Reading mode: Light Dark

Starting Out d7000 vs d5300

Go to last post
S

studpuffin

New member
Messages
8
Reaction score
0
I wrote an essay about my experiences so far and figured it was far too much to read. Straight down to business then! I'm looking for a DSLR for wildlife and landscape. I figure lenses are more important than body's.

Question no1.

Is the cheapest way to get a "fast" lens with good IQ and reach to buy a good 80-200 and use a teleconverter?

Question no2

Having looked on ebay there seems to be far more 80-200 f4 or f2.8 for nikon bodies compared to canon, their cheaper too

Question no3

What will suit my needs better the d7000 (slightly more expensive) or the d5300. I think the d7000 allows the use of autofocus with AF lenses rather then just AF-s potentially giving me a larger range of lenses and hence more chance of a bargain.

Price is crucial really as I'm a student and stretching every penny to indulge this hobby!
 
anyone? I know this question has sort of been asked before but any opinions on whether the nikon lenses can compete with the 80-200 f4 l at a second hand price of £300 would be useful. Is it definitely most economical to go for an 80-200 with a teleconverter?
 
studpuffin said:
What will suit my needs better the d7000 (slightly more expensive) or the d5300. I think the d7000 allows the use of autofocus with AF lenses rather then just AF-s potentially giving me a larger range of lenses and hence more chance of a bargain.
Click to expand...
Regarding this aspect alone, both cameras do work with manual-focus AI and AI-S lenses.

The one difference to keep in mind is that the D7000 has an in-body motor that allows the camera to work with lenses that do not have built-in focus motor. For auto focusing, the D5300 relies on the lens to do its own motoring.

Consider these: (1) Nikkor 50mm f/1.8 AI-S, (2) Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D, (3) Nikkor 50mm f/1.8G.

The D7000 can auto-focus with (2) and (3). The D5300 can only auto-focus with (3).

If I was serious about photography and had a tight budget, I'd get a used "pro-oriented" DSLR that forces me to learn, understand and do the settings.
 
I think a pro orientated dslr would be out of my budget in that i was looking at my original options second hand (I should have mentioned that). I 100% won't be using auto mode though I have no aspirations to be a professional, if that helps regarding how serious I am??? Essentially through the research I've done wildlife photography is going to account for the most expensive lenses so I am really trying to minimize that cost. I know sigma do a 80-200 f2.8 second hand £300-400 with a teleconverter seems a really cheap way of a long fast lens though how IQ compares with the canon 80-200 f4 l is difficult to know. The nikon equivalent is vastly more money second hand (I assume because it was only released in 2012). By buying the d7000 are there lens options that deliver quality at a lower price based solely on age? Auto focus is a must with fast moving subjects for me.
 
studpuffin said:
I wrote an essay about my experiences so far and figured it was far too much to read. Straight down to business then! I'm looking for a DSLR for wildlife and landscape. I figure lenses are more important than body's.

Question no1.

Is the cheapest way to get a "fast" lens with good IQ and reach to buy a good 80-200 and use a teleconverter?
Click to expand...
I want to comment only on Question No. 1. It is generally considered putting a teleconverter onto a consumer zoom produces poor quality images and possibly autofocus difficulties as well. You might get better results just using the lens and then cropping the results in postprocessing, thereby saving you the cost of the teleconverter.

However, what kind of wildlife interests you? If it's lions. tigers, wolves etc. then yes some distance makes for more comfortable photography but I think it is wrong to think that long lenses are a sine qua non.

Here are two examples from my backgarden. A female fox, taken with my Nik 18-35mm and a bluetit taken with my Sigma 105mm.

foxy_shed_p.jpg








bluetit_1_p.jpg


David
 
Beautiful images! I'm a bit of a wildlife nut so I find interest in most things from plants to mammals. I'm in England so wolves/lions/bears are seriously unlikely :) I spend a lot of time on the coast so the teleconverter is just an option for birds on the sea or seals/porpoise which sometimes come into photo range or peregrines sat on the top of cliffs ect. So my thinking was a great 80-200 would be ideal for walking around with then a tele for time spent on the beach. Then something like an 18mm prime for landscape/night skies. I'm starting to be convinced by the d7000 by the Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8d ed af which seems to turn up on ebay for around the 350 mark
 
Kaso said:
Simply awesome!
Click to expand...
That is very kind of you.

