Upgrading to a new Nikon DSLR - Advice Please (Anything from D3100 > D7000)

W

williamj1

Messages
27
Edit My Images
No
Hi everyone,

I've long had an (amatuer) interest in photography, and a good few years ago invested in my first DSLR. That was a Nikon D40, and it has served me extremely well. I've always taken the view that every camera can take pictures, but its more what you do with the camera that makes a difference. And to some extent I think this remains true. But I'm realising now that the technology has evolved really quite significantly now in newer Nikon DSLRs, so I'm looking to upgrade. Not least because they have video capabilities.

Anyway, I've spent really quite a lot of time researching what to upgrade to. But now, I'm sort of stuck. So I'm hoping to draw on the wisdom of many on here to help me make a decision

I want to stay exclusively Nikon, so no Canon or Panasonic suggestions please. Not saying they are better or worse, just my personal preference.

Firstly, I have a budget - but it is complicated. Ultimately, I wish to be out of pocket by no more than £500 absolute maximum. However, on purchasing a new DSLR I'm going to buy a Nikkor 35 or 50mm (not decided) AF-S 1.8G lens. So this is going to set me back another £150-200.

Where it gets complicated is that I already own an old (very expensive) Nikkor 50mm F1.4 lens, but its proper old school. This means manual focus and as such it hasn't been used at all on my Nikon D40. I'm thinking possibly I could invest the saving from not buying a new lens into a better camera, which didn't require AF-S lenses. Combined with £150 from selling the body of my D40, this could give me the funds to secure a much better camera. Note though, at the end I still don't wish to be more than £500 out of pocket if that makes sense.

So what are my options? Well as far as I can work out ...

D3100 - I've pretty much ruled this out. Budget supports more, wish more advanced functions.

D3200 - Interested in waiting for this to become available. No idea how it compares to the D5100 though.

D5100 - If I can cope with AF-S lenses, this would be my preference. Love the size of the body, the screen looks magnificent too.

D90 - I know this is an older model, but I know very little about it. What I'd like to know specifically ...

- I recognise this was the first DSLR to have HD Video capabilities. How does the video of this compare to newer iterations like the video from the D5100?

- Would image quality be notably different between the D90 and D5100? I was surprised to find the D90 shared a similar 11 point focus system.

- Love that it doesn't need AF-S lenses.

D7000 - I really know very little about this other than its a much much more professional camera. 39 point AF-System, much bigger body and doesn't require stupid AF-S lenses.

---------------------------------------------

I should add that D3100, D3200 and D5100 I'd be buying new (body only). D90 / D7000 ideally new but in my budget not sure so I'd be open to the possibility of buying second hand.

--------------------------------------------

So what type of shooting do I do?

Well, mostly landscape and nature. I'm quite a creative photographer, so I like to go to new and interesting places and just shoot things I like. I think I'm good at capturing things in interesting photos people normally take for granted. That's the beauty of photography, being able to shoot what you want in your own way, and show the world as you see it.

I think my biggest problem in choosing a new camera is that I myself don't know what I need. I'm perfectly happy shooting with my D40. It's quite basic compared to things like the D7000, but I don't know that I need more. I know I will really use the video capabilities on whatever I use. And the ability to use non AF-S is a huge incentive. Trouble is though, the rest of the features in the D7000 I don't need. Complex metering systems, dual SD slots, external mic inputs and what not. I do need good low-light capabilities, but I know that all will be sufficient. I am not advanced enough to notice a difference.

So what would you all advise? To summarise, I want to know 2 things really ...

1. Having read the above, do you think the D5100 would be sufficient for me?

2. Is there a significant difference between the D90 vs the D5100, and the D5100 vs the D90 / D7000? Enough to justify the huge increase in price for someone like me?

------------

See the link below for some photos from a recent holiday to give you an idea of my capabilities and style of shooting

Thanks for any help.

