Photo by Darryl Cobb Jr wrote:
This really isn't a question of which camera is better but about upgrading now versuses later. I currently own a Nikon D80 with a Kit 18-105mm VR II and 50mm 1.8D. I shoot a lot of low light concert pics. Here's the question:

Do I upgrade to a D7000

or

Do I buy 17-50mm 2.8 (Tamron), 28-75mm 2.8 (Sigma) or 70-200mm  2.8 (Tamron). 2 of the 3. Budget is a factor in my decision which is why i'm bringing this question to the experienced set of folks here.

Thanks.

The D80 is pretty ancient, and ESPECIALLY if you are shooting low light, the improved high ISO performance of even a used D7000 will be a huge step forward for you.

If budget was an issue, I'd consider a fixed 35mm or 28mm or something like that that also gives you a fast lens, and will help you out in the low light better than the f2.8's and should cost less.

GPS Studio Services wrote:
That is a much tougher question than you think.  Normally one opts for better glass before a new body.  The problem is that your camera was made before Nikon adopted the Expeed processor.  When that happened, image quality improved dramatically as did low light performance. 

The D7000 has been replaced with the D7100, but it is still two generations newer than your D80 is.  Put another way, my D300s was far better than my D200 and the D7000 bested the image quality of my D300s as well. 

So for my money, I'd buy a D7000 body, and if you had the budget, one of your lens choices.  In this case though, I would say body before lens.

Thanks for this. And it is VERY tough decision because every article I read was saying glass, glass, glass but didn't take into consideration my camera.

DougBPhoto wrote:

The D80 is pretty ancient, and ESPECIALLY if you are shooting low light, the improved high ISO performance of even a used D7000 will be a huge step forward for you.

If budget was an issue, I'd consider a fixed 35mm or 28mm or something like that that also gives you a fast lens, and will help you out in the low light better than the f2.8's and should cost less.

Thanks. I think I will do one of the smaller primes along with the D7000. Thanks again.

Photo by Darryl Cobb Jr wrote:

Thanks. I think I will do one of the smaller primes along with the D7000. Thanks again.

D7000 and 35mm 1.8 was a pretty sweet combo back when I was shooting Nikon.  If you're not opposed to refurbs you can find the body for ~$700 online.

T-D-L wrote:

D7000 and 35mm 1.8 was a pretty sweet combo back when I was shooting Nikon.  If you're not opposed to refurbs you can find the body for ~$700 online.

"

I have the 50mm now. What would make you choose 35mm over 28mm?

Photo by Darryl Cobb Jr wrote:

"

I have the 50mm now. What would make you choose 35mm over 28mm?

If you can afford the 28mm then that'd be another option...just depends on how wide you want to go.  On crop bodies I was rarely at 28mm with my zoom, but was frequently around 35-40mm...so I opted for a 35 (and now a 40mm).  Used that lens almost exclusively for about 6 months, and it covered maybe 90% of my needs for my style of shooting at the time.  Even now, while I appreciate a fast 50mm (and I used one exclusively for a year a while back, so I know they're capable lenses), I find that I'd rather shoot wider if possible on DX, and 35mm gives me a close approximation of 50mm on a FF body which was my ideal setup back in school.  28-35 is the ideal on a crop body for me though, YMMV.

That being said, if the 28mm and a D7000 is in your budget though, there's all sorts of other options....ranging from really upgrading the body (D600 and your 50mm would be the way I'd go), to D7100, to D7000 and say the Sigma 35mm 1.4.  All depends on what's most important to you for your style of shooting though.

Photo by Darryl Cobb Jr wrote:

Thanks for this. And it is VERY tough decision because every article I read was saying glass, glass, glass but didn't take into consideration my camera.

Just one man's opinion, but I think "glass, glass, glass" may be an outmoded concept. Good glass is good, but good bodies keep getting better. These days there are substantial improvements in digital cameras coming at a rapid pace. As pointed out above, a couple of generations make a very big difference in quality

Photo by Darryl Cobb Jr wrote:
This really isn't a question of which camera is better but about upgrading now versuses later. I currently own a Nikon D80 with a Kit 18-105mm VR II and 50mm 1.8D. I shoot a lot of low light concert pics. Here's the question:

Do I upgrade to a D7000

or

Do I buy 17-50mm 2.8 (Tamron), 28-75mm 2.8 (Sigma) or 70-200mm  2.8 (Tamron). 2 of the 3. Budget is a factor in my decision which is why i'm bringing this question to the experienced set of folks here.

