Upgrade Body or Lens?

D

donkey_kong

Messages
216
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi all,

Just wanted everyone's opinion on this. I have a standard Nikon D3100 with kit lens 18-55mm, with 55-300mm and 35mm f1.8 lenses. If I am to upgrade at some point, I would think the D5100 or D7000 would be a great step up. However, I've read that people would prefer to have better glass than an upgraded body.

So my question is this: Which would you prefer (assuming a budget of £700-800)?

Keep the D3100 but buying a faster telephoto, e.g. Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8
or
Replace the D3100 with a D7000 and keeping the slower lenses?

The main reason for thinking of upgrading is for better performance in lower light. I really like the D3100 but slightly restricts me in dim light.

Thanks,

DK
 
what lens you got at the moment and what do you shoot as well?

D7000 is a good camera but you will benefit alot when using good glass on the D7k.
 
This can almost be done scientifically on the basis of the sole requirement of better low light ability.
a - What is the difference in stops between the D3100 and D7000 ISO for a equivalent noise/IQ
b - What is the difference in stops between your lenses and a 2.8

If b > a then new lens, If a > b then new camera :)
 
Normally glass first.

But.

I think I'm your case you would get more benefit from a decent body like the D7k as a minimum.

You have good lenses already, OK, not all of them are suitable for low light but regardless all very sharp.

I'd go with the body :)
 
Unless you can upgrade both, lens first, always.

A 70-200 2.8 will work great on your D3100. There's little difference in images produced by the D3100 and a D7000. You upgrade body when you feel you're really missing the extra on-body controls, or really need weather sealing or the extra weight and size ergonomically.

I would rather more controls on body, and all the rest, but given the choice between a D3100 + good 2.8 lens, or a D7000 and kit lens, I'll take the former.

There may be a way you can do both: If you do buy the Sigma 70-200 2.8, buy it used. For as cheap as you can find one. Sell your 55-300 VR, you won't need it once you have the better 2.8 lens. Put the savings you made on buying used, plus what you make on your old lens, sell the D3100, and you should have enough for a D7000 - at least a good condition used one.

Boom - upgraded body + lens.

I've been buying & selling used gear for years, and that's what I'd do in your situation.
 
Last edited:
Er, how did you figure that?

I would assume that when you upgrade, you trade in or sell your older gear. Like most sensible people do ...

I don't hang onto lenses after upgrading, I don't like to cross focal lengths, I keep things simple. You could have a Dslr body for 5 years, and go through dozens of lenses. And if you're clever, you'll never lose on a sale. I never have ;)

I gave an example above on one way to go about getting both. It involves selling the current body + tele lens, and buying a used upgrade lens + body. Very doable. Otherwise, just going with the lens option, you obviously sell the one you have to buy the upgrade. No point keeping both.
 
Last edited:
Cagey75 said:
Er, how did you figure that?

I would assume that when you upgrade, you trade in or sell your older gear. Like most sensible people do ...

I don't hang onto lenses after upgrading, I don't like to cross focal lengths, I keep things simple. You could have a Dslr body for 5 years, and go through dozens of lenses. And if you're clever, you'll never lose on a sale. I never have ;)
Click to expand...

Lot of "I’s" in there mate.

With all due respect, that's your opinion and perhaps its worth stating as I read your post thinking you know something I don't about how to upgrade!

Not everybody wants to sell everything they own to upgrade just because it crosses over with another bit of kit.
 
Of course there's "I" in there, it's my opinion. I'm not trying to speak for anyone else.

I'm not suggesting to you, my suggestions are for the OP. You seem to have pulled me up on a suggestion that works for no reason.
 
Last edited:
Phil Young said:
Interesting method...

If I did that I'd just have loads of lenses and a basic body. :thinking:
Click to expand...

until you reached the point where you own all the lenses you need and the best available. So that's £20,000 of lenses for your £300 body.

only at that point is it wise to upgrade the body
 
Last edited:
ernesto said:
This can almost be done scientifically on the basis of the sole requirement of better low light ability.
a - What is the difference in stops between the D3100 and D7000 ISO for a equivalent noise/IQ
b - What is the difference in stops between your lenses and a 2.8

If b > a then new lens, If a > b then new camera :)
Click to expand...

b>a

The D7000 has a slight edge (0.3 f-stops) in low noise, high ISO performance
Click to expand...

http://snapsort.com/compare/Nikon_D3100-vs-Nikon_D7000
 
Good glass is always the better bet unless you've got to a point where the camera won't do what you want it to, ie frame rate, af system, buffer size etc. Faster lenses give you more creative options than kit lenses by allowing you to blur backgrounds etc. I doubt at f8 you would notice much if any difference in IQ between your Nikon kit lenses and any f2.8 zoom but you certainly would wide open!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top