>>3666780Of these two cameras, the D7000 is definitely the better camera. But the body does look tossed about a bit. And it does not make sense to me, that the images shows are not correct. The top one is a D7000, but the bottom two seem to be from another entry level Nikon, maybe a D5000.... So this place does not seem very genuine in how they deal with things, that is something to consider.
I have no experience with the D90, but it seems to be well liked as well. And seeing how you will probably upgrade your body in 2 years anyways if you like photography, I dont think it matters much. It is nice though to get a lens with your camera, and the 18 105 seems to go for about 150$ where I live, so that means you get the camera for 100$ which seems pretty fair.
If I were you I'd go for the D90, even if you don't want to keep the lens you can sell it and get another one. It might not be the sharpest lens ever, but for your first hundreds of pictures that does not matter at all. Your pictures will most likely be unsharp because of technique anyways, and even with an unsharp lens you can practice technique, composition etc quite well.
Also, the large range will allow you to explore different compositions with focal length quite well, and from all those pictures you take, you can have an idea on what to get for your next lens (i.e. if you take most pictures around the 105mm end, you might want to get a tele lens, if you take most around the 18mm you might want a wide one. If you take most around 50mm and barely change, why not get a 1.8 prime).
>If I go for just d7000 body how much should I cash additional for a first lens and what should it be?I agree with
>>3666789>a used Sigma 17-50mm f2.8Plus the Tamron 17-50mm 2.8
These two lenses are nearly identical, iirc one is sharper at the 17mm, the other at the 50mm end. In practice especially for a beginner it does not matter. Just go for which one you can find cheaper.
As I mentioned
>>3666333Get the non VC version
