Camera suggestions

[robert3985]

Ii saw a Nikon D7200 in Costco yesterday and almost fell over in shock at the price. $1475 for the kit. body plus lens. Might have been two, don't remember. How much lower would a used D7000 be?

I had a Pentax SLR I bought my first year in college and it took great photos for me until I switched to digital. At that time my photography was mostly fishing related, so a waterproof Pentax it was. My W20 is very long in the tooth, but still does alright on the water where my cell phone shall never travel.

I am playing my with Note 5 camera. Supposedly the same as the s6 that the cell phone folks raved about but with a larger sensor. It will never be a DSLR, but I bought one of those $14 attachable lens kits and the macro lens is not actually horrible. For in progress shots of layout projects and simply for capturing a scene to look for errors and problems it is fine. If I were to want to do a print article, however, I would feel much better with a real camera.

Interesting thread.

I sold one of my D7000 bodies plus the battery pack/grip and two SanDisk 32Gb SDHC cards to my son for $700. This body had a brand new shutter, so it was essentially like new and because it had just been gone through also carried a 6mo. warranty.  Had the original box, all the packing materials, the software, paperwork and manuals too.  I take meticulous care of my photo equipment, so it had zero dings, scratches or visible wear.  He followed my suggestion and went with a brand-new AF-S Nikkor 18-200mm f3.5-5.6 G II ED zoom from Adorama which cost him right at $600 bucks.  You can get that same lens refurbished by Nikon right now at Adorama for $499.95.

His cost was $1300, and he thought that was a good deal, which it was because of the excellent condition of the camera body, the battery pack, the two SDHC cards I sent with it and the 6mo warranty.

You can beat that deal with a Nikon refurbished D7000 at Adorama, which is selling for $469.95 today.  I believe shipping is free, so your cost (minus the SD cards), plus the 18-200mm refurb lens would be $969.90.  You'd need at least one SD card (I recommend at least a 32Gb card) and a high quality protective clear or UV filter for your lens both of which would probably add no more than $60.

Be cautioned that on Nikon refurb bodies, you never know how many shutter actuations the body has had, and the shutters have a life span.  D7000's were widely used by pros as a second camera because of their price vs value ratio and their robust quality and weather sealing, so you might be buying a camera that has a shutter with a good portion of its 150,000 actuations used up.

I checked on eBay and new D7000 USA warranty bodies are selling for $531.99, with a year's warranty.  That's probably the way I'd go if I wanted a D7000 body.

I kept one of my D7000 bodies as a backup to my D7200 and for 90% of my shooting I am perfectly happy with the older body and would not have gone with a new D7200 body if the shutter hadn't quit on my second D7000 body. HOWEVER...after using the D7200, it has a lot going for it over the D7000 which I am relying on more and more these past four months I've had it...but it's twice as expensive.

The D7200 with kit lens you saw at Costco probably had the Nikkor 18-140mm zoom instead of the 18-200mm, and that lens is receiving excellent reviews.

Finally, if I wanted to save about 400 bucks, THIS is the option to get. Go for the Nikon D7100 body, which has the same resolution as the D7200 minus a few significant upgrades, and buy it with the 18-140mm Nikkor kit lens.  Nikon is offering this at a killer deal right now and Adorama is selling this combination for $1,096.95 with five accessories for free...a "holster" case, a Lexar 32Gb class 10, 200x Platinum Series II SD card, an extra non-Nikon battery and the Nikon WU-1A Wireless Adapter...free shipping.  It's a killer deal.

One of the reasons the older D7000 is retaining its value is because of its 16.3mp sensor vs the D7100 and D7200's 24.1mp sensor.  Rumor has it that the larger pixels in the D7000's sensor give better dynamic balance, but...in a head-to-head comparison which I've done, the D7200's is noticeably better...in normal light, low light, and ultra low light.  It's pretty obvious that for still photography (not video) the 7000 series Nikons are pretty top of the line for a DX format camera and truthfully, you wouldn't go wrong with any of 'em.

Cheerio!
Bob Gilmore

[robert3985]

Just for the Hell of it and because I can't get to sleep tonight, I decided to see what kind of results I could get with my Samsung Galaxy S5 in "Magnifier" mode as far as some close up shots of trains were concerned.

Here are the results:

Photo (1) Sweeny-stacked UP USRA Light Mike at the west signal on the west-bound main at Echo:


Photo (2) Overhead shot of UP USRA Light Mike at Echo Curve:


Photo (3) Ground level shot of UP USRA Light Mike at Echo Curve:


Hmmmm...photos were taken hand-held (I don't have any way of securing my phone...yet    ), with available light which is my 5,000K CFL layout lighting in goose-neck lamps attached to the tops of my skyboard.  I haven't fiddled with attempting to see if I can adjust WB or if there's a way to get it to focus on a particular point...both of which were a bit frustrating...but...I really like being able to get down at track level!!  I can't do this with my D7200 on a tripod!! 

I Photoshopped them because I didn't like the color balance...they were way too cool and not enough contrast, and I took out some stuff in the background. 

Now, if I can find a way to secure my phone and select focus points...I think I'm liking this way more than I thought I would!

Cheerio!
Bob Gilmore

[John]

cell phone cam shots are also good for doing modeling .. they show up all the flaws

[Santa Fe Guy]

Hey Bob, They have turned out very nice considering they are hand held.
Rod.

[tom mann]

Yes, pretty good Bob.

[Ed Kapuscinski]

Speaking of using a cell phone in place of a point and shoot... this was shot on my G4.

[Philip H]

nice photo, but the guy on the left ruins the shot for RailcarPhotos.com

[Ed Kapuscinski]

Lol.

[peteski]

To me the overhead wires ruin the beautiful sunset photo.  I suppose one could try to Photoshop those out but VonRyan would not approve that.  To me this is a good example of why some image manipulation is ok. After all, you couldn't physically yank those wires off their poles, and if you moved forward not to have them in the photo, you would lose all that interesting trackwork.

[Ed Kapuscinski]

Exactly.

Although, I do kinda like those lines.

Now, unexpected pole lines through the noses of locomotives... immediate photoshopping.

[peteski]

Exactly.

Although, I do kinda like those lines.

You know, on 2nd look there is something artsy about those power lines being in the photo. But I would still have preferred not to have them there.

Now, unexpected pole lines through the noses of locomotives... immediate photoshopping.

Exactly! 

[Ed Kapuscinski]

You know what's worse than lines though? Look at the pilot area:

From: http://railfanning.kapuscinski.net/2014/02/csx-and-ns-around-baltimore-february-2014/

I had no idea those weeds were in the shot, and there's no recovery from em.

[VonRyan]

You know what's worse than lines though? Look at the pilot area:

From: http://railfanning.kapuscinski.net/2014/02/csx-and-ns-around-baltimore-february-2014/

I had no idea those weeds were in the shot, and there's no recovery from em.

Which is why I try to take brush-clearing implements with me when I go railfanning.

I might not be able to recommend a high-end camera, but if you want a recommendation for a good folding saw, I'm your guy.

[Chris333]

Doesn't like Photoshop... posts upside down photos from his phone.   

[VonRyan]

Doesn't like Photoshop... posts upside down photos from his phone.   

That's the forum's fault. Not mine.