William

http://flickr.com/gp/79586409@N05/SfP52Z/
 
I had a nikon d50 which i loved then a d80 which i hated i then got a d90 which is a great camera:)
 
Great first post! Welcome to the forum, and thanks for actually including so information rather than " I want a new camera"

The d3100 is great, however apart from newer tech, it doesn't add much to your d40. The video is ok, but autofocus is crap on it, and you are very limited in control.

The d5100, again is great, slightly more advanced features than the d3100, but on the whole,not much difference.

The D90, much better build, much better controls, getting closer to a pro spec body. Using it is a joy, and the image quality is great. Again, video isn't great. Im afraid Nikon really weren't doing well with video until the d7000. It's certainly useable, but takes some practice.

The d7000 is currently the top of the range of the consumer models. It's sensor is slightly better than the d90, and so is the video, but the build isn't quite as good. It will cost considerably more than the d90, but whether it's worth it, only you can call.

For me, with what you describe, the d90 makes perfect sense in all areas. You certainly wouldn't be disappointed with it.
 
+ 1 for the D90 which is a great camera...you would pick up a very low shutter count well cared for used one for less than £350/400 leaving you a little cash to put towards that lens you are fancying.
 
TCR4x4 said:
Great first post! Welcome to the forum, and thanks for actually including so information rather than " I want a new camera"

The d3100 is great, however apart from newer tech, it doesn't add much to your d40. The video is ok, but autofocus is crap on it, and you are very limited in control.

The d5100, again is great, slightly more advanced features than the d3100, but on the whole,not much difference.

The D90, much better build, much better controls, getting closer to a pro spec body. Using it is a joy, and the image quality is great. Again, video isn't great. Im afraid Nikon really weren't doing well with video until the d7000. It's certainly useable, but takes some practice.

The d7000 is currently the top of the range of the consumer models. It's sensor is slightly better than the d90, and so is the video, but the build isn't quite as good. It will cost considerably more than the d90, but whether it's worth it, only you can call.

For me, with what you describe, the d90 makes perfect sense in all areas. You certainly wouldn't be disappointed with it.
Click to expand...

Thank you.
I may be new to this forum, but I'm senior members on the likes of AV Forums and XDA so I feel your pain for unhelpful posts. I joined here because it is photospecific, and this is where I thought I would get the most help :)

SteveF said:
+ 1 for the D90 which is a great camera...you would pick up a very low shutter count well cared for used one for less than £350/400 leaving you a little cash to put towards that lens you are fancying.
Click to expand...

Thanks also.

I will go away and have a look at a D90. Do either of you have any idea where would be good to get a used D90 for £350+ as you say then?

Also, with regards to non AF-S lenses. I forgot to mention that I have two even older, really really old lenses. Another Nikkor F1.4 50mm and another Nikkor 70-300. When I put these on my D40, not only do I have to manual focus, but I have to do ISO and everything like that. For them to even be recognised in manual, I have to put the Fstops to the highest number on each. I take it the D90 would take care of this also? So ultimately, I could do full auto shooting on the D90 even with these two lenses attached?

I'm liking the sound of this very much.
Instead of going from a D40 with a kit lens, I'd be going to a D90 complete with ...

- Nikkor 18-55
- Nikkor 28-80
- Nikkor 70-33
- Nikkor 50mm

This sounds great. See I spend a lot of money on my Nikon F50, back in the film days. Took ages to switch to digital. Loving the thought of reviving these lenses.
 
williamj1 said:
Thank you.
I may be new to this forum, but I'm senior members on the likes of AV Forums and XDA so I feel your pain for unhelpful posts. I joined here because it is photospecific, and this is where I thought I would get the most help :)



Thanks also.

I will go away and have a look at a D90. Do either of you have any idea where would be good to get a used D90 for £350+ as you say then?

Also, with regards to non AF-S lenses. I forgot to mention that I have two even older, really really old lenses. Another Nikkor F1.4 50mm and another Nikkor 70-300. When I put these on my D40, not only do I have to manual focus, but I have to do ISO and everything like that. For them to even be recognised in manual, I have to put the Fstops to the highest number on each. I take it the D90 would take care of this also? So ultimately, I could do full auto shooting on the D90 even with these two lenses attached?

