Where to go next?

[Polar01]

Viv my reply is going to be different. You have just taken the training wheels off your camera by turning off "AUTO", thing is, can you ride your bicycle (camera) to its max, I do not think so. Until you can use, and push that bike (camera) to the max, know what it will do in ever instance, under ever condition, once you know that, and can not push it further that is when you can get a newer one. One other thing it you just got off "AUTO", then what format have you been shooting in, j-peg or raw, if it has been j-pegs step up to raw. Baby steps, first baby steps.

Cheers: Allan

[rpcrowe]

For example, for Canon users who aspire to go to a full-frame body, there are going to be good prices going on 5DIIIs now that the IV is launched. And of course the 5DIII has not stopped being a superb camera just because the IV is launched.

I will go one further... The old (some may say ancient) Canon 40D is still a very viable camera that is still capable of producing excellent images and can be had used, here in the USA, at cheaper than dirt prices. Although I like my 7DI or 7DII cameras quite a bit better than my old 40D, I am still happy with the imagery from that camera.

DESPITE POPULAR BELIEF, A CAMERA DOESN'T INSTANTLY STOP CAPTURING VIABLE IMAGERY THE MOMENT A NEW MODEL IS INTRODUCED!

[xpatUSA]

I will go one further... The old (some may say ancient) Canon 40D is still a very viable camera that is still capable of producing excellent images and can be had used, here in the USA, at cheaper than dirt prices. Although I like my 7DI or 7DII cameras quite a bit better than my old 40D, I am still happy with the imagery from that camera.

DESPITE POPULAR BELIEF, A CAMERA DOESN'T INSTANTLY STOP CAPTURING VIABLE IMAGERY THE MOMENT A NEW MODEL IS INTRODUCED!

Well said.

Certainly true in the world of Sigma where controversy rages currently over the image quality from the Merrill compared to the newer Quattro models, while the earlier models are now virtually ignored.

[LePetomane]

I was told (diplomatically) by a friend of ours who is a professional photographer that my Fujifilm XT-1 is a lot better camera than I am a photographer. I think it is easy to get caught up in the "gear" thing. I'm into fly fishing as well and the new rod that's advertised as the one you absolutely cannot live without will be on the sale rack in two years.

[ajohnw]

I had a quick look at the cameras as know zero about the 5xxx but have used a 7000 that I recently sold.

Higher ISO. The 3100 is a 2010 camera. There probably will be improvements but you would be wrong to assume that they will be very dramatic.

AF for burst shooting action events and also general use. It looks much like the 7200 does offer a decent improvement in that area particularly if the focus priorities are set but that will slow down the frame rate. It looks like it may be better than the camera I have bought in this respect but I'm not sure if the AF priorities were set during the test and there was some indication that the problem may have been the lens keeping up.

The 5xxx seem to be 12bit raw. The 7xxx all 14 bit. In my view that does offer some advantages even when shooting jpg's if the camera has the right jpg setting which Nikon even usually put in the 5xxx. These brighten dark areas and help prevent burning out high lights - in jpg's.

Most of the 7xxx camera settings can be changed without going into the menu's. Personally I don't like were Nikon put some of the buttons etc but that is probably because I am more used to shooting Canon, The 5100 looks to be pretty lacking in this respect and the 5300 similar.

I don't hold with the get the most out of the camera you have mantra as sometimes camera abilities do hold people back and also if they feel like a change and or a treat why on earth not.

Given the interests mentioned I suspect that a D7200 would be a better option than the D5xxx's and also feel that when doing this sort of thing it's best not to get the urge again soon after. The manufacturers do bring out new models which can make that difficult. I would have thought that the next D7xxx will probably be along the lines of a Canon 80D. Touch screen and maybe articulated as well. They will probably add other things too but it's hard to know what.

It also looks to me that a D7200 would be a better option than the D7100 from an AF point of view.

John
-

[Dave Humphries]

For the benefit of Canon shooters not familiar with Nikon camera models; Viv's D3100 is already three generations old, so posts suggesting the 'latest camera doesn't make the older ones take less good pictures', are not relevant to Viv (though the statement is no less true, it hardly needs to be 'shouted').

If Viv was only just coming off Auto, she may not have got 'the best' possible IQ out of her D3100 and certainly may not have got fluent using it in "A" (Av) or "S" (Tv) modes yet, let alone "M". However, she does say she feels she has 'mastered' it, so moving to a D7x00 series probably is a good idea, since the ergonomics will make her photography easier - as long as she realises it won't intrinsically give her better quality pictures, that's where too much can be read in to the specs.
A D7x00 will also slightly extend shooting capabilities as my earlier post stated and certainly the D7200 sensor ought to be better than the D3100's for iso performance. AF will be better and her choice of lenses available would improve if a D7x00 is bought (not a D5300/D5500).

That said; a good point was raised regarding whether Viv is shooting jpg or RAW - we don't know; perhaps Viv could advise us please?

IQ (image quality) will improve if post processing moves from using 'straight out of camera' (SOOC) jpgs to a good RAW workflow using a decent image editor - but that's a wholly different discussion

[TheBigE]

I would agree with Dave - moving from the D3100 can help improve given the "relative" old nature of the camera. Moving to a D7200 with the improved sensor should show some advantages and there could be more opportunities if shooting in RAW and PP with the D7200.

