Upgrade camera or lens?

[Astraeus]

Whilst I appreciate the general rule regarding updating - that being that you should place more stock in lenses than the body itself - I am becoming a little bit frustrated with my D40 and feel that upgrading would give me more opportunity to expand my photography with the correct lenses.

I'm off on a year of travelling starting in September, and it'll include New York, Boston, Sydney, Melbourne, Perth, Hong Kong, Dubai and possibly a detour via South America. I want to make sure the photos I take are the absolute best I can take. I feel stifled by the D40's megapixels (being that 100% crops are a little messy) and I also end up losing out on video ability as I don't have a video camera with me.

Would the upgrade to a D90 or D300s be a worthwhile venture? Or am I better placed putting my money into new lenses for the D40 and buying a dedicated camcorder (avoided if at all possible). And, if the upgrade is recommended, do I go for the D90 or the D300s? I'd like my next body to last me a fair few years so I don't mind the extra expense of the D300s, nor am I phased by its size.

 

[cowasaki]

The general rule is, as you say, upgrade glass BUT sometimes you just need to upgrade the body! If you are getting frustrated by your current body due to inadequacies then got for it. The D90 and D300s are both quality bodies and you will not be disappointed. Having all the important controls more easily accessible will improve your photography.

 

[grum]

Remember that the video on a D300s or D90 isn't really the same thing as having a video camera - quality can be amazing but autofocus doesn't really work.

 

[Willo]

What lens do you have at the moment? The D90 is certainly a worthy upgrade to the D40.

 

[deadkenny]

If picture quality is the reason for upgrade then lenses every time.

The main reason to upgrade the body is for functionality.

Upgrading from the D40 to any body that has a screw motor drive gives you access to lenses without in-built motors (i.e. non AF-I/AF-S). Other than that it's all down to looking at the spec.

Better body may make it easier to get the shots, but the lens is key.

 

[pete.rush]

It depends what lenses you have.

I personally wouldn't buy a new camera body just for its HD video capability and I'm sure the quality of the lens plays apart in the quality of the video.

As above the D90 is a worthy upgrade to the D40, but as mentioned above, the key are the lenses.

 

[LongLensPhotography]

If you want the best for travelling, and can afford it - consider 5D mkII with 17-40 + 50mm + 70-200mm f/4 or just 24-105mm. I can't think of a better and more capable light weight kit for travelling. I guess D90/300s would do, just not as well. Nikon lenses cost ££££, and there are no cheap f4 versions last time I looked.

 

[Astraeus]

I'll not be switching to Canon I'm afraid - I've nailed my colours to the Nikon mast!

I'm not a big one for video but it seems a decent aside to have. I know the ancillary function on the D90/D300s won't compare to a dedicated camcorder but it's a last resort to buy a camcorder as well. I don't think the lack of autofocus (as I'd treat it, so as to not encounter the problems or the noise associated with it) is a problem. I'll not be zooming (not a fan of zooming on video) and I've been toying around with manually focusing a lot recently so feel reasonably accomplished at using it.

I'm currently working on the stock 18-55mm and the 55-200mm VR lens (which I'm very disappointed with in truth as all of the photos taken with it seem rather washed out. I don't think I've Flickr'd a single photo taken with that lens to date).

I just feel a bit frustrated with the D40 sometimes and find myself thinking it would be useful to upgrade the body, see if that eliminates my frustrations, and then go about investing real money in lenses.

As was mentioned above, it's also quite an enticing prospect to have the in-built motor so as to save myself a few pennies on lenses - most notably a nifty fifty, a long overdue addition to my camera bag.

The big thing is, like I say, that I'm travelling. I want the photos to be absolutely the best I can make them as, for most of the destinations, there'll be no second chance to record my time there. :nono:

Is the D90 or D300s the one to get? I'm a fan of having the D300s as it seems to offer me more going forward, once my photography begins to develop to the next level. But am I getting value-for-money as, side-by-side, the specs seem quite similar - just with a lot more D90s floating around the market.

 

[Canonite]

Have you looked at the D5000?
What is it about the D40 you're finding to be holding you back? If its simply resolution it'd be pointless shelling out on a D300s.

Weigh up what it is you want from the body?

