So I have been planning for a while to get myself either a new camera or a new lens for either my birthday or Christmas. The camera I had my eye on was the Nikon D7000. It would be a major upgrade from my D40, but it's still not a "pro" camera. But still, fairly hardcore and priced at a little over $1000.
Last weekend I went to Green Hills with my mom, and we went to The Wolf Camera close by to see if they had the camera. Unfortunately they did not, but they did have a D90, which is not as hardcore but is a popular camera, a nice upgrade from the D40, and has a friendlier price tag. I held it and found it to not be too heavy, and asked the guy working how it compared weight-wise to the 7000 and he said they were similar. I still wanted to see the 7000 in person before deciding that was it, but even though he spoke positively of the 90, I still thought I would most likely want to go with the 7000.
Then there was the question of what lens I wanted. I had looked into a couple of different ones, but once I thought about it they weren't exactly what I wanted. I searched and researched until I finally came across a couple more options... one which cost more than the D7000. Yikes. So, I considered getting this lens but pairing with the D90. That was still going to be over $2000 for both. I also considered getting the 7000 with the cheaper of the two lenses. which was less than $2000. But I still wasn't sure. And somewhere in all this I realized that most lenses don't have wide apertures (that would be a number lower than f3.5), and that really disappointed me as well. What in the world did I want and could I actually find it?
More research. Now I had it narrowed down to two more options, both with f2.8 aperture, both over $1000. One was a relatively normal lens range (17-55mm) that is f2.8 aperture and would replace my D40 kit lens that is 18-55mm and f3.5. The other, that I finally decided was the one I wanted, is a 12-24mm wide angle lens that also has a f2.8 aperture. It's a lot of money for that and the D7000 I decide, but I can wait a longer time to get what I want.
Then this weekend, Garrett and I were in Nashville for a wedding. While at the Hillsboro store last week, the guy there told me that the West End store had the D7000. So Garrett and I make the trip to the West End Wolf Camera. Again, I held it and it did feel similar to the D90. The guy at Hillsboro stood there with me and the camera and answered my questions. Meanwhile, the guy at West End left me a little while before coming back, leaving me to start fiddling with the camera. It took me a good while to figure out why I couldn't take a picture (it was set to go off by remote instead of by clicking the button), but once I got that straightened out, I took a few shots.
The camera store doesn't offer a lot to take pictures of, plus it was not well lit, so there was no reason to be too impressed at first. But the guy actually let put my lenses that I had with me on the camera to see how it looked. I'm pretty sure I had my D40 kit lens on it, which is not a lens that you write home about, when I set the camera on the Program mode and took another picture inside the store. And wow. The lighting in that picture, compared to the previous ones I had taken on Aperture Priority mode, was like night and day. (I'm not sure why I could not get the aperture to work that well for me when I was controlling it, but I'm sure more playing and research would help me resolve this.) And my aperture could not have been wider than 3.5 if it was with the kit lens. The thing was, the guy at West End told me, that this camera is just so good, it can work with any lens. Obviously, the pricey and fast lenses with this camera will do amazing things. But the lenses I had would work with the camera, and they would produce good pictures.
But here's why the lens conversation even happened... At the store I saw the 1K+ lenses I had been seriously interested in and realized that they were really big lenses. Even the 12-24mm, which really should not be big, was. I mean, I'm sure there's a reason, I just didn't know why. They were obviously, by the size of them and with the special golden ring around them, pro lenses. So I felt I was back to the drawing board again on the lenses. But then we talked about how the camera handled low light so well, even with just a f3.5 aperture. And of course I have the 35mm f1.8 lens when I just absolutely need that wide aperture. So I thought, maybe I didn't need a lens after all.