I'm liking the sound of this very much.
Instead of going from a D40 with a kit lens, I'd be going to a D90 complete with ...

- Nikkor 18-55
- Nikkor 28-80
- Nikkor 70-33
- Nikkor 50mm

This sounds great. See I spend a lot of money on my Nikon F50, back in the film days. Took ages to switch to digital. Loving the thought of reviving these lenses.
Click to expand...

I know that you will not be allowed access to the classifieds section for a while but there is one in there for £350 with 14k actuations....i sold one at the beginning of this year with 6k actuations for £375. Check out Gumtree and of course there is also eBay.
 
SteveF said:
I know that you will not be allowed access to the classifieds section for a while but there is one in there for £350 with 14k actuations....i sold one at the beginning of this year with 6k actuations for £375. Check out Gumtree and of course there is also eBay.
Click to expand...

Thank you.

How significant is the number of actuations? What are the effects of more?
Also, do you know how to check on a D40? I haven't shot in RAW for a while, and I gather JPEG doesn't store this data? or was I ill informed?
 
williamj1 said:
Thank you.

How significant is the number of actuations? What are the effects of more?
Also, do you know how to check on a D40? I haven't shot in RAW for a while, and I gather JPEG doesn't store this data? or was I ill informed?
Click to expand...

Go to a site called my shuttercount and upload your last jpeg:)
 
Shutter count really doesn't count for much.
My Nikon d700 just failed at 27k. It's "rated" for 150k

It's a good indicator of what sort of life it's led, but I'd rather have a lovingly cared for amateur owned camera with 50k rather than a warzone PJ owned one with 10k.
 
Stick with the D40 and spend all of the money on lovely lenses.

"Ah" you say, "So why do you have a D700?"

Low light ability allowing me to shoot sports when a lesser camera wouldn't cope.
 
Steelmagnet said:
Stick with the D40 and spend all of the money on lovely lenses.

"Ah" you say, "So why do you have a D700?"

Low light ability allowing me to shoot sports when a lesser camera wouldn't cope.
Click to expand...

Question ...

If I went ahead and spent £191 on the new Nikkor AF-S 50mm 1.8G, then took an identical photo with this lens on my D40, D5100 and D90 on full auto, would you notice a significant difference. I'm thinking I would ...
 
williamj1 said:
Question ...

If I went ahead and spent £191 on the new Nikkor AF-S 50mm 1.8G, then took an identical photo with this lens on my D40, D5100 and D90 on full auto, would you notice a significant difference. I'm thinking I would ...
Click to expand...

No, probably not. Maybe some slight variation in the way the processor handles the colour, but that can be changed. Also one camera may meter the scene differently, so the exposure may be slightly different, but on full auto, I'd bet you couldn't tell them apart.

The differences would come apparent in low light situations, the d40 would start lagging behind, but a normal good light scene, they should be pretty much indistinguishable.
 
I bought my first DSLR 5 years ago and it was a D40. Bought and sold a D7K in a couple of weeks now I have a K-5 but I still have the D40 with a 35mm 1.8 AF-S. It is an absolutely fantastic camera.

Don't sell it and keep using it till the day it dies I say, with the 35mm it feels so balanced and portable let alone that is is 'only' £300 so losing it or getting it nicked will not hurt as much as losing a K-5 + a 16-50 :)

I miss things when I use it now in comparison with my K-5, the two dials, the better noise handling, the in built IS, the extra MP which give me plenty of room for cropping the better feel of the body and the much nicer LCD and viewfinder. If any combination of these are really important to you buy a D90/D7k but if you expect to go from a D40 to a D7K and instantly see huge improvements in your pictures then you might be a bit disappointed.
 
vrapan said:
I bought my first DSLR 5 years ago and it was a D40. Bought and sold a D7K in a couple of weeks now I have a K-5 but I still have the D40 with a 35mm 1.8 AF-S. It is an absolutely fantastic camera.

