Go to a  "printer friendly" view of this message which allow an easy print Printer-friendly copy Go to the page which allows you to send this topic link and a message to a friend Email this topic to a friend
Forums Lobby GET TO KNOW YOUR CAMERA & MASTER IT Nikon D7100, D7000 (Public) topic #489
View in linear mode

Subject: "Should I upgrade from my D5000 to the D7000?" Previous topic | Next topic
mikona Registered since 01st Jul 2010Tue 28-Sep-10 02:04 AM
23 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
"Should I upgrade from my D5000 to the D7000?"


US
          

Hello Everyone,

My wife has recently taken up photography. In June 2010, I purchased for my wife the D5000 (with the 18-55 VR Zoom), SB-600 Flash, 55 - 200 VR Zoom and the 70 - 300 VR Zoom.

This was a very large investment (obviously) and my wife has REALLY taken to the hobby. So much so that she is now taking 32 weeks of classes at betterphoto. We go out every weekend to shoot pictures and now we are learning due to actually shooting pics and the lessons. We have come a LONG way in a short time.

One weakness in the D5000 that seems to effect us is the LCD. It isn't a really HIGH resolution display, and when shooting for clarity across the photo, sometimes it is difficult to tell if everything is SHARP. Obviously, another weakness seems to be its video capabilty.

Now, to my questions (THANK YOU IF YOU MADE IT THIS FAR). Is making the investment in a D7000 worth the extra features the camera has? How significant of an upgrade is it? The improved ISO clarity seems very attractive, as do the added pixels and enhanced video capabilities. But, would it be better to move to the D700? And, could I use my current lenses and flash with a D700. I don't know if I need or should move to an FX.

Obviously the less I have to spend THE BETTER, but I can realistically spend $1500 to $3000. It would be her X-Mas present and I would sell the D5000.

My wife seems to really enjoy taking landscape, macro and architectual photos.

Thank you SO much for any assistance you may be able to provide. I look forward to learning a lot from the people here who don't mind helping a beginner become better FASTER.

Mike

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

Replies to this topic
Subject Author Message Date ID
Reply message RE: Should I upgrade from my D5000 to the D7000?
Floridian Silver Member
28th Sep 2010
1
Reply message RE: Should I upgrade from my D5000 to the D7000?
km6xz Moderator
28th Sep 2010
2
Reply message RE: Should I upgrade from my D5000 to the D7000?
mikona
28th Sep 2010
3
Reply message RE: Should I upgrade from my D5000 to the D7000?
blw Moderator
28th Sep 2010
4
Reply message RE: Should I upgrade from my D5000 to the D7000?
mikona
28th Sep 2010
5
     Reply message RE: Should I upgrade from my D5000 to the D7000?
blw Moderator
28th Sep 2010
6
          Reply message RE: Should I upgrade from my D5000 to the D7000?
mikona
28th Sep 2010
7
               Reply message RE: Should I upgrade from my D5000 to the D7000?
wwt67 Silver Member
29th Sep 2010
8
                    Reply message RE: Should I upgrade from my D5000 to the D7000?
mikona
29th Sep 2010
11
                         Reply message RE: Should I upgrade from my D5000 to the D7000?
WD4MLA Silver Member
29th Sep 2010
12
                         Reply message RE: Should I upgrade from my D5000 to the D7000?
mikona
30th Sep 2010
13
                              Reply message RE: Should I upgrade from my D5000 to the D7000?
WD4MLA Silver Member
30th Sep 2010
15
                                   Reply message RE: Should I upgrade from my D5000 to the D7000?
mikona
30th Sep 2010
16
                                        Reply message RE: Should I upgrade from my D5000 to the D7000?
WD4MLA Silver Member
30th Sep 2010
18
                         Reply message RE: Should I upgrade from my D5000 to the D7000?
blw Moderator
30th Sep 2010
14
                              Reply message RE: Should I upgrade from my D5000 to the D7000?
mikona
30th Sep 2010
17
                                   Reply message RE: Should I upgrade from my D5000 to the D7000?
blw Moderator
01st Oct 2010
19
Reply message RE: Should I upgrade from my D5000 to the D7000?
WD4MLA Silver Member
29th Sep 2010
9
Reply message RE: Should I upgrade from my D5000 to the D7000?
mikona
29th Sep 2010
10
Reply message RE: Should I upgrade from my D5000 to the D7000?
scopeland Silver Member
10th Oct 2010
20

Floridian Silver Member Nikonian since 11th Feb 2007Tue 28-Sep-10 02:25 AM
2710 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#1. "RE: Should I upgrade from my D5000 to the D7000?"
In response to Reply # 0


Tallahassee, Florida, US
          

>... Is making the investment in a D7000 worth the extra features the
>camera has?...

