Camera Upgrade

[asap1082]

Hi Everyone,

Not sure if this is the right place to post...

I currently own a Nikon d5100. I've had it for a few years now, and I absolutely love it, but I think I'm ready for an upgrade. What do you guys suggest? I'd like to stay with Nikon. I am pretty comfortable with camera controls and settings - I'm just ready to step up my photography game.

[davidedric]

Hi there and welcome.

Posting here is fine - in any case we don't get too excited by which forum folks post in.

I am sure the Nikon users can help, but the first question has to be - in what ways is your current kit limiting you?

(Of course, you could be like me and also enjoy playing with new toys.)

Dave

[Dave Humphries]

Hi, what's your budget?
and where are you?

I moved from D5000 to D7100 (and I like it a lot*), now I am desiring a D500 (when out in March), because (for me) I want to stick with DX because I shoot wildlife at long focal lengths, so moving to full frame; D610/D750/D810/D5 doesn't make sense.

* although I do miss the tiltable LCD I had previously on D5000 - and lost with D7100.

What do you want to shoot with it?

Cheers, Dave

[asap1082]

Well, I do want to play with a new camera! haha

I'm looking for something that offers more depth and color than my d5100. I do a lot of street photography and scenic pictures, and my current camera isn't doing my pictures justice - if that makes any sense. I feel like I do more post processing of pictures to get the clarity and the color I'm expecting.

Hope that makes sense and helps!

[asap1082]

Hi Dave,

I'm in Portland, OR and my budget - I want to try and not spend more than $2,000 as I think that's a huge jump for me in price. I do a lot of street photography as well as scenic pictures (mountains, beaches, etc...). Do you see a huge quality difference between the d5000 and d7100? I've read some reviews in which people are saying the quality is better in the d5100 compared to the d7100.

[Shadowman]

Well, I do want to play with a new camera! haha

I'm looking for something that offers more depth and color than my d5100. I do a lot of street photography and scenic pictures, and my current camera isn't doing my pictures justice - if that makes any sense. I feel like I do more post processing of pictures to get the clarity and the color I'm expecting.

Hope that makes sense and helps!

How about posting an image of one of your shots, including exif data, and explain why you chose the settings you used?

[RobFellows]

Hi, I recently upgraded from a D3200 to a 7200.
Did it make me any better at taking pictures? Nope.
Does it take better pictures? In good light, not really and I'm poor light yes it does.
Colour rendition is close enough I can't tell the difference.
Does the newer and better (more features and control of setting without accessing menus) make shooting easier and more enjoyable? Yes.

So, my questions are:

What is your current lens collection?
Would you like to stay with DX?
Are you bothered about features not directly related to still photography (gps,video,etc)

I will then throw you a suggestion that you can choose to investigate further or ignore.

Rob

[Dave Humphries]

I'm looking for something that offers more depth and color than my d5100. I do a lot of street photography and scenic pictures, and my current camera isn't doing my pictures justice - if that makes any sense. I feel like I do more post processing of pictures to get the clarity and the color I'm expecting.

Hope that makes sense and helps!

The reply does help us, but I fear a new camera won't achieve your aim.

"More depth and colour" are achievable in PP (post processing), have you seen the technique of Local Contrast Enhancement (LCE)?

Are you shooting RAW or jpg with the D5100?
What software are you using for PP?
Are you even doing any post processing?

Then, especially if you show us an example or two that you're not happy with, we can assist you so much more.

Even if you do only shoot jpg and do not want to PP your street shots, there may be settings within the menus that can assist with brighter jpg pictures, especially if you haven't already explored the camera's instruction manual. But as you can see; I'm having to guess (a lot) because of a lack of information to base targeted advice upon.


We're not saying don't buy a new camera, but I really think improvement in other areas may well yield greater results.

I'm in Portland, OR

As per my reply to your intro post:
Could you do me a favour please?
Could you click Settings (right at the top),
then Edit Profile (on left)
and put your first name in the Real Name field
and where you are (Portland, OR) in the Location field,
then click the Save Changes button below and to right,
this helps everyone give you more personal and relevant answers, even after we've moved past this thread - thanks in advance.

