Nikon D7000 - body only

[Anubis]

Anyone know of a store that actually has one in stock? seems all the major online stores are sold out with no date on when they are getting more. I really dont want or need the lens that comes with the kit and thus don't want to pay for it

 

[Dubb]

I think the body only setups just started shipping...so it might be a bit of a wait as they go through pre-orders.

best bet would be to call your local camera stores and Best buys.

http://nikonrumors.com/2010/10/27/nikon-d7000-body-only-now-shipping.aspx

 

[Anubis]

yea boonies, no such thing as a local store. best buy only lists the kit online however i guess i could call them

 

[BlahBlahYouToo]

would the d70000 be a good camera for a first time DSLR user who doesn't plan to upgrade to a new body every couple of years?

 

[ElFenix]

would the d70000 be a good camera for a first time DSLR user who doesn't plan to upgrade to a new body every couple of years?

yup. on everything but price it'll be just fine for a beginner. frankly i'd rather have the better controls on the D7000 than on one of nikon's lesser SLRs.

but it is a lot more spendy than the lesser cameras. should hold its value pretty well so if it's gathering dust at least you won't lose too much on it.

 

[Anubis]

as elf said YEs but the 3100 is better if budget is a concern

 

[BlahBlahYouToo]

interesting you bring up the 3100 because it's down to the 7000, 3100 and T2i.
i'm in no rush so i'm just waiting for price drops.

just wondering because i was thinking the d7000 might be "too much" camera for a noob.

 

[gar655]

Don't buy a DSLR without the proper dual control wheels. As with computers, buy the most "powerful" one you can afford.

In this case it would be the D7K

Gene

 

[ElFenix]

Don't buy a DSLR without the proper dual control wheels. As with computers, buy the most "powerful" one you can afford.

In this case it would be the D7K

Gene

but as opposed to the computer the lens makes a huge difference. if it's between a better lens and a better body, better lens 100%.

 

[AkumaX]

i tried the af-f (continuous auto focus for video) on the d3100, works great!

 

[bigi]

would the d70000 be a good camera for a first time DSLR user who doesn't plan to upgrade to a new body every couple of years?

No, it will be overwhelming in terms of everything.

D3100 and 35mm f/1.8 would be perfect starting kit. AND, it can be had for 50% of D7000 body alone.

 

[twistedlogic]

if it's between a better lens and a better body, better lens 100%.

+1

Nice glass on a 9 year old DSL-R will still produce stunning results, as long as you stay near base ISO and don't print huge.

“A lot of photographers think that if they buy a better camera they’ll be able to take better photographs. A better camera won’t do a thing for you if you don’t have anything in your head or in your heart.” -Arnold Newman

No, it will be overwhelming in terms of everything.

So true. And usually by the time a beginner learns the ins and outs of there camera and/or photography in general, they are ready to upgrade to a better body.

 

[BlahBlahYouToo]

So true. And usually by the time a beginner learns the ins and outs of there camera and/or photography in general, they are ready to upgrade to a better body.

so why not just start on a better body and not have to deal with upgrading?
not trying to be argumentative... just looking for an answer.

 

[twistedlogic]

so why not just start on a better body and not have to deal with upgrading?
not trying to be argumentative... just looking for an answer.

Simple, digital rot. That why I always recommend buying a used DSL-R to start out on, let someone else take the initial price hit.

I guess if money is no concern then you could buy the best now, but all the extra features that your not even sure you need yet and that drive the cost of the body up will go unused until the photog learns how to use them effectively. By that time a newer, better body will be released with "must have" features, and if money is no concern they will just upgrade again.

But lenses are just the opposite, they hardly ever depreciate and more than likely go up in value.

 

[Kelvrick]

Simple, digital rot. That why I always recommend buying a used DSL-R to start out on, let someone else take the initial price hit.

I guess if money is no concern then you could buy the best now, but all the extra features that your not even sure you need yet and that drive the cost of the body up will go unused until the photog learns how to use them effectively. By that time a newer, better body will be released with "must have" features, and if money is no concern they will just upgrade again.

But lenses are just the opposite, they hardly ever depreciate and more than likely go up in value.

I'd agree with buying used, and buying something with two control wheels. There is no replacing a wheel with buttons and menus. Why not get an old D90?

EDIT: Also in agreement with lenses appreciating. Ever since my house got robbed and my 20d along with tamron 17-50 got stolen, I've been thinking its the perfect opportunity to trade systems (perhaps pentax or sony for IS without having to buy IS lenses). My used sigma 100-300 that I paid 620 for a year and a half ago will probably fetch me 750+. The used sigma 150 macro I bought for 490 was traded for a 105mm macro + 300 bucks. Now it will probably get 350. That is a net +300 between those two lenses.

 

[Anubis]

yea a used D 90 would prob be the best in your situation. ive been putting off getting a new camera for far too long, happy i waited until the fall releases, now they just need to be in stock

 

[Cattykit]

+1

Nice glass on a 9 year old DSL-R will still produce stunning results, as long as you stay near base ISO and don't print huge.

“A lot of photographers think that if they buy a better camera they’ll be able to take better photographs. A better camera won’t do a thing for you if you don’t have anything in your head or in your heart.” -Arnold Newman



So true. And usually by the time a beginner learns the ins and outs of there camera and/or photography in general, they are ready to upgrade to a better body.

When Arnold Newman said above statement, he was living in the film era, not digital.
Things have been different since digital era began. It's not like in film days when you could use a quality film regardless of cameras. Nice glass on a 9 year old dslr will produce crappy results because 9 year old camera has a crappy sensor and image processing algorithm.

 

[996GT2]

When Arnold Newman said above statement, he was living in the film era, not digital.
Things have been different since digital era began. It's not like in film days when you could use a quality film regardless of cameras. Nice glass on a 9 year old dslr will produce crappy results because 9 year old camera has a crappy sensor and image processing algorithm.

Eh, not really. 9 years ago we had cameras like the EOS-1D and EOS D60. Both still work great today (and in fact lots of original Canon 1D and D60 bodies are being sold and bought today on the Canon forums). The megapixel counts may not be high, but they are fine for printing up to 13x19 (or even larger with the right upscaling methods). The ISO performance is quite good up to ~ISO 800. Basically, there is not going to be a huge difference in image quality unless you print very large or use very high ISO.

Look at another example. My EOS 5D was first introduced in 2005 but is still the choice of many professional wedding and portrait photographers today. In fact, I just read a forum post yesterday where someone asked how they could adjust the settings on their 5D Mark II so that images would look more like 5D Mark I images

In the end, the lens is more important than the camera. I would take my 5D + Sigmalux over a new 60D or D7000 + kit lens any day of the week.