The most common answer Nikonians give to a question like this (and, I think it is the correct answer) is, what would the D7000 allow you to do that you can't do with your D5000? If you don't have a specific answer about how the D5000 is holding you back, and how the D7000 would help that, then I'd say you should stick with your D5000 (which is a superb camera).

>... would it be better to move
>to the D700? And, could I use my current lenses and flash with
>a D700. I don't know if I need or should move to an FX...

Your 18-55 and 55-200 are DX lenses, so would only work on a D700 in crop mode. That's a compromise you probably would not like. Your 70-300 and flash are fully compatible with the D700.

As far as moving to FX, I'll say that personally, I don't want to, because a DX kit is smaller, lighter, and less expensive for the same type of photography. But, if you want absolutely top quality equipment (and are comfortable paying for it), FX is the way to go. Only a few years ago, though, FX didn't exist and everybody, including top professionals, were shooting DX. I understand the allure of really nice stuff, but you can get so much out of just the equipment you already own that I would advise against moving to FX unless you can articulate a good reason for doing so.

If you really want to get more stuff (you don't need it to take better photos), I'd look into getting additional lenses for the camera you have. But, you didn't mention this, and until you want to do some stuff your current lenses can't handle, I'd even say you should wait on this. Your motivation for buying should be "I want to do ??? and I can't with what I have, so I'll buy ??? which will let me do that."

Randy

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

km6xz Moderator Awarded for his in-depth knowledge in various areas, including Portraits and Urban Photography Nikonian since 22nd Jan 2009Tue 28-Sep-10 03:52 AM
3295 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#2. "RE: Should I upgrade from my D5000 to the D7000?"
In response to Reply # 0
Tue 28-Sep-10 03:52 AM by km6xz

St Petersburg, RU
          

You have already eliminated FX from your choices with only a $3000 budget, which would buy a body but no lenses. Bodies are cheap, lenses are not.
Your current lens collection is not really well suited to the type of subjects you mention, landscape and architecture. You could, if you really intend to invest in FX over a long haul, start buying lenses that will work on FX, and work well. No sense in getting lenses that are weak on a new format, that will just have to be replaced soon. A 14-24 is a great (the greatest) zoom wide on a FX, and moderately wide on a DX. That would make a good Christmas present that will even shine more when you do exhaust the capabilities of the D5000 in a year or so and the move to FX. Another any other wide angle that is really wide on DX would not be suitable for FX. A good wide for DX is a lot lower price and will have a good resale value, such as the Nikon 10-24, or Tokina 11-16 2.8, or Sigma 10-20.

The LCD is better on the D7000 but that does not impact your image taking. Is there something the D5000 is not doing that does impact images?

If you decide to move to FX eventually, getting lenses gradually beforehand will make the change less frustrating. A few workhorses that also work really well on DX in the meantime are the 24-70 2.8 and 70-200VRII 2.8, along with the above mentioned 14-24 2.8. Just those 3 must-haves are over $6000. They handle all you need from wide to moderate telephoto. For telephoto of equal quality, the price is a lot higher but unless shooting birds or wildlife you probably do not need to go telephoto.
Overall, considering how capable the D5000 is, and your current dissatisfaction with it due to results, I would say any major investment would be not giving the results you expect Apparently, you are too far down the learning slope if the D5000 does not give excellent results. Revisit the question in another 20,000 images, and 200 really good keepers.
As for holiday gifts, there are lots of great lower cost accessories. A good quality CPL, some ND filters, a white balance calibrator, a screen calibrator, PhotoShop CS5 and LightRoom 3, a faster processing computer, a great large monitor will have more impact on final output than a camera body, a good tripod, a cleaning kit, a nice fast cheap prime such as the 35 1.8 or 50 1.8, a Nikonian's workshop, a photo oriented vacation, an additional speed light for exploiting more fully the wonderful Wireless CLS, some light modifiers, some books and much more, all of which will have more impact on your image quality than buying a new body. By the time you are really ready to move on from the D5000 there will be additional exciting choices, such as a pro body Dx, a D700 replacement and if you are really into it, the replacement D3s next year.
Save your money, this in an expensive hobby if you want to be on the advanced edge but luckily there is no image related need to be. A lot of people have deservedly won awards for images shot on D40's, D50's D70's and D5000's. You, nor anyone else, can tell the difference when printed, whether they were shot with $50k in gear or $500. It is no different from a beginning painter to ask if they should get the new $500 sable brushes because the the $50 brushes are not producing good enough results. I spend a lot of time in art galleries and museums and never have wondered what brushes an particularly compelling painting was created with. In other words, getting a D3x and $25,000 in lenses is not going to put one more photo contest award on your mantle.
Stan
St Petersburg Russia

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    
mikona Registered since 01st Jul 2010Tue 28-Sep-10 04:59 AM
23 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#3. "RE: Should I upgrade from my D5000 to the D7000?"
In response to Reply # 2


US
          

Thank you very much for the responses!