~ my budget - I want to try and not spend more than $2,000 as I think that's a huge jump for me in price. I do a lot of street photography as well as scenic pictures (mountains, beaches, etc...). Do you see a huge quality difference between the d5000 and d7100? I've read some reviews in which people are saying the quality is better in the d5100 compared to the d7100.

With regard to do I see a big difference? Well I did to an extent because the D5000 is 12MP and the D7100 is 24 MP, but you would be moving from 16 to 24 MP, so not so much resolution increase, although this is not the only criteria - and also not as impressive as it sounds.

Rob's answers are very valid.

You could probably get a D500 for $2000
(but that's only 20.9 MP)

Cheers, Dave

[Manfred M]

Welcome to CiC - If you wouldn't mind clicking the "My Profle" button at the top of this page and entering at least your first name and where you are from, that would be greatly appreciated. We tend to be a fairly informal group here and go on a first name basis.

As to answer your question on upgrading your camera, that is a much more difficult question to answer. Posting some images, with embedded metatdata, and pointing out the specific issues that you find are limiting would go a long way to helping the members answer your question.

While everyone would like a newest camera, my question is whether a new camera is going to be the solution to the issues you have identified or if something else is going to help you more? While the camera manufacturers advertising would like us to believe that the latest and greatest camera body is going to get you better images, this is not necessarily the case. A different set of lenses or a high quality tripod may not seem to be as exciting as a new camera body, but might actually solve the problems you have identified.

I'd hate to see you spend $2000 on a new body and find that this did not solve the issue.

[IzzieK]

I hate to admit this, but I have been with a Nikon DX for quite sometime. Then I upgraded to a more robust, I thought, camera and thought my images will really improve. NOT!!! Until I sat down and learn the camera itself and all its intricacies did I realized I really did not need to upgrade. The rest is about getting my image sharp (tripod helps), post processing and myself putting in time to learn the camera and the settings I need/want for the image in front of me begging me to take 'that' shot. I am not sorry I upgraded either because I now have the best of both worlds in terms of megapixels. Good luck in whatever decision you may make...

[rpcrowe]

I would recommend that before a person buys a new camera body to improve the quality of his or her imagery, that they take a good look at the lenses with which they are shooting and the post processing that they are doing with the images...

If you are shooting with a kit lens (this holds true for virtually any brand) an upgrade in the quality of glass will probably give you more bang for the buck and a quicker path to better imagery...

Another thing to look at is whether you shoot in RAW or JPEG and what kind of post processing program you work with. Shooting RAW and developing proficiency in a good editing program is almost mandatory for optimum image quality...

There are some facets of a camera body that might help you achieve what you want. I an referring especially to the ability to achieve quality imagery at a higher ISO and fast and accurate auto focus which could help in street photography.

However, for landscape photography, very likely having a decent tripod and using it would very likely give the quickest increase in image quality. Additionally, for vibrant color in landscape imagery, getting and using a good quality circular polarizer or a graduated neutral density filter might give you the quickest and least expensive boost in landscape image quality.

I would look into getting a very decent mid-range zoom lens, especially one with a constant f/2.8 aperture. Both Tamron and Sigma offer reasonably priced lenses in this category.

I would bet that a top-line lens, tripod and polarizer on your present camera would give you better image quality than a new body with your present lens, without a tripod and polarizer.

[asap1082]

Hi everyone,

Thanks for all the replies. To answer a few questions, I do post process. I switch between Lightroom and Photoshop, but mainly use Photoshop. Many have asked to post a picture that I have - that will follow soon.

I tend to shoot jpeg, sometimes I'll shoot in RAW, but it just takes up so much room on my memory card, I usually just resort to jpeg.

Someone had mentioned the lens as being an issue - I actually didn't think of that - I switch between a the kit lens, a Nikon AF-s dx 35mm standard lens as well as a zoom lens that I use on occasion. I also use a tripod for majority of my landscape shots.

I have tinkered a lot with the ISO, aperture as well as my shutter speeds with pictures just not coming out clear (with and without use of tripod, depending on what I'm shooting).