Don't sell it and keep using it till the day it dies I say, with the 35mm it feels so balanced and portable let alone that is is 'only' £300 so losing it or getting it nicked will not hurt as much as losing a K-5 + a 16-50 :)

I miss things when I use it now in comparison with my K-5, the two dials, the better noise handling, the in built IS, the extra MP which give me plenty of room for cropping the better feel of the body and the much nicer LCD and viewfinder. If any combination of these are really important to you buy a D90/D7k but if you expect to go from a D40 to a D7K and instantly see huge improvements in your pictures then you might be a bit disappointed.
Click to expand...

You all make very valid points. And I'm now very undecided.

It is clear that my perfect camera is the D7000. But my bank account also makes it clear that I cannot afford this. :shrug:

So its either better video in the D5100 and a tilt screen, or use of my old lenses in the D90.

Or keep my D40. I don't know how practical this is though. The kit lens isn't working properly as it is and there is no point shelling out more for a new one of those.

PS - I love these ...

http://www.flickr.com/photos/74901137@N00/6809974884/in/photostream/

This one especially, since it was taken on your D40. With what lens may I ask?

http://www.flickr.com/photos/74901137@N00/5610772891/in/photostream/
 
Thanks :)

The second is taken with the second most favourite zoom I have ever owned. A Tamron 17-50 2.8 non VC (my most favourite is the 50-135 on Pentax an absolutely fantastic lens both in handling and IQ).

BTW The D5100 will give you the IQ of a D7000. they have the exact same sensor. Of course for AF you will need AF-S lenses or lenses with built in motor (most Sigmas and a lot of good cheap Tamrons). Don't overlook third party brands for lenses lenses like the 17-50 Tamron, the 50-150 Sigma (unfortunately discontinued now but still can find a copy or two for reasonable prices), the 11-16 Tokina, the 70-200 Tamron and so on.
 
TCR4x4 said:
Shutter count really doesn't count for much.
My Nikon d700 just failed at 27k. It's "rated" for 150k
Click to expand...

Did your shutter fail? I thought I'd read it was something to do with a jammed lens?

Either way, the sentiment is true. Shutter count counts for very little. I've read on here people baulking at shutter counts of 10,000 on pro cameras that will happily plod on to 200,000. I dare say most cameras will be long since obsolete before the shutter ever fails.
 
AFAIK, the old Ai and AIS lenses will only meter on the D200 and upwards.
 
Phil Young said:
Just to throw a spanner in the works...

If you don't need the controls of the d90 along with it's AF motor...the D5000 has the same sensor...
Click to expand...

Seeing as we're lobbing spanners in.... The D300 has the same sensor, even more controls, a superb AF system and is built to survive a nuclear winter. Crucially not much more expensive these days despite costing vastly more when new.
 
If the D300 works well with the older lenses I'd go for that instead of the D90. If you are desperate for video then a flip HD cam would do a reasonable job or just about any of the little HD cams.

Alternatively keep what you have for now and keep saving for the D7000 :)
 
I've done some more thinking.

I don't need the D90 in terms of its more professional functions and capabilities. My D40 performs superbly, and with a better lens it would be outstanding. As such, in terms of what I need, the D5100 would be a better choice. It has *GOOD* video which is nice too.

That therefore leaves me with 1 more question, and 1 more thought.

Firstly, how good / bad is the video honestly on the D90? People say its awful, but I am no videographer. I can't really get a feel from Youtube, but my one observation would be that the quality compared to the likes of a phone or even a compact camera is much better in terms of depth of field and so on. The video's don't look HD though, not sharp as I'd expect.

I think ultimately the only real reason I could justify the D90 is for the AF motor. So I'm tied between the budget friendly, video performer that is the D5100, or the more expensive, more functional but without decent video D90.

I just want a D7000, why can't I just be rich? :(
 
williamj1 said:
I've done some more thinking.

I don't need the D90 in terms of its more professional functions and capabilities. My D40 performs superbly, and with a better lens it would be outstanding. As such, in terms of what I need, the D5100 would be a better choice. It has *GOOD* video which is nice too.

That therefore leaves me with 1 more question, and 1 more thought.

