DSLR - New DSLR buying advice/suggestion.

[binarycodes]

Hi,

Having done whatever background research I could (and from whatever I could understand), I want to invest in a mid range SLR that I can afford and also one that would be with me for the foreseeable future. I am contemplating getting the Nikon D7000. (with the kit lens)

I've checked out Nikon D7000 and Nikon D90. So far I am liking the D7000 very much. However, testing it for 10mins is hardly going to tell me much. So if any noticeable problem is faced by its users here, I would very much like to know. (I guess the oil spot problems are long solved.)

Now, my main confusion in the lens. Having never used a SLR before (D or otherwise), I am not willing to go splurging on lenses before I am well aware of what exactly I want from it. Hence, I plan to get the kit lens (18-105 mm VR). And for portraits a 50mm.

Is this sane? And/or advisable?

D7000 body only is around 56K, last I asked. And 69K with the kit lens. Saying, I am willing to consider upto a max 80K, would you be suggesting only the body and a different lens? If yes, then kindly advise.

I am no hurry and am actually waiting for Nikon's production to smooth out a bit.


PS: For the brand, I can't explain but I find a certain attachment with Nikon But if a noticeable better alternative exists I am willing to listen.

 

[sujoyp]

All your decisions r fine

Get D7000 with kit lens and 50mm as u already stated

Wait untill feb for prices to again come down properly or at least get them as soon as prices r reduced to 64k body+kit

The only other thing u can change is u can have Tamron 17-55 f2.8 lens for 22k instead of 18-105 kit lens
You must be knowing that bigger the aperture more light will enter and give u better image. The f2.8 aperture is very nice and u will not even miss your 50mm 1.8 much.
The downside is it dont have VR. But its very popular nowdays.

 

[binarycodes]

Thanks for the inputs

Another downside of the tamron being its reach compared to the upto 105mm kit lens.
Also, the 50mm I am looking at is the AF-S 50mm 1.4G (around 24K last checked)

 

[prabhu.wali]

btw check him out JaredPolin's Channel - YouTube

 

[Illum]

spend more on glass than body, glass affects the photo ten times more than other things.

especially since your still going for a crop body instead of a full body.

 

[pushkar]

D7000 is no doubt one of the best APS-C DSLRs right now. It's sensor is THE BEST among all crop sensors right now in terms of dynamic range, high ISO performance, color depth, etc. (Pentax K-5, Sony A580 and Nikon D5100 also have very similar sensors, all likely manufactured by Sony).

Coming to lenses, I have the Canon 50mm 1.4 lens (with a crop DSLR), and I find it too long sometimes, especially when I need to take portraits in small indoors. I suggest going for the Nikon 35mm f/2 or f/1.8 or the Sigma 30mm f/1.4.

You seem to realize the importance of lenses and it's a good idea to first learn with the kit lens (considering that you are a beginner) and then move to a better lens. I don't know about the quality of Nikon's 18-55mm lens, but you should consider it as a starting lens. It's really cheap. I am recommending this because what I feel is that the 18-105 is not a very amazing lens, yet it's not very cheap. The higher lenses are much much better in quality (like 12-24 for landscapes, architecture, 16-85 or 17-55 or 24-70 for a versatile range, or 70-200 for telephoto, etc.), depending on your usage.

You must be knowing that bigger the aperture more light will enter and give u better image.

This is not necessarily true. A common properly of lenses is that the sweet spot sharpness wise is around f/5.6 - f/11. They are a bit less sharp at the highest apertures. Not to mention that the shallow depth of field with higher apertures may not suit your subject.

I also recommend getting a (good) tripod. It's really useful.

 

[sujoyp]

@binarycodes R u sure u want 50mm 1.4 and know the comparative difference between 50mm 1.8 and 50mm 1.4 coz price difference is just too much it seems 6k and 24k

@Pushkar 50mm is a popular portrait lens...a portrait is taken with shoulder and head y do we need 35mm for that...a 35mm may cover abdomen to head

I am sorry for that vague statement...but most prime lenses r sharp throughout...a 50mm 1.8 is sharp from 2.8 itself...a 300 f4 lens is sharp from f4 itself a 70-200 2.8 lens is sharp overall

I agree save at least 6-7k of your budget for a descent tripod with ballhead which can hold 5kg

 

[binarycodes]

@prabhu.wali

Thanks for the link

@Illum

I intend to spend on glasses as and when I understand what exactly I need But yes you are definitely right.
As for crop body, well FX is just not affordable now (not in the foreseeable future as well )


@pushkar

Thanks for the encouragement.

While I do understand the reasoning behind 18-55, the point is that I cannot afford to buy a whole lot of lenses right now. Hence, getting the 18-105 and the 50mm prime gives me pretty generic range and lets me learn the stuff while I gather money for a 70-300 maybe

Whereas, if I get the 18-55, I will be missing out on a little zoom (18-55 and 18-105 are similar in IQ I suppose).


@sujoyp

The 6K 50mm is the AF NIKKOR 50mm f/1.8D. I want to get the newer G lens (only for the Wave Motor thingy).
Now, that I think of it, I may get the AF-S NIKKOR 50mm f/1.8G and a tripod as pushkar & you suggested.

Will I regret missing the aperture ring too much, if I get the G lens?

 

[prabhu.wali]

check this qout for 1.8D Vs 1.8G Nikon 50mm F1.8G vs Nikon 50 F1.8D - YouTube

 

[sujoyp]

but its un-necesary to spend on AFS 50mm 1.8 when the normal AFD version will work fine with ur D7000
AFD 50mm 1.8 may be nikons most popular lens ever...y neglect it

Nope u wont miss aperture ring much unless u plan to use it with Extension tube or reversal ring for macro work