Chaostrain Loc: Hillsboro, Oregon

Congratulations and welcome to the dark side.

duck72 Loc: Laurel Ridge, PA

I shoot with a D7200 and keep a UV filter on all my lenses for protection (and haze cutting). I shoot a little bit of everything- from portraits and landscapes to macro. (when shooting portraits, macro, sometimes I will remove the filter.) This works for me; others have their preferences. I liked my D7000 very much and gave it to my daughter (I have other back-up bodies) when I got the 7200 for some of its added features. You have an *excellent* camera; don't let some on this site infect you with "FX fever" in order to get "better photos"- You have a good platform to take great images. I generally use a Sigma 17-70 as a walk around, with an assortment of med-long telephotos and 90 and 105 macros; even a couple of converted old-timers (like a 135 f2.8 that I used with my 35mm Nikon F back in the 60s...) I'll wager you got a good price on your 7000- a heckuva lot better than what I paid some years ago. I'll mildly disagree with Jerry on the cheap lens-end gadgets. I've gotten some very interesting shots with them, even though their optics are somewhat of a joke. Happy shooting, and don't pay exorbitant $$ for lens filters.

jackm1943 Loc: Omaha, Nebraska

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

Let me put this into perspective for you because you are giving me the idea that you are somewhat confused with filters and lenses. The D7000 is quite a step from a cell phone. It is a very good tool and as such it will serve you well assuming you learn to operate the camera properly. In the process my best advise is that you take some classes on basic photography so that you will understand what to do when confronted with different subjects under different lighting conditions. Learn the camera using the instructions and taking notes of important details.
If you need a filter that has to be a circular polarizer. Understand that such a filter is very useful to eliminate reflections from non metallic surfaces but most people use it to darken the sky. It is not very good to photograph people and even worse to use with a wide angle because only part of the sky will be polarized. A neutral density filter should be your second filter but learn to use the polarizer first before that second step.
You did not say if the camera came with a lens, usually a kit lens. If it did use that lens till you know it well. Based on the most frequent focal lengths you use you will have a good idea of what your next lens should be. Forget about those lens adapters, if you need an extreme wide angle buy the real thing but not now, save your money. Wide angle lenses expand the background and experience is needed to use them.
Good luck and enjoy your new camera. Posting your images for critique is also a great way to learn photography. Join a camera club is one is available in your area.

PHRubin Loc: Nashville TN USA

Enjoy!

Ched49 Loc: Pittsburgh, Pa.

The D7000 is a great camera for someone who is an advanced photographer, not someone who just came from smart phones as their main photography use. As someone else has suggested, learn about your D7000 inside and out before you start investing in adapters and UV filters.

jamesl Loc: Pennsylvania

----------------

Except for a UV filter, I normally buy a filter in a size to fit the largest diameter lens I have. Then I buy step-up rings to attach the filter to each of the filter diameter I need for all of my other lenses that need a smaller size.

aellman Loc: Boston MA

Step up/down rings are very inexpensive. I have had the front end lens gadgets for years. Excellent results.

Murray Loc: New Westminster

I bought a set of the screw-one. Never use them as I don’t like the quality of results

whwiden

Consider buying a 35mm 1.8 DX Nikon lens for under $200. You will see a huge difference from the cell phone or point and shoot. On a dX camera, that would be considered a normal prime lens. It will make that camera sing.

reverand

Although some people use UV filters as standard, I've never been able to detect any significant difference between having a UV filter, and not having one, and I live at altitude (7200 feet), where the ultraviolet radiation is high. Maybe there's a marginal difference, and maybe you can demonstrate it in a lab, but practically speaking, I can't tell any difference. And then, if you're paying $1,000+ for a supremely well designed and engineered lens, why put a $20 piece of glass in front of it when you take pictures?

Some people use UV filters to protect the lens, you know, so that if you drop the lens, the filter cracks, but the lens doesn't. It seems to me that a lens hood would pretty much do the job of correcting the lens.

I've got a whole bag of filters from my film days. Frankly, since you can add filtration when you process the image, you don't need filters in the field. The exception would be the polarizing filter, which eliminates glare and darkens the sky at right angles to the sun. That can't be duplicated in Lightroom.

n3eg Loc: West coast USA

I finally got a DSLR a few months ago too. It's a four thirds DSLR, and I got it for nostalgia purposes.