I use a Sigma 18-250 on my D7000 for most of my photography even though I have a few other Nikkor lenses. The Sig makes me lazy I guess, in terms of changing lenses. 3.5-6.3 poses some light restrictions, but if most of your shots are in daylight, and with higher ISO, there are no "serious" light restrictions. I agree with the 16-85 rec and wanted one myself, but $600 was a little out of range, so that's why I bought the Sig for under $400.That, plus the Sig gives me more telephoto range. Right now you can get a new one for $349 which is a great buy for this lens that's not perfect,
but could most of your needs as a walk around lens. Of course, with deep pockets, there are better lenses out there.

I have a Rx100 and find myself taking it with me when I go on trips that I have taken before, have many photos of, and just want something to record the moment. I don't find the lack of huge telephoto a problem, and couldn't be happier with the color contrast and sharpness of the Zeiss lens. When you get around grandkids, you'll find they act more natural than when you're pointing a big machine at them. Although there are some little plasticky parts, you overlook those for the jewel like body. I think if you can afford the RX 100111, buy it-electronic finder et al: I get along fine with the original. Even though it is "a little pricey" you get over that in time and good use!

I haven't had a noise issue......yet!

Mr PC- you said you just got the "New" Sig 18-250. What is different about this new Sig than the same lens made, say, 6 months ago when I got mine? I agree with most every thing you say- especially a good general purpose zoom for the price point- however, I do find it heavy on my D7000, pretty soft beyond 180 or so, and not anywhere near as "sharp" as my 35 1.8 (also a good buy!) So, concessions must be made, eh? It might be more manageable on the new D5300 which I understand is a real lightweight. I used it on my D5100, lighter than the D7000 and easier to deal with. Unless one is tremendously 'picky" re: sharpness, one can't go too wrong with this lens. I've often wondered how it stacks up with the Nikkor 18-250- Is the Nikkor $200 sharper? I doubt it.

Thanks for the info, Davis. Interesting, that the Zoo is located 25 miles "outside" of Richmond. I would have thought the City/county could have located it closer to the city. Our zoo here in Syracuse is within the city limits.

I don't remember a Zoo in Richmond in the 40s-50s-not saying there wasn't one there, just was not familiar with it.Where is it? In grade school we took a trip to the Washington Zoo which was pretty spectacular. The whole Zoo thing reminds me that I should go to our Zoo in Syracuse and take some photos.
Nice pics, Davis!

I hear you c41-tomorrow may never come, for some- I'm definitely in that frame of mind-enjoy while we still can.

Thanks for the Idea, Jerry-might be a plan...or if Finn is right, wait for a 7200-
we're all rewarded with the waiting game...you KNOW something new will come along!

Fiddle de dee. I have a D7000 and have pondered the same question-upgrade to 7100 or not-I am a Senior and don't like to "fiddle" around with a camera, rather just shoot,so, I haven't come close to getting a handle on the 7000's capabilities yet, and may never. I am pleased with the results I get and further realize the 7000 is all the camera I need, BUT, the different sensor and the lack of AA is intriguing. You have to figure out whether it's worth spending the money on a camera that may or may not give you better results, or better to use the money on a lens for the 7000. For me, I am lusting after a big Sig 150-500.
As far as using the 7000 for backup, you have to answer the question how much do I shoot and is a backup necessary? I thought so, and have a D5100 that I like, but rarely use now that I have the 7000. I'm not a big fan of the articulating screen, but the camera is light, has the same sensor as the 7000,(I think) and picture quality is very similar to the 7000. That said, I may put the 5100 on the block. I have a little jewel, Sony RX 100 that I take with me on trips and outings when I don't want to carry the big dog, and with it's 20 sensor and Zeiss lens I get great results. The Sony has become my "backup camera. I remember "Jerry" was thinking of buying the Sony a while back, but got turned off by the changing models. I'm perfectly happy with the original. Good luck on your "decisions" sorry to ramble on , but you know, I enjoy it! Fiddle on...

Another bonus of the Sig 18-250 is you can get some pretty nice "near" macro shots with it, particularly with flowers, and Bokeh is good. You won't find a better general purpose walk around lens FOR THE PRICE! I don't think you can go too wrong for $350 or so. I paid $400 for mine a year or so ago and don't regret it.

I have the Sigma 18-250, and for the most part like the results I get. I use it on my D7000, and rarely take it off. It is NOT tack sharp, especially at 200 and beyond, but gives acceptable results for most photo opportunities. I agree with an earlier post that they wouldn't use it for super important trips where you wanted the best results possible.I might rely on two lenses-ie: 16-85 nikkor and 70-200 F/4 Nikkor. I've often thought I would have been better off to buy a refurbished 18-200 nikkor, but photography for me sometimes becomes a woulda coulda shoulda situation-

I was confused at first when you said RX10- I thought of my Sony RX100, and I know I didn't pay $1300 for it-sorry for my ignorance, but as long as I have expressed my stupidity and lack of info, I will say the RX 10 is a great "little" camera. I really like the quality of image from the Zeiss lens and 20.2 sensor The images "pop' as very lifelike representations-more so than with with my Nikon 7000-sorry,Nikonians, just my opinion. When I figure out how to send file attachments I will send some pics from the RX100.

I have been reading "Ugly Hedgehog" for over a year, and thought I would like to become a member. I am not a sage photographer by any stretch, but have been actively involved in taking pictures for at least 70 years. So, I am a hobbyist so to speak, retired now, with plenty of time to engage in the pursuit of things important to me. "taking" pictures being one, and Music appreciation and participation being another. I think I have learned some good things in reading the various member questions and answers over the past year, and now feel the itch to ask a question of my own and or add a comment or two. I have upgraded my equipment recently, so my only excuse is not getting out "in the field" often enough. I take a lot of pictures from my office window!!