 

[Gremlin]

Not wanting to doubt your abilities here but have you played with a D300s, it is a very different camera to the D40, you have to set everything up for yourself, no real dialed program modes etc. D90 is a great camera
When are you travelling ?
Make sure you get it well before so you have ttime to learn you way round the camera before you go

 

[HoppyUK]

The old saying upgrade your lenses first is really film related, because you can put top quality film in any camera and that's what makes the big difference. Of course with digital, the camera is also the film.

Having said that, don't expect a huge jump in image quality by swapping a D40 to a D300s. It's there, but you'll have to look for it. I would take your camera and lens and card into Jessops (they are always helpful when I want to do this) and take a few side by side pictures, just swapping the body, then process and output them as you normally would and see what you think.

Then do the same thing with a full frame D700 and lens from the shop, then swap the lens to your camera and reframe the picture the same, and compare that. You'll see a difference then

If you are unhappy with your 55-200, then you need to think about that of course, but the obvious thing to do for a travel job is to get a superwide around 10-20mm, and a polarising filter. Plus a decent flash if you haven't got one.

 

[Astraeus]

Have you looked at the D5000?
What is it about the D40 you're finding to be holding you back? If its simply resolution it'd be pointless shelling out on a D300s.

Weigh up what it is you want from the body?

The D5000 doesn't have the in-built drive motor - something I place a fair bit of stock in given the freedom it would afford me with lenses. And I feel like I'm also ready to step up from the base models to give me something which won't stifle my photography when I step up a gear.

I'm doing exactly as you say though and compiling a list of features I want from my camera to see if that list justifies spending several hundred quid on a new body.

 

[Lazlo Woodbine]

The D90 is a real bargain when you compare it to the cost of the D300s. For travelling light it's just perfect and unless you have a real need for the higher frame rate and tougher body of the D300s you probably won't miss most of the extra features it would give you.

You'll love the autofocus of the D90 in comparison to your D40 and the fantastic LCD screen.

I'm suprised you don't like the 55-200 VR. I found it a superb little lens, especially when you want to travel light. My copy was beautifully sharp and contrasty on a D90.

 

[woof woof]

If shots look "washed out" hopefully you're shooting RAW and can tweak contrast and colour to get the look that you want?

I haven't been a Nikon user for years but it seems to me that you've got a couple of uninspiring lenses and that replacing those is probably the way forward, at least with the "stock" lens. In your place one thing that I'd want to be clear on first is what lenses will autofocus on my camera body and once I was clear on that I'd start to make a shortlist of lens I'd be interested in.

Of course all that goes out of the window if you want more resolution, a faster shooting rate or video but even if you do decide to change your camera body I think that you're still going to have to look at replacing those lenses.

 

[Astraeus]

I must say I'm more swayed towards the D90 as it seems to do all that I need from the camera and, despite it being Nikon's first incarnation of video in SLRs, it seems adept at taking video. I'm so confused by the various names given to lenses - the D90 will autofocus on all of the modern Nikon lenses, right? I'm more bothered about the 50mm f/1.8 than anything else.

By the way, I've just had a quick look to find some photos to show the difference between the 55-200mm and the 18-55mm stock lens and the lack of saturation I'm experiencing. Most of the 300mm shots are deleted in-camera, such is my disappointment. So here is a less notable example but the symptoms are still there - these photos were taken within seconds of one another. This was only at 160mm - the effect is more pronounced the longer the lens goes. And woof woof, I do shoot RAW but find some of the 55-200mm's photos aren't able to be rescued.

http://i138.photobucket.com/albums/q255/ciarandearden/DSC_4798.jpg
http://i138.photobucket.com/albums/q255/ciarandearden/DSC_4799.jpg

 

[Kaouthia]

Remember that the video on a D300s or D90 isn't really the same thing as having a video camera - quality can be amazing but autofocus doesn't really work.

You don't really want to use autofocus anyway if you're doing anything other than the video equivalent of a holiday snap.

 

[Kaouthia]

unless you have a real need for the higher frame rate and tougher body of the D300s you probably won't miss most of the extra features it would give you.

or 51 point 3D autofocus (vs. the 11 point AF the D90 has, same as the D200), flash sync port and 10 pin accessory port.

