What an elegant idea. The lens sounds fantastic. The flexibility of the TC option, wonderful. Plus total reach would be over 600mm with the 7D multiplier. And I'll get the 18-135 kit lens, a monopod and Lightroom. Not sure what bushawk is. Better start working on upper body strength at the gym to carry it though.

(No, not competing with Arthur Morris, just drooling over his portraiture.)

Thanks so much for the guidance. It all makes sense.

Much appreciated. Yes, I was sold on the 7D and something distracted me. I think it was getting Arthur Morris's Art of Bird Photography that made me resolution/telephoto-crazy.

There was a photographer at my last birding group hike who was shooting the 7D/100-400mm combo. It looked very well used. He wasn't very chatty but did manage a nod and a grunt when I asked if he liked them.

And believe me, I know I've got a lot to learn, everything to learn, in fact. Right now, I just want to pull together enough sense to make a good decision on a camera and lens. Thanks for the "re-focus" !

Thanks very much for the help.

With bird photography in mind, I'm considering the Canon 5DMark II paired with the Canon EF 100-400 lens. I'm still very fuzzy on extenders/extension tubes and all of that so I wonder if my impression is correct that the Canon line of lenses and extenders is a little friendlier than Nikon to the pocketbook in the long run. I know that 400mm isn't considered a serious lens for birding, but my feeling is that it will get me started for a modest investment and even if I realize that I need something stronger this lens will remain useful.

I seem to feel strongly about a full-format camera, even considering the extra "reach" of a APS-C camera. I still don't really get that - it's not like you get extra magnification, you just have a smaller frame that fills up at the same distance - is that correct? So if you enlarge the shot from the 1:6 camera to match the size of a shot from a full frame camera you lose resolution?

For example, the Nikon D600 does have that DX option, and you lose over 50% resolution when you use it - from over 24 mil (I think) down to 10.something. So other than struggling with not getting the D600, the Mark II seems like a no-brainer because image quality is reputed to be wonderful, and perhaps a little slow, but do I care at my level? And, it's a bargain right now. All of that said, and maybe too much said (apologies in advance) I'd appreciate your input. I'm going to take another migraine pill. :wink:

Okay, thanks for being so helpful and responsive. I'm leaning towards starting with the d7000 and just not buying expensive DX lenses until I know I feel comfortable with it. Overextending myself for my first digital camera is probably a rookie mistake too!

I'm glad to have found this site. It's a treasure.

Another interest - just a snap with Coolpix

This has been informative. I didn't really know that full format DSLRs had "crop modes" and that that was where all these comparative figures were coming from. Yay. Now that I've figured that out, back to my original question:

What I was actually thinking is, if I had taken a shot in full "FX" mode, which I then wanted to crop and resize (in the old fashioned sense), couldn't I do all that in photoshop. And would it necessarily result in loss of quality? Does that still work or is it an outmoded concept? Thanks!

I stopped taking pictures before the photographic digital revolution so I have a lot of catching up to do. Even though the last SLR I bought was after DSLRs were being marketed, I stubbornly bought a Nikon D60 (which apparently is considered a poor camera but did fine for me on a trip to Kenya). My FE is still in perfect working order, I should have trusted that to go to Kenya! Nowadays I spend more time outdoors and am enjoying thinking photographically again. I hate my Nikon Coolpix, what a pain. I like both of these Nikon offerings because the niches they fill in the market seem to fit me the best given that I'm a Nikon person. I don't need the 800, but there are features on the 7000 and d600 that earlier lower priced models don't offer. Two tungsten WB presettings, a convenience and one that I responded to because I fell in love with warmer indoor color when I accidentally shot my uncle's wedding with an under-converted daylight film. I was charmed to find an actual setting for that included on a serious camera. You can save two complete setting arrays, and there are two memory card slots. They're not too snotty to have pop-up flash. Both have comfortably high megapixels, which though not necessary according to some, I will probably find a use for, or learn why not. Both have over 5fps frame rate, both have pentaprisms and not pentamirrors, which seems to be one mark of a quality build (I don't mind plasticky if it keeps the weight down). Rockwell favorably compares image quality to more expensive DSLRs, and while I don't know that this is completely true, there is no reason I know of to assume that it is patently untrue, or at least untrue to the degree that I will notice. I like that both cameras are reasonably priced for what they offer and don't seem over-designed. That that they're both considered "prosumer" type cameras because I don't need a lot of weight or extreme durability, I don't need a lot of low-light speed for indoor sports photography but some low-light speed is nice and apparently these cameras offer that as well. Last but not least, I want something a little special, but not too special. Room to grow. So those are my feelings. Thanks for asking. I didn't realize I'd assimilated all of that!

Thanks everyone for all the great perspectives. Thanks especially, CamObs, for the link to the crop factor article, which I made myself read, and will re-read a few more times. It helps.

As comfortable as I am with a standard viewfinder my gut feeling is I should get over myself and realize that this is a superficial obsession (especially considering the expense difference) and go for the 7000. I think my real fear is the impression that I won't be able to see my subject as well with a DX. It helped, Bram boy, to hear that you got that camera and like it a lot.

MT Shooter: yes, crop factor is a fascinating tool, and confusing for someone with no actual experience using it. I'm having trouble wrapping my brain around how it all works. But yours in the voice of experience. Could you give me a lead on how you figure that? I'd really appreciate it !! Thanks for your response.

Thanks for your thoughts. I haven't actually held either of these cameras or compared the viewfinders for my preference. I just know I'm comfortably with the full-frame format. I guess holding them would be the next step. The oil, dust spots are a concern. I remember when I got my FE, although it arrived with a clean viewfinder, it wasn't long before crud started accumulating. That said, I took it out for a test run last weekend. Still perfectly operational.

Interesting question. These two cameras are reportedly equal in their respective ability to render extremely high quality images. So the "noise" issue is probably not a concern.

In a birding blog on the B&H website, the writer recommends DX cameras over FX cameras for birding because of the reach factor i.e., your 300mm effectively becoming a 450mm on your DX. I'm new at this so maybe I'm not understanding something. You take the shot with your 300mm on the FX. You want the image larger so you enlarge and crop, getting the same image. There would be quality loss with film, but with sensitive digital sensors, would it matter? (I'm trying to decide between the Nikon D7000 and the D600. Either would make me happy. I have a preference for the full-frame format unless there would be a substantial difference in shots of a distant bird, given that I don't want to go bigger than a 300mm lens. Thanks!

However, Rockwell also says that the +1magenta WB fix is actually a little too much and wishes there was a smaller incremental fix. Being new to digital photography, and looking for my first full-frame dslr, I was concerned about this because it seems to indicate carelessness on Nikon's part (I'm looking at new Canon D6 as well). But in the legion of email posts on B&H website on the d600, the issue never comes up, unless I missed it.

In referring to the LCD, he says that it's a tiny bit too yellow which might go away with use.