My house is in a rural location so all kinds of creatures come into the garden. It was winter and she was cold and hungry so I gave her some food (dog biscuits). I hoped she'd come again and I could do better - but she never has.

David
 
studpuffin said:
so the d7000 is the way to go! Thanks for the advice I'll get hunting for a bargain
Click to expand...
I appreciate that budget is a concern, but note that the D7000 has a lower-resolution sensor and this may present problems if you decide to crop. I've never bothered with legacy lenses, so the integral drive issue doesn't arise. All the Nikon 24MP cameras produce great images given half a chance. Note that the D7000/D7100 take a good deal more time to achieve familiarity with the features.

As you are no doubt aware, desirable lenses for wildlife are expensive. My approach was to buy a 70-300mm zoom, and that provides some pleasing shots at times without breaking the budget. The other approach is to use a standard lens and confine yourself to docile animals (like the fox). I mostly restrict my wildlife activities to the back yard or local park.

Tamron 70-300mm; Lily-Trotter and young (cropped).
Tamron 70-300mm; Lily-Trotter and young (cropped).

Sony 50mm; Rainbow Lorikeet. (cropped image).
Sony 50mm; Rainbow Lorikeet. (cropped image).
 
Last edited:
How problematic will the 16.2 mp sensor be when cropping? Personally I don't mind time spent getting familiar with the camera as I really don't expect to produce any photographs of real quality in my first year (maybe the odd lucky one).

I think I'd like a legacy lens as I've borrowed a canon from the local camera store with a 75-300 lens and it is awful. even squirrels in broad daylight at 8ft aren't quite sharp. I've tried looking for "sweet spots" through the aperture and the shutter speed has been at least 1/600.

Unfortunately, there is absolutely no way of me restricting myself to the garden and parks. I am a birder so spend a lot of time out and about. On top of that my dad is a wildlife photographer and I love the coast so spend most of my time at places where the nature isn't really tame.
 
studpuffin said:
Stunning pictures btw
Click to expand...
Thanks. The parrot image was one of the sharpest that I've ever achieved. If you zoom in on the parrot's eye, you can make out the reflection of my backyard.

From the top:

Blue sky, 3 white clouds, Tiled roof, Table with objects at each end, Shaded lawn. Also trees and other paraphernalia...



08ec75a9e94e4593aab147f94d0f569b.jpg
 
I did some more research and it is quite difficult to find the info about potential cropping. There is a lens on ebay that may go through cheap which will force me into the 7000. I figure that if i find i need a higher pixel count i can always upgrade to the 7100/7200 in a few months.

That is a phenomenal level of detail, seriously impressive. It is always great to see wildlife from the other side of our planet makes me massively jealous.
 
studpuffin said:
I did some more research and it is quite difficult to find the info about potential cropping. . . .
Click to expand...
Go out and shoot. Too much conceptual thinking may be hazardous to your photographic health.

Do you suppose photographers must wait until 2015 for "the right gear with the right resolution" before they can create any awesome images? People who use Nikon D7000 and Canon 7D have all been handicapped photographically?

You should have seen my huge bags before I went out hiking for the first time years ago. Now, it's simple and light, virtually naked so to speak -- what's there to worry about?

;)
 
studpuffin said:
I wrote an essay about my experiences so far and figured it was far too much to read. Straight down to business then! I'm looking for a DSLR for wildlife and landscape. I figure lenses are more important than body's.

Question no3

What will suit my needs better the d7000 (slightly more expensive) or the d5300. I think the d7000 allows the use of autofocus with AF lenses rather then just AF-s potentially giving me a larger range of lenses and hence more chance of a bargain.

Price is crucial really as I'm a student and stretching every penny to indulge this hobby!
Click to expand...
I had a D5100 and upgraded to a D7100 the price new was crippling...even on sale wow...

but I understand you can get a factory refurbished D7100 in the neighborhood of around $700

might look into that....

The D7100 is astounding....

Sooo many features.....

I think that unless I was working and making alot of money...with my camera...

the D7100 will probably go to the grave with me....like one salesman said

"That's a 10yr camera"

ciao

burdicda
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top