Nikon D7100 24.1 MP DX-Format CMOS Digital SLR (Body Only)

CUSTOMER REVIEW



While I'm hoping Nikon will release a D400, I couldn't resist trying out the new D7100. As a working pro who uses both FX and DX format cameras, my first impressions of the D7100 are very positive.



My simple summary is that this camera is a bargain and that those already inclined to own the best the DX camera Nikon sells should get one.



Having worked for years with the D300 and the D7000 bodies, my perspective on this one is influenced by what I think is good about those two popular cameras. I hoped that the D7100 would really improve in the areas of autofocus, shadow noise, and overall resolution/acuity. This camera has not disappointed me, and has even a few minor improvements I wasn't expecting.



Of first importance, shooters of the D7000 will appreciate the big improvements in AF (you probably know how sketchy that camera is to focus, especially compared to the 51-point standard set by most older/current pro bodies). It's fast, accurate, and doesn't get fooled into moving if you recompose. On single focus mode, it simply acquires and holds where you want. And the tracking AF is on par with Nikon's pro standard. This is huge for me, since I love the quality of images the D7000 gives but hate the unreliability of its AF. Acquiring focus in low light seems a bit snappier and more accurate than even the D300.



The resolving power of this sensor is unlike any DX camera before it. Because the D7100 doesn't have an anti-aliasing/low-pass filter on its 24 megapixel sensor, I knew it would be able to show a perceptible increase in resolving detail over the older D7000, and again I am glad to report it does - IF you use good glass, stopped down a bit, and process from the RAW files. My test shots captured with the Tokina 11-16 and Nikon 70-200 have blown me away. The acuity when zoomed in is night/day compared to the D7000. However, if you use mediocre glass then the only differences you'll notice are larger files and slightly better dynamic range.



In DX images, shadow noise has generally appeared too stippled even at lower ISO values, rendering a texture that the FX sensors don't have at the same ISO's. The D7100 has definitely improved this. The texture gradient is more uniform and it reminds me of the D600 in this way. Although I haven't done tests above ISO 1600, the shadow textures are more uniform and pleasant (natural?) on skin than the previous DX cameras.



Shooters familiar with Nikon's pro camera ergonomics will appreciate that the D7100 has added the quick magnification/zoom feature to the `OK' button on the rear thumbpad. It's great for snappy, quick inspections at defined zoom ratios to check for focus accuracy. This feature is nonexistent on the D7000 and the D600. I find it very handy and preferable to the +/- buttons.



Speaking of the +/- buttons to the left of the LCD, I have no idea why Nikon reversed their positions on this camera. It's a small thing but still annoying.



I'm still getting used to the new viewfinder display, so the jury is out.



The two-shot HDR feature isn't what it should be since it doesn't align the images. I'd use the bracketing feature on a tripod and be done with it.



I like that there's finally a lock button in the center of the program mode dial to avoid accidental switching, which happens too often on the D7000.



The rear LDC screen is slightly larger and also a bit crisper to my eyes.



The overall fit/finish is solid and secure. I have big hands so I only wish it was the same form factor as the D800 (hey Nikon, give us a D400 already), but at this price I'm not complaining.



I wish Nikon could squeeze out better battery performance from their cameras, frankly, and the D7100 hasn't improved upon what has become normal for the past couple years.



Sorry, but I don't mess with video so I cannot speak to this.



As a still image camera (in the DX format) the D7100 has really set a new standard. Even though I'd buy a D400 if it came out tomorrow, there's nothing stopping me from enjoying the D7100 today as the best you can get. I feel that the price is low for what it is and can create. Highly recommended...

Nikon D7000 Digital SLR (Body Only) (OLD MODEL)

CUSTOMER REVIEW



I am a photography teacher in NYC and online. (See my Amazon profile for my website.) I teach beginner and intermediate photography students every week. I've also been a professional photographer for the last five years with images published in The New York Times, GQ, New York Magazine, Women's Wear Daily, The New York Observer, The Village Voice and Time Out New York.



(This review is for beginner photographers.)



If you're a beginner, you're most likely asking yourself: Nikon or Canon? Really, I feel confident in saying that you can't go wrong with either. I've used both brand's cameras extensively and find that they both offer amazing image quality with well-built, solid cameras that, if taken care of, will last decades. There are two differences between the cameras, though, that can be taken into consideration.



The user-interface: If cameras were computers, Nikons would be PCs and Canons would be MACs. PCs are built for people not afraid of technology whereas Macs are built for people who want things super-easy. Nikons excel at customization options which means you'll see so many more options with the Advanced features of a Nikon than you will with a Canon. Canons, on the other hand, excel at ease-of-use for beginners. Canons offer less advanced options and can be easier to learn on. This can be frustrating down the line, though, once you've learned a lot about photography. At that point you may want all of the options that Nikon offers and be frustrated with your Canon. If you're someone who really likes to delve deep into your hobbies or if you're intent on becoming a professional photographer, I'd say a Nikon would be your best bet. If you're someone who wants to learn the basics of photography and only imagine yourself being a hobbyist, Canon would be a better option for you.



Where Nikon excels: Flash photography. I often find myself in situations where I'm shooting event photography (weddings, movie premiers, benefits and galas) where I need to use a lot of flash. For this kind of photography, I'll always prefer to be shooting with a Nikon. Nikon's flash metering (how the camera magically decides how much light to fire out of the flash) is much more consistent than Canon's. You can take a Canon and shoot the same scene three times in a row with flash and all three images will be at different brightness levels. You can do the same thing with a Nikon and all three images will be wonderfully the same. If you're somebody who plans on shooting a lot with flash (indoor photography, event photography, etc.) you'll want to consider going with Nikon.



Where Canon excels: Richness of colors. I've been in numerous situations where I've been on the red carpet taking the exact same picture as the photographer next to me. I'll have a Canon and the person next to me will have a Nikon. This has provided quite a few opportunities to compare the images side-by-side. What I've found is that the colors on the Canon's images look richer and make the image pop more. If I'm doing fine art photography (anything I'd like to someday hang in a gallery), I'll always want to be shooting with a Canon for this reason.



If you're set on Nikon, there are three cameras you should be considering and it all comes down to what your budget is:



D7000 $1,400 without lens

D5100 $750 without lens

D3100 $600 only available with lens

(current prices as of 2/19/11)



Here's what you get for spending extra money (each camera compared to the one below it):



D3100 vs. D5100:



The D3100 is an EXCELLENT camera so if you only have $550 to spend total on camera and lens then go out and buy this camera. You won't regret it. If you're considering spending more money, here's what you'll get from the D5100 in comparison:



-Better performance in low light situations.

-A higher resolution screen on the back of the camera so you can see your images more clearly and make out if they actually turned out well.

-An external mic jack. (If you're planning on shooting video with an external mic, you'll want the D5100 over the D3100.)

-A flip out screen (handy if you want to put your camera anywhere but at your eye level and be able to see what your camera is about to capture before you shoot it)

-Faster continuous shooting. If you're often shooting sports or any fast moving subject, continuous shooting allows you to capture multiple images in a single second. The D3100 shoots at three frames per second whereas the D5100 shoots at four frames per second.

-Higher ISO options. The D5100 offers one more stop of ISO than the D3100 does. If you don't know what ISO means (or what a stop is) just know that this allows you to more easily shoot images in low-light situations.

-Longer battery life. The D5100's battery will last 20% longer than the D3100



The two advantages of the D3100 over the D5100 are: less expensive and less weight. Whenever a camera is less expensive, it means you'll have more in your budget for the lens. The D3100 weighs 10% lighter and is 10% smaller than the D5100.



D5100 vs. D7000:



The D5100 is Nikon's latest and greatest and is even newer than the D7000. Phenomenal camera! If you're stuck, though, between the D5100 and the D7000, here's what you'll get by spending more money on the D7000:



-More focus points. When using auto-focus, the D7000 will have an easier time focusing on what you want it to focus on.

-60% longer lasting batteries.

-Faster continuous shooting. If you're often shooting sports or any fast moving subject, continuous shooting allows you to capture multiple images in a single second. The D5100 shoots at four frames per second whereas the D7000 shoots at six frames per second.

-Weather sealed. This means you can shoot with the D7000 in the rain.

-Two memory card slots. This is really a cool feature. The D7000 has two memory card slots which means you'll be less likely to find yourself standing in front of a gorgeous scene with no more memory left.

-Faster shutter speed. The fastest shutter speed on the D5100 is 1/4000th of a second; on the D7000: 1/8000th of a second. To be honest, I can't think of any practical reason why this would benefit you unless you're planning on shooting some really bright scenes like directly into the sun.



Advantages of the D5100 over the D7000:



-A flip out screen (handy if you want to put your camera anywhere but at your eye level and be able to see what your camera is about to capture before you shoot it)

-Smaller and lighter: The D5100 is 10% smaller and 30% lighter than the D7000. This is something to consider if you plan on carrying your camera around with you a lot.

-Less expensive so you can spend more on your lens!



If I can clarify any of this, please email me!



-JP Pullos, photography teacher, NYC and online (see my Amazon profile for my website)

Canon EOS 60D 18 MP CMOS Digital SLR Camera with 3.0-Inch LCD (Body Only)

CUSTOMER REVIEW



Update: With the release of the T4i, this review needs a short addendum, which I will add to the end.



