My friend Herman asked earlier today about potentially switching from Canon to Nikon, and what model might make an appropriate replacement for his current 30D.  Apparently there was a spectacular (sounded too good to be true) deal on a D7000 kit valid till the end of the day Thursday, but he had to run before we finished the discussion.  But in case he’s not already the proud new owner of a D7000, I’ll share a few thoughts – also because I know quite a few others with D90s, with whom I’ve had this discussion!

Like me, Herman is definitively in the amateur category (although having seen “amateur photographers” organize dedicated photo trips, either Thom’s term ‘consumer’ or perhaps even ‘non-photographer’ would be more appropriate – more on that later).  In particular, he’s going to mainly be capturing memories of places he goes and things he does with his family, not trying to make a living some day through photography.  Still, this is a significant enough want for him that spending over $1,000 on a camera body is in the realm of possibility.

Now, I can’t comment on any offering other than Nikon (and I’m sure there are good choices from other brands), but let’s consider which Nikon DSLRs might be a fit.  First, we can quickly throw out those that aren’t:

• D3100 – well received, but ergonomically it’d be a step down from the 30D, and lack of an AF motor prevents use of some of the lenses that Herman is interested in.
• D5000 – aging and due for a replacement, it’s probably not a great pick right now and also lacks the focus motor.
• D300s – for non-photographers, I just can’t see any reason to get the bigger, heavier, more expensive D300s over the D7000 at this point.  It’s faster shooting speed, better weather sealing, and other particular pro features just won’t see that much use by non-photographers.
• D3s/D3x – prohibitive size, weight, and perhaps most importantly, cost.  I’m sure they’re great cameras!

That leaves three cameras in the current lineup – the D90, D7000, and D700.  Conveniently, I’ve used all three, even though my time with the D700 was the most limited.

The D700 is a fantastic camera; you’re at the threshold of being able to call yourself a non-photographer when using one, but in my opinion it produced the best images under a given set of conditions (often less-than-ideal light levels) of the cameras I’ve owned, and I’d recommend it to anyone.  I bought mine used for around $2,000, and have seen a few for less than that; the gap between $1200 + tax (for the D7000) and $1800 for a used D700 is not that huge.  Still, it’s price (and size) make it tough to recommend for most people until they’re really sure they’re going to make good use of the equipment.  This is especially true because full frame lenses for the D700 cost a fortune.  But if money were totally no object, it’d be worth considering.

Now we’re down to the title of the post, D90 vs. D7000.  Lots of photography sites run down the difference in specs and features; for instance, the excellent D7000 review at dpreview.com does a good job of highlighting the differences between both cameras.  What might be less obvious is which of these actually matter to the non-photographer; here’s my take:

• More resolution (16MP vs. 12MP).  Perhaps a headline feature, but in reality, makes a minimal difference.  A D7000 image is 4928 pixels across; a D90 is 4288 pixels across.  In practice, I don’t notice the difference except perhaps with extreme crops.
• More auto-focus points (39 vs. 11).  The D7000 is definitely better at auto-focus (and the D90 wasn’t bad), but oddly enough I still usually use single-point AF and recompose, so no big deal for me.  But I think most fellow non-photographers will find this to be a real upgrade.  AF fine tune (on the D7000, but not the D90) could also be a life-saver if you have a lens that consistently front/back focuses on your camera.
• Base ISO of 100 (vs. 200 on the D90).  Wow!  When you’ve got enough light to actually shoot at ISO 100, it looks really awesome as the images are really clean.  I completely underestimated the significance of this.  You can really recover from under-exposure when shooting at ISO 100. When I first got the camera and was taking useless shots to try it out, this shot convinced me – though you’ll need to click for the bigger version and zoom in on the eyelashes to see why (note: limited depth-of-field at f/3.5 limits sharpness elsewhere, and warning, the original image is huge!):