 

[CJS]

'Washed out', I remember I used to shoot; - 0.3 or 0.7 EV compensation, and preferred 'center weighted' metering. Worth a try if you dont already?

CJS

 

[Astraeus]

or 51 point 3D autofocus (vs. the 11 point AF the D90 has, same as the D200), flash sync port and 10 pin accessory port.

I'm of the opinion that, if I don't know what would be the advantages gained by having a certain feature, I don't need that feature.

'Washed out', I remember I used to shoot; - 0.3 or 0.7 EV compensation, and preferred 'center weighted' metering. Worth a try if you dont already?

CJS

Thanks. I'll give it a go as I'd love to be able to enjoy using this lens.

 

[Kaouthia]

I'm of the opinion that, if I don't know what would be the advantages gained by having a certain feature, I don't need that feature.

What's the opposite of informed opinion?

Seriously though, whether you need those, or any other features that any camera offers really kind of depends on what you shoot, and where you feel your current body may be lacking.

Personally I thought it was definitely worth the extra going for the D300s. Much much better autofocus system, weather sealed (the D90 isn't), more solid magnesium alloy construction, the sync port I don't use all that often (but have done in some studios before I got radio triggers), the 10 pin port I use all the time with radio triggers and intervalometers for long exposures and timelapse, it has an extra stop on the max shutter speed, the "jelly effect" on the video isn't quite as bad on the D300s as it is on the D90 either.

The D300s also provides manual aperture control for video so you can preset your depth of field. I'm not sure the D90 does.

 

[Astraeus]

What's the opposite of informed opinion?

Seriously though, whether you need those, or any other features that any camera offers really kind of depends on what you shoot, and where you feel your current body may be lacking.

Personally I thought it was definitely worth the extra going for the D300s. Much much better autofocus system, weather sealed (the D90 isn't), more solid magnesium alloy construction, the sync port I don't use all that often (but have done in some studios before I got radio triggers), the 10 pin port I use all the time with radio triggers and intervalometers for long exposures and timelapse, it has an extra stop on the max shutter speed, the "jelly effect" on the video isn't quite as bad on the D300s as it is on the D90 either.

The D300s also provides manual aperture control for video so you can preset your depth of field. I'm not sure the D90 does.

My main motivation for the D300s (despite its obvious benefits - the weather-proofing being a key one) is just that it would never limit my photography. I can see myself outgrowing the D90 in a year or two. But that's part of the reason I'm swayed towards the D90. I am currently unemployed (this year being my gap year) and, in just over a year, I'll be working as a trainee solicitor, at which point I'll have the money to throw at a D300s (or the future state-of-the-art) without worrying about it.

Whilst my heart says to plump for the D300s, limited funds and a logical head tell me there is no reason to discount the D90 as a stop-gap measure until next September comes about and I can really splurge.

I've been Flickring D90 videos this evening and some of them seem superb. I'm trying to find evidence (other than on DP Review) of the problems (of which I know there are many) with the D90's video mode.

 

[HoppyUK]

I must say I'm more swayed towards the D90 as it seems to do all that I need from the camera and, despite it being Nikon's first incarnation of video in SLRs, it seems adept at taking video. I'm so confused by the various names given to lenses - the D90 will autofocus on all of the modern Nikon lenses, right? I'm more bothered about the 50mm f/1.8 than anything else.

By the way, I've just had a quick look to find some photos to show the difference between the 55-200mm and the 18-55mm stock lens and the lack of saturation I'm experiencing. Most of the 300mm shots are deleted in-camera, such is my disappointment. So here is a less notable example but the symptoms are still there - these photos were taken within seconds of one another. This was only at 160mm - the effect is more pronounced the longer the lens goes. And woof woof, I do shoot RAW but find some of the 55-200mm's photos aren't able to be rescued.

http://i138.photobucket.com/albums/q255/ciarandearden/DSC_4798.jpg
http://i138.photobucket.com/albums/q255/ciarandearden/DSC_4799.jpg

The rather flat second image there is the result of atmospheric haze, nothing to do with the lens. It's unavoidable when shooting at long distance and is the main reason why landscapers prefer sunrise to sunset, before the heat of the day has kicked up the dust.

You should be able to improve it a bit by increasing the contrast and saturation in the JPEG presets - picture styles as Canon calls them (or in post processing).

