Pretty sure the new kit lenses are better lenses than your old 28-200 (optically, at least), and have the additional virtue of starting at 18mm. 28mm on a crop body isn’t very wide.
The real question is, are the extra features on the D7000 outside of the focus motor worth anything to you? If they aren’t, go with the 5100 kit. One old zoom designed for film cameras isn’t worth spending extra on a body for, especially if you can get a few bucks for it. But if the other features of the D7000 are compelling, that’s a different story.
(clarification) I don’t think it’s a film lens…it was bought at the same time as the D50…
What’s odd is, a few years after I got (rather, inherited) the whole tamale, I threw the kit lens on the body…and was immediately amazed at the improvements in focus speed…used it for a bit, then threw the ED lens back on…okay, slow focus, but I could see a big difference in quality.
Well, it’s not film per se, but it dates to that period.
Mid-range zooms starting at 28mm or 24mm are designed for FX-sized sensors or 35mm film. They give you a field of vision that ranges from moderately wide-angle to however telephoto they happen to be. On crop bodies, they are barely wide-angle at the wide end of the zoom, and so there are a bunch of DX zooms starting at 16 and 18mm, giving you back the wide end of your mid-range zoom.
Your AF 28-200mmG IF-ED f3.5/5.6 came out in 2003, predates all FX sensors and would have been intended for use on F100 and F6 bodies, I would presume. There’s no particular reason not to use it on a DX body if you aren’t concerned about having no wide angle options.
This is frankly bizarre. I set up some stuff and took back to back pictures of it with the ED and Kit lenses I currently have. The Kit lens is 28-80 3.3-5.6, the zoom is 28-200 3.5-5.6…
at 28 mm, f5, I really liked the output of the ‘cheapo’ kit lens better. (Feel free to blame the operator, I never claimed to be a pro) It seems to have a LOT more detail.
That’s not bizarre at all. 28-200 is a rather wide zoom ratio, and compromises in optical design have to be made to achieve it. Lack of sharpness at the wide end should pretty much be expected in that sort of lens.
The 28-200 was never a high end lens. It’s pretty much explicitly a consumer-take-one-lens-on-your-vacation sort of lens. So it has an ED element - so does the plastic 18-55mm lens that was part of my D40 kit.
Good glass is good glass. Optics hasn’t changed much in the last 100 years - we’ve got some better coatings and some glass that handles abberations better or can bend the light the same for less weight, but there haven’t been huge advances in 10 years to the optics. I just ordered a 50mm prime off ebay that was probably made sometimes in the 60s or 70s because it’s still a great lens.
That said, a 28-200 type lens is generally of the general purpose walkaround lens range for a full frame camera - and those tend to make compromises on optical quality for convenience, so it may not be as if you were looking at top end image quality sticking with that. I’m not familiar with those particular nikon lenses, though.
I’d go with either the 5100 or 7000 - the Sony exmor sensor is by far the best thing going for APS-C cameras right now. The 5100 will take pictures that are just as good as the 7000, but it has other compromises - the body won’t be as tough or rugged, it won’t have an in body lens motor for older lens compatability, it won’t have an electronic level, it won’t have a second dial and various other controls, etc. I took the step up to a pro-sumer type level like the D7000 because of those sorts of factors.
I’d invest in the better camera and just buy lenses as you go. People tend to say that the glass is more important, that cameras come and go but glass can stay with you - but I think this is overstated. A DSLR can last you years and if you’re a photography enthusiast you’ll make use of the extra features. If you aren’t, though, the d5100 is still a very good camera.
So I finally got to perform a real hands-on comparo between my D50, the 5200 and 7000. The D7000 feels NICE. Very fast, very easy to get the perfect shot. The D5200 wasn’t bad at all (and I liked the folding display)…but it wasn’t til I got home that the one, stand-out, deciding feature, came out.
The freeking focus motor on the D7000 is LOUD. Like I could never hope to take video with anything other than manual focus loud. By comparison, the D5100 was really quiet. I’m sure with an external Mic, the D7000 would be fine, and it was much more stoutly built, but the default sound is a non-starter.
Video is becoming a major feature with newer cameras. I would think there would be an advertizing blurb or two about that.
Looking back at some of the independent reviews of various cameras and brands, it is often mentioned. Funny how I didn’t see it before, not being a personal priority for myself.
Low light Hi Def is the main reason why I’m considering upgrading. We film our Halloween presentation every year, and it’s a bitch to get enough light + film some of the effects in low light with what I currently have.
I’m a little confused. The D5200 doesn’t have a focus motor. It, like the D40/60/3000, only autofocuses with AF-S lenses which have focus motors in the lenses.
The D7000 does have an in-body focus motor, but with an AF-S lens mounted, that focus motor wouldn’t be active - only the focus motor in the lens would operate.
With identical AF-S lenses the two cameras should make pretty much the same sound. Stick an old AF lens on them, and the D7000 will be loud and the D5200 will be silent and out of focus.
Good point. I was swapping between my lenses, the kit lenses on the 5100 and 7000 and taking a bunch of different shots…I suspect it was my ED short zoom, and the 7000 that was making the noise. Still it’s the kind of niggling detail that would REALLY SUCK to find, after that amazing afternoon, with great footage, that it’s all overlayed with GRRRRR, SRNNRRRRRKRK, CHIT CHIT, GRRRRRRRR.
It’s not really a downside. In that situation, the 5100 wouldn’t function (at least you couldn’t use autofocus at all) using the lens that the 7000 is using in that video, and the 7000 would be just as quiet using the same lens as the 5100 is using in that video. There’s no situation in which the 7000 is performing worse.
Well, SLR autofocus can be kind of sketchy for video anyway (frequent changes in focus point, which often comes with changes in metering/exposure), except the progress sony made with their SLT cameras. SLRs aren’t ideal camcorders. You may want to consider just using manual focus when you want to record video or use an external microphone. Or just use a cheap modern lens like a kit lens with a silent motor for video.
I just mean that there’s no upside to the 5100 in this case - you’ll have limitations using your old lenses in video with the 7000, but you won’t be able to use it at all with the 5100.
$900 for the D7000, reusing my own glass ( -$200 for the D50 body, roughly)
or
$950 for the D5100 Costco bundle with two new kit lenses ( -$350 or so for the D50 and it’s glass)
Why? Because. It’s all kind of an arbitrary ‘this is what I feel comfortable spending’ kind of thing. I REALLY liked the way the D7000 felt, but I didn’t like it $1200 worth, compared to $600 or so out of pocket for the D5100.