The newest addition to Canon's XXD line might initially seem like a minor downgrade to the previous XXD cameras, but several new capabilities actually help make this a nice, well-featured camera that will appeal to many people who don't get caught up in whether or not this is a better camera than it's predecessor. Canon certainly made this camera for the price point and was careful to add just enough features to make it desirable over the T2i, but not desirable enough to compete with the 7D. In some respects though, it seems like a beefed-up version of the Rebel line (a "Super-Rebel") instead of a new addition to the XXD line.



As someone who has now had the opportunity to use all three of Canon's mid-range lineup (the T2i, 60D, and 7D), I have to say that I really like the feel of the 60D. Even though it no longer has the magnesium alloy body, it feels solid. In no way does it feel cheap. I have fairly small hands and the 60D feels like it was made for me. It's significantly lighter than the 7D and feels like it would be much more friendly on long hikes. The 7D feels much more robust; however, the 60D feels much more "comfy". It is definitely bigger in size than the T2i, but the angles and design of the camera have a nicely updated feel to them that makes it seem like you are getting a much more substantial camera. The articulating screen was also done very well. My initial worries that the screen would feel cheap and break easily were immediately relieved after using it. The hinges are very solid and feel almost stiff to the point where you are comfortable with it staying right where you want it. It also is very flush with the rest of the body and offers little space in between.



Aside from the feel, the camera takes beautiful pictures. Quality-wise, there is very little difference between the pictures that come out of the T2i, 60D, and 7D. ISO performance is very similar and therefore can not be much of a deciding factor between the models. Most of the decision factors really will focus on which user interface and camera system best appeals to your type and level of photography. Each of Canon's mid-range models has it's own pros and cons, and while there are MANY differences between each camera, these are the main points I considered when deciding between cameras to purchase (hopefully it helps those going through the same decision I did):



60D vs. 50D:



(+) New Sensor - the same 18MP sensor that the 7D and T2i have, better ISO coverage/performance

(+) 63 zone dual-layer metering

(+) Better viewfinder - 96% coverage vs 95% coverage

(+) Video

(+) Articulating screen

(+) Wireless flash control

(+) Horizontal electronic level

(+) In camera processing (new RAW processing feature and in camera filter effects)

(+) Control over max auto-ISO

(+) Eye-Fi wifi file transfer functions



(-) The magnesium alloy body of the 50D has been replaced with a polycarbonate body

(-) 6.3 fps shooting is down to 5.3 fps

(-) No lens microadjustment in 60D



(+/-) Compact flash card slot has been changed to a SD card slot

(+/-) Joystick replaced by directional pad



60D vs. T2i



(+) 9 all cross-type AF points vs T2i's 9 points w/ 1 center cross-type

(+) 96%, .95 magnification pentaprism viewfinder vs T2i's 95%, .87 magnification pentamirror viewfinder

(+) Articulating screen

(+) Wireless flash control

(+) Horizontal electronic level

(+) In camera processing (new RAW processing feature and in camera filter effects)

(+) Top LCD screen

(+) 5.3 fps vs 3.7 fps

(+) Built in adjustable audio level capability in video



60D vs. 7D



(+) Articulating screen

(+) In camera processing (new RAW processing feature and in camera filter effects)

(+) Control over max auto-ISO

(+) Eye-Fi wifi file transfer functions

(+) Built in adjustable audio level capability in video



(-) 9 all cross-type AF points vs 7D's 19 all cross-type points

(-) Less AF features (such as Zone AF and Point Expansion)

(-) Polycarbonate body vs 7D's magnesium alloy

(-) 96%, .95 magnification pentaprism viewfinder vs 7D's 100%, 1.0x magnification pentaprism viewfinder

(-) Transmissive LCD screen on focus screen on 7D

(-) Only horizontal electronic level vs both horizontal and vertical level on 7D

(-) 5.3 fps vs 7D's 8 fps

(-) No lens microadjustment in 60D

(-) Shutter life of 100,000 vs 7D's 150,000

(-) Dual DIGIC 4 processors in 7D

(-) 3 custom settings in 7D; 1 custom settings in 60D

(-) No PC Sync in 60D



By comparing these features, it's easy to see that the 60D fits well in the price point directly between the T2i and 7D, but of course, a large segment of previous 40D and 50D owners hoping for a true successor that isn't watered down to a certain price point will still undoubtedly be disappointed. It's easy to see in comparing the 60D to the 7D and also to Nikon's newest offerings that Canon chose to limit functionality merely so that 60D sales didn't interfere with the 7D. In fact, if you are not completely entrenched in the Canon camp, I would also suggest looking at the new Nikon D7000. It looks like a spectacular camera for not much more than the 60D. I have not used it nor will I, so I can't comment on whether it's a better choice or not.



Even so, the quality of the 60D and new functionality offer enough new aspects that many customers will surely be happy with it. The articulating screen offers a way to attain tough shots that would have previously demanded extra equipment or odd contortions to reach. It also gives a great new avenue for video capture. Eye-fi wireless transfers work well and help out on those lazy days where you just want to set your camera down and have the work of transferring photos be done for you. Much of the in camera post-production comes off as being a little "gimmicky" to me, but having the option to add effects and process photos definitely doesn't detract from the camera. And many people who don't do much of their own post-processing after transfer to a computer will probably find the in camera RAW conversion and creative effects to be a nice addition.



To me, it really came down to one major factor though: autofocus. I tend to do a lot of shooting involving fast moving subjects, so autofocus for my photography is key. The T1i and T2i were disappointing in this respect. 9 points with one cross-type in the T1i/T2i is respectable, but I found that I really could only rely on using the center point in AI servo mode to get many speedy subjects in focus. I purchased a 7D later, and was blown away by the accuracy. The options of using extra points for expansion, using autofocus zones, having 19 full cross-type points, superior subject tracking, and even the option for narrowing the points in spot autofocus really opened up new areas of photography for me. I get about 10x the amount of usable shots than I would with the T1i and T2i. The 60D isn't THAT good, but it is still much better than the T1i/T2i. In fact, just like with almost everything else about the camera, it's just about right in between the T2i and 7D. Autofocus is fast and accurate, but there are still moments where subjects just move too fast and unfortunately, the 60D doesn't have the capabilities of the 7D. If you are deciding between the 7D and 60D, this is the area you should really look at, because this is the real difference between the 2 cameras. I chose the 7D, and then decided to give the 60D a try just to see if I made the right decision. I am happy with my 7D, but the 60D was no slouch.



In my honest opinion, I think this is a huge sticking point for 40D and 50D owners though. The autofocus system needed to be updated from the previous 2 XXD editions. It has the same 9 cross-type points as the 40D and 50D did before it, and same functionality. To be a good upgrade for previous XXD users, it didn't have to be as good or better than the 7D, but it would have been nice for it to be better than the previous 2 models. Removing the magnesium alloy body and lens microadjustment really comes across as a slap in the face to some users who valued those aspects. I have to say that the body is much lighter, doesn't feel significantly less sturdy (even though it probably is less sturdy), and I've never needed to use lens microadjustment though, so I'm not overly upset about those aspects. I am not thrilled about the "non-update" of the autofocus system though.



Now that I have handled and used all 3 cameras currently in Canon's mid-range lineup, I can definitively say that they are all stellar cameras, but just made for different segments of the market. The T2i is an amazing starter camera and takes great photos for those who want to save a little extra money by going without some of the features they might not use. It might be the best budget option for those who don't take many action shots. For an extra few hundred dollars, the 60D adds some intriguing new features and seems to be aimed at the people who want a slightly higher-end camera than the T2i, but aren't ready to shell out the money for the 7D. It's a great compromise, and to me, the main thing you are missing out on is superior autofocus capabilities. The 7D is more aimed towards the pro-sumer market who want/need a faster autofocus and overall faster, more rugged camera. It's hard to go wrong with any of them, but the 60D offers a great blend of features from both the T2i and 7D along with new features of it's own for a price that won't completely break the bank. It seems to have accomplished everything it needed to do, except for one: giving the 40D and 50D owners an option for upgrade aside from the expensive 7D. If the 60D had kept the magnesium alloy body, lens microadjustment, or even just had a slightly better AF system compared to the 50D, I could easily give this camera 5 stars. As it is, I can only give it 4 stars because it's a wonderful camera for a certain segment of customers looking for a new camera, but completely isolates another loyal customer base looking for their beloved XXD line to continue.



Update: With the release of the T4i, Canon's camera playing field has certainly changed. The minor changes to the T3i didn't warrant much more discussion on the 60D vs Rebel DSLR's than was already posted with the T2i, but the T4i brings some new interesting features to the table, puts picture quality and capture characteristics on par with the 60D, and in some respects ends up being a more appealing camera.



Perhaps the most interesting new features on the T4i are that it now has autofocus during video while using Canon's new STM lenses and has a touchscreen display. For those who want or need autofocus while shooting video, this is a big selling point for the new Rebel instead of the 60D. Granted, it's not going to live up to the snappy autofocus you get when not using live-view mode or that when using specialized video camera's, but Canon did a great job with it over all. In my mind, it is a desirable feature to have access to even if you prefer to manual focus video most of the time.



