Camera Upgrade question

endurodog

Hi guys, this is my first post and hope you can give me some good info.

I have a Nikon D40 that I have had for a couple of years now and have been thinking about upgrading for more pixels. I have done some research and it looks like if I really wanted to upgrade I would have to go with a bigger sensor camera like a D700. I have been looking at the D3100 which would be a upgrade from looking at the specs and a lot more affordable. Leaning towards staying Nikon cause I have been happy with my D40 and have an extra Nikon lens all ready.

My questions are~

1. Would the upgrade to the D3100 be that much of an improvement over my D40

2. Should I save my pennies and go big for a D700 (be a long wait) or would I be fine with a lower cost upgrade.

My use of the camera is day time landscapes, night time black and white, sports stuff (mainly motocross), and some wildlife.

Thanks alot guys for any suggestions and comments.

Art Scott

don't rule out used, like a used d300 or d300s.....also look at the d7000....I hear it is a really great camera.
Some people have went from D300's to the d7000 for supposedly better high ISO........since I prefer Sigma
lenses I need to make sure my cameras have focusing motors in the body and not rely on a lens to have it.
That is one big issue for me.......When I came back to Nikon I went straight to the D300 but I bought used and
saved several $$$. I also buy older used lenses to save $$

r3t1awr3yd

What about the D7000? A nice step inbetween, eh? And it opens up your ability to have even more lenses mounted to the front (older and cheaper non-AFS type lenses).

Eddy

r3t1awr3yd wrote: »

What about the D7000? A nice step inbetween, eh? And it opens up your ability to have even more lenses mounted to the front (older and cheaper non-AFS type lenses).

Nice Nick

walterdywer.. also nice site
Eddy

FLYING EYEBALL

I would get something with a focus motor for sure. A used D90 is pretty hard to be for $550 or so.

If you had the $$ I would do a used D300 for around $900

Every piece of kit I own right now was bought used. Buy from reliable sources and use your extra $$ to buy some lights or upgrade your computer...just my .02

borrowlenses.com

Definitely go with a used D300 or D7000 if you can scrape up $1k or so. Fantastic cameras and a big step up from the D40 even though neither is full frame (FX).

endurodog

This is just the info I was looking for guys, thanks. Can anyone say what makes the D7000 or D300 better than the D3100? I noticed more frames per second which would be nice for my sports photography and a few megapixels, is there anything else I'm missing. Thanks again guys this is good stuff.

Ed911

Me, I'd buy as new as I could...not so much because of IQ...but because of the computer/electronics end of the camera. You alreally get good images...now your looking for good images in more diverse shooting situations, low light, sports, high contrast, etc. More keepers is the name of the game.

I have a D300...with good glass...Nikor 24-70 f2.8...almost every shot I take is a keeper, technically...and that's what you are looking for. (within it's operational window)

I guess I can sum it up this way...what would you say if you could take your best day of shooting with your D40 and make that the norm, rather than the exception, and in all sorts of shooting situations. IQ being equal...wouldn't that be a good thing. Well, that's where the new technology is going...better tracking, lower noise, more keepers, less missed shots. Not to mention new features. I find myself thinking that if I'm a picture taker and not a camera owner...then this is where I want to be. Ideally, I don't want to shoot three or four images to make sure that I got the shot...just one will do me fine thank you...or maybe there is only time for one.

If you're going to stay with the DX format...I'm thinking D7000, if you don't need the body buttons and durabiltiy of a D300, or D700's full frame sensor. And, if you're thinking D700...think wait a little while and see what Nikon releases this year...the D700 is an excellent camera...and should be subject to a price drop as soon as word of it's successor is released.

Hope this helps.

vnp514

endurodog wrote: »

This is just the info I was looking for guys, thanks. Can anyone say what makes the D7000 or D300 better than the D3100? I noticed more frames per second which would be nice for my sports photography and a few megapixels, is there anything else I'm missing. Thanks again guys this is good stuff.

