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'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/