The T4i also upped the Rebel line's bar to include the 5 fps and 9 cross type autofocus points already found on the 60D.



So back to the question at hand though: If you are choosing between the 60D and the T4i, which one do you go for? The 60D still has some major advantages in my opinion, and it really comes down to the better camera body of the 60D vs. the new video features of the T4i. With the 60D, you get the large dial on the back of the camera for rotating through images and selections and you also get the top LCD. The 60D still has a better, brighter viewfinder and can shoot at 1/8000 of a second opposed to the max 1/4000 of a second that the T4i can do. If those aspects don't concern you and you desperately want video autofocus, go for the T4i instead. It's a great camera. If, on the other hand, you would like a slightly more professional body and can live without video autofocus, the 60D is a great choice too. My personal choice still goes to the 7D if you can afford the upgrade though - the autofocus and 8 fps on it really put it in another level.

Nikon D3200 24.2 MP CMOS Digital SLR with 18-55mm VR and 55-200mm Non-VR DX Zoom Lenses

CUSTOMER REVIEW



Like many folks, I pre-ordered the D800 the same day it was available. Alas, Nikon totally blew the market analysis vs production vs. supply chain formula. After waiting 2 months, I had to leave the country before Nikon got it's D800 act together. I needed a beat-up D90 replacement camera, and the D3200 seemed like a decent place-holder. I quickly ordered one before they were back-ordered too! Sure, the D3200 is DX, not FX. Sure, it is not nearly as flexible. Sure, it can only AF with newer lenses. BUT, you can buy about 4-D3200's for the price of a D800, AND it comes with a decent kit lens for $699!



The tutoring graphical-based menu system is geared more to beginners, which I am not, so I find it maddening. Most will love it, since it is somewhat educational, and offers a great variety of pre-sets to take creative shots easily.



It is amazingly light weight - lighter than most lenses! It is very quiet. The AF could be faster, but it's plenty fast enough. When you dig deeper, you shockingly find that the D3200 has many advanced internal features from the highest-end cameras (D800 & F4). The high-res LCD rear screen, the EXPEED 3 image processing engine, and a new 24MP sensor. The EXPEED 3 image processing engine allows the D3200 to perform at an altitude unheard of for a so-called entry level camera. Nikon's Active-D dynamic range enhancement at 24MP at 4 frames per second requires substantial in-camera processing power.



I bought this camera primarily for still photography. With the proper lenses & technique, the results are stunning. Low-light/high ISO performance is far beyond what you should expect at this level camera. Candle-lit face images are noise-free, and look great. Still life's on a tripod at ISO 100, have more resolution that ANY DSLR I have ever used, with very little shadow noise. In short, I might not accept my D800 when it becomes available. I might use the D3200 longer than I thought, (waiting for the 24MP FX D600 for $1999 later this year -- my guesses on price & stats & date)...or, just keep using the D3200. If it breaks (I'm hard on cameras), I'll just buy a new one.



Bottom line -- the D3200: super light-weight, very quiet, super high resolution (& low noise, high dynamic range, superb colors), incredible HD video with slow motion. It is no doubt THE most amazing DSLR value on the planet!



5/14/12 UPDATE: I've now shot 100s of images, using lenses from 11 mm to 600 mm. I've learned a lot. Super-high resolution cameras are a new arena for most of us. On the surface, one automatically thinks you will get images with twice the resolution (12MP vs 24MP). Not so. MP resolution is measured linearly, so the increase while significant, is less than doubled. More importantly, when you enter the hi-res camera stratosphere, photographic technique & lens choice are critical. While these high MP cameras are capable of amazing results, you have to work to get absolutely ALL the MP's this camera has to offer. Do not blame the camera if your initial results are less dramatically sharper than your old 6-8-12MP Nikon. It's probably you...

BTW, the Nikon 18-55mm is a decent lens, but it doesn't do this imager justice. You can get better results, with better glass. The excellent f1.8 35mm DX Nikon on this camera makes a super-light weight compact package you can carry all day long, producing super images. A 60 year-old Nikkor Q 200mm f4, $70 or so on eBay, produces stunning results if carefully used on Manual, on a tripod.



Set-up a table with clean background and a few artifacts on it. Use the sharpest lens you have, at f 8, on a sturdy tripod, perpendicular to the table, Shoot the scene with the in-camera flash on both old & new camera bodies. You will see the difference easily when images from both cameras are compared side by side, enlarged to 100%.



How does this translate to everyday casual shooting? Not easily. Sub-par technique still results in sub-par images no matter what camera is used. If you are a beginner looking for the best entry-level DSLR ever made, all of this won't matter -- grab a D3200 and shoot away! Just note that the D3200 is capable of world-class imagery. If it takes more effort to take photographs of this caliber, it's a good thing -- the D3200 forces you to up your game to get there!



5/5/13 UPDATE. It's been a year. I have a D800 and a D3200. Yes, there are many differences between the two. One is at the high end of the spectrum, the other, entry level. When I'm shooting commercially, or seriously in any way, it's the D800. It is a superb camera, if you own glass that can fully exploit the 36MP sensor, and your technique is solid. For everything else, I use the D3200. Why? It's light and compact. You can easily carry it around all day, with the f1.8 35mm, and hardly know it's there. If that lens isn't wide enough, shoot a 3-frame series and stitch them together in Photoshop. Again, with good glass and technique, the results are very, very good. D800 territory? No, but few would notice. The D3200 is a pleasure to use, and handles fast enough for most kinds of photography. You can use old manual Nikkor lenses easily, albeit with a bit more effort. With the focus confirmation dot in the viewfinder, manual focusing is easy. Exposure can be guessed and adjusted using the great hi-res LCD. I recently had to shoot an emergency-rush job covering a politician's speech. All I had in the car was the D3200, the 35mm f1.8, and an old, sharp 100mm f2.8 E Nikkor -- my normal in-car-at all-times stash. The setting was indoors, in a bright garden area -- no flash allowed. I was surrounded by folks with Nikon D4's and $1500 lenses. I got a few looks....LOL. I boosted the ISO to 1600, used the $50 100mm @ f4 @1/125th, and the results were great, published in several places. The D3200 is a great camera for the money, I like it more now than when I first bought it!

Nikon D7000 DX-Format CMOS Digital SLR Kit with 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G AF-S DX VR II ED Nikkor Lens (OLD MODEL)

Nikon’s D7000 has the features you need in a size you want including a high resolution 16.2 MP DX-format CMOS sensor for large prints and tight cropping, high speed 6 frames per second continuous shooting up to 100 shots, breathtaking Full 1080p HD Movies of up to 20 minutes with full time autofocus and a low-noise ISO range of 100-6400, expandable to 25,600 (Hi 2) lets you shoot in near darkness or slow down the action. The 39 Point autofocus features nine cross-type sensors which can be configured in combinations of 9, 21 or 39 points including a 21 point ring so you can concentrate on composition.What’s in the box: Nikon D7000 DSLR Camera with NIKKOR 18-200mm DX VR II Lens and Accessory Bundle, AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II Zoom Lens, EN-EL15 Lithium-Ion Battery (1900mAh), MH-25 Quick Charger for EN-EL15 Battery, AN-DC1 Camera Strap, UC-E4 USB Cable for Nikon SLR Digital Cameras, EG-D2 A/V Cable, DK-5 Eyepiece Shield (Replacement), DK-21 Rubber Eyecup for Nikon D80, D90, D200 & D7000 Digital Cameras, BM-11 LCD Cover for D7000, HB-35 Lens Hood, BF-1B Body Cap, BS-1 Hot-Shoe Cover, 16 GB SD Memory Card, ViewNX 2 Software CD-ROM, Nikon Carrying Case, Nikon School Fast, Fun & Easy DVD, Nikon Guide to SLR Photography and Limited 1-Year Warranty.

• With 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G AF-S DX VR II ED Nikkor Lens


• Comes with 16GB SD Card, Nikon leather bag, two Nikon instructional DVD's


• High Resolution 16.2 MP DX-format CMOS sensor


• High Speed 6 frames per second continuous shooting up to 100 shots


• Breathtaking Full 1080p HD Movies with Full Time Autofocus


• 
  

CUSTOMER REVIEW



I am a photography teacher in NYC and online. (See my Amazon profile for my website.) I teach beginner and intermediate photography students every week. I've also been a professional photographer for the last five years with images published in The New York Times, GQ, New York Magazine, Women's Wear Daily, The New York Observer, The Village Voice and Time Out New York.



(This review is for beginner photographers.)



If you're a beginner, you're most likely asking yourself: Nikon or Canon? Really, I feel confident in saying that you can't go wrong with either. I've used both brand's cameras extensively and find that they both offer amazing image quality with well-built, solid cameras that, if taken care of, will last decades. There are two differences between the cameras, though, that can be taken into consideration.



