DSLR choice

[PicMaker]

Every single camera in the Nikon line up takes awesome pics. That is a fact.

I am a D90 man so like the 2 dials and commander mode, plus the onboard motor enabling me to use old lenses. The natural "upgrade" for me is the D7000 - that is if I wanted a D7000. But the D90 is enough camera for me so don't need to upgrade anything. I came in via this route because I have an old D50.

Having said all that, I love the D3100, D3200, and the D5100 all for different reasons. D3100 is so simple to use and a great camera. The price now is so cheap I'm thinking of getting one to take with me everywhere. Stick with the kit lens or put a 35mm 1.8 on it and you have a fantastic combo for almost anything except long range. D5100 is better in low light high ISO the same as the D7000. Price drop means you can get another fantastic camera for less money. The back screen on this and the D3200 is much better than the D3100 which could be a deal winner to many.
Don't forget that these bottom of the range camera's are far far better than top of the range a few years ago. Pro's like tough bodies, but let me tell you that my old D50 looks like new. I'm not a pro I grant you but that camera has been with me for 6 years, been in 4 countries (2 x each) as well as holidays, zoos, weddings, etc etc etc. My point being that you do not need an all tough body, weather sealed this and that, if you look after it and don't shoot in the pouring rain. But you might need the added on bits like faster shots per second etc etc that only a higher priced camera would bring.

Don't forget guys its you who take the pics, the camera is incidental.

[Ads]

[greybeard]

Nikkor AF-S DX 18-105mm f/3.5-5.6G IF-ED VR - Review / Test Report
Nikkor AF-S 16-85mm f/3-5-5.6G ED VR DX - Review / Test Report
Nikon D5100 vs D7000 - Our Analysis

I personally don't think you will see all that much difference between the 16-85 and the 18-105. The D7000 has many professional features that the d5100 lacks. The d5100 does have however, a flip out screen that can come in handy.

[Marc32]

PicMaker--- I hear you loud and clear. That's exactly where I'm at right now. I'd like a D7k for all the right reasons, but I'm not sure I can justify the price tag thats currently nearly double what the D5100 is on sale for. I really don't know if I'll every find myself in a situation where I need the remote flash, pro weather sealed body, quick buttons for quick changes, etc etc. The D3200/3100 are great, but no bulb or AEB is a buzzkill for me. I'd like to try and shoot some 30 min exposures and make some star trails. I also don't shoot daily, so while I like the D7k, I think it's over board for my needs.

I disagree that there is little difference between the 18-105 and 16-85. Reading those reviews you posted shows fairly clearly that the 16-85 is a better lens, and if not the top, certainly near the top of the DX lens lineup.

The only thing really holding me up now is one fact about the D5100 I can't find the answer to. On my bucket list of places to visit are the slot canyons in Page AZ. I'm doing some research to prepare to head out there and reading up on how different photographers have gotten the best results. One of the big suggestions is to shoot RAW and use the AEB feature to insure that you've nailed the correct exposure due to the long shutter speeds. You end up with something like 4,12, and 40 second speeds for the bracket. On my FZ150, I have the AEB feature, but I can't use it if the neutral exposure is longer than 1 second. I can't seem to find out if the D5100 will allow me to use AEB on shutter speeds longer than 1 second? If it doesn't, I might be back to the D7k or I'm looking into a T3i/T4i to see what it can do.

[PicMaker]

Aha, so you know the features you need which is great - easier to make a decision.

16-85 is a great lens, probably better than any kit lens, but make no mistake, the kit lenses are well respected and enjoyed by many.

[Marc32]

I've made a short list of features I'd like on my next camera that came from what I've done with my FZ150. It's all there in the D5100, but the obvious succuss and recommendation to take a close look at the D7000 weighs on one's mind when considering what to do. For me, photography is a hobby, not an obsession like it is for some, and therefor, the cost of the D7000 is really pushing what I'm good with spending. I'll drop $3k on a table saw for my woodshop in less than a heartbeat, but I currently can't fathom that kind of cash on a camera. If the D5100 couldn't do what I want and need, I'd have no issue paying extra for the D7000. It's about what I 'need' vs what I 'want' vs what it 'cost'. Looking at all the variables before I jump in...I hate rushing and getting caught with my pants down.

As for lenses, I'm aware that a lot of people have had good luck with the newer VRII lens that ships with the D5100, however, everything and everyone says it will be outgrown quickly. I'd personally rather go body only, and put the saved $100 toward the 35mm f/1.8 and start out with that. My concern is not to spend money on a lens that is equal to, but not better, than what my bridge camera can produce. The 35mm is certainly sharper by a wide margin. When the 16-85 becomes available, or the rumored 16-85 f/4 is announced, I'll buy that lens. If I need more reach, which I seldom ever do for any serious shots, I'll reach for the superzoom and shoot away. The panasonic actually goes out to about 1500mm at 3mp. Never going to find a DSLR lens less than the cost of a house that can do that.