My wife has actually taken some really great pictures so far with the D5000 and she is very happy with it. It takes sharp images, is very easy to use and is very light.

I know that the camera is very capable of doing what we want it to do. Additionally, I do know that a better camera isn't necessarily going to make better 'photos'.

The LCD screen, ISO noise and video limitations are the only real downfalls so far for my wife and I.

I appreciate VERY MUCH all possible feedback. Thank you all so much.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

blw Moderator Awarded for his high level of expertise in various areas Nikonian since 18th Jun 2004Tue 28-Sep-10 11:13 AM
26563 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to send message via AOL IM
#4. "RE: Should I upgrade from my D5000 to the D7000?"
In response to Reply # 0


Richmond, US
          

I don't see an upgrade - any of them - making an enormous difference.

The D5000's LCD isn't shabby, and if you're looking for clarity as to the sharpness of the photo, zooming in on the pixels ought to do that pretty well. Even the older and much smaller LCDs do this quite well (I'm thinking of the D100 here).

"ISO clarity" is literally true, but in practice may not be that relevant. You're shooting with VR lenses and flash - the upper limits of the D5000's sensor shouldn't really be in the way. Seriously, how often are you at ISO 1600 or above? And if you are, how often is that due to trying to avoid the use of a tripod? (If you had said sports I'd be more inclined to think high ISO is an issue, but I don't see sports in your description.) Also, how are you evaluating "noise"? At 100% zoom?

Added pixels will likely do you no good at all. Surprisingly perhaps, you won't even see the difference if you go to 24mp (ie the D3x), unless you're doing some printing that you didn't mention. The places that lots of pixels help are either (a) cropping a lot, which I'd argue is really a lens problem and not a sensor problem, (b) making large prints, and (c) ... well I can only think of two. The D5000 is already 12mp, with which you can make at least a quality 24 x 36" print, assuming good lenses, excellent technique and good post processing and printing skills. Going to 16mp in the D7k will be essentially invisible until you get to the large prints. My definition of "large" is 20x30 or larger. An 8x10 at typical print densities actually throws away information from a 12mp file, and an 11x17 is about native resolution.

I can't comment on video.

A D700 is clearly not something that is a great deal right now. It buys nothing in resolution (it's 12mp too), it gets you higher ISO - but a D7k will do almost as well for half the price, and... little of functional value over the new DX bodies. (There are definitely differences, but they're things like bracketing intervals, AF-on button - stuff that you're not encountering yet.) For a lot of money more. Of your kit, if you switched to FX, the only thing you'd save is your flash and the 70-300. It would also cost you at least $3000 even if you got minimal lenses. With something like a 24-120/f4 it would be more like $3400.

My advice is to spend the money on opportunities to make photographs (you're already investing in the area that counts the most, which is improving the photographers). If you're wanting to spend on gear, I'd go for a really good tripod and head (probably a lot more than you're expecting), a macro lens (probably not very expensive - I don't see the need to spend more than $450) and possibly an ultra-wide lens. A good tripod will do more for sharpness than anything else, and the great thing is that it applies to all lenses and cameras.

_____
Brian... a bicoastal Nikonian and Team Member

My gallery is online. Comments and critique welcomed any time!

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    
mikona Registered since 01st Jul 2010Tue 28-Sep-10 03:27 PM
23 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#5. "RE: Should I upgrade from my D5000 to the D7000?"
In response to Reply # 4
Tue 28-Sep-10 03:29 PM by mikona

US
          

Hello Brian,

Thank you for your response.

Let me start by saying that this is exactly the type of information I am looking for. Everyone has been great.

My wife does do 'some' sports photography. She also takes pictures of music bands on various stages in Southern California. Usually, they are of my band, but that isn't a bad thing.

Additionally, we have already had one of her photos blown up to 2' x 3' and is displayed on a wall in her office. It was put on canvas. Our goal is to eventually fill our home with her photos. We are planning to do some much larger photos (3 x 5 or a bit larger for certain spots in our home) in the future.

After my wife takes the first 32 weeks of her initial curriculum, she plans on taking another 32 weeks of the 'master' class.

