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

[Kathy O]

I was using a Nikon D5000 Camera until it got stolen, I am now looking to upgrade since I have to buy a new one anyway. My budget is no more than a 1000.00. I was looking at a Nikon D7000 but have heard of some auto focus problems . . . does anyone have any input on the Nikon D7000? Thanks.

[PhotomanJohn]

Kathy,

I have been using a D7000 from day they were first available and love the camera. I have also heard people say they have AF issues but not sure what they are. I expect that one of the issues in the beginning was more due to the higher resolution of the sensor than many were used to which makes lack of proper focus more obvious when one pixel-peeks. Another cause may be letting the camera decide what to focus on which can be upsetting if it picks something different than you would. I have had no issues with my camera because I always choose the focus point.

I strongly recommend the D7000 which I upgraded to after owning a D5000. It is a far better camera for lots of reasons and a good value today new or used.

John

[Kathy O]

Kathy,

I have been using a D7000 from day they were first available and love the camera. I have also heard people say they have AF issues but not sure what they are. I expect that one of the issues in the beginning was more due to the higher resolution of the sensor than many were used to which makes lack of proper focus more obvious when one pixel-peeks. Another cause may be letting the camera decide what to focus on which can be upsetting if it picks something different than you would. I have had no issues with my camera because I always choose the focus point.

I strongly recommend the D7000 which I upgraded to after owning a D5000. It is a far better camera for lots of reasons and a good value today new or used.

John

Thank you John for commenting, I appreciate your input!

[Shadowman]

The Nikon website has a camera comparator, so you can compare the features you had with the D5000 with any you might be interested in.

[Manfred M]

First of all, any of the cameras that you are looking at will still have the overall Nikon feel that you are used to, the mid-range 5000 series are more up to date versions of the camera that you are used to while the D7000 is a step up and is aimed at the enthusiast photographer; more bells and whistles that the experienced photographer is going to want, in a larger and more robust body.

Simple suggestion is to head to physical camera store and handle them. My simple rule for buying things is "can you tell the difference between the various options). If the answer is "no", why spend the extra money. If the answer is "yes", then it becomes a question of "are the extra features worth the extra money"? Again, if the answer is yes, then buy it.

[dubaiphil]

You should be able to find some good deals on D5200's now, with the 5300 coming out.

[yauman]

Instead of the D7000, why not go to the D7100. I upgraded to it last July and it's a great camera.

[Brev00]

Upgrade can mean different things to different people. You could simply replace your D5000 with the newest version of that model. That is one meaning of the word. But, you seem interested in the other meaning: to move to the next level of complexity. You are looking at the D7000 which manages to fit both definitions: it is newer than the D5000 and has the same sensor as the D5100. So, newer. It is also an enthusiast's camera in the D90-D7100 line. Better handling, accepts more lenses. So, higher. At your price range, it is really hard to do both except with the D7000. The D7100 is too pricey and the D5300 is still a D5000 with more and better tech. I think you might want to decide first between the two different levels. If you really like the D7000 body, you might want to consider it more deeply. The price is right. It has a better sensor. You may be giving internet complaints too much weight. You can always buy new from a reputable dealer and test out the camera thoroughly within the return window. Even though I use a D90 and would recommend it as a good next level camera, I would suggest trying out the D7000. Unless you can save another few months and afford the newest kid on the block: the D7100.

[jcuknz]

Indeed 'upgrade' can mean various things and I would consider going to MFT for the top of the line Olympus or Panasonic cameras an upgrade if you know enough to have been using your old camera properly. OMD5 I think and the GH3 respectively.

As somebody here gloats about her MFT and several lenses in a small bag of low weight

[pnodrog]

B&H have some used D7100 at $999.95 condition 9 or 9+ and a out of box(demo?) at $1025 the ref for this one is B&H # 1005628. Unless you prefer a lighter camera I think a D7000 or D7100 would be a great camera to move to.

[ShaneS]

I recently purchased a factory refurbished D7000 from Cameta Camera that currently lists for $649. The camera looks and feels like new and apart from a frustrating first couple of days out (I upgraded from the D40X and the controls are different with more options) I am really pleased with the purchase and it included a 1 year warranty.

http://www.cameta.com/Nikon-D7000-Di...shed-57819.cfm

If you have the same questions that I had a about new or refurbished you may want to read through my thread when I was trying to decide: Nikon D7000 - New or Refurbished?

Good luck!

[Dave Humphries]

Hi Kathy,

I was lucky enough to be able to afford a D7100.

The one thing I miss on the D7100 (and the D7000 would be the same) - is the vari-angle LCD for Live View shooting at low or high angles without needing my 57 year old bones to get down or climb up. Fortunately, I still have my D5000, so that gets used with the UWA, where such antics are more usually needed.

In all other respects, I prefer the D7100, with better ergonomics, over the D5000.

For you to decide whether the vari-angle LCD, even better on D5100 and later, is too useful not to have.

Would I be correct in guessing you also need at least one lens in that $1000 budget (meaning "body only" pricing isn't relevant)?

All the best,

[inkista]

...OMD5 I think and the GH3 respectively.

