I've started with a Sony Alpha 290 which I love to bits, it's got me a long way getting to grips with all the terminology, techniques and best practices but it's limitations are starting to irritate me, especially it's lack of ability with taking continuous shots for more than 5-6 shots before it starts to slow down unbearably.
What I really want to buy is a new Nikon D7000 but not sure I can bring myself to spend that much money.
So can anyone suggest an older Nikon camera which is more of a professional grade that I might be able to pick up cheaper second hand.
And anyone who has a Nikon D7000 are they really worth the money?
There are different levels of DSLR camera's, and it depends what you mean by professional quality. Anyone can go out and buy a Nikon D700 or Canon 5DmkII and produce average photo's, yet a great photographer can make a great photo with any camera.
So you need to work out whats more important. Im a Canon girl, and they have different level DSLR's
Entry level: 1100D, 450D 500D etc
Prosumer level: 60D 7D etc
Professional level: 5DmkII, 1D etc
Work out what your budget allows and go from there, its more important to get a good quality glass now, and then get a better body down the track. You look after your glass it will outlast any body you buy.
My biggest frustration with the Sony is the continuous shooting mode which is very annoying if I'm shooting action shots. That is my primary issue. I don't really mind the lack of live view or video capture. It takes great shots and I can manage to get good/great shots from it.
The glass issue is the other reason, I have bought a couple good sigma lenses which I love but I'm a little unsure of how and if I can use them on a future nikon body (they're for Sony).
Surely if I intend to go with Nikon in the future I should be slowly investing in Nikon glass?
Would it be better to invest in a cheaper Nikon body (which hopefully solves my issues with continuous shooting) and invest in great glass for that before I switch bodies?
If the siggy lenses have Sony mounts you wont be able to use them on Nikons. If you are mainly into action shots, look into a camera that has higher fps. Ie the Canon 7D does 8 frames per second, and its really good for sports and action photography.
Nikon's body are cheaper, the glass is more expensive
Canon's body are expensive, glass is cheaper so its a trade off.
normally I'd say get a cheaper body and invest in glass, but if you are after the fps then you need to find a body thats going to keep up with what you shoot.
oh also make sure you have a fast memory card...you need to get something like a Sandisk Extreme card...no point having fast fps and a slow memory card.
The D7000 is a heaped up D90. If you need 1080 Video (I don't), and 32,000 ISO (I don't), it is likely the best Consumer camera DSLR (It is not a professional camera) out there) for $1,100.
A year ago, the D90 was, and still is in my opinion, the best for the money. Look into it.
I have an SLR Nikon FE and their lenses ( purchased in the 70's) recently I bought the Nikon DSLR 3100, my old lenses fit this camera. Moral of this story is: the lenses to me are the most important aspect to my photography. You can buy glass that is almost 10K, but it is the person behind the camera. You can take good professional photos with any camera if you know how to use it. I started this project with a PNS and I always carry it with me. Good luck on your decision making.
I would say go with a D90. you can get refurbed ones out there, and it is a great camera. one thing i really like is the lack of noise at night and long exposure. i would suggest a 3rd party battery grip for a second battery and timer option, and camera armor. i found the armor gives it a nice bit of padding, and beefs it up in size so it feels about the same size as my 200. another plus, you can get all kinds of lenses for it, it uses both old and new style lenses. many of the newer cameras don't give you that option.
I second the Nikon D90 that @cchambers mentioned! I absolutely LOVE mine and have no regrets buying it. I've had it for a while now and it just keeps on getting better and better. I've got various lenses for it, from both Nikor and Tamron.
@moncooga They are... Lumix and twice the price... well better software(comes with Elements and Priemer Elements) better warrenty and better in camera engine for processing jpgs...
I think you get a little better zoom too... but that might have been the version before this one...
Yes Panasonic has been producing Leica lens for a bit on the lower end cameras. So if optically they are the same and capture wise they are the same in RAW there is no real point... except like I mentioned bundled software (about $200), warranty (Lecia will take back a camera in the first year... even if you accidentally hit it with a bat, drop it... take it swimming... really ANY reason it stops working) if you could buy a warranty like that, lets say $100... so that leaves $100 for the red dot and better jpg engine... in three years when you sell it... people may (likely will) buy the Lecia, no one will likely buy the lumix...
but if you own/don't use elements(premierer) than that is a really expensive red dot ;)
But the OP asked about a pro camera and we all 'know' the red dot makes it a pro camera vs the panasonic...
Thanks everyone, I've decided to first test whether a extreme sandisk SD card helps solve the problem first (since it's cheaper and I can always use it in a new camera), after that I think I'll aim for a cheaper body and start investing in glass for either Canon or Nikon, I'm on the fence as to which now.
OK just an update: The Extreme Sandisk SD card (45mb/s) helped a lot; it didn't help break the specs of the camera (2 shots a second) but it processes the shots a lot quicker allowing me to take a longer stream of continuous shots.
I'm still going to need a new camera soon but I'm in less of a rush
Tweets ahoy!
Join the Group
Pin With Me
So you need to work out whats more important. Im a Canon girl, and they have different level DSLR's
Entry level: 1100D, 450D 500D etc
Prosumer level: 60D 7D etc
Professional level: 5DmkII, 1D etc
Work out what your budget allows and go from there, its more important to get a good quality glass now, and then get a better body down the track. You look after your glass it will outlast any body you buy.
The glass issue is the other reason, I have bought a couple good sigma lenses which I love but I'm a little unsure of how and if I can use them on a future nikon body (they're for Sony).
Surely if I intend to go with Nikon in the future I should be slowly investing in Nikon glass?
Would it be better to invest in a cheaper Nikon body (which hopefully solves my issues with continuous shooting) and invest in great glass for that before I switch bodies?
Nikon's body are cheaper, the glass is more expensive
Canon's body are expensive, glass is cheaper so its a trade off.
normally I'd say get a cheaper body and invest in glass, but if you are after the fps then you need to find a body thats going to keep up with what you shoot.
A year ago, the D90 was, and still is in my opinion, the best for the money. Look into it.
:) I think I shouldn't have said professional when I meant a camera without the limitations of my entry level camera.
I'll look into the D90 thanks @moncooga
http://en.leica-camera.com/photography/compact_cameras/v-lux_2/
11 fps at 14+ mp, or 60 fps at 2.Xmp
under $1k and it will far out shine any older camera on the market and most newer ones....
The zoom lens on it gives you every length you could want and the body looks like a 'pro' body, but since it is lecia... feels like magic...
Happy buying!
I think you get a little better zoom too... but that might have been the version before this one...
but if you own/don't use elements(premierer) than that is a really expensive red dot ;)
But the OP asked about a pro camera and we all 'know' the red dot makes it a pro camera vs the panasonic...
I'm still going to need a new camera soon but I'm in less of a rush