Although I cannot promise that I will NOT buy the D7000, I may just stay with the D5000 for a while. My daughter REALLY wants a DSLR, so I could just hand her down the D5000 if necessary.

Thank you Brian for taking the time (as the other 2 have done) to assist a relative 'newbie' in learning more quickly. I appreciate the details you took the time to type out.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

        
blw Moderator Awarded for his high level of expertise in various areas Nikonian since 18th Jun 2004Tue 28-Sep-10 03:52 PM
26563 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to send message via AOL IM
#6. "RE: Should I upgrade from my D5000 to the D7000?"
In response to Reply # 5


Richmond, US
          

> we have already had one of her photos blown up to 2' x 3' and is displayed on a wall in her office.

OK, that's pretty different from most folks asking this question! That's 24x36 and while it's clearly within the range of what can be done on 12mp, it's definitely getting toward the outer limit.

> We are planning to do some much larger photos (3 x 5 or a bit larger for certain spots in our home) in the future.

Wow, 36 x 60 or larger. This will take some doing - but note that it is possible. Probably this - and certainly anything much larger - will need to be a multi-shot kind of operation, at least given 12mp or even 16mp (D7k).

> She also takes pictures of music bands on various stages in Southern California.

I suppose that things vary, but this is a fairly tough environment, technically. It's one place where the high ISO capability is used. And in sports I've been known to use ISO 1600 in full daylight, for various reasons, so night sports or less favorable conditions drive up the ISO requirements. (I'm simplifying a lot here, but the conditions under which I need 1600 in daylight have to do with credential limitations and the like, not technical problems. I certainly don't need ISO 1600 for an f/2.8 lens in full daylight.)

Your first request sounded very typical. This clarification clearly puts you in a different category than most potential upgraders. From the wide variety of work (landscape, macro, architecture, stage, sports), to the rapid progression to prints that are not just large but VERY large, and what appears to be an intense drive to learn and improve from the whole family, you may not be in the position that you need to upgrade - but you might be very close. If there are two or three of you, and your wife is really as into it as it appears, you could be needing at least two, very easily three and possibly four bodies with associated setups.

Still, my original advise about tripods and lenses remains valid, especially the tripod. A D7k does sound like it may be in your future. (You could be in for some serious investment, from the sound of it!)

_____
Brian... a bicoastal Nikonian and Team Member

My gallery is online. Comments and critique welcomed any time!

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

            
mikona Registered since 01st Jul 2010Tue 28-Sep-10 04:43 PM
23 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#7. "RE: Should I upgrade from my D5000 to the D7000?"
In response to Reply # 6
Tue 28-Sep-10 04:44 PM by mikona

US
          

Oh, I believe I have a fairly decent tripod.

I have a Manfrotto 190PROB Tripod base with a Manfrotto 494RC2 mini ball head.

We originally spent $49 at best buy for a tripod and quickly invested well over $200 in a NEW tripod. Honestly, it was a GREAT investment and we use it on probably 65% of my wife's shots.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                
wwt67 Silver Member Nikonian since 07th Apr 2010Wed 29-Sep-10 03:58 AM
329 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#8. "RE: Should I upgrade from my D5000 to the D7000?"
In response to Reply # 7


Warsaw, US
          

I have a D5000 (my first dslr) and I am very happy with the IQ it provides. I have learned a lot with this camera. Like you, I'm considering going to the D7000 or D300s for two reasons.

1. I find the view finder is too small and makes framing a picture somewhat difficult. Does your wife find this to be a problem? Also the more I use the camera, the more I want external controls and a larger body.

2. My wife is starting to go with me on photo adventures (mostly wildlife) and she would like her own camera. She's not bothered by the view finder so the D5000 will become hers.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                    
mikona Registered since 01st Jul 2010Wed 29-Sep-10 08:15 PM
23 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#11. "RE: Should I upgrade from my D5000 to the D7000?"
In response to Reply # 8


US
          

Unfortunately for us (my wife and I), we do not know what we do not know. But, with that said, my wife has commented a couple of times that it can be difficult to see in the viewfinder due to its size and clarity.

We haven't used any different cameras, so we wouldn't know that the view finder is 'small'. However, just KNOWING NOW that there is a camera with enhanced LCD, a larger viewfinder (I felt the view finder was small) and a 100% view in the finder is pretty significant. More external controls is definitely a plus, not to mention the ISO noise reduction (this will be significant for us due to her taking lots of pics of my band on various stages in low lighted clubs).

For the money, the D5000 is exceptional. I just didn't know that my wife would get SO into photography SO fast.