• Better high ISO.  It’s not quite a full stop better – but let’s face it, good quality at higher ISOs is *the* reason for most non-photographers to get a DSLR in the first place.  Compact cameras are often fine out in the sunshine, but your family is usually indoors as are your gatherings, birthday parties, and various other things that the non-photographer wants to take pictures of.  People also don’t hold still like landscapes or models, and we don’t lug tripods around, so decent shutter speeds are needed.  Indeed, high ISO is probably more important to the non-photographer than to most pros (those that aren’t doing indoor sports, concerts, weddings, or other low-light events). For me, ISO 800 was the limit on my D90, until Lightroom 3 noise reduction came along and bumped that to ISO 1600.  By default, I use auto-ISO up to ISO 3200 on the D7000 – so it is effectively a stop higher for me.  It’s no D700 at ISO 3200, but it’s good enough for shots you otherwise wouldn’t get.  And even though you can see some visible noise in the output, it’s less blotchy and annoying than the D90 (in my opinion). Here’s a recent ISO 3200 example:

• Better manual focus.  The D90 works with manual focus lenses, but can’t meter with many of them, and can’t input data for non-CPU lenses.   The D7000 not only meters, but has a three-segment focus indicator which *really* helps; I talked about this in an earlier post.  Most non-photographers won’t care about this – and I admit, it was nice to play with this but I don’t actively shoot with manual lenses.  It’s nice to have that freedom, though, and I really liked the ones I tried.
• Dual memory card slots.  I’m paranoid about data loss (whether uncontrollable or caused by my own errors), so I love this feature, because the two slots can be used in backup mode.
• Better video (1080p H.264 vs. 720p MJPEG).  The D90 was occasionally interesting but mostly unusable for video.  The D7000 isn’t great, but it is much better.  First, it has an external mic slot that the D90 lacked, which is mandatory if you want decent sound.  Second, it records 1080p with a better codec.  Third, it does have AF during recording, but it’s still not very good.  Honestly, I don’t care that much about video, an HD camcorder from two or three years ago still performs better in most respects (unless you want to get creative).
• Built-in intervalometer.  I’ve yet to use this, and I think most fellow non-photographers will rarely use it too.  But, during an amazing lightning storm when I had the D90, I really wished I had this, because I was clicking the shutter manually to get about 300 shots, hoping for one that worked.  I’m way too lazy to try and do a time lapse with this.
• 100% viewfinder.  Surprisingly nice; now you really can see when vignetting occurs (with some hoods or filters), and you really know what’s in the frame or not.
• 1000+ shot battery.  The D90 wasn’t too bad, doing 500+ shots on a single charge, but the D7000 is just amazing in this respect.  I haven’t even bought an extra battery yet.  When you see the warning indicator, you have something like 200 shots left, which is more than I’d usually shoot in a day!  It’s nice not having to bring extra batteries or a charger on many trips!

After such a long list of things I really like about the D7000 over the D90, you’d think at this point in time I might say it’s a no-brainer to go with the D7000.  And in one of two cases, it might be:

• Money is truly no object.  For some non-photographers, even if you had an infinite amount of money the D7000 might be the optimal choice, as it’s the best available DX camera and much lighter than a full-frame setup.
• You already have all the lenses and accessories you want.  Perhaps you wisely got a D40 years ago and all your subsequent money went into a nice set of lenses.  In that case, if you can spring for the D7000 over the D90, there’s a lot to like.

However, few people fall into either of the above categories, and that makes things a lot more complicated.  A used D90 is $600; there aren’t many used D7000s, and a new one costs $1200+tax so it’s a $700+ difference.  That’s enough for a decent telephoto zoom like the 70-300 VR, a nicer general purpose zoom like the 16-85mm or 18-200mm, and even comes close to some specialized things like the 105mm f/2.8 VR macro lens, the 10-24mm DX ultra-wide, or a used 85/1.4 portrait lens.  Indoors, a D90 with an extra 35 f/1.8 for low light and a SB-700 flash will do a lot better than a D7000 with the kit-lens and pop-up flash.  So if you’re buying a whole Nikon kit on a fixed budget, I’d actually recommend the D90 with better lenses/accessories over the D7000 and skimping on lenses.

For me, I had a set of lenses and accessories that I was already very happy with (this page has a list of my stuff), and I take enough pictures every year that the upgrade to the D7000 seemed worthwhile. Now that I’ve used the D7000 for a while, I’m really glad that I did, and found more to like than I had anticipated.  But every situation is unique – and in many cases the D90 really is a great choice if it means you have cash left over for lenses.  Both are great cameras and either way, you’ll definitely be happy.