 

[Kaouthia]

In that case, if I were in your situation, I'd either be buying a new D300s and treating it as a long term investment, or I'd be buying a second hand D90 in good condition so that when you resell it you lose as little cash as possible.

 

[Astraeus]

In that case, if I were in your situation, I'd either be buying a new D300s and treating it as a long term investment, or I'd be buying a second hand D90 in good condition so that when you resell it you lose as little cash as possible.

The latter is precisely what I'm aiming to do. Second-hand D90s are something of a scare commodity though, it would appear. Ebay doesn't throw up many good deals so I'll keep my eyes peeled on TP for a sale.

And HoppyUK, thanks. I shall take the 55-200mm out earlier in the day to see if I can work it properly. Once I'm on a PC capable enough, I'll tweak around the contrast and saturation too. As always, it's shot in RAW so that should help me.

 

[woof woof]

"And woof woof, I do shoot RAW but find some of the 55-200mm's photos aren't able to be rescued."

OK. But I'm not so sure that a new camera body is going to make a huge difference. You may get more features, more shots per second and probably a higher resolution and maybe even better useability too but I don't know if these things will actually improve shots like those in the two links. After all, some people think that your current camera is actually a good one.

 

[Astraeus]

"And woof woof, I do shoot RAW but find some of the 55-200mm's photos aren't able to be rescued."

OK. But I'm not so sure that a new camera body is going to make a huge difference. You may get more features, more shots per second and probably a higher resolution and maybe even better useability too but I don't know if these things will actually improve shots like those in the two links. After all, some people think that your current camera is actually a good one.

Those photos weren't intended to indicate the flaws with my current camera. They were solely to show what I thought was a problem with the lens (though it transpires the fault lies closer to home! :shrug. I have really enjoyed using the D40 but I just feel it's time for a step up now - megapixels, video and the in-built AF motor being the foremost reasons in my mind to make the change.

 

[woof woof]

Fair enough.

D300 and D700 are pretty much dream cameras...but then you'll want new lenses as well

 

[Astraeus]

Fair enough.

D300 and D700 are pretty much dream cameras...but then you'll want new lenses as well

Tell me about it. Now I'm really beginning the endless financial hole that I was first warned of when buying a dSLR. I'm already eyeing up new lenses for the D90!

 

[deadkenny]

If money's no object... D300s

And yes, nice set of new lenses to go with it!

My problem is I have three expensive hobbies that I didn't expect to be. Photography, skiing and mountain biking (it's crazy how much you can spend on a good mountain bike. Bumped into someone with a £6k bike the other day!!). I'm trying to combine Photography and skiing/mtb though .

 

[Kaouthia]

Bumped into someone with a £6k bike the other day!!

For that kinda money he coulda got a nice second hand car instead.

 

[Astraeus]

If money's no object... D300s

And yes, nice set of new lenses to go with it!

My problem is I have three expensive hobbies that I didn't expect to be. Photography, skiing and mountain biking (it's crazy how much you can spend on a good mountain bike. Bumped into someone with a £6k bike the other day!!). I'm trying to combine Photography and skiing/mtb though .

Please don't. I am taking a ski season this winter and saving up for a new road bike next Autumn when I'm back from Oz. Now I know it's a penniless pit of despair to enjoy these three hobbies! :bang:

Ken Rockwell really tore into the D90's movie mode, essentially saying it's useless. I thought I was sold it on having watched some terrific videos on Flickr, and given that I doubt I'd be filming many moving subjects, but if it messes up as soon as anything moves, I'm thinking twice!

Also, how do people rate the 18-200mm to go with this as an all-round lens?

 

[woof woof]

I think that you should put some serious thought into what you want.

Your current camera will take good pictures, not high resolution pictures but good pictures, and you have a couple of rather unremarkable lenses. You're now talking about upgrading the body and fitting another rather unremarkable lens. I know that gear is attractive and at some point in the very near future if you have the funds to buy whatever you want then all well and good but I just can't see how this process is going to improve your photography.

Is a D90 with a superzoom really going to be considerably better than a D40 with your current lenses?

Perhaps it would be worthwhile thinking about what you expect to get out of this process. Maybe if you want to buy something you could buy something relatively inexpensive for now like a nice fast prime or macro?