Really? Not the EM1 and GX-7?

As somebody here gloats about her MFT and several lenses in a small bag of low weight

I do that a lot, yes, but I also do not have a bunch of Nikkor F-mount lenses lying about, as the OP may have. I think probably sticking with the mount system you know and are comfortable in is a good idea, unless the OP is complaining about how big, bulky, and weighty the D5100 was (unlikely) and how she's just dying for a smaller/lighter camera system. Micro four-thirds, to me, makes a good addition to a dSLR, but replacing a dSLR, while possible, depends heavily on what/how someone shoots. There are reasons I've held onto my Canon gear.

Personally, I think everybody saying that the OP should weigh budget against what features she's looking for are giving the most solid advice. It's easy to say get the latest/newest model when it's not your money. But if the OP was perfectly happy with the D5000 and nothing about it irritated her, then going with a used one will save a ton of cash that could be spent on glass/lighting/support gear or software. She could also go for a factory refurbished D90, if she's not jonesing for newer features, just better handling, as that's roughly the same generation as the D5000.

[GrahamS]

I don't usually get into these "which camera" discussions because there are usually too many considerations and the OP usually never supplies full requirement criteria, but this time I will put my oar in:

There is a world of difference between the actual experience of using a Nikon D3200/5100/5200 series camera and a D7000/7100 series. The D7000/7100 viewfinder is bigger, brighter, shows a larger portion of the image, is much easier to use for manual focus (if ever you should need to do so - I do quite often, especially while travelling when battery conservation is a factor that restricts use of live view) and is just plain more enjoyable to use! As a constant over the many hours you may be using the camera, this alone is worth the extra money. Second, the D7000/7100 is more robust and is better sealed against dust and rain. We were out shooting last week and it began to rain - a steady drizzle. My wife had to seek shelter for her D3100 but I didn't worry about my D7100, I just kept shooting and dried it off with a paper towel. No worries. Third is the fact that the D7000/7100 accepts screw drive auto-focus lenses. I have a couple of screw-drive AF lenses, a Sigma macro, a couple of Nikkor D primes, and my wife can't "borrow" any of them unless she uses manual focus, which, with the small dim penta-mirror viewfinder of the D3100/3200/5100/5200, is a PITA! Fourth, I can change things like the ISO setting and image quality/compression on the D7100 with one button press - the D3100 requires a trip into the menu system. Fifth, and in my view, very important, the D7000/7100 allows you to re-assign the function of just about every button and switch on the camera to suit your particular way of working with it, the D3100/3200/5100/5200 does not. The new D5300 has two fn buttons that allow quick access to ISO, AF, Qual, etc but only in sequence which is still not very quick. There is no provision for Back Button Focus with the D3100/3200/5100/5200. This alone, and believe me, despite the nay-sayers, is a major fault. Sixth, and not last, the buffer size of the D3100/3200/5100/5200/5300 is far too small. If you shoot a burst at 8fps RAW plus Jpg fine, only around five ot eight shots are taken at max FPS rate before the buffer fills and the frame rate slows to around one per second. It can take these cameras up top 25 secs to process eight shots, using a class 10 card or 45 secs using a class 6 card. During this time, the camera is frozen. The D7000/7100 reduces this processing time to around 8 secs but will still only shoot around six or eight shots at full rate before the buffer fills and slows things right down. (I can see the Canon 7D boys laughing.....)

If you are into wildlife photography and you wish to use a decently large telephoto zoom such as a 70-200 f2.8 or a Sigma 150-500, the D3100/3200/5100/5200 body is too light to balance the lens nicely. Even the 18-55 f2.8 feels "heavy" when mounted on these smaller bodies, whereas the D7000/7100 balances well with the heavier lenses.

Bottom line is, if you can afford the extra bucks, go for the D7000/7100. As for the D7000 auto focus issues, in my opinion Nikon had a problem on the assembly line regarding the assembly and calibration of the AF system module, resulting in a percentage of cameras being delivered with AF systems that were out of whack. Once these were corrected by Nikon service shops, they worked flawlessly. This is why I would rather buy a "refurbished" D7000 than a new one. I can be assured that the "refurb" model has been attended to and calibrated correctly, whereas a new one is a crap-shoot. This problem has not manifested itself with the D7100.

[flashback]

Kathy,
I think Graham above has presented a very good argument in favor of the 7K series. I have a D7000 and love it. I bought new in March and I'm still learning what the camera can do. Unfortunately I don't get out as often as I would like to so by default it extends the learning curve. But honestly there isn't anything I don't like about the 7K. I thought I would miss the variable angle LCD screen but I don't. I can't say anything about the video aspect of the camera as I haven't used it and, honestly don't really have any need for it. But it's there should the need/desire arise.
Another advantage of the 7000 is that you can use any Nikon compatible AF lenses (from mid-80's) and most AI lenses as well (manual focus, set at Manual or Aperture priority.) I really don't see myself outgrowing this camera (but I do see me spending money for glass (new and used) down the road.)

[jcuknz]

Really? Not the EM1 and GX-7? .