The user-interface: If cameras were computers, Nikons would be PCs and Canons would be MACs. PCs are built for people not afraid of technology whereas Macs are built for people who want things super-easy. Nikons excel at customization options which means you'll see so many more options with the Advanced features of a Nikon than you will with a Canon. Canons, on the other hand, excel at ease-of-use for beginners. Canons offer less advanced options and can be easier to learn on. This can be frustrating down the line, though, once you've learned a lot about photography. At that point you may want all of the options that Nikon offers and be frustrated with your Canon. If you're someone who really likes to delve deep into your hobbies or if you're intent on becoming a professional photographer, I'd say a Nikon would be your best bet. If you're someone who wants to learn the basics of photography and only imagine yourself being a hobbyist, Canon would be a better option for you.



Where Nikon excels: Flash photography. I often find myself in situations where I'm shooting event photography (weddings, movie premiers, benefits and galas) where I need to use a lot of flash. For this kind of photography, I'll always prefer to be shooting with a Nikon. Nikon's flash metering (how the camera magically decides how much light to fire out of the flash) is much more consistent than Canon's. You can take a Canon and shoot the same scene three times in a row with flash and all three images will be at different brightness levels. You can do the same thing with a Nikon and all three images will be wonderfully the same. If you're somebody who plans on shooting a lot with flash (indoor photography, event photography, etc.) you'll want to consider going with Nikon.



Where Canon excels: Richness of colors. I've been in numerous situations where I've been on the red carpet taking the exact same picture as the photographer next to me. I'll have a Canon and the person next to me will have a Nikon. This has provided quite a few opportunities to compare the images side-by-side. What I've found is that the colors on the Canon's images look richer and make the image pop more. If I'm doing fine art photography (anything I'd like to someday hang in a gallery), I'll always want to be shooting with a Canon for this reason.



If you're set on Nikon, there are three cameras you should be considering and it all comes down to what your budget is:



D7000 $1,400 without lens

D5100 $750 without lens

D3100 $600 only available with lens

(current prices as of 2/19/11)



Here's what you get for spending extra money (each camera compared to the one below it):



D3100 vs. D5100:



The D3100 is an EXCELLENT camera so if you only have $550 to spend total on camera and lens then go out and buy this camera. You won't regret it. If you're considering spending more money, here's what you'll get from the D5100 in comparison:



-Better performance in low light situations.

-A higher resolution screen on the back of the camera so you can see your images more clearly and make out if they actually turned out well.

-An external mic jack. (If you're planning on shooting video with an external mic, you'll want the D5100 over the D3100.)

-A flip out screen (handy if you want to put your camera anywhere but at your eye level and be able to see what your camera is about to capture before you shoot it)

-Faster continuous shooting. If you're often shooting sports or any fast moving subject, continuous shooting allows you to capture multiple images in a single second. The D3100 shoots at three frames per second whereas the D5100 shoots at four frames per second.

-Higher ISO options. The D5100 offers one more stop of ISO than the D3100 does. If you don't know what ISO means (or what a stop is) just know that this allows you to more easily shoot images in low-light situations.

-Longer battery life. The D5100's battery will last 20% longer than the D3100



The two advantages of the D3100 over the D5100 are: less expensive and less weight. Whenever a camera is less expensive, it means you'll have more in your budget for the lens. The D3100 weighs 10% lighter and is 10% smaller than the D5100.



D5100 vs. D7000:



The D5100 is Nikon's latest and greatest and is even newer than the D7000. Phenomenal camera! If you're stuck, though, between the D5100 and the D7000, here's what you'll get by spending more money on the D7000:



-More focus points. When using auto-focus, the D7000 will have an easier time focusing on what you want it to focus on.

-60% longer lasting batteries.

-Faster continuous shooting. If you're often shooting sports or any fast moving subject, continuous shooting allows you to capture multiple images in a single second. The D5100 shoots at four frames per second whereas the D7000 shoots at six frames per second.

-Weather sealed. This means you can shoot with the D7000 in the rain.

-Two memory card slots. This is really a cool feature. The D7000 has two memory card slots which means you'll be less likely to find yourself standing in front of a gorgeous scene with no more memory left.

-Faster shutter speed. The fastest shutter speed on the D5100 is 1/4000th of a second; on the D7000: 1/8000th of a second. To be honest, I can't think of any practical reason why this would benefit you unless you're planning on shooting some really bright scenes like directly into the sun.



Advantages of the D5100 over the D7000:



-A flip out screen (handy if you want to put your camera anywhere but at your eye level and be able to see what your camera is about to capture before you shoot it)

-Smaller and lighter: The D5100 is 10% smaller and 30% lighter than the D7000. This is something to consider if you plan on carrying your camera around with you a lot.

-Less expensive so you can spend more on your lens!



If I can clarify any of this, please email me!



-JP Pullos, photography teacher, NYC and online (see my Amazon profile for my website)

Nikon D3200 24.2 MP CMOS Digital SLR with 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 AF-S DX VR NIKKOR Zoom Lens (Red)

CUSTOMER REVIEW



Like many folks, I pre-ordered the D800 the same day it was available. Alas, Nikon totally blew the market analysis vs production vs. supply chain formula. After waiting 2 months, I had to leave the country before Nikon got it's D800 act together. I needed a beat-up D90 replacement camera, and the D3200 seemed like a decent place-holder. I quickly ordered one before they were back-ordered too! Sure, the D3200 is DX, not FX. Sure, it is not nearly as flexible. Sure, it can only AF with newer lenses. BUT, you can buy about 4-D3200's for the price of a D800, AND it comes with a decent kit lens for $699!



The tutoring graphical-based menu system is geared more to beginners, which I am not, so I find it maddening. Most will love it, since it is somewhat educational, and offers a great variety of pre-sets to take creative shots easily.



It is amazingly light weight - lighter than most lenses! It is very quiet. The AF could be faster, but it's plenty fast enough. When you dig deeper, you shockingly find that the D3200 has many advanced internal features from the highest-end cameras (D800 & F4). The high-res LCD rear screen, the EXPEED 3 image processing engine, and a new 24MP sensor. The EXPEED 3 image processing engine allows the D3200 to perform at an altitude unheard of for a so-called entry level camera. Nikon's Active-D dynamic range enhancement at 24MP at 4 frames per second requires substantial in-camera processing power.



I bought this camera primarily for still photography. With the proper lenses & technique, the results are stunning. Low-light/high ISO performance is far beyond what you should expect at this level camera. Candle-lit face images are noise-free, and look great. Still life's on a tripod at ISO 100, have more resolution that ANY DSLR I have ever used, with very little shadow noise. In short, I might not accept my D800 when it becomes available. I might use the D3200 longer than I thought, (waiting for the 24MP FX D600 for $1999 later this year -- my guesses on price & stats & date)...or, just keep using the D3200. If it breaks (I'm hard on cameras), I'll just buy a new one.



Bottom line -- the D3200: super light-weight, very quiet, super high resolution (& low noise, high dynamic range, superb colors), incredible HD video with slow motion. It is no doubt THE most amazing DSLR value on the planet!



5/14/12 UPDATE: I've now shot 100s of images, using lenses from 11 mm to 600 mm. I've learned a lot. Super-high resolution cameras are a new arena for most of us. On the surface, one automatically thinks you will get images with twice the resolution (12MP vs 24MP). Not so. MP resolution is measured linearly, so the increase while significant, is less than doubled. More importantly, when you enter the hi-res camera stratosphere, photographic technique & lens choice are critical. While these high MP cameras are capable of amazing results, you have to work to get absolutely ALL the MP's this camera has to offer. Do not blame the camera if your initial results are less dramatically sharper than your old 6-8-12MP Nikon. It's probably you...

BTW, the Nikon 18-55mm is a decent lens, but it doesn't do this imager justice. You can get better results, with better glass. The excellent f1.8 35mm DX Nikon on this camera makes a super-light weight compact package you can carry all day long, producing super images. A 60 year-old Nikkor Q 200mm f4, $70 or so on eBay, produces stunning results if carefully used on Manual, on a tripod.



Set-up a table with clean background and a few artifacts on it. Use the sharpest lens you have, at f 8, on a sturdy tripod, perpendicular to the table, Shoot the scene with the in-camera flash on both old & new camera bodies. You will see the difference easily when images from both cameras are compared side by side, enlarged to 100%.



How does this translate to everyday casual shooting? Not easily. Sub-par technique still results in sub-par images no matter what camera is used. If you are a beginner looking for the best entry-level DSLR ever made, all of this won't matter -- grab a D3200 and shoot away! Just note that the D3200 is capable of world-class imagery. If it takes more effort to take photographs of this caliber, it's a good thing -- the D3200 forces you to up your game to get there!



5/5/13 UPDATE. It's been a year. I have a D800 and a D3200. Yes, there are many differences between the two. One is at the high end of the spectrum, the other, entry level. When I'm shooting commercially, or seriously in any way, it's the D800. It is a superb camera, if you own glass that can fully exploit the 36MP sensor, and your technique is solid. For everything else, I use the D3200. Why? It's light and compact. You can easily carry it around all day, with the f1.8 35mm, and hardly know it's there. If that lens isn't wide enough, shoot a 3-frame series and stitch them together in Photoshop. Again, with good glass and technique, the results are very, very good. D800 territory? No, but few would notice. The D3200 is a pleasure to use, and handles fast enough for most kinds of photography. You can use old manual Nikkor lenses easily, albeit with a bit more effort. With the focus confirmation dot in the viewfinder, manual focusing is easy. Exposure can be guessed and adjusted using the great hi-res LCD. I recently had to shoot an emergency-rush job covering a politician's speech. All I had in the car was the D3200, the 35mm f1.8, and an old, sharp 100mm f2.8 E Nikkor -- my normal in-car-at all-times stash. The setting was indoors, in a bright garden area -- no flash allowed. I was surrounded by folks with Nikon D4's and $1500 lenses. I got a few looks....LOL. I boosted the ISO to 1600, used the $50 100mm @ f4 @1/125th, and the results were great, published in several places. The D3200 is a great camera for the money, I like it more now than when I first bought it!