Thom Hogan, perhaps my favorite writer on photography-related topics, ironically posted a rather interesting commentary on amateur vs. enthusiast vs. pro needs.  It’s well worth reading, but since it’s currently on the front page of bythom.com, Thom’s site, I can’t yet post a link to it – he does indicate that due to response, he’ll create a permanent URL.  Incidentally, it’s a shame he doesn’t use something like WordPress so that every post automatically has a permanent URL, and so that nice things like RSS work for keeping up to date with the site.  Still, I’m a big enough fan of what he does that I think I’ll finally get rid of the default WordPress links and put a link to his site there instead!

I’ll comment more once his updated article is linkable, but he’s clearly a pro that writes for enthusiasts.  In contrast to that is Ken Rockwell, who is also a pro that takes some great shots, but with advice much more targeted at amateurs.  I bothered to start writing down some of my thoughts here (vs. E-mailing them to friends) because I think that since both are pros, they forget at times what it means to be definitively in the amateur category – even if you are trying to do the best you can within that category!

As an example, this is one of Ken Rockwell’s pictures of Half Dome at Yosemite, linked directly from his site and not copied here, copyright owned by him, and directly linking to his site.  (Which I think makes it OK for me to post a link to, but I’m no IPR lawyer):

Ken or Thom probably think of all the people up on Glacier Point shooting with cameraphones as the amateur, but my amateur version of the shot is this one:

Well, I seem to have almost exactly the same framing of the shot itself, and this is back from my JPEG-only no-processing days so it’s what came straight out of the camera with no changes – so no, I didn’t crop this after the fact to match.  Wow!  Maybe I don’t do everything completely wrong.  My shot is from September 2009, Ken’s is from October 2009, so same available camera technology (Ken may have more budget for said purchases, but that’s not why his shots are better than mine).  You might notice a tiny, little bit more detail in the rock face if you look really close in Ken’s shot.  Oh, I guess his lighting is spectacularly better too – he went there just before sunset, we went there right after baby nap time.  And of the approximately 6,900,000,000 people in the world, perhaps a hundred (those that know my wife Valerie personally) might prefer my shot, with the other 6,899,999,900 preferring Ken’s shot.

But that’s just fine, because us amateurs are shooting for those 100 people.  And even better, I’m probably the world’s #1 photographer when it comes to pictures of Valerie standing in front of stuff.  At least if you measure by quantity :).

I added a rather long page on processing which you can find HERE.  It’s yet more thoughts from a completely amateur perspective, this time on why it makes sense to process your photos instead of just copying them off your camera.

When I started that page, all I intended to say was “at least use Google Picasa (especially if you’re a  JPEG shooter or want something free), but I personally really like Adobe Lightroom”.  Then I realized that anyone for whom that was a useful piece of advice might not know what processing entailed, and I got a little carried away (considering how much is out there on the Internet already).  In any case, the end result is probably more than most fellow amateurs will want to read, but hopefully helpful nonetheless.  Processing makes a big difference!

There’s a few example pictures in the article itself, but I’ll share another example here of what was a pretty boring shot of a playground we visit that at least seemed to become worth keeping with a little processing.

I definitely didn’t remember feeling like things were that yellow, and maybe I had the white balance wrong.  And no, I wasn’t carrying a grey card, and if I was, Leo would probably have eaten it – he’s pretty good with destroying any kind of cardboard.  Plus the little monkeys were just off to my left.  In any event, what I remembered was a little more like this:

That was during the brief period during which I had a D700 – a very nice camera, even if it’s somewhat big and rather pricey!

Note: For this and future examples, I’ll set the image you see on the page to link to a larger copy, in case you’re interested.

I’ve long felt that a lot of what I read online about photography – and I’ve spent quite a good amount of time reading a variety of sources – is written by and geared towards working professionals, or those who aspire to become working professionals.

By contrast, I tend to believe that most of the friends and family that I discuss photography with – and probably most of the broader set of people that are out there – tend to look a lot more like me, which is to say, they care to some extent about taking decent pictures, but their goal isn’t to sell their work, or to optimize something that is their daily job.

As an example, when you read a lot of the debate about shooting in RAW vs. JPEG, you see comments about getting maximum image quality out of a capture, versus simplifying workflow and spending more time out shooting additional images.  For me, neither of these points of view capture what it’s all about; I choose to shoot RAW so I have the most room to fix my many amateur mistakes, which are inevitable given that the subject I shoot the most – my kids who are under 3 – don’t pose and give me a few seconds to get a picture of them.  Did I check to make sure I had the right white balance setting and picture controls before clicking the shutter?  Absolutely not!

