sazfoto

Guess that would depend on who is buying the camera. Like me my Daughter got the shutterbug, but she wasn't sure how far she would take her passion. I bought her a "Costco Kit" and she thanks me all the time. I bought it for her two Christmas's ago and she is still happy and not looking to upgrade.

Just another perspective.

dyximan

I purchased the D 5300 kit a few years back and I'm not the kindest and most gentlest operator and have had very good luck with durability and functionality. And have some 60,000+ shots on it. And like the kit idea unless you can afford the body and perhaps a 16 to 300 lens which eliminates the need to change Lenses. But as mentioned the quality is not there but in less you're going to sell them or blow them up I think most people would not be able to see and/or appreciate the difference. Also if you're unsure and you did like your Cannon. I suggest putting all the cameras in your hand and See what feels right for You. And if possible rent each for a weekend or so and take them all out for a test ride. Both plans and bodies

BebuLamar

I have no problem if the OP buying any camera. I feel buying something expect to replace it later is wasteful.

sazfoto

Just another perspective, not arguing your point. Not all on UHH are planing to be hobbyist or professionals, just want a decent set up for family fun.

Dave3810 Loc: La Porte, Texas

I had the D7200 and loved it but I agree with jcboy3 don't bother with the 2 lens kit get it with the 18-140 it's a nice walk around lens

RCJets Loc: Virginia

I recently moved up from a Nikon D5000 to a D7100. I'm sure the D7500 is even more advanced. I am really loving my 7100. I'm sure you'll like the D7500. Digital cameras are light years ahead of our old film cameras. I have a Topcon RE Super I bought in Vietnam in 1967. That was pretty much equal to the Nikon F of that era. Comparing that to a modern digital is like comparing a Ford Model T to a brand new Cadillac. You will like it, but they all have a learning curve. You'll be in your manual for awhile just trying to learn it all.

insman1132 Loc: Southwest Florida

Hey Flyprp
1) Welcome to UHH!
2) Get the kit from Costco.
3) Don't look back
4) When you have honed your skills and knowledge of Digital & Digital Lens, you will make better choices on what lens to upgrade to, than you will at this time!!
5) Don't look back!!

Enjoy your new Camera in Great Health!!

IBM

I think that's only part veiled, there is much more to go wrong ,and the older camera's turned out a better looking picture, and to me the
Old movies were much more nicer to look at than now ,I went through some old 1965 Photo and the colour seemed a lot nicer ,it's like the older vinnal records and the CD, I liked the vinnal compared to the harsh stuff of today for sound it seems smoother ,and that is part of the reason it's not completely gone , and the reports on the d7500 are it's a good camera but the cost is too much for what you get ,, no video
Only one photo card , the out come off several tester was don't bother keep the d7100 or get the d7200 in stead ,

imp by mike Loc: Minnesota/Wisconsin/North Carolina

You can buy a kit, & that may satisfy you for life. Then again, you may soon find out that you can’t do the things you want.
So sit down & write a list ... Telephoto, Macro, Landscape, or Portrait? Time-lapse or High-speed? Shot as-is, or Post-Processing? PP in the camera or a computer? What size Sensor? Low light w/tripod or just handheld? Lots of choices, & no limit on how much you can spend.
I chose to go with the Nikon D700 w/a Tamron 28-300mm Lens. This way I never have to remove the lens & risk dust getting in (my biggest fear).
Have fun making your choice!
Cheers!
Mike

Bipod

The "best" camera is the one you know how to use.

The next best camera is a simple one, because even I might figure
out how to use it.

The worst camera is a computerized, self-driving, menu-ridden minaturized monstrosity
that no single person on earth really understands. You can buy such a Charlie-Foxtrot anywhere!

Remember your rifle--do you want a computer in it? Dang hard to field strip a computer.
Dang hard to unjam one. And it eats batteries. No, that M-16 is good just the way it is:
appropriate technology for its intended user and intended mission.

rpavich Loc: West Virginia

Asking the OP why he doesn't stay with film is an insult to you?

That's the dumbest thing I ever heard (at least today so far)

Film isn't expensive nor is it hard to find and hard to get developed or printed.

Peterff Loc: O'er The Hills and Far Away, in Themyscira.

Well said, Sir, although I rarely use film these days. As for the OP's question the Nikon bundle looks fine.

As a Canon user I will say that Canon has kept its controls and user interface pretty consistent over time, so moving from an AE-1, to a T90, to various Elph/Powershot, Rebels, and now 80D has smoothed the learning curve.

I like my wife's FM2n, but it's easier for me to pick up my T90 or AE-1 for film.

Bipod

Many film cameras lasted for 20 -50 years (without repairs!). But chances are if you buy a digital camera,
you will only use it for 3-5 years. So if you paid $1500 for your last film camera, you should pay only
about $500 (at most) for your digital camera.

Because 3-5 years from now (or possibly sooner), chances are you'll be throwing it away
and buying another one.

Digital cameras should last as long as film cameras did. The reason they don't is that they're
designed not to: planned obselence. Most are designed to fail sometime after the warranty
runs out. The rest are deliberately obsoleted by bringing out new lens mounts or other
incompatable technologies.

The Canon EF lens mount for the EOS cameras has lasted a long time. But now it has
a incompatible little brother, the EF-S, and mirrorless cousin, the RF mount. Similarly,
the long-lived Sony a-mount now has E-mount cousin. And the venerable
Nikon AF moun now has the FTZ as it's little brother.

