Looking to upgrade to a new Nikon Camera . . . Suggestions Please!!

[jcuknz]

I would hate people on here to think that m 4/3 would be easy to focus with a set up like that having been there and done that right up to 500mm. There will be problems even with the 90-230.on it's own. The lens adapters for m 4/3 are bit of a catch on longer lenses. Annoyingly the IS is up to handling them but focusing is a real problem. Might work out on EM's. I will have to see.

I gloat on the kit too - light weight and a long reach but there are a number of reasons why these cameras may not be somebodies cup of tea. apart from lenses they already own.

John
-

You do have to have a preference for such a rig and I am sure many would reject it .... however I completely reject the idea that long rigs are hard to focus ... basically the longer the focal length the less DoF there is and the easier it is to find focus. Possibly John and I are talking about different aspects of their use and in my first 'play' just 4 shots handheld I had sharp focus ... but not where I wanted it and I see a possible problem in the focusing ring being some distance from the A-M slider of the Tokina and both a fair way for my left hand to reach while looking through the EVF.

So focusing with long lenses is dead easy but operating the rig may cause me to scrub the idea ....I also bought myself an old 35mm Pentax for nostalgic reasons recently, my first SLR was that, and may try and see what 460 reach on FF gives me and if I can afford to loose two stops of light I might organise a coupling for my Raynox 2020 which would give me 1012 reach on FF.
Sorry I'm rambling

[jcuknz]

We could be talking about different things Kathy but I guess you shoot 3:2 and need portrait/landscape but if using 4:3 the difference is not worth the bother, habits die hard and I do use portrait mode quite a bit, and I remember the Leica III and the ridiculous handling that right eyed people used in portrait mode with one hand up above their heads [sort of ] It is the 'reccomended way of working" I know and found all over the place ... but with my left eye most cameras with left or centre viewfinders fit snugly between nose and cheek with right hand supporting from below.

As for OVF spare me such antiquated things

More to the original question .... the more I use or work on results from my Nikon bridge camera the more I suggest staying with Nikon

[NorthernFocus]

As someone else previously pointed out, "upgrade" means different things to different people. If you mean it in the context of going to the next level of controlability/flexibility, then the D7000 is a fine camera. I had one for a spell and took some of my best wildlife images to-date with that body. My only beef with it was that AF doesn't do well capturing fast moving objects moving towards/away from you. That said, if you are seeking the next level of technology and can squeak out a couple of hundred more dollars, the D7100 is currently the best bang for the buck of anything in the Nikon line-up. It's an amazing camera body for the price.

Regardless of what you decide to do, getting a body that is a generation or two newer than the 5000 is going to amaze you.

[tfoss]

I concur with the D7100 fans. I recently upgraded to the D7100 from a D300. The D7100 is way better. Faster autofocus, much better high ISO performance. Dual memory cards. It's a great camera.