Nikon D3200 24.2 MP CMOS Digital SLR with 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 AF-S DX VR NIKKOR Zoom Lens (Red)

CUSTOMER REVIEW



Like many folks, I pre-ordered the D800 the same day it was available. Alas, Nikon totally blew the market analysis vs production vs. supply chain formula. After waiting 2 months, I had to leave the country before Nikon got it's D800 act together. I needed a beat-up D90 replacement camera, and the D3200 seemed like a decent place-holder. I quickly ordered one before they were back-ordered too! Sure, the D3200 is DX, not FX. Sure, it is not nearly as flexible. Sure, it can only AF with newer lenses. BUT, you can buy about 4-D3200's for the price of a D800, AND it comes with a decent kit lens for $699!



The tutoring graphical-based menu system is geared more to beginners, which I am not, so I find it maddening. Most will love it, since it is somewhat educational, and offers a great variety of pre-sets to take creative shots easily.



It is amazingly light weight - lighter than most lenses! It is very quiet. The AF could be faster, but it's plenty fast enough. When you dig deeper, you shockingly find that the D3200 has many advanced internal features from the highest-end cameras (D800 & F4). The high-res LCD rear screen, the EXPEED 3 image processing engine, and a new 24MP sensor. The EXPEED 3 image processing engine allows the D3200 to perform at an altitude unheard of for a so-called entry level camera. Nikon's Active-D dynamic range enhancement at 24MP at 4 frames per second requires substantial in-camera processing power.



I bought this camera primarily for still photography. With the proper lenses & technique, the results are stunning. Low-light/high ISO performance is far beyond what you should expect at this level camera. Candle-lit face images are noise-free, and look great. Still life's on a tripod at ISO 100, have more resolution that ANY DSLR I have ever used, with very little shadow noise. In short, I might not accept my D800 when it becomes available. I might use the D3200 longer than I thought, (waiting for the 24MP FX D600 for $1999 later this year -- my guesses on price & stats & date)...or, just keep using the D3200. If it breaks (I'm hard on cameras), I'll just buy a new one.



Bottom line -- the D3200: super light-weight, very quiet, super high resolution (& low noise, high dynamic range, superb colors), incredible HD video with slow motion. It is no doubt THE most amazing DSLR value on the planet!



5/14/12 UPDATE: I've now shot 100s of images, using lenses from 11 mm to 600 mm. I've learned a lot. Super-high resolution cameras are a new arena for most of us. On the surface, one automatically thinks you will get images with twice the resolution (12MP vs 24MP). Not so. MP resolution is measured linearly, so the increase while significant, is less than doubled. More importantly, when you enter the hi-res camera stratosphere, photographic technique & lens choice are critical. While these high MP cameras are capable of amazing results, you have to work to get absolutely ALL the MP's this camera has to offer. Do not blame the camera if your initial results are less dramatically sharper than your old 6-8-12MP Nikon. It's probably you...

BTW, the Nikon 18-55mm is a decent lens, but it doesn't do this imager justice. You can get better results, with better glass. The excellent f1.8 35mm DX Nikon on this camera makes a super-light weight compact package you can carry all day long, producing super images. A 60 year-old Nikkor Q 200mm f4, $70 or so on eBay, produces stunning results if carefully used on Manual, on a tripod.



Set-up a table with clean background and a few artifacts on it. Use the sharpest lens you have, at f 8, on a sturdy tripod, perpendicular to the table, Shoot the scene with the in-camera flash on both old & new camera bodies. You will see the difference easily when images from both cameras are compared side by side, enlarged to 100%.



How does this translate to everyday casual shooting? Not easily. Sub-par technique still results in sub-par images no matter what camera is used. If you are a beginner looking for the best entry-level DSLR ever made, all of this won't matter -- grab a D3200 and shoot away! Just note that the D3200 is capable of world-class imagery. If it takes more effort to take photographs of this caliber, it's a good thing -- the D3200 forces you to up your game to get there!



5/5/13 UPDATE. It's been a year. I have a D800 and a D3200. Yes, there are many differences between the two. One is at the high end of the spectrum, the other, entry level. When I'm shooting commercially, or seriously in any way, it's the D800. It is a superb camera, if you own glass that can fully exploit the 36MP sensor, and your technique is solid. For everything else, I use the D3200. Why? It's light and compact. You can easily carry it around all day, with the f1.8 35mm, and hardly know it's there. If that lens isn't wide enough, shoot a 3-frame series and stitch them together in Photoshop. Again, with good glass and technique, the results are very, very good. D800 territory? No, but few would notice. The D3200 is a pleasure to use, and handles fast enough for most kinds of photography. You can use old manual Nikkor lenses easily, albeit with a bit more effort. With the focus confirmation dot in the viewfinder, manual focusing is easy. Exposure can be guessed and adjusted using the great hi-res LCD. I recently had to shoot an emergency-rush job covering a politician's speech. All I had in the car was the D3200, the 35mm f1.8, and an old, sharp 100mm f2.8 E Nikkor -- my normal in-car-at all-times stash. The setting was indoors, in a bright garden area -- no flash allowed. I was surrounded by folks with Nikon D4's and $1500 lenses. I got a few looks....LOL. I boosted the ISO to 1600, used the $50 100mm @ f4 @1/125th, and the results were great, published in several places. The D3200 is a great camera for the money, I like it more now than when I first bought it!

Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH3K 16.05 MP Digital Single Lens Mirrorless Camera with 3-Inch OLED - Body Only (Black)

CUSTOMER REVIEW



Professional image quality testing has been done, and the verdict is in. This camera beats the Olympus OM-D EM-5... just barely. Image quality off both camera sensors is fantastic and nearly identical, but the GH3 edges out the EM-5 by just a little bit of dynamic range. The EM-5 is a little cheaper, though. Right now, the GH3 is fairly expensive, but what you pay for is the best camera in this format money can buy, and I'm not just talking about image quality.



Other reviews cover a lot of things about image quality and technical specifications, far more in depth than I'll go here. What I want to talk about is handling, video, and the general advantages of the Micro Four Thirds format.



Chances are, if you are considering the GH3 at all, you fall under one of three categories. You are either a serious enthusiast, a professional photographer, or you want to make movies. This is probably not going to be your very first system camera, and it's definitely not a point-and-shoot camera for amateurs. That's not to say the GH3 is overly complicated or unapproachable if you're new to photography, but I should think a cheaper camera would fit your needs fine.



The GH3 is a very special camera, with lots to love for those who love cameras. If you're a serious enthusiast, you should consider the EM-5 as well as the GH3. There are pros and cons for both cameras. I'll let you go read up on the EM-5 on your own, but for the GH3, it has a lot in its favor. Top of the list is handling. The GH3 is the largest camera in the format, this is true, but what you gain in bulk and weight, you also gain in ergonomics. There are lots and lots of physical buttons, five of them customizable, and nearly all of them usable one-handed without any awkwardness. The software is fantastic, too, giving you additional programable buttons on the touch screen, as well as Panasonic's fully configurable Quick Menu. There are tons and tons of options to set to get your camera working just the way you want it to. Everything is very well laid out and fairly intuitive. The dials and control wheels feel solid and work great. Even the largest of lenses balance very well on the GH3, thanks to its weight and best-in-format grip. Don't let its size fool you though, it's only a little heavier than the EM-5. Along with that size comes a very large battery. Technical specs I think are conservative on the lifespan of a charge, too. This is the best camera battery I've ever encountered, letting me shoot far longer than I am used to. All-in-all, the GH3 fits wonderfully in the hand, is very easy to shoot with, and gives you a huge amount of control. If you're an enthusiast photographer or serious prosumer, the GH3 will not disappoint. As an enthusiast, though, you've got plenty of options in the format and you should look carefully at many other models that may be cheaper but still quite satisfying.



