First upgrade - Help required please

James07 · 23 Jan 2014 at 00:17

Okay, I've been doing photography around 6 months now and I feel I want to upgrade my camera. I looked at getting a 70-300 lens, the only thing is that it'll cost around £120 for one. Plus my camera is dated.

Or I can upgrade my camera and get a brand new camera with 2 lenses for £369-£469 depending on which I choose.

The issue I have is I don't know which camera to choose from.

I'm looking at the D3100 or the D3200. Both have similar features two of which appeal to me, 11 point af and live view (to make life a little easier) plus both have a much better ISO level than mine.

But is the D3200 worth an extra £100? Will I notice the difference massively? I think either are a huge upgrade compared to my camera.

I need help please

Thanks

James.

Genoma · 23 Jan 2014 at 00:20

What do you have at the moment and what type of photography do you mostly do?

James07 · 23 Jan 2014 at 00:30

I have a D40X, very basic and very old, and I'm sort of experimenting and learning at the moment. I do a lot of landscape photography but is mix it up with a bit of sport and random Lego men pictures

I've done a few portrait style shots. I'm just learning as I go along at the moment, but I enjoy it and id prefer a newer camera than the one I have.

This is my flikr
http://www.flickr.com/photos/99069466@N07/sets/

James07 · 23 Jan 2014 at 03:03

Columbo · 23 Jan 2014 at 08:10

A D3200 is a decent amount better than a D3100 and I'd say its worth the extra.

It has very similar image quality performance to the D7000 sensor but with the added bonus of 8 more megapixels.

Personally if I was buying brand new I wouldn't be buying a camera that's already been on the market for several years (D3100) and has been superseded by a significantly better body.

bigredshark · 23 Jan 2014 at 10:59

There could be an argument that, if you want to take it seriously, then a used D7000 might be a better investment than either...it's in the same price bracket if you shop around...

It's better built and has better controls than the 3000 series bodies, against that it's bigger/heavier...

a1ex2001 · 23 Jan 2014 at 11:35

What ever you buy I would go used as the savings are very significant and it should enable you to purchase a much better body or lenses.

Usually would always say upgrade your lenses before your body and I see no reason not to say it in your case, yes the D40x is a bit dated but I seriously doubt you've outgrown it in 6 months and better glass will be a long term investment that a body never really is!

bigredshark · 23 Jan 2014 at 11:54

a1ex2001 said:
What ever you buy I would go used as the savings are very significant and it should enable you to purchase a much better body or lenses.

Usually would always say upgrade your lenses before your body and I see no reason not to say it in your case, yes the D40x is a bit dated but I seriously doubt you've outgrown it in 6 months and better glass will be a long term investment that a body never really is!

I know that's conventional wisdom but I do question it these days with modern lenses...

The use of lead free solder means you can only count on a modern electronic lens lasting 10 years before tin whiskers start forming and make it inoperative... Anything but the pro lenses tend to be more plastic bodied and less robust than their predecessors. Then take into account that the latest generation of lenses seem to be demonstrably sharper than their predecessors (Nikon 50mm AF-D vs AF-S for instance...).

I think, unfortunately, lenses are becoming more disposable than previously now. That's not to say it's wrong in this case (and more and better primes are almost always a good investment) but I think it's no longer a given for this and other reasons.

The utility of constant large aperture zooms is decreasing as high ISO performance and IS/VR functionality improves - Nikon no longer make the 17-35/2.8 of old, judging the 16-35/4 and 18-35/3.5-4.5 are good enough (yes, there's the 14-24 but I think that falls in a different class and is more specialised). If you have a D610 or D800 is it worth the extra money for the 16-35 over the 18-35 if you're not a full time pro? I'm not sure it is personally.

Anyway...

D.P. · 23 Jan 2014 at 15:09

The savings second hand for lenses are typically pretty small anyway (rarely more than 15%) and you loose the warranty. The real bargains are th much older lenses.

To the OP. Really make sure you have come to th limits of your current camera. You don't say what you find limiting with yourD40X so it is hard to tell if you need an upgrade and if so to what. I would personally be inclined to hold off a while longer, save more money and get a better idea of what you really want.

James07 · 24 Jan 2014 at 01:59

Thank you for your help

I like the idea if a newer better camera with settings/features I see in magazines, I feel that I should have got a better camera in the first place and I saw the deal for 2 lenses and the d3100 for £369 with cash back and thought that was far superior to the camera I have. Plus I want another lens and the new camera had it, where as it'll cost me around £120 for the lens alone.

Just trying to figure out if I should or not or if it's a good deal.

I'm not sure, I don't want second hand as I like the idea of owning from new with warranty.

I can sell my camera and lens for aroun £180 and the lens I want is £120, I'd only need another £70 so with all that in mind I'm not sure what to so.

D.P. · 24 Jan 2014 at 04:02

That makes a lot of sense. Sometimes lens kits are unbeatable value.
Just be careful what lenses they actually are, maybe post the details.

The very cheap telephoto lenses tend to be a little too soft for the intended use.

Energize · 24 Jan 2014 at 04:09

bigredshark said:
I know that's conventional wisdom but I do question it these days with modern lenses...

The use of lead free solder means you can only count on a modern electronic lens lasting 10 years before tin whiskers start forming and make it inoperative... Anything but the pro lenses tend to be more plastic bodied and less robust than their predecessors. Then take into account that the latest generation of lenses seem to be demonstrably sharper than their predecessors (Nikon 50mm AF-D vs AF-S for instance...).

Lead free solder has been used in lenses for many years. What published evidence is there that demonstrates lenses failing after 10 years?

Also I have to disagree about large aperture zooms, they are mainly aimed at sports use where IS/VR counts for nothing, and as any sports photographer will tell you, the ISO performance on modern SLR's is no where near good enough to make these lenses any less desirable then they have been in the past.