First DSLR...New D7000 or Refurb D7100?

rast21585

Have you had any experience using the 18-140? Does it perform well in the wide end?

Photobug

@rast21585 - The 25mm F1.8 is very sharp and a great value for the cost spent.

I have only handled the 18-140 in a store on a couple of DX DSLR's. We just sold my wife's D90 with 18-105mm lens and she is getting a D5500 with the 18-140 lens. We decided on the D5300 and were waiting to Feb to buy it when the D5500 was announced. She liked the extra reach of the 18-140 over the 18-105. Check out the DxO Mark web site. It's a sharp lens and would be a great lens on the D7100.

spraynpray

What Photobug said ^

heartyfisher

Have you had any experience using the 18-140? Does it perform well in the wide end?

I put up a mini review here when I got mine (do a search on our forum). Its a very decent kit lense. its not like the 70-200 or the 24-70 or the modern primes in terms of sharpness or IQ but in terms of kit lenses its has the best IQ. It was designed to be used with the 24 MP dx cameras. (Note I only tested it on my 16mp D7000 so I have not used it on the 24MP dx cameras)

rast21585

Have you had any experience using the 18-140? Does it perform well in the wide end?

I put up a mini review here when I got mine (do a search on our forum). Its a very decent kit lense. its not like the 70-200 or the 24-70 or the modern primes in terms of sharpness or IQ but in terms of kit lenses its has the best IQ. It was designed to be used with the 24 MP dx cameras. (Note I only tested it on my 16mp D7000 so I have not used it on the 24MP dx cameras) did it perform well on your d7000?

rast21585

So I did a little research and found a used 35 1.8 lens for $120. Is this too good of a deal to pass up or do I just go for the 18-140?

KnockKnock

FWIW, I've had 1 good experience with refurbs and two neutral. In both the latter cases, I returned for full credit. Once to Adorama - didn't have much luck with auto-focus on D7000 and once to B&H, sensor spots on D7100. Ended up getting a new D7100 which I'm extremely happy with. Maybe my luck is worse than most. Maybe I've become more picky than most (have been shooting on a white background lately). In both cases I could have kept them and had them serviced by Nikon in 90 days until I was satisfied, but I took the easier route.

bald_eagle

rast21585 said:

So I did a little research and found a used 35 1.8 lens for $120. Is this too good of a deal to pass up or do I just go for the 18-140?

I think as others have already recommended, the 18-140 gives you more options and a bit of flexibility..
As Spraynpray said, 35mm DX is the equivalent field of view of 50mm on film/FX, so you can't get any Wide angle shots with it, so it isn't much good for landscapes IMHO.
A friend of mine has the 18-140 and I've tried it with my 7100, it's a great all-rounder.. and at 35mm I found it a bit sharper than my 35mm DX 1.8 is wide open..

Cheers,
Baldy.

NSXTypeR

You couldn't go wrong with the D7000 or the D7100. If you have a little extra in your budget, splurge and get the D7100.

So I did a little research and found a used 35 1.8 lens for $120. Is this too good of a deal to pass up or do I just go for the 18-140?

They're both different lenses and used pretty differently. If you're used to point and shoots and zooming, you're going to be somewhat disappointed when you put the 35mm on and can't zoom. So if you're starting out, I'd suggest get the 18-140 and then get the 35mm later.

rast21585

Btw I recently found a used d600 on craigslist for $800. The shutter was recently replaced by nikon and has less than 10 actuations on it. Is this something worth considering or would the d7100 be a better move?

sevencrossing

rast21585I recently found a used d600

You need to understand the difference between Dx (d3300 d7000 dD7100) and FX (d600) there are lots of threads on this subject. At end of the day it comes down to, your personal needs and budget. Lenses for a Fx camera will more expensive than for a dx. If you are on a tight budget, stick to Dx

Photobug

Btw I recently found a used d600 on craigslist for $800. The shutter was recently replaced by nikon and has less than 10 actuations on it. Is this something worth considering or would the d7100 be a better move?

+1 on what sevencrossing said. Do you really need the full frame format DSLR? Are you prepared to buy more expensive glass..in general FX lens are more than DX lens. Take the time and make a good assessment before buying.