If you are a professional, I think you'll appreciate much of the same things enthusiasts do, like what I mentioned above. But there's more in this camera that seems intended just for you. The Wi-Fi "Lumix Link" will let you upload images directly from the camera as you shoot, letting your customers see immediately what you're doing. You can also use it to trigger the shutter remotely or change settings. If wireless isn't your thing, there's an HDMI port and AV port. I have to believe the fully articulated touch screen will let you make difficult shots easy, such as doing macro on a product at a weird angle. The DSLR-type body will be very familiar to you, as well, though this is a mirrorless camera which means it's a much lighter camera than you're probably used to (more on this later). If you work with video at all for hybrid products, the live electronic viewfinder during movie recording will be a welcome change from optical viewfinders. As I mentioned before, the battery is quite large, but if you need more juice and don't want to switch batteries, there's a (sold-seperately) battery grip that will improve handling with portrait shots and give you even more endurance on a shoot. You will probably get some use out of the flash synchro socket and/or hot shoe. The buffer seems to be quite huge, and with a fast card shooting RAW in burst mode, it's very difficult to slow the camera down. There aren't more than a handful of weatherproof lenses for Micro Four Thirds so far, but if you have any the GH3 is weatherproof and will give you a seal to protect your system while you're shooting in wet environments. The camera is built with high quality, solid materials. All-in-all, the GH3 is perhaps the first Micro Four Thirds camera aimed squarely at the professional market, whether or not you've been tempted by the format before. It gives you enormous control, but gets out of your way when you're working. If you are a professional photographer, you are sure to appreciate the design considerations Panasonic made to make this a camera you can get serious work done with.



If you are a videographer, why are you even reading this review? There is simply no better camera for the movie-maker in this price range, and the video quality you'll get off of this camera will surpass hybrid or video-only cameras that cost considerably more. That said, video was one of my primary reasons for getting this camera, so I'll give you the most important details. Of all the codecs you're most likely to use, the six big ones are 1080p 24fps 50Mbps, 1080p 30fps 50Mbps, 1080p 60fps 50Mbps, 1080p 24fps 72Mbps (ALL-INTRA), 1080p 30fps 72Mbps (ALL-INTRA), or 720p 60fps 72Mbps (ALL-INTRA). You have a full-sized 3.5mm (1/8") microphone port, no need for an adapter like with the GH2, and a 3.5mm (1/8") headphone port for sound out while shooting. Of course, the GH3 has a stereo mic build-in. You can set mic levels right on the camera. There's all kinds of options for time code. As a videographer, you may still want to consider the GH2. Video quality is better on the GH3 in testing, even compared to the hacked GH2, but the GH2 is considerably cheaper and the difference in quality may not be enough. If you're a small budget indie filmmaker, choose carefully. All-in-all, if you can afford one, the GH3 out of the box is truly a fantastic video camera and competes at a much higher level for the price. It really puts other cameras to shame, even dedicated video cameras. If you are a videographer, or even a professional filmmaker, this camera has pretty much everything you want.



Which brings me to an important point. This is a hybrid camera, not merely an excellent still camera. For the price of one professional-quality camera, you're really getting two. If you happen to like taking still pictures AND video, the GH3 offers tremendous value. If you're creating hybrid products as a professional, there's really no other single camera that can do as well as this. If you're a hobbyist with interest in both pictures and video, this can save you a lot of money. The GH2 was good, this is better. Micro Four Thirds has finally arrived at the next level, not for stills-only, but for stills and video. If the EM-5 made Micro Four Thirds a serious format for still photography, the GH3 ups the ante and makes the format a viable platform for a whole new market.



Micro Four Thirds is the only truly mature mirrorless camera system. There are other mirrorless systems, to be sure, but Micro Four Thirds has a huge selection of first-party and third-party lenses, low end and high end, covering a huge range of focal lengths and apertures. The diversity of bodies from Panasonic and Olympus means there's probably a good camera for you no matter who you are. When you buy a system camera, it's reassuring to know that you're making a good investment. Micro Four Thirds is not going away any time soon. There's lots of great lenses available, and many more coming out. There's also adapters for many other lens formats, so there is almost limitless legacy glass available for any need, provided you don't mind manual focus. Mirrorless means thinner and lighter camera bodies, and Micro Four Thirds lenses need only half the focal length to achieve the same field of view as full frame cameras which means smaller and cheaper lenses for the same zoom factor. With two companies competing in the same format, there is a lot of innovation and a lot of options for users.



We'll see what happens over the next year from Panasonic and Olympus. New models are due out from both companies, as is the endless march of progress. For the time being, at least, the GH3 is a fantastic camera, and depending on your needs, it may be the best camera in this format for you until the GH4 comes out. Certainly for the moment, it has the best image quality available, and is a great camera to actually use. If you don't need the best that Micro Four Thirds has to offer, there are a lot of other great cameras to choose from in the format.



Happy shooting!

Nikon D7100 24.1 MP DX-Format CMOS Digital SLR (Body Only)

CUSTOMER REVIEW



While I'm hoping Nikon will release a D400, I couldn't resist trying out the new D7100. As a working pro who uses both FX and DX format cameras, my first impressions of the D7100 are very positive.



My simple summary is that this camera is a bargain and that those already inclined to own the best the DX camera Nikon sells should get one.



Having worked for years with the D300 and the D7000 bodies, my perspective on this one is influenced by what I think is good about those two popular cameras. I hoped that the D7100 would really improve in the areas of autofocus, shadow noise, and overall resolution/acuity. This camera has not disappointed me, and has even a few minor improvements I wasn't expecting.



Of first importance, shooters of the D7000 will appreciate the big improvements in AF (you probably know how sketchy that camera is to focus, especially compared to the 51-point standard set by most older/current pro bodies). It's fast, accurate, and doesn't get fooled into moving if you recompose. On single focus mode, it simply acquires and holds where you want. And the tracking AF is on par with Nikon's pro standard. This is huge for me, since I love the quality of images the D7000 gives but hate the unreliability of its AF. Acquiring focus in low light seems a bit snappier and more accurate than even the D300.



The resolving power of this sensor is unlike any DX camera before it. Because the D7100 doesn't have an anti-aliasing/low-pass filter on its 24 megapixel sensor, I knew it would be able to show a perceptible increase in resolving detail over the older D7000, and again I am glad to report it does - IF you use good glass, stopped down a bit, and process from the RAW files. My test shots captured with the Tokina 11-16 and Nikon 70-200 have blown me away. The acuity when zoomed in is night/day compared to the D7000. However, if you use mediocre glass then the only differences you'll notice are larger files and slightly better dynamic range.



In DX images, shadow noise has generally appeared too stippled even at lower ISO values, rendering a texture that the FX sensors don't have at the same ISO's. The D7100 has definitely improved this. The texture gradient is more uniform and it reminds me of the D600 in this way. Although I haven't done tests above ISO 1600, the shadow textures are more uniform and pleasant (natural?) on skin than the previous DX cameras.



Shooters familiar with Nikon's pro camera ergonomics will appreciate that the D7100 has added the quick magnification/zoom feature to the `OK' button on the rear thumbpad. It's great for snappy, quick inspections at defined zoom ratios to check for focus accuracy. This feature is nonexistent on the D7000 and the D600. I find it very handy and preferable to the +/- buttons.



Speaking of the +/- buttons to the left of the LCD, I have no idea why Nikon reversed their positions on this camera. It's a small thing but still annoying.



I'm still getting used to the new viewfinder display, so the jury is out.



The two-shot HDR feature isn't what it should be since it doesn't align the images. I'd use the bracketing feature on a tripod and be done with it.



I like that there's finally a lock button in the center of the program mode dial to avoid accidental switching, which happens too often on the D7000.



The rear LDC screen is slightly larger and also a bit crisper to my eyes.



The overall fit/finish is solid and secure. I have big hands so I only wish it was the same form factor as the D800 (hey Nikon, give us a D400 already), but at this price I'm not complaining.



I wish Nikon could squeeze out better battery performance from their cameras, frankly, and the D7100 hasn't improved upon what has become normal for the past couple years.



Sorry, but I don't mess with video so I cannot speak to this.



As a still image camera (in the DX format) the D7100 has really set a new standard. Even though I'd buy a D400 if it came out tomorrow, there's nothing stopping me from enjoying the D7100 today as the best you can get. I feel that the price is low for what it is and can create. Highly recommended...

Nikon D3100 14.2MP Digital SLR Double-Zoom Lens Kit with 18-55mm and 55-200mm DX Zoom Lenses (Black)

CUSTOMER REVIEW



For the cost of this camera, I don't think you can get anything better. The low light performance is off the charts. As a wedding photographer I regularly shoot with Nikon's high end professional equipment and I was amazed how close this camera is to a pro camera. Now let me get specific. In order to compare I took a look at 100% files out of each camera I own.



Which camera excels Nikon D3100($Cheap) VS. D300($1600) VS. D700 ($2,700):

* Lens = The D3100 is the only camera that comes with a lens at it's normal price

* ISO Performance = Tie between D3100 and D700! (It could be Nikon's new processing but the JPEG looks fantastic I was shooting D3100 on 6400iso with very little noise at all)

* Low Light Focusing = D700

* Focus Speed = D700

* External Buttons & Controls for Pros = D700

* Menu Navigation = D3100

* Ease of Use = D3100

* Megapixel = D3100 (14.2)

* Sensor size = D700 (Much more important than megapixels but I won't get into this)

* Can use older lenses with functionality = D700 & D300

* Video = D3100 of course! 1080P video looks amazing.

* Frame Rate = D300 at 6 photos a second

* Weight = D3100 (light as a feather)

* Ergonomics = D700 (big enough for all my finger)



Lens:

The lens is a kit lens, it will work outside but not so great in low light. The Vibration Reduction will help indoors but Vibration Reduction can't stop a child or pet in motion indoors. Consider buying a 35mm 1.8dx AFS for around $200 and you will be super happy with this camera.