Thanks.

Dump the D80... pass on getting all those after-market garbage lenses... keep your 18-105 ED-VR and the 50mm and pickup the D7100.  Later on get the new Nikon 70-200 F4 Nanocoat... lightweight and razor sharp.  The D7100 has an amazing low-noise sensor for your concert pics...

Yingwah Productions wrote:
The D5200 should have a better sensor and improved low light and cheaper than D7000 and both have the same focus system. I think the flip out LCD on the D52000 would be more useful.

Yes but it doesn't have the second wheel on it. My primary gig is shooting an open mic event that is on a stage. Having the wheel to change the shutter speed is a godsend. I'm fine looking through the viewfinder though.

Thanks for the input.

Select Models wrote:

Dump the D80... pass on getting all those after-market garbage lenses... keep your 18-105 ED-VR and the 50mm and pickup the D7100.  Later on get the new Nikon 70-200 F4 Nanocoat... lightweight and razor sharp.  The D7100 has an amazing low-noise sensor for your concert pics...

I really do want the D7100 but I wouldn't want to sacrifice having a back up body to do it which is what my Nikon D80 is going to be. As my skill grows adn jobs start to pay more, budget will increase but for now. I'm feeding my art and passion. Thanks for the feedback on this.

T-D-L wrote:
The 50mm 1.8D won't AF on the D5200....dunno how important that is to the OP though...

Good point... and another good reason to pickup the D7100 with the focus motor... PLUS... it's got Nikon's best auto focus system... that tried and true 51 point AF is a sure winner... works great in low light...

Select Models wrote:
Good point... and another good reason to pickup the D7100 with the focus motor... PLUS... it's got Nikon's best auto focus system... that tried and true 51 point AF is a sure winner... works great in low light...

Oh Yeah!!!

Select Models wrote:
pass on getting all those after-market garbage lenses...

The Tamron 17-50 and 28-75 are NOT garbage lenses.

Re the OP's question - the jump from D80 to the sweet 16mp EXMOR sensor in the D7000 will be very noticeable! But you still need fast lenses. A fast prime makes sense (but you already have the 50/1.8), but don't discount fast zooms either if you can save up for one.

GreatMomentsPhotography wrote:
Sorry but I was disappointed with the D7000 big time. I went back to using my D300s as a back up. I can't say enough how many misfocus and wb nightmares I had with the camera. Perhaps it was a dud but then again- I did some research online and I wasn't alone.

There's a known White Balance issue affecting jpegs. That means, if you convert in Cnx/2 or Vnx/2 you'll get the same issue - but converting in C1/LR?/etc and you're groovy   I prefer my D90 over a D300s any day. The D300 blows away the D90 as a work-camera, since it's somewhat weather-resistant/takes CF Cards/doesn't have those goofy PCS' in the way/etc. The D90 has a higher Image Quality, a much higher ISO-ceiling (787 vs 997), better DR......... http://snapsort.com/compare/Nikon_D300S-vs-Nikon_D90  I gave mine to my Makeup Artist a while back, but once in a while I get bored and take a few shots with it still   (And remember, the D7000 replaced the D90 - and smokes the pants off it in every way!) This is one image I made with it back in 2011 (18+): https://www.modelmayhem.com/portfolio/pic/31847751

Will_DB wrote:

The Tamron 17-50 and 28-75 are NOT garbage lenses.

Re the OP's question - the jump from D80 to the sweet 16mp EXMOR sensor in the D7000 will be very noticeable! But you still need fast lenses. A fast prime makes sense (but you already have the 50/1.8), but don't discount fast zooms either if you can save up for one.