If your budget is tight or you don't anticipate supporting lens purchases in the future, stay with DX DSLR's like, D3300, D5300, D5500, D7100. And as you have found out, there are some good prices on refurbished D7100 bodies.

manhattanboy

Btw I recently found a used d600 on craigslist for $800. The shutter was recently replaced by nikon and has less than 10 actuations on it. Is this something worth considering or would the d7100 be a better move?

There are lots of caveats on buying used, especially if this will be the first serious DSLR one uses.
However, contradictory to what the other folks have written, I sincerely do think the 600 is a better "fit" for what you want to do (landscapes and night shots). You may not be able to do it at Best Buy, but go with an SD card to a real camera store and shoot a photo from the 610 and the 7100 in a camera shop and take a look at the pics at home and then decide. For me the pic quality is pretty darn good on a 24mp FX sensor compared to a 24MP DX sensor given how much more focus slop the larger pixels allow for. Also, why is the person selling the 600? The shutter issues are part of the reason why I did not recommend one in the beginning...

Lenses will usually be the most expensive thing that you buy. Ironically, however, the cheaper 24mp DX cameras have teeny tiny pixels that place greater demands on lenses, so a lot of the "savings" one gets by buying a cheaper DX body ends up being funneled into better, more expensive lenses.

I still recommend that you go to a real camera shop and just play around shooting with your own SD card to get idea of not only how Nikon's look, but other brands like Fuji, etc. You seem to be a cautious decision maker, and I caution you that you really cannot make this decision over the Internet alone.

CaMeRaQuEsT

I had the same mentality as you when I bought my first DSLR, which incidentally was the D7100. My previous experience with digital photography was with point and shooters and cell phones, and before I bought the D7100 I was still shooting film on my Nikon F2 and F3, so I thought I was ripe for an amateur level DSLR. I couldn't have been more wrong! I found the learning curve on the D7100 to be way too steep and its plethora of knobs and buttons too daunting. All these "features" were getting in the way of my shooting, making me slow to react and I lost some good shots because of it. I'm not saying that it was the camera's fault, but rather my lack of experience in handling such a powerful and complicated tool. Also its weight and size prevented me from carrying it with me often and really tired me when shooting videos handheld. So I downgraded to a D3300 and never looked back. Don't underestimate the D3300: although its feature set is lacking compared to the D7100, its picture and video quality are actually ahead, and its small size and light weight are liberating, to say the least, Also don't overestimate your shooting needs or abilities and over-buy as I did, or else you end up paying twice for features you'll never use or end up with a camera that's too heavy or too complicated to use. The D3300 is the most recommended camera for beginners because of its outstanding image quality for the price, what you save you can invest in good lenses and maybe a good flash. Learning shooting technique is what will give you better pictures no matter what gear you use.

spraynpray

I can't find a single thing to agree with in the last two posts.

Regarding the first, I have both the D7100 and D750 and find the image quality of these two similar level bodies to be remarkably similar. Some folks here have a overt bias against DX which is really out of whack with any actual difference between DX and FX. At your level of experience you can forget about that and enjoy using a DX DSLR at it's far lower price point. Nikon wouldn't sell so many if there was a really huge difference in image quality.

As to the complexity stifling creativity or responsiveness, that is a personal issue that was caused by that individual changing from simple old tech to more complex new tech. We all went through that. It could have been avoided by leaving the focus mode on matrix and AF-S, the ISO on 100 and shooting it in aperture priority then the difference would have been small and god results obtained while new facilities are learned incrementally. Perhaps the weight issue has some small merit, but if you can't carry the D7100 and 18-140, you may find the few ounces/grams saved by downgrading your options with the simpler body to be insignificant when compared to the lost facilities. That isn't to say that buying the lighter camera isn't a good idea if light weight is your overriding preference, but as you haven't mentioned it before, I'm guessing it isn't.

Regarding the 18-140 at the wide end, you have to remember that it is a kit lens. That lit lens description is true, but doesn't do justice to it as it gets such good reviews. You have a budget and therefore you have to either raise your budget or accept that you are after the best bang for your buck within that budget and not get distracted but unrealistic expectations like performance from a cheaper lens that you would get from one three times the price. People are telling you the 18-140 is a great lens especially married to the D7100 but you seem determined to talk yourself round in circles - you are getting into analysis paralysis. Bald_eagle even said 18-140 wide open out performs his 35mm prime at that focal length - high praise indeed.

