Nikon D5200 as an upgrade??

Barryboy

Barryboy

Messages
274
Name
Rob
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi... I have been offered a D5200 at a fairly attractive price. I currently use a D90. Can anyone suggest if this is a reasonable upgrade path? Please note I need to stay on the DX format as an upgrade to the FX format is beyond my pocket and I won't get involved with credit.

Alternatively I could save up a little more and get the Nikkor 18-300 that I have a hankering for and stick with the D90.

Advice/comments welcome.

Rob
 
I've owned the both - d5200great camera but restrictive in controls! ISO button is on fn button on front left of camera not scroller! Be better in low light and noise capability to d90!

Depends on price your getting body at? You could always "upgrade" to it and then start again saving for better glass!
 
Thanks, guys. Kendo1- that link was very useful. Essentially it would cost me £200 or thereabouts if I sell my D90 body (abviously an older camera) and buy the newer D5200. Basically that extra £200 would only get me:

1) a half a frame extra per second on the motor drive function which is neither here nor there
2) an increase from 12 mpx to 24 mpx. However I have always believed that megapixels alone do not make a good shot great.
3) Max ISO from 6400 to 25600. That's effectively 2 stops which would be useful. However I don't do much low light work (can't remember the last time I went above 800ASA, and that was for shooting rugby) and I've got a 50mm f1.8 lens which is a little cracker.

On reflection it's not such an obvious upgrade and I'm not entirely convinced that the 5200 would make a lot of difference - I'm thinking that the lens upgrade from my current Tamron 18-200 would give me more benefit than changing the body. My main interests are urban/candid work and sport and I tend to print a lot of my shots in monochrome so I'm leaning towards not buying the body but getting the 18-300 Nikkor which would make a really good all-purpose lens.

Anyone think of anything else I should take into account before I pull the trigger on the lens?

Rob
 
The best upgrades normally are with lenses.
I have a 5200, and it is a fun camera- small, light, useful features, good size files- but I also have a D200 which I tend to use more.
I was at a wedding on Saturday and took my Nex6 as I was wanting to use some older manual focus lenses. It's also smaller than the D5200.
If I was doing landscape I would probably take the D200, and maybe a Contax (or two!) for film.
 
Another thought that's just ocurred to me is that I would have to familiarise myself with all the new menus if I change bodies..... It's taken me a year to get used to the D90 !!


Rob
 
Based on what you've said I would definitely keep the D90 and look at lenses.

What do you want a lens for (and which ones do you already have)?
 
Hi Nawty... Yes, that was my eventual conclusion. The increase in ISO capability might (perhaps) be useful one day but I have my doubts. In all other respects it's probably just as well to put the money into some better glass. Currently I am mostly using a Tamron 18-200 f3.5-6.3 as my 'go to' lens but also have a Nikkor 18-70 f3.5-4.5, Nikkor 50 f1.8 and Sigma 70-300 f4-5.6.

My main interest is urban shots, candids of people at events and a little sport. The 18-70 is a good lens but too short at the telephoto end for candid work - I'm not one of those 'in your face' people, I prefer to stand off a little to get my shots and changing lenses back and forth between the Sigma and the Nikkor in this type of work is a right pain - I know that I have missed several shots that I would have liked. Now the Tamron 18-200 has been good but I'm not really happy with it in terms of sharpness so have decided to upgrade and rather than go for another independent I thought I'd look at the Nikkor 18-300. My thinking is that the 18-300 plus the 50f1.8 would cover everything I need and the cheapest I can find for a new lens from a UK supplier is £425. I've got some money saved and if I sell off the 18-70, the Tamron and the Sigma I should be just about there in terms of cost.

Alternatively, and only about £100 or so cheaper, is the option of the Nikkor 18-200 but I'm not sure if saving that much and not having the extra 100mm on the long end would be a false economy, so I'm still leaning towards the 18-300.

Rob
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top