I didn't do a ton of research on the D5000 (although I did some), and admit that Ashton Kutcher sold me with the twisting view finder on the commercial! HAHAHA My wife has only moved the view finder ONCE in a live application out of the nearly 17,000 pictures she has taken in almost 4 months. To us, that isn't a high enough percentage to warrant the movable viewfinder as a must have.

Now that photography is a passion, we are printing LARGE prints, taking classes and FINALLY doing research on products, we realize that a step up in technology may make our lives a bit easier when taking photos. It will not in most cases give us better photos, but the ease of taking pictures be increased.

Sorry for the long winded answer. Thanks for asking. I appreciate your question and time.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                        
WD4MLA Silver Member Nikonian since 10th Nov 2002Wed 29-Sep-10 11:11 PM
897 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#12. "RE: Should I upgrade from my D5000 to the D7000?"
In response to Reply # 11


Sylva, US
          

Mike

About 95% of my photography is landscape and the Hyperfocal distance is the best tool I have. I am giving you a link to the Nikonians hyperfocal chart, that you can print out and carry with you.
http://www.nikonians.org/html/resources/guides/dof/wide_angle_tables.pdf

I find that F11 gives me a good sweet spot in my lens to work with and have a great DOF. Looking at the chart and using F11 and 18mm, the hyperfocal distance to focus on is 4.7 ft. This will put everything from 2.35 ft to infinity in acceptable focus. You do not have to get out a tape measure, just guess the distance. If you are close to 6 ft tall, holding the camera close to your eye and aiming at something close to your feet will be close enough. After you focus, you can hold the shutter 1/2 down and recompose or switch the lens to manual focus so it will not refocus when you shoot. Working with a tripod, switching to manual focus is the way to go.

When you talk about the View Finder being too small are you talking about the back screen or the view finder you look through? Are you using live view to compose your shots. If so, I would only do this while using a tripod. Hand holding the camera away from your body like a point and shoot is not good holding technique and will lead to hand shake. I do not find the screen to be much help in the field because of the light. Using it to view the histograms will give good information on your exposure and seem to show up better in the light.

Good luck with your new hobby, it is one you can enjoy all of your life.

Jerry Jaynes
Great Smoky Mountains
of North Carolina

http://www.flickr.com/photos/by_jerry_jaynes/

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                            
mikona Registered since 01st Jul 2010Thu 30-Sep-10 12:40 AM
23 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#13. "RE: Should I upgrade from my D5000 to the D7000?"
In response to Reply # 12


US
          

Mr. Jaynes, thank you very much. If you don't mind, I would like to clarify on the focusing technique you are talking about. Sorry for the inconvenience.

Using my 18mm at F11, while in AF-S focus mode, I can basically focus on my shoe (I am 6' 4" tall) by pressing the shutter button half way down to lock the focus. After that, I simply re-adjust the camera to frame my desired shot. Because the focus point of my shoe was approx 4.7' (I would bend down a bit), that is going to be where the camera attempts to focus during my newly framed shot, regardless of if there is a physical object to focus on or not in the recomposed image?

Assuming I am correct (and I could be WAY off), in my picture, 2.35' (hyperfocal of 4.7 - half that distance) to infinity would be in acceptable focus?

Another question (again, thank you SO much for your assistance and clarification) would be, why would I need (or want) to switch the lens to manual focus after pressing the shutter half way down to initially lock the focus? I am not understanding and I am sure there is a reason.

A final question is, once the shot is focused and I recompose (I am also assuming recomposing simply means reframing the image in the viewfinder) can I take multiple shots without needing to refocus on something at the hyperfocal distance between actual shots. Or, is that what switching the manual setting after the initial focus lock will do for me. Once I initially lock the focus, if I change to the manual setting on the lens, it will keep that focus distance for as many shots as I intend to take?

To answer another question of yours, my wife occasionally uses the LCD to frame, but she believes the viewfinder, not the LCD, is too small.

Mr. Jaynes, thank you VERY much for your time and sharing your knowledge. I appreciate it very much.

Mike



Visit my Nikonians gallery.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                
WD4MLA Silver Member Nikonian since 10th Nov 2002Thu 30-Sep-10 01:25 PM
897 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#15. "RE: Should I upgrade from my D5000 to the D7000?"
In response to Reply # 13


Sylva, US
          

Mike

>Using my 18mm at F11, while in AF-S focus mode, I can basically
>focus on my shoe (I am 6' 4" tall) by pressing the shutter button
>half way down to lock the focus. After that, I simply re-adjust the
>camera to frame my desired shot. Because the focus point of my shoe
>was approx 4.7' (I would bend down a bit), that is going to be where the camera attempts to focus during my newly framed shot,
>regardless of if there is a physical object to focus on or not in
> the recomposed image?

