Nikon Centric Question

In My Humble Opinion
1

The Answer “look at what Cannon’s got is ALSO an acceptable response at the point.”

Defining Criteria:
-I have a Sony DSC-HX1 for the wife, low light, and HiDef recording. Does some neat panoramic stuff, Video is substandard a specific use case (described below) and does not provide enough manual control.
-I have an iPhone 4s which is the go-to, always have, device. I’m VERY happy with it’s output, considering its the camera you have when you need a camera.
-I have a Nikon D50 with it’s kit lens, and an ED 28-200 short zoom (1:3.5-5.6), I occasionally use a full manual speedlight to complement it’s on-camera flash. It’s taken 5000 exposures in it’s life in my care.

Looking at modern DSLR’s it looks like tech has advanced enough to warrant looking around. The big sticky point with Nikon is their dividing line between motor-in-body and motor-in-lens systems.

I’m most interested in low light Video capture, in addition to all the other geegaws. Once a year, we have a Halloween event where a rented Prime Lens would be AWESOME as all previous attempts at low light video have been…unsatisfying.

The contenders:
Nikon 7000, body only. $1500-ish. Pro: Reuse my existing glass, motor-in-body focusing. CONS: More than I want to spend, New consumer lenses have anti-vibration features.

Nikon 5100 kit from Costco ($1000). Pros: Short and long Zooms, modern glass. Reviews seem generally positive. Cons: Body is not as stout as the D50, I’m stuck with good and marginal glass with the D50 I can’t use (auto-focus not supported) I have no idea how modern prosumer kit glass stands up against older Pro line ED glass.

Nikon 1? Unknown. The whole different size, lenses, etc are unnerving. I wouldn’t say I’m annoyed with the lack of control the Sony gives me…more that I’m accepting of things I cannot change. The next camera needs to have good manual controls.

Cannon - Now would be the time to jump ship for the ‘other’ major brand. I’m still looking at the Kilobuck range.

2

Nikon D3200 ready for pre-orders. $699 with kit lens 18-55

24MB, no AF motor (need G Nikkors), Live View but no articulated screen, apparently a pretty decent movie mode.

There is a 35/1.8 G nikkor available for around $200 brand new.

Initial reviews are pretty positive.

3

Yeah, I hadn’t looked at the 3200 yet…I don’t remember the specifics (I did the research two or three months ago) but the 3100 didn’t do as much for me as the 5100 and 7000…with the 7000 being too far out of the comfort zone. (and yeah, the aphorism “buy the best glass and the cheapest body” was running through my mind, too)

The cameras I’ve had with a moveable screen have been surprisingly useful.

4

AF-S lens with a G on the end, in case I wasn’t clear. AF motor in lens.

I checked on Nikon.com, the D32oo movie mode is 1080p HD with stereo sound.

I’ll wait for some user reviews myself, but I like what I see so far. (D90 and D60 user right now)

5

5100 might drop in price, too. According to Nikon Rumors site

6

THAT would be interesting. I could be pretty happy with a two lens 5100 kit for $800. I’m still researching what my gear would get on the used market, I figured resale value would drop substantially when going from film to Digital, but surprisingly, the D50 + ED lens may still be worth enough to bother with! ($250)

7

Any clue how glass quality stacks up? I’d be interested in seeing how a 10 year old prosumer lens would stack up against a modern kit lens.

8

Some good reading.

Even Series E lenses had good optics. If you want faster glass or a beefier construction, then you need the pro or prosumer lines of lenses. Kit glass sharpness is excellent across most brands. (YMMV) They are slow lenses generally, and mostly plastic barrels. I’ve even seen plastic mounts (can’t remember which brand).

My D60 and kit lens has held up remarkably well despite being thrown around during traveling. I wouldn’t rely on it for a pro shoot, but even if I did, it could possibly outperform a pro series camera/lens combo used by someone who didn’t know how to shoot a good photo to start with.