So here's the deal: I like the Nikon D7000 and I want it. That's not in question. Camera body only, without a kit lens, is a little over $1000. With the kit lens, it's $300 more. Originally, the kit lens was not even on my radar, and it still wasn't during my Wolf Camera visit when I saw how well it did with my wimpy D40 kit lens. But then I imagined the range of 18-105mm on one lens, and not having to bring out the 55-200mm. Plus the vibration reduction it has. It would be even better. It doesn't help me in my collection in any way other than its superiority. But I know I might want this lens one day, so would it be better just to ahead and get it now?
I also did homework one last time (for now at least, ha) for other lenses, and I looked back at the 10-24mm that the camera guy recommended and that I had considered for a moment before I saw it just went as wide as f3.5. I've been wanting a wide angle lens for a while, and would especially love the have a lens like that for trips, though I think it would be fun for other things as well. It's priced between $850-$900. The reviews, for the most part, say it's a great lens, but a few people mentioned it being overpriced for what it is. Do I wait for the price to go down or see if I can find a better view, or just get it because I feel I would like it?
I can get the camera or a lens now. Originally I wanted to get a lens first, so I could have my nice lens ready to go for when I could get the camera. Now I'm thinking camera first, since it can work with my current lenses, especially the 35mm which I really use the most these days anyways. I can get the other a few months down the road, though it will probably be after Christmas once I have saved up my "play money" fund again. I can wait and get both at the same time at Christmas or later. I feel these are my choices:
Option A: D7000 body only, NOW. 10-24mm lens, LATER. 17-105 mm (or something else), ONE DAY.
Option B: D7ooo with kit lens, NOW. 10-24mm lens, EVEN LATER.
Option C: Wait on both camera and lens.
That didn't help me quite yet, but at least now I know what options I'm considering...
And speaking of all this, here's proof that you really need to pay attention to what your camera is focusing on.
Before:
Oops!
After:
3 comments:
One thing I would ask yourself is this: Why are you willing to sink so much money into something if you are not making money off it?
I'm not saying that you HAVE to make money to own higher end camera equipment, but it's definitely the most justifiable reason. And there are other reasons to justify it (i.e. being your family's own photographer, etc.).
However, I think you would really, REALLY regret sinking $800 into a lens when you're not making money off of your photography, ESPECIALLY when the camera body you want is just a couple of hundred dollars more. I know from watching my cousin that you can take professional pictures using a Canon Rebel T1i (Nikon D90's equivalent) and a fairly nice lens.
I noticed on Amazon that Sigma has a lens for Nikon, with a focal range of 10-20mm, for about $450. It has great reviews, so that could be another option, especially if you want to pair it with the D7000 (shoot, or even the D90 for a cheaper combination).
I think if you are really wanting an upgrade, then you should definitely buy the D7000 and not the D90. The D90 would give you some improvement, but ultimately you would still have your eye on something better, so I think cutting out the "middle man", or camera in this case, is the best decision, even if it means putting it off a couple of more months.
I may be wrong, but I think prime lenses are the only lenses have that super low aperture settings (unless you buy a professional grade lens, but those are insanely expensive), so since you've got the 35mm, I don't think a super low aperture setting should be your first priority.
Anyway. That was a lot. Firstly I think you should just upgrade your camera, and then wait on a lens. That's what I plan on doing one of these days anyway.
i was just about to write a comment along the same line as anna's! unless you plan on venturing into the photography business, i do not see why you would want to invest that much money into a hobby. however! i do understand that people definitely have different budgets and different priorities with money -- for example, if you were a golfer and wanted to go to st. andrews in scotland and play a round of golf i imagine you'd be spending quite a bit of money! but .. just wanted to offer my perspective, too.
Hey Lexie! Good to hear from you!
It's not that I really want to invest so much in my hobby as much as I have acknowledged it's an expensive one and felt I really had no other choice if I wanted my pictures to get better. I am going to talk to a Nikon user I know sometime and ask him if he thinks a third party lens would work for my "needs" or if I should save up. Because the problem is... as much as I realize I'm not a pro, I just don't want something I feel is inferior, because I'm so picky and will probably notice. Expensive taste, BLEH! The good news is, good photography equipment basically lasts forever.
Post a Comment