>Assuming I am correct (and I could be WAY off), in my picture, >2.35' (hyperfocal of 4.7 - half that distance) to infinity would be >in acceptable focus?

You are correct.

>Another question (again, thank you SO much for your assistance and
>clarification) would be, why would I need (or want) to switch the
>lens to manual focus after pressing the shutter half way down to
>initially lock the focus? I am not understanding and I am sure
>there is a reason.


The reason you would switch to manual focus is to keep the camera from refocusing after you recompose your shot. Now if you kept the shutter pressed 1/2 down you would not need to switch it. Using this method you could not take multiple shots. By switching to manual focus, you can take multiple shots and the camera will not refocus. This is the method to use on a tripod and optional method handheld.

>Once I initially lock the focus, if I change to the manual setting
>on the lens, it will keep that focus distance for as many shots as
>I intend to take?

Yes, you are correct. I use this method all the time and it takes all the focus and what is and is not in focus worry away, allowing me to concentrate on my composition. Try it and see what you think.
Nothing is more distracting than to include something close in the foreground of a landscape and have it out of focus. This method will prevent that and allow the foreground object to add interest and depth to your scene.

Jerry Jaynes
Great Smoky Mountains
of North Carolina

http://www.flickr.com/photos/by_jerry_jaynes/

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                    
mikona Registered since 01st Jul 2010Thu 30-Sep-10 03:04 PM
23 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#16. "RE: Should I upgrade from my D5000 to the D7000?"
In response to Reply # 15


US
          

THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU!

My wife and I will DEFINITELY work with this on Sunday of this week! I am very, very excited and appreciate your help.

One last question if you have time. When pressing the shutter half way down, I need keep it compressed to that point to keep the focus locked? Or, if I press it half way down and release it locks until I finally take the photo.

You have been UNBELIEVEABLY helpful and I sincerely appreciate your time and effort in assisting me.

I also took the time to look at your photos and was VERY impressed with them. I really enjoyed your After The Rains photo!

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                        
WD4MLA Silver Member Nikonian since 10th Nov 2002Thu 30-Sep-10 04:19 PM
897 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#18. "RE: Should I upgrade from my D5000 to the D7000?"
In response to Reply # 16


Sylva, US
          

Thank you for the compliment, Flickr is a good site to share photos on, along with the Nikonians. I have met a lot of good friends there.

>One last question if you have time. When pressing the shutter half way down, I need keep it compressed to that point to keep the focus locked? Or, if I press it half >way down and release it locks until I finally take the photo.

You must keep it compressed until you take the photo. If you release it, it will refocus on something else when you snap the shot. If you are only taking one shot holding it down will work fine. If you want to take multiple shots or using a tripod (your tripod is your best friend) use the switch.

Back in the old days, the prime lens were marked with the hyperfocal scale and it was very easy to set it up.

Jerry Jaynes
Great Smoky Mountains
of North Carolina

http://www.flickr.com/photos/by_jerry_jaynes/

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                        
blw Moderator Awarded for his high level of expertise in various areas Nikonian since 18th Jun 2004Thu 30-Sep-10 04:39 AM
26563 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to send message via AOL IM
#14. "RE: Should I upgrade from my D5000 to the D7000?"
In response to Reply # 11


Richmond, US
          

> a 100% view in the finder is pretty significant.

This is, in my opinion, considerably overblown in importance. Granted, I use two cameras with 100% coverage, but I do use another one with only 95% - they are functionally identical.

I wrote this in another thread recently but I can't remember where, so I'll just write it again:

- The 96% viewfinder only is missing 2% on each side. This is really pretty irrelevant, because it's not that often that one can frame a scene with perfect accuracy. Sometimes that's due to the fact that the subject itself is not exactly a 3:2 aspect ratio. A few are, but most are not. They're whatever they are, not 3:2. So for many subjects, even with PERFECT framing, need cropping anyway.

- really a continuation of the above, but if you print on standard sizes or with standard mattes (8x10, 16x20, etc) you will be cropping anyway: again, because their aspect ratio is not the same as that of the sensor.

- If you're shooting macro on a big tripod, or in a museum, or many landscapes, perhaps you can in fact frame 100% accurately. But if you're shooting sports, wildlife, the street, most travel, most photojournalist subjects, etc, you aren't going to be anywhere close to 2% accurate on framing. In many of these disciplines, you'll be lucky to get framing just 90% accurate, because the subjects move unpredictably, or you can't get to precisely the right camera position, the shot is a grab shot, or the wildlife isn't cooperating. In those cases, a 2% error is completely irrelevant.