Firstly, how good / bad is the video honestly on the D90? People say its awful, but I am no videographer. I can't really get a feel from Youtube, but my one observation would be that the quality compared to the likes of a phone or even a compact camera is much better in terms of depth of field and so on. The video's don't look HD though, not sharp as I'd expect.

I think ultimately the only real reason I could justify the D90 is for the AF motor. So I'm tied between the budget friendly, video performer that is the D5100, or the more expensive, more functional but without decent video D90.

I just want a D7000, why can't I just be rich? :(
Click to expand...

It's pretty awful. it's motion jpg which means the quality is less than good, has no manual controls and no mic input.

It's not good at all...

You'd be more than fine with the D5100.
 
That brings me to one final question.

Obviously now, the D90 is 4 years old. As technology evolves, that becomes an ever more significant figure. With relation to this, what are your thoughts on how well placed buying a D90 now would be? 2 years ago I probably would not have hesitated. But I get the feeling things have changed substantially. Then again, perhaps in terms of image quality I wouldn't notice a difference.

The D7000 for example, is already 2 years old itself. Nikon Rumours expects an update before August this year. That leads me to think that the D7000 would come down? Would it? I have little knowledge in how Nikon's retain or detract in their value? So any thoughts on this?

Remember, I don't really wish to spend more than £550 ish (body only). And to make matters worse, a new camera would ideally have been a gift in June (big birthday coming up).

Thanks.
 
Having a think, this is literally the only real type of video I would be shooting. I'm not talking about videos of someone blowing out a cake on their birthday, because I'd just use my iPhone for that. So I'd be talking about "field photography" taking creative videos of grass and so on. For what its worth, this video seems perfectly acceptable to me. It's not as crisp as I am used to viewing on Youtube, but I think I could live with it. The focus seems the only issue, but I won't be videoing moving subjects.

Nikon D90 test - YouTube

However, It would seem the d90 doesnt have an intervalometer. This is hugely disappointing. One thing that made me less bothered about the lack of decent video was its good low light performance, so I could try things like this, which i've always wanted to do and works well in my area. Very disappointed. Does the D5100 / D7000.
http://d2f29brjr0xbt3.cloudfront.net/571_starstip/1.jpg

Also, as if to torment me more, the D300s (yes) had a price drop yesterday so is now £849, while the D7000 remains similar. What is the point in that, they should drop the D7000 also surely.
 
You evidently do not need the D300s. You've not mentioned any of the things the D300s provides over the other cameras. You don't need more advanced AF than the D90/5100 if you're not complaining about the D40's AF.

I'm not sure why you're making a huge deal out of the AF-S lenses - yes AF-Ds are cheaper but they're not that much cheaper, and the S versions are often better optically.

You can mount and use that 50mm Ai-S lens on any new body. However you'll only get metering on the D7000 if that matters to you. From what you've said, the D5100 seeems the best fit - great IQ, good video, very capable. Not sure if the D90 or D7000 make sense given how unlikely you are to use the extra stuff, but maybe your tastes in photography will change.
 
ausemmao said:
You evidently do not need the D300s. You've not mentioned any of the things the D300s provides over the other cameras. You don't need more advanced AF than the D90/5100 if you're not complaining about the D40's AF.

I'm not sure why you're making a huge deal out of the AF-S lenses - yes AF-Ds are cheaper but they're not that much cheaper, and the S versions are often better optically.

You can mount and use that 50mm Ai-S lens on any new body. However you'll only get metering on the D7000 if that matters to you. From what you've said, the D5100 seeems the best fit - great IQ, good video, very capable. Not sure if the D90 or D7000 make sense given how unlikely you are to use the extra stuff, but maybe your tastes in photography will change.
Click to expand...

I disagree with you to an extent. I don't need the D300s, no. But if I was going to spend £849 on a body I might as well spend another 50 to get the D300s. But I can't afford that much.

In terms of the D7k, or the D90, I definitely would use the extra stuff, I think that's unfair. And also, as I said all throughout my post, I'm looking to get more serious with my photography. I want a camera that will not just suit me now, but that will suit me as my knowledge and experience grows.