[billtils]

asap1082, there's a lot of good advice in the posts so far. Just to add a little, I upgraded from a D3200 to a D7100, with a little bit of hesitation as they have the same sensor and therefore intrinsically will take the same quality of picture. However, the 7100 is in a totally different league in regard to usability (as long as you take IssieK's advice and spend some time with the manual and get to know what it can do). I'd also fully endorse rpcrowe's comment on lenses; dump the kit lens and buy the best replacement(s) you can afford. Dave H discussed moving to the new D500 - it is a good match for what he does but may not be for you - specifically it has no built in flash (but can trigger an external unit), and although it has 2 card slots it won't take 2 SD cards (which which would let you shoot in RAW + JPEG or in RAW with an overflow card). A lot of the cost in the D500 is invested in the processor performance - but that's not going to impact on landscape work.

Looking at what you like to photograph, it may be worth considering going to FX and looking at the D610 (or at a budget squeeze) the D750. However the cost of the body is only part of the story and by the time you ad an FX lens or 2 (even second hand) you'll be pushing the 2K boundary.

One recurring piece of advice to people in your position is to rent the possible replacement for a couple of days and see how it goes (but remember Izzie's advice and do not expect to find out all the camera can and cannot do in a couple of days of use).

Regards

Bill

If you are happy to stick with the DX format the D7200 would be my choice.

[asap1082]

asap1082, there's a lot of good advice in the posts so far. Just to add a little, I upgraded from a D3200 to a D7100, with a little bit of hesitation as they have the same sensor and therefore intrinsically will take the same quality of picture. However, the 7100 is in a totally different league in regard to usability (as long as you take IssieK's advice and spend some time with the manual and get to know what it can do). I'd also fully endorse rpcrowe's comment on lenses; dump the kit lens and buy the best replacement(s) you can afford. Dave H discussed moving to the new D500 - it is a good match for what he does but may not be for you - specifically it has no built in flash (but can trigger an external unit), and although it has 2 card slots it won't take 2 SD cards (which which would let you shoot in RAW + JPEG or in RAW with an overflow card). A lot of the cost in the D500 is invested in the processor performance - but that's not going to impact on landscape work.

Looking at what you like to photograph, it may be worth considering going to FX and looking at the D610 (or at a budget squeeze) the D750. However the cost of the body is only part of the story and by the time you ad an FX lens or 2 (even second hand) you'll be pushing the 2K boundary.

One recurring piece of advice to people in your position is to rent the possible replacement for a couple of days and see how it goes (but remember Izzie's advice and do not expect to find out all the camera can and cannot do in a couple of days of use).

Regards

Bill

If you are happy to stick with the DX format the D7200 would be my choice.

If I were to invest in some newer lenses - what would you suggest? I haven't even thought about switching from DX to FX. That's something to think about.

[Black Pearl]

I feel it might be better if you created a new post with a couple of your best shots accompanied with detailed reasons why you feel the camera (specifically the camera mind you) isn't giving you the results you want. I'd wager within a half dozen replies you will find both your need for a new body changes and your photography will become a whole heap better.

[Stagecoach]

Hi Anna,

I have tinkered a lot with the ISO, aperture as well as my shutter speeds with pictures just not coming out clear (with and without use of tripod, depending on what I'm shooting).

Along with your initial comment "I'm looking for something that offers more depth and color than my d5100", and now, "pictures just not coming out clear" I suspect your concerns about your present cameras performance are more likely to do with procedure than a lack of equipment capability.

Until you post some images, with shooting info and an explanation of what you think is wrong with them it's difficult to assess if an upgrade will solve things and is really going to get you 'better' results.

'Tinkering' suggests you have not mastered your present camera or understand fully what settings you should be using or aiming for to get the best results in differing circumstances.

I'm not suggesting for one minute you should not upgrade/replace what you have now but you should be sure it going to help your situation.

Robin beat me to it..............................