The handwriting is on the wall: if the industry is successful in promoting mirrorless,
get ready to throw away all the Canon, Sony, Nikon lenses you now own. It won't happen
this year or next, but it will happen--if they are able to shift demand to mirrorless.

People used to build "glass houses" out of empty bottles laid like bricks,. Maybe now they'll
be building them out of old Canon, Sony and Nikon lenses? :-)

Also, it seems likely that sooner or later APS-C size sensors will go away in interchangable
lens cameras. So Canon EF-S mount will go away too. More building materials for the
glass house.

The industry no longer cares about protecting your investment in glass. Well, Leica does:
M-mount isn't going anywhere. But Canon, Nikon, Sony and Olympus are now consumer
products companies, The professional photographer market has shrunk to almost non-existent.

Sony always was a consumer products company. If you are buying anything from Sony that
has significant manufacturing costs, you can expect those costs to be reduced.

And what improvements in image quality do you get by throwing away your EF lenses
and buy RF ones? None. Ditto when you replace your AF Nikkor with FTZ, or your
alpha lenses with E-mount ones. But don't feel bad: you're boosting corporate profits!

Moreover, EF-S will go away when APSC-C size sensors do in interchangable lens
cameras, which seems inevitable.

So basically, I wouldn't spend more than $500 for a digital camera and lens, which
is about the going price for Canon T6 EOS Rebel kit, which includes an EF-S
18-55 mm f/3.6 - 5.6 zoom lens. Sure, it has a dinky APS-C sensor -- but so
does that $1600 Nikon D7500.

Will it equal the resolution of the AE-1? No. But then, neither will that $1600 Nikon.
And no digital camera on the market will equal the dynamic range of B&W print film
(although they all claim to).

A top-of-the-line Canon EOS 1V film camera body sells *brand new* for
$678 on Amazon or $500 used on Ebay. This is quite possibly the best camera Canon
ever made. For a few hundred more, there are sellers who will throw in a couple of great
Canon EF lenses.

I don't recommend that unless you really want to shoot film. But it shows how pricing
reflects demand, not camera quality or image quality. The public wants convenience,
so convenient cameras are expensive.

The best bet: buy a digital camera with lens but don't pay more than $500.

Peterff Loc: O'er The Hills and Far Away, in Themyscira.

An interesting, if somewhat cynical perspective and viewpoint on market analysis, however I would expect many to disagree with your conclusions. The camera itself is only a small part of the investment in a system when including a suite of lenses, flash, and other accessories. Your views about the businesses are not in line with mainstream analysis, especially when other product or technology lines are considered.

Bipod

Who is this "mainstream"? Advertising and PR?

Which laboratory independently tests cameras and printers?
Which independent academic scientists or engineer studies them?
Which peer-reviewed scholarly journal publishes articles about them?
How many of the people who do write about them are paid endorsers?

About the only independent voice is Consumer Reports--and it's budget
is too tiny to even begin to adequately test cameras.

The ultimate source for most of what you hear about camera companies
is the companies themselves. Actually, this is true for the entire
"high tech" sector: few journalists understand the technology, so most
articles in the popular press are little more than re-writes of press releases.

Typical title: "<Company X> Introduces the New <Product Y>".
Or: "Which is the Best Camera Ever <Product X> or <Product Y>?"
(The fact that it might be <Product Z> that hasn't been made for
30 years is *never* mentioned.)

There is no "mainstream": just a carefully orchestrated chorus of
sales talk. Nikon's ad budget in 2001 was $18.2 mn -- that buys a
lot of opinon. Who knows what it is today? Canon's ad budget
is rumored to be even larger.

I hope you realize that people are paid by high-tech companies to
post on-line. And it's pefectly legal (at least in the USA).

The idea that public companies want to increase earnings
is not controversial. Nor is the idea that total camera sales revenue is
dominated by consumer purchases (and that the photography profession
is shrinking). Nor is the idea that the Joe Consumer is probably not the
biggest expert around when it comes to optics, electronics, and embedded
systems--or even photography.

Can people really not know that professional photographres are going
out of business all over the USA? And that camera stores are closing?
And that camera repair shops are closing? And that photo labs are
nearly extinct? Even wedding photogrphers are having a hard time
making ends meet. Obviously, this has had a big impact on camera
manufacturers: the tiny pro market would only support a small company
like Leica, not giant companies like the big Japanese makers.

Even just 20 years ago, I had my passport photo by a profesional
photographer. 50 years ago, people who wanted portraits had them
done in a photographer's studio. Less than 150 years ago, amateur
photographers were rare: photographers were mostly professionals.

Then along came George Eastman. Today the great company he founded ,
Eastman Kodak, is a shadow of its former self. George Eastman
committed suicide in 1932

Everyone knows Kodak for its cheap cameras, but only photographers
know about its excellent R&D labs and technical publications. Who
now publishes hundreds of technical papers? Not Nikon, Canon or Sony.
Prior to the 1950s, Kodak even published the formulas for its developers.
Good luck getting a frimware listing for any of today's digital cameras.

Companies and corporate titans come and go--only art is permanent.
So having an economic system that aims only to produce products
services and not great art is kind of strange. But there are few NEA
grants for photogrphers--and none for camera makers.

As for being cynical, well, there's quite a bit of that around these days,
especially in Washington, DC.