling a kidney at this very moment to grab a 70-200. And yes, the 35 f1.8 is actually better; it's newer with ultrasonic motor and much faster AF. This is probably the better buy today.

One thing I thought would be fair to say:
- I Love primes for their sharpness and faster speed afforded by it.
- Great primes are cheap (check the 35 f2 or 50 f1.8)
- The 35mm practically lives on my body - bias is not out of the question. :p

The speed is a big factor. The 35mm f2 has been my fastest lens for a while, and I used to do some event photography indoors and in very dark areas. So the extra speed, combined with the size really helped me on my old D70s which has horrible noise at upper ISOs.

Since you're getting a D7000 with much better ISO capabilities, you can push the ISO and still work in those lights if you need to, even with f3.5-4.5 in the 18-200.
 
Last edited:
I know everyone loves the D7000, but I'm not so sure I'm such a big fan of it now. I just shot the 12 Hours of Sebring with it last week and I really didn't care a lot for the feel and handling, not to mention it doesn't have a very big buffer for continuous mode. I also prefer the D200's shooting/settings banks over the U1/U2 modes of the D7000.

My D200 feels much better to shoot with. I'm considering selling my D7000 and either getting a D300s or waiting for the D400.
 
5557617330_04a5b99b0d_z.jpg


What's not to like?
 
Ryan1524 said:
The 35mm is very small, and highly versatile with great image quality for the price. Especially since this is OP's first DSLR, I thought it'd be a good start lens. It forces you to think of composition and placement instead of relying on zoom. Forcing people to walk around allows them to see different angles and perspectives.
Click to expand...

There is nothing stopping someone from learning about composition with a zoom lens. In fact, it may even be more instructive to do so because you can also see how perspective changes with focal length, something you cannot do with a fixed focal length prime. Composition and perspective are two different things, and you can only vary one with a prime.

Besides, if someone doesn't have the discipline to learn about composition with a zoom by not turning the ring, what makes you think they will have the discipline to maneuver and get the composition right every time with a prime?

bottom line is, it's up to the photographer and not the gear. I never was convinced by the "primes force you to learn about composition" argument.

Ruahrc
 
Ruahrc said:
bottom line is, it's up to the photographer and not the gear. I never was convinced by the "primes force you to learn about composition" argument.

Ruahrc
Click to expand...

I don't think primes force you to learn about composition, but they do force you to understand perspective.

at least for me, once i got my 50mm, my use of the zoom improved b/c i had gotten used to moving my feet for perspective instead of picking a spot and zooming in on the subject.
 
the reason mey also be that many people rather buy the kits that only the body so thats why there isn't that many bodies in stock
 
RaceTripper said:
I know everyone loves the D7000, but I'm not so sure I'm such a big fan of it now. I just shot the 12 Hours of Sebring with it last week and I really didn't care a lot for the feel and handling, not to mention it doesn't have a very big buffer for continuous mode. I also prefer the D200's shooting/settings banks over the U1/U2 modes of the D7000.

My D200 feels much better to shoot with. I'm considering selling my D7000 and either getting a D300s or waiting for the D400.
Click to expand...

I can see lots of D200/300 users saying that.

I just picked up the D7000 after being the in D2xs/D3 camp for years. It's tiny and the grip was a necessity. I love the changes it brings over the D80, which I also use from time to time, but as far as an all day camera. . . . . I'd take the either the D700 or D3 series any day.

My knuckles rub up against the lens barrel constantly.

That's not to say that I don't love the D7000 though. It is by far the best DX cam Nikon has made to date in IQ/features/build quality/and versatility.
 
Digital Skunk said:
I can see lots of D200/300 users saying that.

I just picked up the D7000 after being the in D2xs/D3 camp for years. It's tiny and the grip was a necessity. I love the changes it brings over the D80, which I also use from time to time, but as far as an all day camera. . . . . I'd take the either the D700 or D3 series any day.

My knuckles rub up against the lens barrel constantly.

That's not to say that I don't love the D7000 though. It is by far the best DX cam Nikon has made to date in IQ/features/build quality/and versatility.
Click to expand...
I may end up getting a D400 early next year. By then I may be able to afford to just keep the D7000. Then the D400 would be my panning camera, with a 70-200/2.8 VR. The D200 and D7000 would then do duty mounted with 12-24/4 and 24-120/4 VR lenses. I guess if I can carry two bodies and three lenses, I can just add another body into the mix and not have to worry about changing lenses, except when I switch from the 70-200 to a longer prime.

But yeah, the D7000 isn't a very comfortable nor intuitive camera to use.
 
Eaton Photos said:
Whatever you do, do not Impulse Buy. Buying on Impulse usually has negative consequences on your check book. :rolleyes:

If you do some research, you will find the Body Only version of the D7000 "In Stock", at several retailers: http://robertscamera.com/d7000-body-only.html?___store=default&___store=default

FYI, Roberts & Murphy's are both extremely reputable retailer's. Price & Value wise, Robert's is comparable to B&H, Adorama, Beach Camera, Samy's, and a few other Major camera retailers. Robert's is based in "Indianapolis, IN", and has Awesome Customer Service. I have spent quite a few $$$ with Roberts, and have had nothing but positive experiences each time I buy gear/ equipment.
Click to expand...

Thanks for sharing info about Roberts Camera. I couldn't find a D7000 (body only) at any of the places I've used in the past. After calling to be sure the website was correct about it being in stock I was told they received a few bodies and kits just days ago. I placed the order online and should have it soon.

Thanks again! :)

Normally I wouldn't bring up an older thread but this may help some looking for a D7000.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back