Newbie requesting advice/links
You can click on those shots and it will direct you to my Flickr page, then you can click again and you can see details.
D200 shots. I don't have a lot saved. Keep in mind these are old shots. The others are later on. Better glass, post processing and more clicks under my belt by that point. I could do better today, but I still would not trade a D200 or 300 for that matter for the D7000.
Cal Park Sunrise by Mark Kasick, on Flickr
012 by Mark Kasick, on Flickr
Kate and Jeff #1 by Mark Kasick, on Flickr
It seems the picture quality of the D7000 is superior to that of the D200. I thought I might go for a CCD, but the D7000 looks nice with its CMOS, in my opinion.
Can you direct me to where I would be able to find them for under $200? I checked on MPB, which was referred to earlier in the thread, but on there it seems only a few D7000s are under that price. (Can someone tell me a good shutter count to not go over?)
What's a good lens for my limited use cases which I posted earlier?
Something to make note of is that if you get a Nikon D100, D200, D300, D7000 the backwards compatibilty of Nikon legacy glass is probably about 10 times more. Those cameras are fully compatible with manual focus lenses going back to the 70's and they are also compatible with the lenses that are autofocus that followed but lacked a motor built in the lens. they were driven by a motor in the body. later lenses came with a motor built in.
Cameras that are in the D3xxx and D5xxx are not fully compatible with those lenses because the camera does not have a built in motor .
That said, you may not need that compatibility and a "kit lens" typically a 18-55mm may be all you ever need.
The internet often poo-poos on kit lenses, in my opinion they are way better than given credit for. Some of those cameras came with a. really sharp arguably better 24mp sensor than all cameras mentioned. They will, for all practical purposes do everything the other cameras mentioned , though probably not as fast and maybe a clunkier. Some of them have a flip up screen which is nice. I messed with one of the 5000 series, I think it was a 5300. Pretty nice.
I would personally select the 7K over them, as it's geared more towards an advanced hobbyist (Nikon calls "enthusiast") and more room to grow into it,
Still those entry level cameras are WAY good enough to learn on.
Quote from Dylan Catlett on February 27, 2024, 1:13 amIt seems the picture quality of the D7000 is superior to that of the D200. I thought I might go for a CCD, but the D7000 looks nice with its CMOS, in my opinion.
Can you direct me to where I would be able to find them for under $200? I checked on MPB, which was referred to earlier in the thread, but on there it seems only a few D7000s are under that price. (Can someone tell me a good shutter count to not go over?)
What's a good lens for my limited use cases which I posted earlier?
I don't get the whole CCD thing. I posted that sunset pic on another forum and people were fawning over the colors from the CCD sensor. LOL. I probably juiced that up in Photoshop elements.
Go into Ebay, do an advanced search of sold listings and ones that have ended. Some are over 200, but there are a few going for less.
I think mine has something like 50K clicks. You'll have to look but it's probably rated for a 100 or more. I never had a camera shutter go kaput.
I did have the card slot replaced which was $100 but I think some rain or moisture got in there.
A good cheap lens would be an 18-55mm, or an older 18-70mm. Those are zoom lenses. They go from a wide angle to a short telephoto. So they would be suitable for taking anything landscapes to portraits. The smaller number would be a wide angle, the larger number the telephoto.
A normal field of view on these cameras would be around 35mm. My favorite lens for normal use on those cameras is the Nikon 35mm f1.8 DX.
that's a prime lens AKA fixed focal length. In other words you zoom with your feet. The largest advantage is that it lets in 4 times as much light as the other zooms mentioned. Autofocus will be better, especially in low light, I think the image quality is noticeably better , you can make softer backgrounds with it. For whatever reason I think I take better photos with primes. Though that's probably psychological.
the disadvantage would be obvious one focal length. Also the 18-55mm has VR vibration reduction huge plus. Allow a slower shutter speed with a non moving subject. Combats camera shake from your hands. There is a 35mm DX at a local camera shop here for $49 a steal. Looks like the 18-55mm goes for that much all day long on Ebay.
Quote from Dylan Catlett on February 27, 2024, 1:13 amIt seems the picture quality of the D7000 is superior to that of the D200. I thought I might go for a CCD, but the D7000 looks nice with its CMOS, in my opinion.
Can you direct me to where I would be able to find them for under $200? I checked on MPB, which was referred to earlier in the thread, but on there it seems only a few D7000s are under that price. (Can someone tell me a good shutter count to not go over?)
What's a good lens for my limited use cases which I posted earlier?
It depends exactly how close you mean by "close up" for photos of your pipes. But it sounds like you may want something called a "macro" lens. They are built with higher than normal magnification, meaning the objects will be larger at their maximum focal length compared to similar focal length lenses and are very good at focusing very close to the subject. But as for specific lens recommendations, I don't know enough about Nikon lenses to give you one. I do agree with @kankrat though that a good kit lens would be a great place to start. A kit lens is usually a lens in the focal length range of approximately 18-55mm, or maybe 17-70mm, a common full frame kit lens will be around 24-70mm. They usually all have variable apertures, something like f/3.5-5.6. So a typical example to look out for is an 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6. It would be even better if you could find one that is also a macro, but I'm not sure that exists on Nikon F Mount. But something in that range should cover all your bases of taking pictures of buildings, landscapes and your friends.