Video:

I purchased the 3100 specifically to shoot video, so I put on Nikon's brand new 85mm 1.4g Nano lens and shot video with it. The lens costs more than double the camera but I wanted to see how the 1080P video looked. It has the look of a cinematic movie. After the 85mm, I put on Nikon's 50 1.2 manual focus lens and was able to take very cinematic video in manual mode. In order to make it brighter or darker you either need to use a really old lens like the 50mm 1.2 and hit the AE-L (auto exposure lock) and twist the aperture to change exposure. Or you can hit the AE-L button when you get the exposure you like. Its not a perfect system but it works well for me. Inside the menu options you can change the AE-L button to hold the setting until you reset which is helpful.



Jello Cam (What's not so great):

This camera still suffers from the "Jello Cam" look in video if it is not on a tripod and you are shaky. The video can look like jello if moved too quickly. Use a monopod or tripod when shooting to avoid this. I'm not sure if a faster video frame rate 60fps would help - but at 24 and 30 it can suffer badly.



Conclusion:

This is an amazing deal! Unless you make most of your income from photography or have a stockpile of old lenses (this camera can only autofocus with AFS lenses) then this camera is the must have camera of the year. If you have good composition skills and an eye for light you can take photos worthy of a magazine with this. Seriously, you won't regret buying this camera. When you do, do yourself a favor and buy an additional Nikon AFS lens that has a maximum aperture of 2.8, 1.8 or 1.4. These lenses will take better portraits and deal better in low light than the kit lens.

Nikon D7100 24.1 MP DX-Format CMOS Digital SLR (Body Only)

CUSTOMER REVIEW



While I'm hoping Nikon will release a D400, I couldn't resist trying out the new D7100. As a working pro who uses both FX and DX format cameras, my first impressions of the D7100 are very positive.



My simple summary is that this camera is a bargain and that those already inclined to own the best the DX camera Nikon sells should get one.



Having worked for years with the D300 and the D7000 bodies, my perspective on this one is influenced by what I think is good about those two popular cameras. I hoped that the D7100 would really improve in the areas of autofocus, shadow noise, and overall resolution/acuity. This camera has not disappointed me, and has even a few minor improvements I wasn't expecting.



Of first importance, shooters of the D7000 will appreciate the big improvements in AF (you probably know how sketchy that camera is to focus, especially compared to the 51-point standard set by most older/current pro bodies). It's fast, accurate, and doesn't get fooled into moving if you recompose. On single focus mode, it simply acquires and holds where you want. And the tracking AF is on par with Nikon's pro standard. This is huge for me, since I love the quality of images the D7000 gives but hate the unreliability of its AF. Acquiring focus in low light seems a bit snappier and more accurate than even the D300.



The resolving power of this sensor is unlike any DX camera before it. Because the D7100 doesn't have an anti-aliasing/low-pass filter on its 24 megapixel sensor, I knew it would be able to show a perceptible increase in resolving detail over the older D7000, and again I am glad to report it does - IF you use good glass, stopped down a bit, and process from the RAW files. My test shots captured with the Tokina 11-16 and Nikon 70-200 have blown me away. The acuity when zoomed in is night/day compared to the D7000. However, if you use mediocre glass then the only differences you'll notice are larger files and slightly better dynamic range.



In DX images, shadow noise has generally appeared too stippled even at lower ISO values, rendering a texture that the FX sensors don't have at the same ISO's. The D7100 has definitely improved this. The texture gradient is more uniform and it reminds me of the D600 in this way. Although I haven't done tests above ISO 1600, the shadow textures are more uniform and pleasant (natural?) on skin than the previous DX cameras.



Shooters familiar with Nikon's pro camera ergonomics will appreciate that the D7100 has added the quick magnification/zoom feature to the `OK' button on the rear thumbpad. It's great for snappy, quick inspections at defined zoom ratios to check for focus accuracy. This feature is nonexistent on the D7000 and the D600. I find it very handy and preferable to the +/- buttons.



Speaking of the +/- buttons to the left of the LCD, I have no idea why Nikon reversed their positions on this camera. It's a small thing but still annoying.



I'm still getting used to the new viewfinder display, so the jury is out.



The two-shot HDR feature isn't what it should be since it doesn't align the images. I'd use the bracketing feature on a tripod and be done with it.



I like that there's finally a lock button in the center of the program mode dial to avoid accidental switching, which happens too often on the D7000.



The rear LDC screen is slightly larger and also a bit crisper to my eyes.



The overall fit/finish is solid and secure. I have big hands so I only wish it was the same form factor as the D800 (hey Nikon, give us a D400 already), but at this price I'm not complaining.



I wish Nikon could squeeze out better battery performance from their cameras, frankly, and the D7100 hasn't improved upon what has become normal for the past couple years.



Sorry, but I don't mess with video so I cannot speak to this.



As a still image camera (in the DX format) the D7100 has really set a new standard. Even though I'd buy a D400 if it came out tomorrow, there's nothing stopping me from enjoying the D7100 today as the best you can get. I feel that the price is low for what it is and can create. Highly recommended...

Canon EOS 60D 18 MP CMOS Digital SLR Camera with 3.0-Inch LCD (Body Only)

CUSTOMER REVIEW



Update: With the release of the T4i, this review needs a short addendum, which I will add to the end.



The newest addition to Canon's XXD line might initially seem like a minor downgrade to the previous XXD cameras, but several new capabilities actually help make this a nice, well-featured camera that will appeal to many people who don't get caught up in whether or not this is a better camera than it's predecessor. Canon certainly made this camera for the price point and was careful to add just enough features to make it desirable over the T2i, but not desirable enough to compete with the 7D. In some respects though, it seems like a beefed-up version of the Rebel line (a "Super-Rebel") instead of a new addition to the XXD line.



As someone who has now had the opportunity to use all three of Canon's mid-range lineup (the T2i, 60D, and 7D), I have to say that I really like the feel of the 60D. Even though it no longer has the magnesium alloy body, it feels solid. In no way does it feel cheap. I have fairly small hands and the 60D feels like it was made for me. It's significantly lighter than the 7D and feels like it would be much more friendly on long hikes. The 7D feels much more robust; however, the 60D feels much more "comfy". It is definitely bigger in size than the T2i, but the angles and design of the camera have a nicely updated feel to them that makes it seem like you are getting a much more substantial camera. The articulating screen was also done very well. My initial worries that the screen would feel cheap and break easily were immediately relieved after using it. The hinges are very solid and feel almost stiff to the point where you are comfortable with it staying right where you want it. It also is very flush with the rest of the body and offers little space in between.



Aside from the feel, the camera takes beautiful pictures. Quality-wise, there is very little difference between the pictures that come out of the T2i, 60D, and 7D. ISO performance is very similar and therefore can not be much of a deciding factor between the models. Most of the decision factors really will focus on which user interface and camera system best appeals to your type and level of photography. Each of Canon's mid-range models has it's own pros and cons, and while there are MANY differences between each camera, these are the main points I considered when deciding between cameras to purchase (hopefully it helps those going through the same decision I did):



60D vs. 50D:



(+) New Sensor - the same 18MP sensor that the 7D and T2i have, better ISO coverage/performance

(+) 63 zone dual-layer metering

(+) Better viewfinder - 96% coverage vs 95% coverage

(+) Video

(+) Articulating screen

(+) Wireless flash control

(+) Horizontal electronic level

(+) In camera processing (new RAW processing feature and in camera filter effects)

(+) Control over max auto-ISO

(+) Eye-Fi wifi file transfer functions



(-) The magnesium alloy body of the 50D has been replaced with a polycarbonate body

(-) 6.3 fps shooting is down to 5.3 fps

(-) No lens microadjustment in 60D



(+/-) Compact flash card slot has been changed to a SD card slot

(+/-) Joystick replaced by directional pad



60D vs. T2i



(+) 9 all cross-type AF points vs T2i's 9 points w/ 1 center cross-type

(+) 96%, .95 magnification pentaprism viewfinder vs T2i's 95%, .87 magnification pentamirror viewfinder

(+) Articulating screen

(+) Wireless flash control

(+) Horizontal electronic level

(+) In camera processing (new RAW processing feature and in camera filter effects)

(+) Top LCD screen

(+) 5.3 fps vs 3.7 fps

(+) Built in adjustable audio level capability in video



60D vs. 7D



(+) Articulating screen

(+) In camera processing (new RAW processing feature and in camera filter effects)

(+) Control over max auto-ISO

(+) Eye-Fi wifi file transfer functions

(+) Built in adjustable audio level capability in video



(-) 9 all cross-type AF points vs 7D's 19 all cross-type points

(-) Less AF features (such as Zone AF and Point Expansion)

(-) Polycarbonate body vs 7D's magnesium alloy

(-) 96%, .95 magnification pentaprism viewfinder vs 7D's 100%, 1.0x magnification pentaprism viewfinder

(-) Transmissive LCD screen on focus screen on 7D

(-) Only horizontal electronic level vs both horizontal and vertical level on 7D

(-) 5.3 fps vs 7D's 8 fps

(-) No lens microadjustment in 60D

(-) Shutter life of 100,000 vs 7D's 150,000

(-) Dual DIGIC 4 processors in 7D

(-) 3 custom settings in 7D; 1 custom settings in 60D

(-) No PC Sync in 60D



By comparing these features, it's easy to see that the 60D fits well in the price point directly between the T2i and 7D, but of course, a large segment of previous 40D and 50D owners hoping for a true successor that isn't watered down to a certain price point will still undoubtedly be disappointed. It's easy to see in comparing the 60D to the 7D and also to Nikon's newest offerings that Canon chose to limit functionality merely so that 60D sales didn't interfere with the 7D. In fact, if you are not completely entrenched in the Canon camp, I would also suggest looking at the new Nikon D7000. It looks like a spectacular camera for not much more than the 60D. I have not used it nor will I, so I can't comment on whether it's a better choice or not.



