Analysis paralysis - Feedback wanted on camera/lens purchase

[billythekidrock]

I do know that I probably should have gotten the D7200. The buffering on the D7100 is pretty slow.
But I used it in a venue I am familiar with and it shot better photos than the D5000 I was using before. It is a bummer to have to shoot at ISO 6400 but being able to double the ISO over the D5000 gets me more useable images.

[grade-creek-rd]

Damn...I just saw this thread and wish I saw it before you got your lens...(which one did you get by the way?, as I read through the posting as fast as I could so I could reply...)

I shoot the D7100 and so far really like it (I can't afford to go full frame yet as with Nikon it also means upgrading all your lenses so there is no crop). I picked up a Sigma 17-70 F2.8-4 and it shoots really well. It is fast enough and wide enough for what I shoot (landscape, wildlife, product ad shots). I also have a Nikon F1.8 50mm (mostly used for product shots) and the Tamron 70-200 F2.8 which is absoluty awesome for sports shots (my kids baseball) as well as wildlife. I got the lens that does not have the vibration reduction (you can get it for around $800 vs the $1200+ VR model) as I tend to shoot really fast with it (for baseball I rarely shoot anything under 1/2000 sec) so the VR is not needed.

Don't forget you can shoot in RAW and maybe shoot with less ISO for less noise and then tinker with the images in post processing...though all of that takes a lot of time but if your getting paid for your photos (even if its in trade for things like getting into venues for free, concert tickets, etc) then you want a quality product. I often shoot products for fishing companies and get stuff in trade...if you can show details or give the consumer what they want then you will get more work.

Lasty, though I mention processing the photos...as you know, you must first have a good photo to process. I think you will like the D7100 as you use it more (as there really isn't much difference than the D7200 other than built in wifi and a slightly faster processor to write the images...but you shouldn't try and shoot fast in low light anyway without a full frame camera, otherwise you will just end up with a headache). 

Grade

PS. So far no problems with me with the off brand lenses...and as far as the super zoom's go (18-300) everything I read about them is that they are no better than a kit lens for image quality...it's just too much to make a sharp image and I know of at least one that broke...that is a lot of movement in a lens each time you make an adjustment.

[billythekidrock]

I have only purchased a 35mm F/1.8 so far.
Mostly looking at a 200mm F/2.8 right now, but tonight I borrowed a 55-200mm F/4-5.6 to screw around with.

I was using a borrowed Nikon D5000 and if the lighting is good I could get good shots with the 18-55mm F/3.5-5.6.
Some of the clubs I shoot in require ISO 3200 with that lens and even then it is hard to capture many solid shots.

With the D7100, 35mm F/1.8 and ISO 5000 I was able to get good pics of a very active bands in a near dark club. I was also able to take less shots and have more useable images. Some tinkering and learning is still in order, but I think I will be happy with this camera.

[grade-creek-rd]

Yes, with time you'll figure out all the functions (I'm still finding new features and I've had mine since this summer). You might look into the Sigma 17-70 F2.8-4. It can give you wide shots and some zoom with a relative fast lens. I really like mine. Its about $500 and takes great landscape and the trophy "grip and grin" shots.

Grade