I do need more advanced AF also. I really hate the AF on my D40, not least because it doesn't work. I want more points, and something much quicker and precise. The d40 is hopeless at tracking moving subjects in particular.

Maybe I am making a bigger deal about AF-S lenses though. The example I am looking at is the 50mm Nikkor 1.8 D. I will without buy this the same day I get a new camera. Alternatively, the AF-S version is more than double the price at £200. So other than the 'nifty fifty' are there other older non af-s which are cheaper than the af-s counterparts?
 
d300 is good. d300s with video (y) :)


AFS/AFD all depends whether you want to do manual stuff with the lenses (and whether you are comfortable with manual stuff - ie focusing, aperture).

AFS (I have a 35mm f1.8 - bloody excellent lens btw!) is good for af, fairly silent (quiet whine). But if I added tubes or wanted to try manual, I can't set the Aperture - Think there is a focus ring though).

I have the af-d 50mm which does allow you to do this.

Depends if you think you may need it.


Essentially the d300 is a camera to grow into - it can be complicated, but thats what you've said you want - something to learn about settings etc.

D7k is brilliant too, bit torn between them.

Lenses, well you've been shooting with your camera; is there a particular mm you use lots? or a specific field of photography you want to take pics of that requires a special lens?


If you are still undecided, perhaps see if there is a meet with other photographers (and if you are lucky nikon users) so you can compare the lenses/camera bodies...

Good hunting!
 
williamj1 said:
I disagree with you to an extent. I don't need the D300s, no. But if I was going to spend £849 on a body I might as well spend another 50 to get the D300s. But I can't afford that much.

In terms of the D7k, or the D90, I definitely would use the extra stuff, I think that's unfair. And also, as I said all throughout my post, I'm looking to get more serious with my photography. I want a camera that will not just suit me now, but that will suit me as my knowledge and experience grows.

I do need more advanced AF also. I really hate the AF on my D40, not least because it doesn't work. I want more points, and something much quicker and precise. The d40 is hopeless at tracking moving subjects in particular.

Maybe I am making a bigger deal about AF-S lenses though. The example I am looking at is the 50mm Nikkor 1.8 D. I will without buy this the same day I get a new camera. Alternatively, the AF-S version is more than double the price at £200. So other than the 'nifty fifty' are there other older non af-s which are cheaper than the af-s counterparts?
Click to expand...

I'm not saying you'd not use the extra stuff to put you down; I'm saying it because you never mentioned things where they would make a difference in your OP (but perhaps it was just an oversight). The AF on the D3100/5100/90 is the same AF that was in the D200 - it's not a bad system at all. As for performance:


7 by ausemmao, on Flickr


Kit by ausemmao, on Flickr

Both of those are with a D3100.


What the D7000 and D300/s AF offer is faster off centre response, more coverage, and better tracking of erratic subjects but it's not as if the other camera's can't do these things. Personally I wouldn't get the D300s over a D7000 as the only things it has over it are a slightly bigger body, slightly better build quality and slightly better buffer; I prefer a smaller body and haven't run into buffer issues with fast cards.

Comparing the D90 to a D5100, in absolute capability you only really gain the AF motor and the ability to use the popup as a TTL commander, and lose dynamic range, low light performance, the swivel screen and the better video capability. On the other hand, the cumulative effect of all the extra bits (top lcd, second wheel etc) might make it much nicer for you to use.

There are a fair few non S lenses. The 50 you already mentioned, the 85 1.8, 105 macro, and the 80-200 2.8 are probably the ones that give you a cheaper alternative to AF-S lenses. There are the 105 and 135 f/2s and 180 f/2.8 that don't have an AF-S equivalent, but they're fairly specialist lenses.

I don't agree with the whole 'growing into a camera' thing. Photography isn't an RPG, you don't level up. Either the camera can do what you need it to for the next x years you own it, or it can't. If it can, why spend more?
 