 

[Astraeus]

I think that you should put some serious thought into what you want.

Your current camera will take good pictures, not high resolution pictures but good pictures, and you have a couple of rather unremarkable lenses. You're now talking about upgrading the body and fitting another rather unremarkable lens. I know that gear is attractive and at some point in the very near future if you have the funds to buy whatever you want then all well and good but I just can't see how this process is going to improve your photography.

Is a D90 with a superzoom really going to be considerably better than a D40 with your current lenses?

Perhaps it would be worthwhile thinking about what you expect to get out of this process. Maybe if you want to buy something you could buy something relatively inexpensive for now like a nice fast prime or macro?

The 18-200mm question was exactly that, a question as to how people perceived it. Your response suggests it isn't good enough and that matches with what I've read elsewhere. By no means was I about to buy one to go with the D90/D300s.

I'm already on the lookout for a nifty fifty to help portrait photography and, in due course, I will upgrade the longer lenses but the 55-200mm is allegedly capable of some remarkable results and it's clear I'm not using it properly. The D90 has more tools than the D40 to help my photography and there is no better time to start using it than when I'm (hopefully) going to take some of the most incredible photos of my life.

 

[woof woof]

Superzooms have their place as long as you recognise their abilities, work within them and accept the results. I once had a 28-300mm and I've always regretted selling it, but from reading your posts here I think you want shots that pop and you'll have to work harder with more humble kit.

Anyway, I'm coming across as a killjoy here and I don't mean to sound negative, I just wouldn't like to think that you'll buy some new gear, use it, and then think that it hasn't really helped you to move things on.

 

[Lazlo Woodbine]

or 51 point 3D autofocus (vs. the 11 point AF the D90 has, same as the D200), flash sync port and 10 pin accessory port.

Like I said, nothing the OP is likely to miss for what he intends using it for. The autofocus of the D90 may not be as good but it's still excellent, and never caused me to miss a shot when I took mine travelling. Extra ports don't really come in handy in those situations either.

If I were off travelling and faced with the same decision I'd get a 2nd hand D90 and with the money saved get a nice super wide zoom and a nifty fifty. Lovely and light and good for most situations.

Then if you want to upgrade once you're back you can trade it in for something with even more bells and whistles.

I never missed autofocus on the movie mode when I used it. The very idea of autofocus for video work fills me with horror.

The leap from a D40 to a D90 is huge. Far more so than from a D90 up to D300s.

 

[Byker28i]

You don't really want to use autofocus anyway if you're doing anything other than the video equivalent of a holiday snap.

Exactly, use depth of field or be creative and don't pan around all the time. Sometimes things passing look good coming into and going out of focus.

 

[trevorbray]

The most exciting thing about travelling is the experience itself. Your pictures are going to remind you of it for all time. Take what you already have, add a nifty fifty and maybe a wide. Look after your kit. Take lots of cards. Enjoy yourself. If the camera breaks buy a compact and continue with that. The pictures you bring home will be precious.

 

[texfoto]

D90 is your answer. It is a worth while upgrade in a small body. Great for traveling. Buy it used. You can't go wrong. It is a very, very capable camera.

 

[deadkenny]

18-200 is a decent enough lens. It's not perfect. My main issues with it is it's not quite as sharp as the 18-70 kit lens and it vignettes at 200mm. The VR works quite well though.

For the price and zoom range it's not going to match a heavy f/2.8 zoom with tonnes of heavy glass. However it has a functional purpose as an all round lens. I use it for skiing and mountain biking as it's one lens I can carry anywhere. Some of my best photos have come from that lens, just as much as from my favourite 300mm f/4. The 300mm is a superior lens in quality but is no use to me when I'm travelling light and need the zoom range of the 18-200.

To me, it's whatever lets you get the shot that is a key factor. Good glass can get you an amazing shot and if you can afford the glass and have it with you at the right time then fine, but it's no use if not.

In fact, one of my best photos ever actually came from an 8 year old Fuji bridge compact!