9

B&H takes trades, btw. A fairly good dollar amount on many older digitals. Not as much as selling on eBay might get you, but at least you save some hassle.

10

5100 kit with 18-55 is 699 right now.

This meens the kid gets the D3000, and the D40 goes on the shelf.

11

Costco’s got that plus the longzoom for $950

I kinda miss the long zoom I had with the N70 when I shot film. It let me step right up to the chain link fence at the races and shoot through it at the cars. Some of my candid shots in crowds benefitted from having more reach:

Imgur
Imgur

12

Correction…that’s a 200mm max zoom…the one I had for the N70 was a 300mm…of course, I haven’t done the math to convert 35mm to ???

13

Moved MPSIMS --> IMHO.

14

200mm is still 200mm, regardless of the camera it’s on. Since there is a difference in image sensor size, tho, there is a crop factor to be aware of.

Nikon’s FX size is virtually full frame of old film 35mm dimensions, Nikon’s DX sensor cameras have a crop factor of 1.5X (Canon non full frame dSLRSs have a 1.6X crop factor due to a slightly smaller sensor).

So, on a Nikon DX sensor camera, my old 500mm (if mountable, compatibility differs per model of camera or lens) would be the equivalent field of view and magnification as a 750mm would be on my old EL2.

Speaking of my old EL2… The Nikon EM, Nikon Series E 100/2.8, Speedlight SB-E, and Winder E weighed maybe 1/3rd of my EL2, Motor Winder EL, Nikkor 105/2.5, and Speedlight SB-3. Cost half as much, too. Modern Photography did a field test comparing these two setups, end results of photos showed negligible differences. Just a fun thought when talking about picture quality of entry level cameras.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/fx-dx-future.htm

15

Which is why I’m not leaving out the Nikon 1 in the analysis…mirrorless cameras are supposed to be getting pretty amazing…it’s just that I don’t want the weaknesses of my last mid-range camera (the DSC-HX1)…It’s got similar glass capabilities, I’d just be worried it gives up access to all of the manual controls for the sake of size.

Edit: Meh, scratch the N1…that’s nowhere NEAR what I’m looking for.

16

Nikon’s DX lenses have NO crop factor. That is why the 55-300 DX lens is 399, and the 70-300 nonDX lens is much more (and a 105-40 on my 5100:D)

17

Last year I upgraded to a D7000 from my old D70 (a similar vintage to your D50, though mine has done 50k exposures). It was a good choice. Granted, I have some manual focus and old AF lenses, so I had to choose a body that would work with them.

One of the reasons I chose the D7000 is that I knew I wouldn’t feel the need to replace it for a long time. It’s solid, the controls are good, and it’s not lacking any features. Even if I don’t use older lenses often, the capability is there.

PS the D7000 is usually quite a bit less than $1500.

18

No lenses have a crop factor. Bodies have crop factors. DX bodies have a smaller sensor, which is equivalent to automatically cropping the edges off an image from an FX camera.

What (most) DX lenses do is produce a smaller image circle than is required for an FX sensor, although some DX lenses can be used with passable results on FX bodies at some focal lengths and apertures. Generally you’ll have at a minimum pretty heavy vignetting, though.

But the DX 55-300 and the 70-300VR will produce exactly the same angle of view at full zoom. The 70-300VR is more expensive because it has more glass in it, has more expensive parts (re: focus motor, stabilizing element), and better build quality.

19

I guess the crux of the question would be: What would the better camera setup be:

$950 worth of 5100 + two kit lenses

$1200 worth of D7000 and my 10 year old ED lens.

Of course, it would be closer to $600-$700 for the D5100, assuming I could get some money for my existing gear. Can’t really do that with the D7000 option.

20

If you go with the D7000, a 50mm f/1.8 AF-D is about $120, or even less used. That’d give you a second, versatile lens for not much more. On a DX body it’s great for portraits, and the wider aperture will give you a much more usable lens in low light than your old kit zoom.

(That said, the AF-S version is only $220)