So, I hope to capture some of my thoughts and experiences as a dedicated amateur.  This might save others from making the numerous, sometimes expensive mistakes that I made in picking things up over the past three years or so.  And it might allow someone smarter than me to point out the errors in my current thinking, so that I can improve further.  I started with the first step in the process – the shooting itself – and put this on a page you can find here.

While I was over in Asia, I had the chance to try out a couple of manual focus lenses.  Prior to getting the D7000, when using the D60 or D90, manual focus lenses weren’t very practical; there was no metering and the single-dot focus indicator didn’t provide a great deal of focusing assistance.

Since the D7000 accepts non-CPU lens data, meters with manual focus lenses, and has a 3-segment focus indicator, it’s  great for a consumer/enthusiast like me who doesn’t have a pro-oriented body (like the D300s, D700, or higher), but would like to use some of the older AI-s lenses on occasion (and I suppose it makes Zeiss and other such lenses a possibility too).  In many ways, I think it pairs better with manual lenses that the pro-grade bodies, since the D7000 is notable smaller and lighter than the pro bodies and thus pairs well with typically compact manual focus primes.  I didn’t get to use any dedicated manual lenses with the D700 in the brief period I had that body, but the ergonomics seemed near-equivalent when using an AF lens in manual mode.  If you’ve got manual lenses, it’s a real argument for the D7000 over the now much less expensive D90.

On one outing, I took the Nikkor 35mm f/2.0 AI along and wound up using it for 90% of the pictures I took that day (although the only other lenses I brought were the 10-24mm and 70-300mm, so I had no other midrange options).  I’m not sure I’d regularly use this lens over the fantastic and inexpensive 35mm f/1.8G AF-S, but I was quite satisfied with the shots that day and surprised that I didn’t miss focus more often (since I’m no pro *and* have almost no experience with manual focusing).  In some shots, with splashing water, I think focusing was easier than with  AF.  I also found the bokeh a little more pleasing than the 35/1.8.  A couple of shots are below:

I also had the chance to try out a Nikkor 50mm f/1.2 AI briefly,  indoors, and in relatively poor fluorescent light.  I’d never tried an f/1.2 lens before, and my impression was that it performed a bit better wide open than the 50mm f/1.4 AF-D that I have a little more experience with; since I was playing around I pretty much only used the lens wide open.  Depth of field is pretty darned limited at f/1.2, but with a kit zoom I’d have been @ f/5.0 and almost ISO 10,000 for the picture below:

The other observation, which will be fairly obvious to anyone whose used a dedicated manual lens before, is that it’s nothing at all like throwing most AF lenses into manual mode.  The focus ring on these lenses was just fantastic by comparison, with enough travel distance to give even people like me with limited fine motor skills a sufficient level of control.  The 50mm in particular felt great, with just the right level of resistance.  It’s definitely worth a try, pretty fun, and much easier than I though to at least take pictures that were usable!

Okay, I really returned home from Asia about a month ago, and have been pretty busy since then.

Thanks to the ongoing generosity of my step-father (a semi-retired professional photographer), I added a couple of new items to the list of things that I use – a Nikon AF-S 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 VR lens, and a Gitzo tripod with a Manfrotto ball head.  The stability of the Gitzo tripod is really a world above the lighter but much more plastic Velbon tripod that I was using previously!

I don’t use longer lenses like the 70-300mm or the 80-200mm that I already had very often, because at the current age of our kids, if I’m shooting them at 200mm+, they’re probably too far away from me.  Still, there’s definitely situations where that range is helpful; the 80-200 was great at a wedding in limited light, and that or the 70-300 are pretty useful at the zoo if you want any pictures of the animals (though even at the zoo, I’m more often shooting our little monkeys as opposed to the animals that reside at the zoo permanently).  The 70-300 was definitely handy at the Kuala Lumpur bird park, though:

It’s not as versatile as the 18-200mm in these situations (where I often find myself switching from the kids right next to me to something much further away), but definitely has an edge in both sharpness and bokeh at the long end of things.  Hopefully I’ll make good use of the lens, I guess I’ll see in my usage stats for 2011!