Sorry no .. don't really look at Olympus and the GX7 is seriously deficient without a fully articulated LCD despite all the other goodies which I might enjoy if I had them
Latest investment [foolishness] an old Pentax Tele-converter [NZ$15 with P&P] to turn my 90-230 Tokina into a 180-460 or 360-920 on the Pen Expected arrival Monday.
I have the VF-2 and just saw but not ordered yet an eyepiece for it if it is what I think it is in latest B&H catalog ... always nervous about pokeing the VF-2 in my eye without something to fit against my face as with an in-body EVF..

ps.. the GX7 is designed for the right eye'd person .... I am left eyed.

[ajohnw]

Sorry no .. don't really look at Olympus and the GX7 is seriously deficient without a fully articulated LCD despite all the other goodies which I might enjoy if I had them
Latest investment [foolishness] an old Pentax Tele-converter [NZ$15 with P&P] to turn my 90-230 Tokina into a 180-460 or 360-920 on the Pen Expected arrival Monday.
I have the VF-2 and just saw but not ordered yet an eyepiece for it if it is what I think it is in latest B&H catalog ... always nervous about pokeing the VF-2 in my eye without something to fit against my face as with an in-body EVF..

ps.. the GX7 is designed for the right eye'd person .... I am left eyed.

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
-

[Hero]

The only problem I know with the D7000 was a sometimes badly aligned focus sensor in the first production run(s). So as long as you buy a new or a nikon-refurbed one, you wont run into that issue. It makes me sad when people still use that past issue when the real problem lies somewhere else. Usually the 10 inches behind the viewfinder or a bad combination of lens/camera (last bit is a long story about manufacturing tolerances and the reason we nowadays have a thingy called focus calibration).
There is imho nothing wrong with the D7000. I have one myself and used it in darkest of places like trying to photograph a litter of kittens crawling under furniture and things like that.
The only thing that ever so slightly disappointed me in the D7000 was it's size and weight, but then again my previous camera was a D40 which in size and weight rather compares to a large compact-, or bridge-camera then anything else..

[Tord]

I came from Pentax K-5 (sharing the sensor, and other bits, with the D7000), and after a lot of reading (not least Steve Huff's blog) ended up with a CX, and a FX, camera, in the form of the Nikon V1, and the Nikon D600. When I want landscapes, or BIF (birds in flight) in low light, I bring along the D600, with the Sigma 35/1.4, respectively the AF-S VR 80–400, both astounding lenses. I also have the 85/1.8G, which I seldom use, but is a very nice portrait lens.

For the rest, the V1 reins supreme: the UltraWide (UWA) 6.7-13, the Normal 18.5/1.8 and compact tele 30-110 are all very, very good! In D5000 terms they equal a 12-24, a 35 & a 55-200 (approximately, that is), a perfect kit, in my eyes! Fastest focus around, very film-like appearance at higher ISOs, and very discreet. Not quite the size of a compact, but not very far from (there are bigger compacts out there, but not made by Nikon!).

I do have some more lenses, but these get seldom used (except, maybe, the fairly cheap AF-S VR 70-300, that with an adapter (FT1) works very well on the V1 (it can be used on the D600, too, but is then fairly soft along the edges). Becomes a 120-540, in D5000 terms, on the V1 - amazingly sharp, too! Excellent for sports, parks, animals, and birds on the ground.

The D600 is in no way as essential as the V1 - the latter I hope will hive me joy 20 years from now!

[inkista]

Sorry no .. don't really look at Olympus and the GX7 is seriously deficient without a fully articulated LCD despite all the other goodies which I might enjoy if I had them

Need to take a LOT of selfies, do we? I don't mind the GX-7's LCD not being fully articulated--I'd actually prefer a tilt-up for waist-level shooting, the G3's LCD means I have to shoot portrait if I'm doing waist-level. But it is a bummer that it doesn't tilt all the way up for selfies, the way the GF-6's LCD does.

ps.. the GX7 is designed for the right eye'd person .... I am left eyed.

Doesn't seem to stop other mft shooters, but yeah, that makes it much more annoying. Myself, though, the biggest lack in the GX7 is PDAF. Too bad the EM1's so damn ugly. But hopefully it heralds a generation of PDAF-equipped mft bodies.

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.

Yuppers. BTW, I'm probably about a year or a year and a half ahead of you--my 5DmkII and 50D gathered dust on a shelf for a year or so while i went out and played with my G3. This summer, however, I dusted them off, took them out, and fell in love with my Canon gear all over again, and appreciated all the things they had that my mft gear didn't (like PDAF. She says, repeating her one note. Not to mention a fully-featured flash system with widespread 3rd-party support. Full-frame sensor. OVFs.)

I also hit my first wall with the EVF of the G3. I just got my first pair of prescription sunglasses (up until two years ago, I'd been a contact lens wearer, but dry eye has put an end to that). They're polarized. I wore them to the zoo. And I took my G3, put it to my eye, and rotated the camera into portrait--and the viewfinder went black. D'oh! Had to hike back to the car for my regular glasses, muttering all the while that my Canons wouldn't do that to me...