When I was shooting crop-sensor, I wouldn't shoot with anything but fast primes. It's already bad enough that the sensors are smaller and cause a slight loss-of-detail when shooting models/fine details from a distance, but since they have less photosites to take light why give them less than you can with a prime? I think I only had a pair of 1.8's, a 50 & an 85. I just traded-in that 85 towards a new and better one, a G-model (AF-S). When I gave my old D90 to my MUA to learn on, I gave her my 50mm f/1.4D until I came across a nifty fifty for a steal

I once had the Tamrom 28-75mm f/2.8, and for the cost ($500 after taxes) it was superb. Then I shot nudes indoors in a small room, and at f/3.2 with the model's arse to one side of the frame the lenses' distortion made her rump about 6x the size of her head   I traded it in towards my Nikkor 24-70 f/2.8 the next morning

IMHO alone;

Ðanny
DBIphotography Toronto (Blog On Site) 
DBImagery Toronto (Website)

"Will you look back on life and say, "I wish I had," or "I'm glad I did"?"
~ Zig Ziglar

Photo by Darryl Cobb Jr wrote:

Yes but it doesn't have the second wheel on it. My primary gig is shooting an open mic event that is on a stage. Having the wheel to change the shutter speed is a godsend. I'm fine looking through the viewfinder though.

Thanks for the input.

If you're shooting manual, you just press a button or push in the wheel to switch between shutter and aperture. Once its set you won't need to change it.
Nikon's 24mp sensor is much better image wise and high iso wise and I hate D7000 controls compared to their pro bodies. I would take the better image and the swivel LCD to take more creative shots and play with video. Mount it on a monopod with a remote trigger to raise it up for aerial shots. Having unique shots in your port will grow your business more than anything.

Yingwah Productions wrote:
If you're shooting manual, you just press a button or push in the wheel to switch between shutter and aperture. Once its set you won't need to change it.
Nikon's 24mp sensor is much better image wise and high iso wise and I hate D7000 controls compared to their pro bodies. I would take the better image and the swivel LCD to take more creative shots and play with video. Mount it on a monopod with a remote trigger to raise it up for aerial shots. Having unique shots in your port will grow your business more than anything.

I didn't realize he was into nautical photography; he only mentioned shooting events! That'd make for interesting portfolio additions.............

Yingwah Productions wrote:

If you're shooting manual, you just press a button or push in the wheel to switch between shutter and aperture. Once its set you won't need to change it.
Nikon's 24mp sensor is much better image wise and high iso wise and I hate D7000 controls compared to their pro bodies. I would take the better image and the swivel LCD to take more creative shots and play with video. Mount it on a monopod with a remote trigger to raise it up for aerial shots. Having unique shots in your port will grow your business more than anything.

While all you said is true, it's just not how I feel comfortable working. The d5200 just doesn't fit with what I do. Once I get the d7000 or d7100 (if budget as able to accommodate it), the next step is some additional glass and eventually a full frame camera. When I shoot my spoken word event, I wouldn't want the liability if my camera fell on someone. However, as a secondary camera, it is attractive. Thanks for the input.

K I C K H A M wrote:
I am so obsessed with my d7000 that I would highly recommend it.

I'm working with one lens right now, aside from when I borrow, and am saving up to get new glass as I go. (Working with only a 50 right now)

That's all you need, the lowly 50mm is sharp as a tack and allows for great low light shooting! I shot with my first camera for ten years with just a 50mm!

London Fog wrote:

That's all you need, the lowly 50mm is sharp as a tack and allows for great low light shooting! I shot with my first camera for ten years with just a 50mm!

They are my babies. If anyone tries to touch them I hiss at them.

K I C K H A M wrote:

They are my babies. If anyone tries to touch them I hiss at them.

Haha, very nice babies too!

K I C K H A M wrote:
I am so obsessed with my d7000 that I would highly recommend it.

I'm working with one lens right now, aside from when I borrow, and am saving up to get new glass as I go. (Working with only a 50 right now)

As I'm learning more about photography, I'm loving the 50mm  more as well. I like it so much I seriously am considering the 1.4G but I'm hearing the 1.8G is a better lens. Is this true? Have you shot with the either?

Photo by Darryl Cobb Jr wrote:

As I'm learning more about photography, I'm loving the 50mm  more as well. I like it so much I seriously am considering the 1.4G but I'm hearing the 1.8G is a better lens. Is this true? Have you shot with the either?

I hear, and believe the 1.8 is much better.

But I've only shot with the 1.4, personally. It does fine for me.

enriquePHOTOs wrote:
bro i bought i d7000 for mountain biking and use the d800 for work.... save up for a full frame instead of another crop sensor if you are passionate about photography....

So those who are shooting with a crop body aren't passionate about photography?

Images by MR wrote:
So those who are shooting with a crop body aren't passionate about photography?

its possible young lad, its an opinion. its a newbie camera but when its time to upgrade you might as well and save up bit more. just think about it, if you are upgrading why not upgrade to a full frame.