- Even if you can frame accurately, it's rare that having too much in the frame by 2% is an issue. Ordinarily that will be anonymous, but in the event that it's not, it's easy to crop it out later. Yes, it reduces the resolution of the file - but the difference between 12mp and 16mp is barely detectable in less than enormous prints, and certainly the difference between 12mp and 11.7mp is functionally invisible all the time. I definitely get the notion of "get it right in the camera" but is this really what that's about? I don't think so.

Bottom line: unless you can reasonably say that you're working primarily in one of the disciplines that has little movement and few if any impromptu shots, the viewfinder coverage is really irrelevant and should not be used as a buying criteria except perhaps as a final tiebreaker. It's definitely NOT a differentiator in actual photographic practice.

> 17,000 ... 4 months

Wow, that's piling it up. I'm not an infrequent user (in fact I've frequently been accused of "spray and pray" due to my unusually high frame counts - about 25k per year). Yet you're running at an annual pace that's double mine and in line with working sports pros.

Adding all these things together, I'm going to suggest that your wife is profiling as the sort who probably should be avoiding intermediate steps and stretching to "go first class." Although it's expensive, everything you write describes a trajectory that's consistent with ending up as a working pro, whether or not there's that much revenue coming in. Surprisingly for those who have read me for years, (and contradicting the advice I normally give to non-pros, including to your original post) here's a circumstance where FX may in fact be the right move. Nikon has pretty clearly signaled that its short- to mid-term future for professional cameras is primarily in FX. That's due to both the bodies and the lens offerings. So if you're headed rapidly in that direction, it may well be best to short-circuit the intermediate steps.

Of course, given that you're not fully requiring the upgrade yet, combined with the fact that the FX family is late in its product cycle, I think that it is prudent to wait until the D4 family comes out next year. In the meantime, lenses (and, believe it or not, quite possibly a tripod upgrade) are good investments and can be preserved over an FX transition.

_____
Brian... a bicoastal Nikonian and Team Member

My gallery is online. Comments and critique welcomed any time!

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                            
mikona Registered since 01st Jul 2010Thu 30-Sep-10 03:15 PM
23 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#17. "RE: Should I upgrade from my D5000 to the D7000?"
In response to Reply # 14


US
          

Thank you VERY much Brian.

Spray and Pray! I like that.

That was what my wife did initially. She is now taking the time to compose her shots and therefore, her output has dropped over the last month or so. In the beginning, she was shooting 1700 a week. Lots of of spray and prey.

Last Saturday, we spent 4 hours taking pictures and she took 138 pictures. This is the least she has done in a week since June. But, she spent MORE time thinking about the shots, and even laid on her back in dirt to get a good angle of a statue with a wide angle lens in her nice clothes!

I would love nothing more than to get a D4! But, that is certainly NOT in my budget. I could squeeze in the D7000 or perhaps a D700 and lens (at least from my initial findings) that I have seen from what seem to be reputable dealers on Ebay.

My wife has stated that she would love to eventually retire (she is a CFO) and take pictures professionally (knowing she wouldn't make much money). So, she definitely could end up wanting to do this for a living or just for a bit of extra income someday.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                
blw Moderator Awarded for his high level of expertise in various areas Nikonian since 18th Jun 2004Fri 01-Oct-10 08:13 AM
26563 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to send message via AOL IM
#19. "RE: Should I upgrade from my D5000 to the D7000?"
In response to Reply # 17


Richmond, US
          

> Spray and Pray! I like that.

Well, it's not my term, it was applied to me, and it was intended as an insult, or at least a pejorative. I don't think it applies at all, as in reality I'm really a pretty careful and deliberate photographer. When I have the opportunity, I can slow down to about five frames an hour - macro work, done indoors in controlled situations, on a tripod and focusing rail with a tilt/shift lens, for example. But I do a lot of sports, and in fact that's where I use up a lot of frames. One might even argue that I don't spend enough frames there. (One of my regular shooting partners is a pro, and he almost always shoots many more than I do.) If I were shooting 25k/yr as a part time landscape photographer that would be a clear sign of some uncritical decision making behind the viewfinder. And indeed I do macro, landscapes and portraits. But I also do motorsports, baseball, equestrian and occasionally some other things where the frames roll up pretty quickly. Wildlife, too.

> D4 ... not in the budget

Well of course - you did say $3000! But actually I didn't say to get a D4, just to wait until that generation comes out. Even on the steep learning curve, you've got a year left in the camera you have. But when the D4 comes out, I expect it to be the herald of a new generation - a new D400 and maybe a D800 will accompany it, and really those were the ones I was thinking of. That's one reason I encourage you to wait a year. The other is to climb the curve more to gain enough experience to know where to go next. As fast as she's going, it will still be a while before she really needs to move on.