As far as I know, none of the kind of cameras you're looking at will really give you that "2000's look" You'll have to buy some sort of digicam for that unfortunately. CCDs tend to have a more vintage rendering in my opinion and that is why I like them, but they also come with downsides, every camera has trade-offs and compromises.
But I think the real thing to focus on before you get overwhelmed by all the numbers and jargon; is that a lot of the finer technical details you can figure out later on, whether or not you get a CCD or a CMOS sensor, whether you get the d7000, d200, or a Canon or Pentax or something else entirely, none of it is going to be bad or unusable for what you're trying to do at at this point you can't really make any catastrophically bad decisions, they are all fairly safe just as long as you buy a compatible camera, lens, and memory card you should be fine. I'm sure if before you buy you post links to both the body and lens, someone would be more than happy to double check the compatibility for you.
I'm not too beholden to the 2000s look. It was more of a momentary fascination.
As for pictures of the pipes, nothing too fancy, just a close-up picture of them, sort of like what you might see in an online listing. Not being a photographer, it's hard for me to describe to you what I mean. I thought it would be neat to display my pipes in a little gallery.
All the same, I think the best thing to do is not worry too much, and just focus on finding a decent-enough camera (and lens) that I can grow in the hobby with. Perhaps a kit lens is best for me, for now. As you said, a lot of the finer technical details can be figured out later on.
I would much appreciate any feedback from the members here about potential cameras and lenses I spot in the future, and hopefully they can point out any flaws that an uninitiated person such as myself would not be able to spot.
By the way, how ought I to carry a camera + lens? Do I purchase a bag made for the camera? What about the lens/lenses?
I was a film guy up to about 2003. Back then I used to say "eeeww looks digital" and it was true. Even cheap Fuji film from Walmart, shot with any reasonable grade point and shoot, processed and printed at Walgreens looked way better.
I see a D300 on MPB and KEH for under $150, right now you can find D7000s under $200 but you may have to work at it. Those stores from my experience are really safe to buy from. When they say "good" it's actually great. At only $150 can you really go wrong?
I was going to comment JPB posted recent pics shot with his D300 (shot outside) and also his shiny new Pentax. The Pentax shots are REALLY great IQ the D300 is pretty darn good for an old camera.
This guy does pretty good reviews and actually shows examples. Here is a video on using a D300 today . If you go thru his page- there is a D7000 video.
https://youtu.be/JI1s0lY-Fnw?si=oLcBp3qnmAz-s_TN
Nikon RAW converter and editing software is free. Some say it renders Nikon better than any other. I am probably going to start using it more.
https://www.nikonusa.com/en/nikon-products/imaging-software/nx-studio.page
Quote from Dylan Catlett on February 27, 2024, 10:11 amI'm not too beholden to the 2000s look. It was more of a momentary fascination.
As for pictures of the pipes, nothing too fancy, just a close-up picture of them, sort of like what you might see in an online listing. Not being a photographer, it's hard for me to describe to you what I mean. I thought it would be neat to display my pipes in a little gallery.
All the same, I think the best thing to do is not worry too much, and just focus on finding a decent-enough camera (and lens) that I can grow in the hobby with. Perhaps a kit lens is best for me, for now. As you said, a lot of the finer technical details can be figured out later on.
I would much appreciate any feedback from the members here about potential cameras and lenses I spot in the future, and hopefully they can point out any flaws that an uninitiated person such as myself would not be able to spot.
By the way, how ought I to carry a camera + lens? Do I purchase a bag made for the camera? What about the lens/lenses?
I would agree with that, don't worry about it too much. Just find a good deal and go from there. I like to try to find gear I can sell to MPB for around as I bought it for so I can exit if I don't like it or just want to move on. You don't know what you like till you try it.
Great advice so far. I think you can't go wrong with a DSLR from Nikon, Pentax, or Canon, or a Olympus or Lumix micro four thirds. All have great budget options and lens choices.
Of those I would lean toward Nikon. I rule out Canon only because I don't have much experience with it, so I can't comment. I am a Pentaxian, but I would recommend Nikon because like-for-like you're going to get better autofocus and that may make your life easier starting out, depending on what you're shooting. Great deals on used glass exist in both mounts, however Nikon will give you more budget options if you look to get into wildlife photography.
As for carrying the gear, no special bag is needed. Just anything soft on the inside stored in a way such that gear is not banging into each other. I used a regular backpack with one compartment and a towel starting out. Towel just to keep stuff from rubbing inside the bag.
Here's a good deal on a D7000.
https://kenmorecamera.com/used-nikon-d7000-w-grip-1/
Edit: As for lenses, I like to tell people starting out to get a kit zoom until they learn what focal lengths they like shooting at. Something like a 18-55 or 18-135 would be great. Another great option starting out is a 35 or 50mm prime as that is something you will likely end up keeping and using forever anyway, but people tend to gravitate away from the kit zooms with time. But not all! I still bust mine out when I want versatility. 🙂
Another zoom option if you do go with Nikon is the Nikkor 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5D Macro. Versatile and good for closeups.