Even so, the quality of the 60D and new functionality offer enough new aspects that many customers will surely be happy with it. The articulating screen offers a way to attain tough shots that would have previously demanded extra equipment or odd contortions to reach. It also gives a great new avenue for video capture. Eye-fi wireless transfers work well and help out on those lazy days where you just want to set your camera down and have the work of transferring photos be done for you. Much of the in camera post-production comes off as being a little "gimmicky" to me, but having the option to add effects and process photos definitely doesn't detract from the camera. And many people who don't do much of their own post-processing after transfer to a computer will probably find the in camera RAW conversion and creative effects to be a nice addition.



To me, it really came down to one major factor though: autofocus. I tend to do a lot of shooting involving fast moving subjects, so autofocus for my photography is key. The T1i and T2i were disappointing in this respect. 9 points with one cross-type in the T1i/T2i is respectable, but I found that I really could only rely on using the center point in AI servo mode to get many speedy subjects in focus. I purchased a 7D later, and was blown away by the accuracy. The options of using extra points for expansion, using autofocus zones, having 19 full cross-type points, superior subject tracking, and even the option for narrowing the points in spot autofocus really opened up new areas of photography for me. I get about 10x the amount of usable shots than I would with the T1i and T2i. The 60D isn't THAT good, but it is still much better than the T1i/T2i. In fact, just like with almost everything else about the camera, it's just about right in between the T2i and 7D. Autofocus is fast and accurate, but there are still moments where subjects just move too fast and unfortunately, the 60D doesn't have the capabilities of the 7D. If you are deciding between the 7D and 60D, this is the area you should really look at, because this is the real difference between the 2 cameras. I chose the 7D, and then decided to give the 60D a try just to see if I made the right decision. I am happy with my 7D, but the 60D was no slouch.



In my honest opinion, I think this is a huge sticking point for 40D and 50D owners though. The autofocus system needed to be updated from the previous 2 XXD editions. It has the same 9 cross-type points as the 40D and 50D did before it, and same functionality. To be a good upgrade for previous XXD users, it didn't have to be as good or better than the 7D, but it would have been nice for it to be better than the previous 2 models. Removing the magnesium alloy body and lens microadjustment really comes across as a slap in the face to some users who valued those aspects. I have to say that the body is much lighter, doesn't feel significantly less sturdy (even though it probably is less sturdy), and I've never needed to use lens microadjustment though, so I'm not overly upset about those aspects. I am not thrilled about the "non-update" of the autofocus system though.



Now that I have handled and used all 3 cameras currently in Canon's mid-range lineup, I can definitively say that they are all stellar cameras, but just made for different segments of the market. The T2i is an amazing starter camera and takes great photos for those who want to save a little extra money by going without some of the features they might not use. It might be the best budget option for those who don't take many action shots. For an extra few hundred dollars, the 60D adds some intriguing new features and seems to be aimed at the people who want a slightly higher-end camera than the T2i, but aren't ready to shell out the money for the 7D. It's a great compromise, and to me, the main thing you are missing out on is superior autofocus capabilities. The 7D is more aimed towards the pro-sumer market who want/need a faster autofocus and overall faster, more rugged camera. It's hard to go wrong with any of them, but the 60D offers a great blend of features from both the T2i and 7D along with new features of it's own for a price that won't completely break the bank. It seems to have accomplished everything it needed to do, except for one: giving the 40D and 50D owners an option for upgrade aside from the expensive 7D. If the 60D had kept the magnesium alloy body, lens microadjustment, or even just had a slightly better AF system compared to the 50D, I could easily give this camera 5 stars. As it is, I can only give it 4 stars because it's a wonderful camera for a certain segment of customers looking for a new camera, but completely isolates another loyal customer base looking for their beloved XXD line to continue.



Update: With the release of the T4i, Canon's camera playing field has certainly changed. The minor changes to the T3i didn't warrant much more discussion on the 60D vs Rebel DSLR's than was already posted with the T2i, but the T4i brings some new interesting features to the table, puts picture quality and capture characteristics on par with the 60D, and in some respects ends up being a more appealing camera.



Perhaps the most interesting new features on the T4i are that it now has autofocus during video while using Canon's new STM lenses and has a touchscreen display. For those who want or need autofocus while shooting video, this is a big selling point for the new Rebel instead of the 60D. Granted, it's not going to live up to the snappy autofocus you get when not using live-view mode or that when using specialized video camera's, but Canon did a great job with it over all. In my mind, it is a desirable feature to have access to even if you prefer to manual focus video most of the time.



The T4i also upped the Rebel line's bar to include the 5 fps and 9 cross type autofocus points already found on the 60D.



So back to the question at hand though: If you are choosing between the 60D and the T4i, which one do you go for? The 60D still has some major advantages in my opinion, and it really comes down to the better camera body of the 60D vs. the new video features of the T4i. With the 60D, you get the large dial on the back of the camera for rotating through images and selections and you also get the top LCD. The 60D still has a better, brighter viewfinder and can shoot at 1/8000 of a second opposed to the max 1/4000 of a second that the T4i can do. If those aspects don't concern you and you desperately want video autofocus, go for the T4i instead. It's a great camera. If, on the other hand, you would like a slightly more professional body and can live without video autofocus, the 60D is a great choice too. My personal choice still goes to the 7D if you can afford the upgrade though - the autofocus and 8 fps on it really put it in another level.

Nikon D3100 14.2MP Digital SLR Double-Zoom Lens Kit with 18-55mm and 55-200mm DX Zoom Lenses (Black)

CUSTOMER REVIEW



For the cost of this camera, I don't think you can get anything better. The low light performance is off the charts. As a wedding photographer I regularly shoot with Nikon's high end professional equipment and I was amazed how close this camera is to a pro camera. Now let me get specific. In order to compare I took a look at 100% files out of each camera I own.



Which camera excels Nikon D3100($Cheap) VS. D300($1600) VS. D700 ($2,700):

* Lens = The D3100 is the only camera that comes with a lens at it's normal price

* ISO Performance = Tie between D3100 and D700! (It could be Nikon's new processing but the JPEG looks fantastic I was shooting D3100 on 6400iso with very little noise at all)

* Low Light Focusing = D700

* Focus Speed = D700

* External Buttons & Controls for Pros = D700

* Menu Navigation = D3100

* Ease of Use = D3100

* Megapixel = D3100 (14.2)

* Sensor size = D700 (Much more important than megapixels but I won't get into this)

* Can use older lenses with functionality = D700 & D300

* Video = D3100 of course! 1080P video looks amazing.

* Frame Rate = D300 at 6 photos a second

* Weight = D3100 (light as a feather)

* Ergonomics = D700 (big enough for all my finger)



Lens:

The lens is a kit lens, it will work outside but not so great in low light. The Vibration Reduction will help indoors but Vibration Reduction can't stop a child or pet in motion indoors. Consider buying a 35mm 1.8dx AFS for around $200 and you will be super happy with this camera.



Video:

I purchased the 3100 specifically to shoot video, so I put on Nikon's brand new 85mm 1.4g Nano lens and shot video with it. The lens costs more than double the camera but I wanted to see how the 1080P video looked. It has the look of a cinematic movie. After the 85mm, I put on Nikon's 50 1.2 manual focus lens and was able to take very cinematic video in manual mode. In order to make it brighter or darker you either need to use a really old lens like the 50mm 1.2 and hit the AE-L (auto exposure lock) and twist the aperture to change exposure. Or you can hit the AE-L button when you get the exposure you like. Its not a perfect system but it works well for me. Inside the menu options you can change the AE-L button to hold the setting until you reset which is helpful.



Jello Cam (What's not so great):

This camera still suffers from the "Jello Cam" look in video if it is not on a tripod and you are shaky. The video can look like jello if moved too quickly. Use a monopod or tripod when shooting to avoid this. I'm not sure if a faster video frame rate 60fps would help - but at 24 and 30 it can suffer badly.



Conclusion:

This is an amazing deal! Unless you make most of your income from photography or have a stockpile of old lenses (this camera can only autofocus with AFS lenses) then this camera is the must have camera of the year. If you have good composition skills and an eye for light you can take photos worthy of a magazine with this. Seriously, you won't regret buying this camera. When you do, do yourself a favor and buy an additional Nikon AFS lens that has a maximum aperture of 2.8, 1.8 or 1.4. These lenses will take better portraits and deal better in low light than the kit lens.