I never said the D7000 would be obsolete :S
To clear it up (not sounding like an ass or anything), I think it would be wise to start off with a very basic DSLR to get to know the features and how things work, etc, instead of choosing a camera purely because of features.
Like what
samtom5 posted:
"It will last you a long long time. I outgrew the D3000 in a few months, but the D90 is excellent. It works great in low light and the controls are much better than most of the other entry level bodies." - That is what I meant when I used the term upgrade.
In my case, I upgraded to the D90 for a few reasons, more focus points, better ergonomics and better ISO performance, most of my work is handheld at night.
Hope that clears things up~
But handheld at night isn't going to change the camera requirements one bit- you need good high-ISO from out of the gate-- the lowest-end models today are heads above the highest end models 30 years ago- and we've got a large history of great images from then and before-- so again I dispute the "growing out of" theory. There are people who've made award-winning photographs with a D40- IMO most "growing out of" is "I'd rather buy something than learn better technique." If your argument for an upgrade is that you need high-ISO and more AF points, then I'd argue that if that's what your preferred type of photography needs, then you'll spend much less money purchasing a camera that has those features than not "choosing a camera purely because of features."
The last time I shot family portraits for my business partner, I used his D40 and kit lens- the lights and modifiers I brought made a lot more difference than not using my professional Nikon body. He shot one of his step-daughter's track meet a few years ago with my 80-400VR, which is one of the few AF-D lenses released since the advent of AF-S- and he had few problems manually focusing despite being a complete newbie and having one of the low-end bodies which are nowhere near as easy to manually focus as the pro bodies.
First off, thanks to all for their thoughts!
I did not think / realize about the rotating LCD not being very useful, thanks for the particular thoughts on that.
So, about the lenses , since I will be buying new ones and someone mentioned certain cameras do not do something that other cameras do I am confused about that....oh below is the quote;
"Given the OP's needs, I would say the lack of support for AF-D lenses should be a deal breaker and would recommend staying away from the following bodies: D40, D40x, D60, D3000, D3100, D5000, and the soon-to-be-released D5100."
So you know that the soon to be released D5100 will not support AF-D lenses, or am I confused here?
The rockwell site is full of info...thanks.
So, is there a certain model that lends itself to a nubie for learning?...or are they all ~about the same? ...in the menu regard?
thanks everyone!
ledzeppelin
The lower-end Nikon bodies won't autofocus with all lenses designed between 1986 and 1996- and some lenses up to about 2000. They need lenses designated AF-S or AF-I for Nikon and similar lenses from 3rd party manufacturers to autofocus. The biggest impact for most people seems to be that the ridiculously cheap 50mm f/1.8 lens is manual focus only on these bodies. For more serious shooters (that is "I want a decent lens that's more inexpensive than the current high-end stuff" rather than "I want a cheap fast lens,") this means the 35-70 AF-D, 80-200 AF-D and 300mm f/4 EDIF are off-limits[1]. All of the mid-level and above bodies contain a "screwdriver focus motor" that WILL autofocus with these lenses. Unfortunately for most, the mid-level bodies are generally slower to AF with these lenses, so for high-speed action the best solution is to get a pro body with its higher battery voltage- but that means real money.
Oddly enough- the entry-level bodies will all use pre-AI (1959-1977) lenses as-is, where the mid to pro-level bodies aren't able to do so without having someone convert the lens to AI.
Take Ken Rockwell's site with a grain of salt- he's been known to write "reviews" of equipment he's never touched, and while there's some good information there, there's also a bunch of opinion not well-labeled as such. I also happen to think he's not that good a photographer, who doesn't really challenge any of his equipment with hard use. Thom Hogan's site bythom.com is much, much more reliable, accurate and the opinions are those of a seasoned professional.
Now, on the subject of learning - there is no model that lends itself to learning more than the other. They are all pretty similar. If you know D90, you can use a D3X with little bother.
Again, I'd argue that the higher-density pixel bodies aren't necessarily "little bother" for people who don't have good discipline and good glass. When the D2x came out, sites like DP Review were full of blurry shots- and I'd argue the D7000 has the same problem, as to some extent does the D3x[2]. When proper technique is used, they produce stellar images, but they require technique and these days, people would rather not use tripods, learn to time shots, practice and do "work," they'd rather "upgrade" and bump up the ISO and shoot sloppily.
I like how folks are steering a beginner user away from beginner's/entry-level cameras. This is why I don't think Nikon is a good platform to invest into if you're just starting out and staying within a tight budget is your primary concern. You've got to purchase a mid-range body to get AF-D compatibility and access to inexpensive glass... and in the end you might just be confused by all the other features that come on a D90/D7000. Why Nikon doesn't have motors in their lower end bodies is beyond me. I doubt it would raise the price that much.
First off, the only "inexpensive" glass is the 50mm f/1.8- everything else is less expensive, but certainly not inexpensive (and used lens prices on all the good lenses have gone *up* in the last 6 or so years.)
Secondly, until the D40, SLR users averaged 1.5 lenses per camera. Nikon's raised the average to 1.8- however a lot of that is with things like the 18-200 superzoom which is AF-S or the 35mm f/1.8 DX- also AF-S which gives a 50mm angle of view on an APS-C DSLR or two-lens kits. So, we can say for certain that the vast majority of entry-level DSLR users will never, ever mount an AF-D lens onto their camera- so in terms of pure monetary value, Nikon saves literally millions of dollars by not including the focus motor on the body. That's money that can be put into R&D, marketing or shareholder's pockets.
Paul
[1] I own all three- the 80-200 just because I don't shoot enough in that range to make the purchase of a 70-200 worth-while. The 300/4 because I got a bargain on one 12+ years ago, and the 35-70 because I cheaped out- of the three, the last is the one I'd replace with a new lens first because it's my most used lens studio-wise and a new 24-70 is optically supurb.
[2] The pixel density on the D3x isn't as dense as the D2x or D7000, both of which require more care when shooting. All three are dense enough that you'll observe the effects of poor lens sharpness and diffraction much sooner than with a lower pixel density body.