> retire and ... photography professionally

I hear many echos of myself here, and that's one reason why I changed my recommendation over the course of several posts, as I learned more about your specific situation. You're new to Nikonians so probably wouldn't realize how rare that is, but I don't change 180 degrees very often. Particularly because I've been through this myself, I can see where this curve goes. She (and you, apparently) are already undertaking a wide variety of things, and entertaining the possibility of entering the profession, so my advice is to recognize where that's going and to plan your investments (think of them in those terms, as well as return on investments) accordingly.

_____
Brian... a bicoastal Nikonian and Team Member

My gallery is online. Comments and critique welcomed any time!

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

WD4MLA Silver Member Nikonian since 10th Nov 2002Wed 29-Sep-10 04:39 PM
897 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#9. "RE: Should I upgrade from my D5000 to the D7000?"
In response to Reply # 0


Sylva, US
          

Hi Mike,

You have gotten some great answers to your questions so far. One point I wanted to make is concerning your not being able to determine if you have clarity across the photo. If you are shooting landscapes, focusing on the hyperfocal point can remove that concern. I use this method all the time and never worry about what is in focus because I know the focal range before I shoot. Are you using the hyperfocal distance at all?

Jerry Jaynes
Great Smoky Mountains
of North Carolina

http://www.flickr.com/photos/by_jerry_jaynes/

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    
mikona Registered since 01st Jul 2010Wed 29-Sep-10 07:54 PM
23 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#10. "RE: Should I upgrade from my D5000 to the D7000?"
In response to Reply # 9


US
          

My wife just learned about the hyperfocal point last week from her online class and she took some pictures using this technique.

We are a bit confused as to how it works in applications, especially on landscape photos in which there is no definite focal piece.

What we did for her class, was find what the closest area that we wanted in focus from the lens, and backed into the hyperfocal distance. At that point we guesstimated the distance to the hyperfocal distance as best we could, and attempted to focus on that spot. It seems to have worked well.

We noticed that the picture did come out pretty clear, even using f8. I suppose we are just not real comfortable with using this technique as it is still a bit confusing to us.

We understand the concept clearly, it is just the application of it that is a bit shaky for us at this point. I feel that practicing using this technique, as with just about anything, will help better our understanding.

Thank you for your response. We will continue to work on this technique.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

scopeland Silver Member Nikonian since 17th Apr 2009Sun 10-Oct-10 07:46 PM
278 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#20. "RE: Should I upgrade from my D5000 to the D7000?"
In response to Reply # 0


Rochester, US
          

Another idea to keep in mind given the place that photography is likely to have in your lives going forward is the idea of a backup body.

When I first started reading posts in these forums and heard that people had multiple camera bodies (and often very nice ones!), I never thought that I would be in that position. I'm now beginning to see how it can make sense in many ways if you are at all serious about photography as a hobby (or especially as a profession). If you find yourselves travelling with the hope of capturing images being an important part of the trip, it is certainly nice to have the insurance of a second camera in the event something goes wrong with your main camera. It's also legitimate to go with both a DX and FX format camera for each of their strengths and benefits.

All that to say, the next camera you buy is very unlikely to be the last camera that you buy. At the pace of technology changes, the one you buy today may quite likely become your backup in 2-3 years. For me, it can take a lot of pressure off the decision making process if you don't go in to it thinking "I've got to get this absolutely perfect because this is the last camera I'll ever buy". I'm not suggesting a cavalier approach, and I certainly want to make good decisions, but I find that I can use and enjoy my gear with a lot less angst (before and after the purchase) if I keep the decision making process simple. I also try to keep in mind that even a less than perfect choice today will take fantastic images, I'll learn from it, it will certainly be more than fine as a backup camera, and I'll probably have a chance to make a better (or at least different) choice a couple years down the road.

Good luck, and have fun taking pictures!

Steve

Visit my Main site or my Sports site

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

Forums Lobby GET TO KNOW YOUR CAMERA & MASTER IT Nikon D7100, D7000 (Public) topic #489 Previous topic | Next topic


Take the Nikonians Tour and learn more about being a Nikonian Wiki /FAQ /Help Listen to our MP3 photography radio channels Find anything on Nikon and imaging technology - fast!

Copyright © Nikonians 2000, 2014
All Rights Reserved

Nikonians®, NikoScope® and NikoniansAcademy™ are trademarks owned by Nikonians.org.
Nikon®, Nikonos® and Nikkor® are registered trademarks of Nikon Corporation.