And yes, high resolution does not a good picture make. It just allows you to crop more or make bigger prints. Few people print these days and the majority probably don't need anywhere near the kind of resolution they get. High resolution on the same sensor size also compounds noise problems due to the smaller pixel sites and higher density of them. High resolution and full frame is another matter. Though I've always been curious about Fuji's high dynamic range sensors as they sound more like what I'd want out of an expensive camera than just resolution.

 

[Astraeus]

Superzooms have their place as long as you recognise their abilities, work within them and accept the results. I once had a 28-300mm and I've always regretted selling it, but from reading your posts here I think you want shots that pop and you'll have to work harder with more humble kit.

Anyway, I'm coming across as a killjoy here and I don't mean to sound negative, I just wouldn't like to think that you'll buy some new gear, use it, and then think that it hasn't really helped you to move things on.

I like having sensible heads included in any discussion on spending vast amounts of money so as to temper my enthusiasm for being a spendthrift!

Like I said, nothing the OP is likely to miss for what he intends using it for. The autofocus of the D90 may not be as good but it's still excellent, and never caused me to miss a shot when I took mine travelling. Extra ports don't really come in handy in those situations either.

If I were off travelling and faced with the same decision I'd get a 2nd hand D90 and with the money saved get a nice super wide zoom and a nifty fifty. Lovely and light and good for most situations.

Then if you want to upgrade once you're back you can trade it in for something with even more bells and whistles.

I never missed autofocus on the movie mode when I used it. The very idea of autofocus for video work fills me with horror.

The leap from a D40 to a D90 is huge. Far more so than from a D90 up to D300s.

That's my opinion - if I've coped with the D40's 3 AF points, I'll find 11 a joy to use and won't miss the other 40. I'm pretty much decided on the D90 now as, like you said, it's that much more portable for use whilst travelling and I'll not need to relearn using a camera to get respectable shots. The D300s is biting off more than I can chew at this stage.

Exactly, use depth of field or be creative and don't pan around all the time. Sometimes things passing look good coming into and going out of focus.

The videos I've loved watching taken from the D90 have all flicked in and out of focus and looked superb. My 'video' would be limited to odd three-second clips here and there of tides etc just for tacking on to a photo slideshow on my return.

The most exciting thing about travelling is the experience itself. Your pictures are going to remind you of it for all time. Take what you already have, add a nifty fifty and maybe a wide. Look after your kit. Take lots of cards. Enjoy yourself. If the camera breaks buy a compact and continue with that. The pictures you bring home will be precious.

Thanks. I'm so excited about travelling. No photo will ever compare to being there itself (I have just looked through my Santorini photos and it is nothing compared to the holiday) but I really enjoy getting as much of the resonance of a place in a photograph as I can.

18-200 is a decent enough lens. It's not perfect. My main issues with it is it's not quite as sharp as the 18-70 kit lens and it vignettes at 200mm. The VR works quite well though.

For the price and zoom range it's not going to match a heavy f/2.8 zoom with tonnes of heavy glass. However it has a functional purpose as an all round lens. I use it for skiing and mountain biking as it's one lens I can carry anywhere. Some of my best photos have come from that lens, just as much as from my favourite 300mm f/4. The 300mm is a superior lens in quality but is no use to me when I'm travelling light and need the zoom range of the 18-200.

To me, it's whatever lets you get the shot that is a key factor. Good glass can get you an amazing shot and if you can afford the glass and have it with you at the right time then fine, but it's no use if not.

In fact, one of my best photos ever actually came from an 8 year old Fuji bridge compact!

I hear you there. One of my best ever photos came from a very, very old Casio Exilim EX-Z750 - bought refurbished several years ago for £90!

To confirm, I think the course of action I am going to take is:

1. Look to sell my D40 and the 18-55mm kit lens (~£180?)
2. Find myself a decent used D90 body on these forums (as I trust it more than eBay...~£450?)
3. Buy the 50mm f/1.8D for portraiture and low light situations, keep the 55-200mm for when I need the extra length (although only if I can learn how best to use it) and then keep my eye open for an ultra-wide for landscape work.

What sort of ultra-wide would be good for this? I've found when going lower than 24mm that I get serious converging verticals and, as a lot of my photography takes in buildings, am I shooting myself in the foot by not getting a versatile 18-55mm or 18-105mm for general purpose use? I can recall only a handful of photos that have been taken using the 35mm-150mm focal length.