[RobFellows]

Ok, based on what you have now said I can give you the following:

1. You already own the best lens for DX cameras, your little 35mm f1.8 it is super sharp, light and cheap.
2. The kit lenses are OK for street shooting but not much else if image quality is your primary concern.
3. JPEG is not your friend if you want control over colour, exposure or even editing in general. Buy a bigger card or two.
4. Landscape and street are very different unless you really mean general travel photography? A full frame camera is better for landscape work but you may not appreciate the weight with a corresponding lens if carrying around all day.
5. Your lenses will all need to be replaced if you go full frame (which may not be a problem for you)

In terms of lens upgrades...... Are you after a "do it all" zoom, a Tele zoom, a wide angle zoom, prime lenses...?
I have recently rediscovered my little 35mm and it's awesome. Shooting in raw I have knocked out super crisp images and if I can't fit it all in I can just shoot a panorama and stitch it in Lightroom.

[asap1082]

Ok, based on what you have now said I can give you the following:

1. You already own the best lens for DX cameras, your little 35mm f1.8 it is super sharp, light and cheap.
2. The kit lenses are OK for street shooting but not much else if image quality is your primary concern.
3. JPEG is not your friend if you want control over colour, exposure or even editing in general. Buy a bigger card or two.
4. Landscape and street are very different unless you really mean general travel photography? A full frame camera is better for landscape work but you may not appreciate the weight with a corresponding lens if carrying around all day.
5. Your lenses will all need to be replaced if you go full frame (which may not be a problem for you)

In terms of lens upgrades...... Are you after a "do it all" zoom, a Tele zoom, a wide angle zoom, prime lenses...?
I have recently rediscovered my little 35mm and it's awesome. Shooting in raw I have knocked out super crisp images and if I can't fit it all in I can just shoot a panorama and stitch it in Lightroom.

Hi Rob,
I'd rather stay away from a "do it all" zoom lens. I do prefer prime and wide angle lenses. I definitely do some travel photography, but I also do a lot of straight up landscape photography. I travel a lot as well as other outdoor activities, so I want to be able to capture (as best as i can) what I see. I guess I might need to start shooting in RAW and just increase my card sizes.

[billtils]

Anna

Here's what I have and what I use them for. As others have posted it's not really possible to make suggestions without being able to step into your shoes ..

Nikkor 50mm prime 1:1.8 FX lens (effectively a 75mm DX). Used for portraits and with close up lenses for macro. Great quality and is also my low-light go-to lens
Nikkor 16-85mm zoom, f3.5 - 5.6. DX. This is my general purpose lens, and replaced the kit one.
AF-S VR Zoom-Nikkor 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G IF-ED FX. Used for nature (mainly birding) and street photography. This replaced a low-cost AF-S DX VR Zoom-Nikkor 55-200mm f/4-5.6G IF-ED, and the difference in image quality is very noticeable.
Tamron 150-600mm f5 - 6.3 FX. Used for nature including "close-ups" of small creatures. Slow but sharp right up to the limit.
Tokina AT-X 116 PRO 11-16mm DX II f/2.8 This is the latest addition and is superb. Used for landscapes.

Happy hunting!

[Manfred M]

Anna - a few more thoughts on improving image quality (and this will go for both your existing equipment as well as any new gear).

1. You will get the best quality out of your camera at base ISO. Digital noise and colour depth will be at their maximum there. As you increase your ISO, the noise will increase and the colour depth will decrease. I believe the base ISO on your current camera is ISO 200.

2. Your lenses sharpness will improve if you stop down at least two stops from wide open. This means if you are using a f/2 lens, you will encounter some softness and some lens vignetting unless you stop down to f/5.6.

3. If you shoot at too small an aperture, you will get some image softening due to diffraction, so shooting at f/11 is fine but apertures of f/16 and smaller will start affecting image quality. Depending on the scene, I will tend to shoot my landscapes at f/11 and sometimes f/8.

There are tutorials and calculators on this site to explain these concepts. For diffraction limits, see:

https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tu...htm#calculator


4. If you are having quality issues when shooting off a tripod, my first guess is that something is likely off with your technique. If you jar your tripod or your shutter release approach is off, the tripod may not be as much help as you would like, and of course, not all tripods are created equal.

5. If you do not have enough capacity on your memory card and that forces you into some shooting situations that affect quality, buy additional memory cards. These are generally quite inexpensive.

6. If you are shooting raw and your images are not looking as good as you would like, have you adjusted contrast and sharpness? This is done in-camera for jpeg, but something you have to do yourself if shooting raw.