The overall functionality of the D7200 compared (or D7x000) compared to the D3100 is also a welcome benefit. I made the jump a year ago from the D5300 to the D7200 and was just happy to have two dials. I feel I can do so much more with the camera quickly. Less menu diving or multiple button pushes to get to where I want....sometimes the problem is that I do not know where I want to be...I might offer up the option for spending some money for online courses as well.

For me, the online courses have been some of the best bang for the buck in photography. I will admit that at least one has fallen a bit short, but for the most part it is has really helped.

Either way good luck and let us know what you decided Viv.

[ajohnw]

Few people on here will have explored what their cameras can do with it's jpg's Viv so personally while learning I don't see any problem at all continuing to use them. Messing with the camera setting for them can be very beneficial. Contrary to popular belief jpg;s can be post processed as well. In fact I suspect that there used to be a video about on doing just that with Adobe Camera Raw of all things. Looked but can't find it unfortunately.

I couldn't easily compare noise levels on your current camera with the 7200 but it's a fact that your current one isn't that bad compared with the 7100. Many of the improvement in noise aspects are down to advances in software and the ability to use it. It's improved by rather a lot in the cameras as well. These have various settings too.

Auto ? Not something I have ever used unless the camera has no alternative. However I recently looked at rather a lot of shots taken by someone with the camera set on auto and it came as a bit of a surprise. It coped with a wide range of just point and shoot conditions remarkably well even by the look of it depth of field in some cases but that may have been a fluke. In some respects some aspects could be used as a learning tool. One for instance is what settings it chooses to use in low light or night shooting. This needs a balance of aperture, shutter speed and iso settings. Normally this is a matter of judgement that it takes a while to master every time a new camera comes along. It very much looks to me that auto is pretty likely to pick something sensible and noting the results could be useful when you come to doing it all yourself later. Same in other situations as well.

One thing to watch out for initially when starting up is getting too bogged down with post processing. A lot of photography comes down to what the camera is pointed at and the conditions at the time. Realising that some areas will be way to dark for instance. There are answers to that. Take 2 shots one for highlights and one for low lights. Maybe adjust each if needed and then use software to merge them. Jpg's can be fine for that and no need for a tripod either with a little care. The results needn't look like typical HDR either. I often take 2 shots like this if I feel that there are shadows about. A lot of the time I do nothing with them because I realise that they aren't going to make a good photo due to the subject, Jpg's can also be post processed. Much depends on what has to be done to them but some of the limitations mentioned are myths. A lot of work pp'd from raw often has colouring that doesn't really match what was shot and may even look some what sterile as well. This sort of thing though is down to personal taste and sadly fashion. Actually getting images that are realistic and have just the right amount of pop is more difficult. Some of the tools used to do that can be fine used on jpg's as well. There are all sorts of techniques that can be used to improve photo's from either source.

John
-

[wibble]

Thanks to all for the comments ...as always plenty of food for thought. I now am leaving for a mini adventure holiday armed with my trusty D3100 - so will have plenty of time to contemplate your comments

[Manfred M]

Viv - I'm sorry I missed responding earlier, but I was away for a few days and had very limited internet connectivity.

While you are away photographing on your holiday, try to determine what is causing you to not get the images you are trying to get. If the problem is indeed the camera that is causing you to miss getting these shots, then by all means look at a more modern camera body.

If its your lenses, perhaps the appropriate lenses would be a more appropriate investment? The same could be said for equipment - would something like a Speedlight or tripod make more sense than a new camera body?

Is it your skill level and would it make more sense to spend some money on a photography course to up your skill level?

While a new body might be the right answer, I would hate for you to spend the money on the wrong "solution".

[rpcrowe]

There are certain things in which certain camera/lens combinations do better than others. Often these things cannot be bypassed by the skill of the photographer. Here are a few examples and I will use your dog agility and birds of prey as examples...

1. For these venues, you will need a longer lens than most kit lenses. Without a longer focal length lens you will end up with your subjects being minuscule in your frame and when you try to enlarge the images, they will fall apart...

2. Piggy-backing on the above, your camera/lens combination must have accurate and fast auto focusing ability. Sure it is true that these types of subjects were captured before auto-focus became the norm however, it really took a great deal of photography skills which few photographers managed to accomplish...

3. Some cameras are easier to use than other cameras. By this, I don't mean that they are more simple; rather I mean that these cameras can be more ergonomic in the hands of some photographers. As an example, I once shot with a Canon XT. I could never enjoy shooting with that camera and detested the set up as well as the need to use the menu for many changes in camera functions. The xxD and later the xD cameras I have worked with utilize a two dial system which to me is far-far easier to manage that the menu driven system of the Rebel type cameras. I'd rather shoot with my old Canon 40D than with the newest Rebel cameras (I don't use my DSLR cameras for video)...

4. For shooting action, it really helps to have a camera with a relatively fast burst rate. This is not an absolute necessity, it is simply a handy asset to have available

[ajohnw]

You have nicely outline why I suggested that the D7200 would be a good option Richard. Dpreview still do some useful tests on AF both live view and viewfinder. Sadly in terms of sensors they have backed right off - I assume because if they continued doing what they were doing some camera manufacturers would be embarrassed.

Only problem is that there is no indication of how fast the cyclist is travelling however they also sometime throw something else in.

John
-