Last edited:
I have a D90, D300 and D7000

If you want a good DSLR that will do most things well the D90
If you want a bigger grip, faster frame rate and weather proofing then D300
If you want soft focus and a smaller grip with no 3rd party battery options then D7000

I use D300 / D7000 for event photography but my D90 goes everywhere else with me..
 
I've more or less ruled out the D5100 now.
I've tried both in store, and I just get the feeling the D5100 feels more simple. It's a very serious and capable camera, but the features all seem a bit more ... gimmicky and childish for what I want. The effects mode on the dial for example, a nice touch but its not for me. I'm looking to get more professional as I say. I think the D90 (just feels to me, like it) is more professional, more for the serious user. The controls, the added wheel and so on.
In addition, I really want the F-Mount capabilities.

Other things to think about are that if I did get the D5100, I'd be spending £190 straight away as opposed to £75 for the 50mm AF-S 1.8G as opposed to the cheaper 1.8 AF-D. Ultimately, I'd end up spending more immediately (and long term) with the D5100, because I'd have to buy a new telephoto zoom, and a new af-s equivalent to my 28-80mm.

I've also decided video is no longer really a priority. The d90 has video capabilities that will suit my needs if I ever use it in reality I think. I'm no longer factoring this in.

So really, I now have to decide whether to get the D90 body only now, wait for the D7000 to drop in price (timing wise august - so not really practical) or source a used D300 which I don't really need.
 
get a D90, and splash the remaining cash somewhere else (and you can get AF-D, non-motor lenses) for it. I own a D90 and it's fantastic! The D7000, like you said, it's gonna take some time for the price to go down, and to be honest it's not that much of an upgrade from the D90 really.
 
williamj1 said:
I already own an old (very expensive) Nikkor 50mm F1.4 lens, but its proper old school. This means manual focus and as such it hasn't been used at all on my Nikon D40.
http://flickr.com/gp/79586409@N05/SfP52Z/
Click to expand...

That surprises me a bit william. I'm no maestro meself, but manual focusing is not that difficult. If you shoot in zoos at all, no matter how fancy the gear, you're going to need to manual focus past the wire fences. At short focal length, it's no sweat at all.

My apologies if I've misunderstood.

Good shooting with your D90, never had one but was always a bit envious when I had the D200.
 
Been reading this with much interest.. I am also looking to go Nikon, had my heart set on a used D7000.. Is there MUCH to be gained from the D7000 over the D5100??
 
Dom7 said:
Been reading this with much interest.. I am also looking to go Nikon, had my heart set on a used D7000.. Is there MUCH to be gained from the D7000 over the D5100??
Click to expand...

It depends on what you want and how you use a camera to be honest. There is quite a lot of difference in terms of control and such. The D90 and D7000 are prosumer cameras whereas the D5100 < are consumer. If you shoot in auto all the time, then you likely don't need the D7000.

The D7000 has better ISO performance, faster FPS, more manual controls, backwards AF lens capabilities due to the AF motor, dual control wheels, more dedicated buttons for settings, custom settings and so on.

For me, the D7000 wasn't enough to justify the £400 additional cost between that and the D5100. That is why I bought the D90 in the end, because it offers a bridge between the two.

For example, there are really very few differences between the D90 and D7000, other than improved video performance of the latter. However, the D90 is now cheaper than the D5100. So for me, it offered D7000 performance at a much reduced cost.

It's difficult to advise without more details though, what camera do you own at the moment? (if at all) and what do you shoot? To me, the D3xxx > D5xxx are entry level cameras. I already own a D40. So for me, the D5100 wouldn't have been an upgrade in terms of performance really, but rather just a new version of my camera with modern features like "live view" and HD video recording. The D90 and D7K are much more a development of my photography, there is new stuff for me to learn and it gives me much greater control. I feel these two would allow me to develop my photography and take it to the next level, whereas I don't think that would apply with the other models. Have a look in the HUKD thread, some similar discussion there, and also in my thread over at DPreview forums...

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1034&thread=41368694&page=1

http://www.hotukdeals.com/deals/nik...449-cameraworld-instore-online-1222899?page=1
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top