You actually have all the answers now that you need if you really want a DSLR. You should either be going out, and buying the kit and starting to enjoy using it, or decide why it is you aren't. If a DSLR seems complex at first, start off like I said in my third paragraph above.

manhattanboy

I can't find a single thing to agree with in the last two posts.

Regarding the first, I have both the D7100 and D750 and find the image quality of these two similar level bodies to be remarkably similar.

That sucks. I would have thought the thousands spent on the 750 would have gotten you something better than the 7100.
Goes to show the great value of the 7100 I guess.

spraynpray

I can't find a single thing to agree with in the last two posts.

Regarding the first, I have both the D7100 and D750 and find the image quality of these two similar level bodies to be remarkably similar.

That sucks. I would have thought the thousands spent on the 750 would have gotten you something better than the 7100.
Goes to show the great value of the 7100 I guess.

Yes, that is the case. I am very happy with both cameras now as my DX is slighty better for some shots and the FX is slightly better for others. I did need to sell the D7000 so my second body at least matched the first for low light (the D750 is three stops better than the D7000 and one stop better than the D7100). The D7000's low light meant that it was a back-up body for in church shots and not a second body (D750/24-120 +D7100/70-200).

rast21585

So I'm planning to get the d7100. I recently acquired the 35 1.8 dx lens for a great deal. I'm trying to decide which lens to get. I mainly plan to do landscape/cityscape and street photography. I'm thunking if getting the 18-140 or the Nikon 12-24mm f/4G ED AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor Lens. The nikon 12-24 I found in cl for $500 while the 18-140 I can get on cl for $275. Which is the better lens to get?

manhattanboy

So I'm planning to get the d7100. I recently acquired the 35 1.8 dx lens for a great deal. I'm trying to decide which lens to get. I mainly plan to do landscape/cityscape and street photography. I'm thunking if getting the 18-140 or the Nikon 12-24mm f/4G ED AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor Lens. The nikon 12-24 I found in cl for $500 while the 18-140 I can get on cl for $275. Which is the better lens to get?

Shoot some with the 35 first. It will help you decide what to buy next.
For example, after shooting with the 35 1.8 do you wish you had something wider? Something longer? Something with VR? Let the shooting guide you to what you need.

spraynpray

There is a heck of a difference between the 18-140 and 10-24 in terms of focal lengths alone. I would put money on the 18-140 being the right lens for you personally. You may also need an ultra-wide like the 10-24 later on, but you will miss out on a lot of other shots with only the 10-24. You want to shoot people/kids? that will be the 24-140 part you miss out on if you only get the 10-24.

rast21585

How is the image quality between these two lenses?

Hammie

I have the 10-24 f/3.5-4.5 and love it on my DX. It is roughly equivalent to the 16-35 on an FX body.

Here are a few shots with my D300 and 10-24 lens. I think the optical quality is great. Just wish the f-stop was better.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/louhamilton/sets/72157623513310694/

heartyfisher

I have both the 12-24 F4.0 nikkor and the 18-140 .. both are top of their class. but they are very different lenses. The 12-24 is sharper but it does not have VR and minimal range but great for landscape, its tough and does not change size when focusing or zooming, its a pro grade lense, but its really specialised. The 18-140 is very versatile, will cover 99% of a beginner's photography needs and is the kit lense with the best IQ. I would go with the 18-140.

Photobug

+1 on the recommendation for the 18-140mm for general photography.

The wife has used the 18-105mm for five years and we sold it and the D90 at the end of the year. We are waiting for her replacement, probably the D5300 and she is definitely getting the 18-140 lens. In the store she really liked the longer reach of the lens over the 18-105mm.

rast21585

+1 on the recommendation for the 18-140mm for general photography.

The wife has used the 18-105mm for five years and we sold it and the D90 at the end of the year. We are waiting for her replacement, probably the D5300 and she is definitely getting the 18-140 lens. In the store she really liked the longer reach of the lens over the 18-105mm.

How is the image quality of the 18-105 and 18-140 compared to each other?