Nikon to buy for use with old lenses

[flutes52]

I have an old Nikon FM and an FM2 that I used to use in the 1990s. I loved them. My lenses (with adaptors, as necessary) are: AF Nikkor 50mm 1:1.8, Tamron SP 90mm 1:2.5, Nikkor 35mm 1:2.8 and a Tamron SP 70-210mm 1:3.5. For a long while I stopped photography because I couldn't afford the cost of processing/printing (although I did some of my own b/w stuff). But now have a Canon Powershot SX510 and it's really got me taking pictures again. I used to really like my old lenses (esp the 50mm and the Tamron 90mm) and am therefore looking at buying a Nikon body so that I can use them again. I have looked at the D3200 and the D7000, and am more drawn to the last one. Any thoughts for someone who is addicted to photography, takes decent pictures, but can't cope with much technology/numbers - if I want to do something, however, I'll wade through a lot of technical data to teach myself how. The reason I'm drawn to the D7000 is because it seems tougher/more weather-tight - have also read about there being more 'room for growth'. I take pictures outdoors (garden/landscape) a lot.
Cost, I'm afraid, is a still a big issue!

 

[basroil]

You're going to have to go up a bit in the food chain, either a DX0 or DX00 so you get AF on them. Most of the cheaper cameras don't have the AF screw.

 

[bicycle_repair_man]

If cost is an issue, look for a used D90. I've had mine for seven years and still don't feel like it needs an upgrade. It also has the AF screw built into the body, so old AF lenses can still autofocus. It also uses a pentaprism viewfinder rather than a pentamirror, it has two command dials for adjusting shutter speed and aperture simultaneously, it has a top LCD screen, it adjusts ISO in 1/3 stops rather than 1/2; I could go on.

None of the features I've mentioned are available on entry-level cameras such as the D3200. Given your background, I think you'd get frustrated with the D3200, or any other entry-level camera.

 

[flutes52]

Thanks for that, and sorry to be so slow to reply. Funnily enough, I was offered a second-hand D90 today - but way too expensive because it comes with lenses and things I don't need. I had already decided against the D3200 for reasons you give and worries about lens compatibility. But if I google for comparing D90 to D7000 I get the D7000 coming out the winner (and mention that D7000 is watertight). So still confused. The D90 I'm being offered comes with Sigma lenses - better than my old Tamron and Nikkor? I don't know! Although unfortunately not a 50mm, but presume I could use my old Nikkor 50mm. Anyway, still confused, but your answer has been really helpful! Thanks.

 

[bicycle_repair_man]

The D7000 is the better camera purely from a technical standpoint, but I don't believe the extra expense over the D90 is worth it. That's entirely my opinion, of course.

Third-party lenses from Tamron, Sigma, etc. are generally good and cost a fraction of Nikon's own lenses. I own the following lenses and am very pleased with the results:

Nikon 35mm f.18G
Nikon 50mm f1.8D
Nikon 18-70mm f3.5-5.6 ED AF-S
Tamron 90mm f2.8 SP Di Macro
Tokina 12-24mm f4 AT-X Pro
Tokina 70-210mm f4.5 AF (the "beercan" lens)

I tend to use www.photozone.de for lens reviews, so you may want to check if the Sigma lenses are there.

 

[trdelectronics]

I also recommend you to use D7000 because it's OK at all. I'm also using this camera but want to purchase another one for my professional work. Nikon D7000 is my best camera, it never turned me down in any situation.