Hi,

My first post on this site. I'm still doing my home work(I now have an old Cannon Powershot A520 ). My wife and I are looking pretty hard at the D7000. We're thinking it would do everything we'd like but uh, there is going to be a bit of a learning curve as neither one of us a shutter bugs-YET!

One thing I'd thought about was getting into underwater photography. This camera will do that and there is some great underwater housings for it already.

Another site you might want to look at is:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/recommended-cameras.htm#serious

Hope the link helps a bit!

Pete

endurodog

Guys thanks for all the input I was leaning towards the 3100 until I posted this thread and now I'm gonna go with the 7000. I will wait till I see a good sale and they have them in stock, seems to be a very popular model, but now I know which way I'm headed. Thanks again to all that helped!!!

ThatCanonGuy

Why are you going with the 7000? The D3100 will be a big step up from your D40 already. You'll definitely notice an improvement in image quality, plus a host of other new features. I think the 3100 is enough right now, where you are in photography. There are two more important things in photography: glass and lenses. More important than the camera. I say go for the 3100 and spend the rest on glass. You'll be happier with your photos. Yes, the 7000 is better in low light, but wouldn't you rather have really good low-light glass? Just my opinion.

Ed911 wrote:

I have a D300...with good glass...Nikor 24-70 f2.8...almost every shot I take is a keeper, technically...and that's what you are looking for. (within it's operational window)

Technically, ok. But you shouldn't be keeping every shot. Depending on what you're shooting, you should be getting a 10-50% rate. If you're at 1% something's obviously wrong; if you're at 100% then you're not experimenting enough. You're not playing around with different angles or "pushing the limits." You're being too conservative. Typically shooting sports/action I have a keeper rate around 10%; still life/nature, that would be, oh, around 30% probably.

I'm not saying you're doing anything wrong; technically is good. Just wanted to clarify

Grainbelt

ThatCanonGuy wrote: »

Why are you going with the 7000? The D3100 will be a big step up from your D40 already. You'll definitely notice an improvement in image quality, plus a host of other new features. I think the 3100 is enough right now, where you are in photography.

Would be nice to know what is already in the quiver from a lens perspective. There was an off-hand reference to a 'spare' lens, and another to sports photography. A good compromise may be the D3100 and a specialized lens of some sort.

Endurodog, what do you like to shoot? (other than enduros )


sidebar

I bought all sorts of specialized lenses - ultrawides, macros, old manual focus lenses - before realizing that a fast normal prime covered about 90% of what I shoot. I bought the best one available, learned basic RAW conversion, and suddenly my older, 10MP body looks pretty darn good.

/sidebar

ThatCanonGuy

Grainbelt wrote:

I bought all sorts of specialized lenses - ultrawides, macros, old manual focus lenses - before realizing that a fast normal prime covered about 90% of what I shoot. I bought the best one available, learned basic RAW conversion, and suddenly my older, 10MP body looks pretty darn good.

Art Scott

Do not rule out REFURB either...another way to save bucks.......

MomaZunk

The main reasons I would chose the D90 over the D3100:
Size: The D90 is easier to handle with the larger lens than the D40/D3100
Focus points: There are more with the D90
AF motor: 'nuf said
Speed of sequential shots
Format on the D3100 requires use of the menu instead of the handy buttons on the D90. This would drive me crazy...
The remote for the D40/D90 does not work on the D3100.

There reasons I want the D7000 to replace the D90:
Focus points
Speed
2 cards versus 1
More rugged?
ISO performance?
And I just want one....but I plan to use my savings to upgrade my glass first.

I would choose the used D90 over a used D80. The D90 is just that much better IMO.

Good luck

ThatCanonGuy

D90 over 3100... hmm, good points. TBH I think you should get one of those two, plus some nice glass, rather than a D7000 with lousy glass. The first setup will give you better photos.