[DisreputableDog]

I currently have a Sony DSC-H3.

But I'm going to Japan at the end of the year, and I REALLY want something better. I can't add any new lenses to my camera so, while it's still an excellent on-the-fly (heh) piece of equipment, I'm looking to buy something that will let me take the RAW format images and actually zoom in for once.

If I have taken bird pictures like this and this and this and this with my camera, I'm wondering if it would be worth my student budget + time to save up for a Nikon D7000 and nikon 70-300 lens.

I don't know if this matters as much, but I was holding my camera every time, rather than using a tripod, and I had to be, at the most, anywhere from 15 to 20 feet away from each subject. Those eagle pictures were pure luck, the gulls were loathe to move, and the quail popped up as my parents were driving by in the car. Can the Nikon D7000 be used with out a tripod at all?

Does anyone have slightly cheaper alternatives? I'd prefer to be able to save up for the camera, a lens or two, and assorted accessories by late July, which is the only issue I would have with the D7000. Help?

[DisreputableDog]

Er, I guess I mean the D700, which is the later(?) model....?

Now I'm confused. Ugh.

[Jaff]

I'm pretty sure it's the D7000 you want, the D700 is the same money as the D7000 + 70-300mm lens combined! It's a solid choice for your first foray into DSLRs. If the lens you are referring to is the Nikon 70-300mm VR then yes you will be able to get good hand held shots and in poorer light too because the D7000 will handle high ISO's much better than your Sony. What is important for you to remember is that with Nikon DSLRs the image stabilisation is in the lens not the camera so getting any lens without the VR designation in it's name will mean you do not have any image stabilistaion although still very possible to get sharp images when hand holding providing you have enough light and a steadyish hand. The key is always to look to find something to to rest your lens/elbows on or prop up against when taking a shot, even if you have VR such actions will still help with getting a higher hit rate.

I think the first thing you need to do though is save up and re-examine the market when you know what your working budget is. We'll still be here if you should need us again.

[RJM]

Where/why Japan and how long do you plan to be here?

A D7000 + Sigma 150-500mm is the minimum dslr kit you need for nature/bird photography. Sure you can make do with a shorter focal length lens, but you will be disappointed more often than not with the results unless you have special forces sniper-like fieldcraft skills.

Frankly, unless your photographic interests extend beyond birds/nature and photography is more than a casual hobby you may better served with a 30x superzoom camera or digiscoping with a fieldscope and compact digicamera than going with a dslr kit. Better yet might be the new Nikon One system plus the FT1 lens adapter and 70-300mm VR. DSLRs are dinosaurs on the verge of extinction. Their current IQ advantages just don't outweigh the utitlity of being smaller/lighter/ more portable when you are trekking in the Japan Alps!

[DisreputableDog]

I'll be in southern Japan for my job for about 2+ years.

*Grin* I'd rather shop around and do as much research as I can while I don't have the money, so that I don't make a foolish purchase when I do have it. Better, perhaps, to plan and slowly fall in love with the idea of owning a certain camera than to feel like the money is burning in my pocket, that I -need- the camera tomorrow, and then regret a sudden purchase.

Hah, and confusion cleared. Still, while I am considering the d7000, I'm looking at some amazing pictures right now that people have taken with d90's, d300's, and d200's. I also keep reading that it's more about the lenses, not the camera body.

It's just a little confusing when people on my left say "most cameras will give you a good photo, but it's the lenses and the photographer who make it great" and people on my right say "you can only get a good bird photo with a certain camera and lens."

I mean, haven't people been taking great bird photos for years now? And again, I'm looking for some other options for a student-type budget. Not that I'm casting aside the advice I've been given, but I would like a little comparison. Heh, remember, I'm a budding into the serious hobby bird photography, but I'm not there yet.

[RJM]

The people on your left are correct in the end but the advise of the people on your right can make the task much easier and more consistent. Right tools for the job as they say.

[darth bangkok]

I have a d90 and both the 70-300 vr and sigma 150-500. I love both lenses (and the d90!). The 70-300 takes some really sharp shots and is easier to carry around. When I went on a trip to Russia last summer, I was with a non-birder, so I only took the 70-300 and it worked just fine. I also went to Panama before I got the 150-300 and took some really great shots. When I've gone to Peru and Thailand recently I had both lenses with me and used them both depending on where I was going and how I was getting there. Like a trip around Tokyo with a spell of birding in the morning, I took only the 70-300 bc it would be in my pack most of the day. Trips to the wetlands always require the 500mm though :;

[stoop]

AF-S 70-300mm VR is a wonderful lens. I use it on a D300.

You don't need D7000 + Siggy 150-500mm as minimum. The siggy weighs almost 2kgs.

I climbed Mt Fuji with such a kit on my back and didn't even take it out of the back pack. What a memory!

I reckon you should study this spot and DP review until you come. Maybe you can buy in Japan and who knows what will be on the shelves by the end of the year and for how much.

A year is a long time in digital cameras. Everybody's excited about the Nikon 1 V1 now but I still like my D300. I will buy a 30-110mm lens for my V1 tomorrow and SEE how it goes...though I'm expecting it'll be easy to carry but a little short.

I'd be happy with D7000 and afs 70-300mm vr.

(don't nurse a dog when youre typing! CHEESE!)...

[greypoint]

In the dim and distant past when we all used film, the 1.5 crop factor on a 300mm lens which you get on a camera like the D7000 - with af and stabilisation - would have been an unattainable dream for most amateur photographers. If you have lots of money and don't mind carrying the weight and probably carting a tripod about too, then a 500mm lens will obviously get you closer and, used correctly, the best results. If you want portability and a combo that you can happily handhold and take on long treks without getting back/shoulder ache or worse then the 70-300 is a great lens [the similar Tamron 70-300 vc usd is a bit cheaper, and having used both I can't see a lot of difference]. not a big fan of the D7000 - just swapped mine for a s/hand D300 and D3100 - found it's rival the Pentax K-5 much better to use but there just are'nt the same longer lenses for Pentax unfortunately!

[RMWD]

A friend of mine has just taken up bird photography and is getting good results out to 40 feet with a Nikon 5100 (same sensor as D7000) and the nikon 70-300mm ads VR2 lens.
I think the Sigma 150-500 is the step for more reach. But the nikon1 V1, FT1 and 70-300mm is a very good combination with a for equivalent to a 810 mm lens. Excellent travel kit and great iQ.