D5100 to what?

Stephanie Stewart · May 16, 2015

I have the D5100 and while I do love it, it does limit me and aggrevate me at times! I'm thinking of upgrading to the D7100? Would that be a logical leap? I am starting a business, and while it won't really be for profit mainly for fun (I did create an LLC and am figuring out the legal requirements) I still want great photos. I have the standard kit lens that came with the D5100 and the telephoto 55-200 (although it is very noisy) and prime lenses AF-S 50mm and 35mm . What would be the logical jump if your wanting to be able to advertise etc. I would LOVE to have a D4S even the D810, I don't see that as feasible when I'm not making an income yet. I don't have 5,000 to grab a camera body. I would love to stay under $1,000 but am considering the D7200 with the larger fps and it's $1150. So confused

Designer · May 16, 2015

I think you should build a balanced system. You can start withe the D5100 and the lenses you have, but you have not mentioned lights and modifiers.

For what it's worth.

Your mileage may vary.

my $0.02

BillM · May 16, 2015

What kind of business are you starting ?

Stephanie Stewart · May 16, 2015

Sorry I guess that wasn't clear. I am going to be doing outdoor family photography. I love portrait photography, sport photography. I've been doing it for about 4 years. However just within the last 2 have I focused on newborn, family/friends and working my way around photoshop. I still want to keep my 5100 as a backup but after 4 years I feel it's time to move on!

Stephanie Stewart · May 16, 2015

oh and I do have light modifiers, backdrops and stands- although I will not have a studio until this winter when we find out if we will be staying here or leaving for somewhere else! I prefer outdoor photography anyway or in their home for newborn! the only thing I don't have is and external flash, that's because I have no idea what I want

Derrel · May 16, 2015

Here is my advice: D5100 to D5100 with balanced system of supporting gear. The 18-55 and 55-200 lenses are limited to f/5.6 at their longer ends, so you basically end up taking deep depth of field pictures at most outdoor distances except close-in work. Great photos come more form photographer knowledge and education, and skill and practice than they do from equipment per se, although there does come a time when equipment CAN ands WILL put a stamp on the images, a visual impression so to speak: professional lighting for example makes photos look 'professional', more so than most other things, but some of the exotic lenses also give the photographer the ability to make photos that have a certain type of "lensy" look, like the ultra-fast wide-angle lenses like 24mm f/1.4 or 35/1.4 or 85/1.8 or 135mm f/2 type lenses. You don't need a D810 or D4s for people work..If you think you need or want an FX Nikon,buy a new or used D610, that's about right. Get some electronic flash equipment and learn how to use it from somebody who is an expert, like Neil V and his on-line and book stuff. Flash Photography Techniques - Tangents

The newer Nikons have amazing sensor capabilities that have opened up the use of flash in low-light situations and marginal light situations, at higher ISO values like 1,000 and 1,250 and 1,600 even for pro work; this is an issue Neil discusses VERY specifically in his 1-hour lecture at Adorama, available on YouTube. There is a TON of misinformation and OUTDATED advice about sticking to low ISO levels like 100 and 200, in situations where doing that creates adverse risks, or flat-out crappy images. This is the biggest change in photography within the past 75 years; Nikon users are now in a place where the NEWER cameras can be used at realllllly high ISO settings, to get shutter speeds that will freeze movement and ensure steady frames and adequate depth of field. This is something that even many experienced shooters have NOT adapted to,mentally, nor in practice, and Neil V is one of the best teachers you can find for self-learning about how to use flash in the most-modern way.

Joves · May 16, 2015

While I agree getting the 5100 will allow you more bang for the buck, I see it as another body without a focus motor limiting your lens selection. Since you say you are strapped for cash, and your lens selection is minimal, I would go for the 71/200, and then later pick up some used good glass at a better price. There are some fine old AF lenses that are relatively inexpensive.
You can also pick up flashes that are used as well. I have like 4 flashes now that came with cameras that I bought on CL for the glass. And they all work fine. It just takes patience in sifting through, and waiting for the good deals to come up there. I picked up an Ai 105 Micro with an older FE body for $100, and it had a flash as well. Granted it is manual focus, but the whole kit looked like it had never been used.

Microbois · May 16, 2015

Stephanie Stewart said:
but after 4 years I feel it's time to move on!

Stephanie, just out of curiosity, what makes you think that "it's time to move on"? What kind of pictures you can't do today because you have a D5100, but would be possible on a D7100?

goodguy · May 16, 2015

I think "Derrel" input was very helpful, I will add what I might recommend you to do.
I used to own the D7100 and now own the D5100 and D750
There will be very little low light performance improvement between the D5100 and D7100.
What will give you best upgrade is fast zoom lens.
I find main things that are very limiting on the D5100 is its AF system, it will be hunting more in lower light compared to the D7100
Also the 51 AF points are much more effective then the D5100 11 AF point system.
I would recommend the D7200 or fast zoom lens to really get better results.

Stephanie Stewart · May 17, 2015

Thank you all! The better AF system And the faster fps was what I was looking for. I just ordered the D7200! Low light photos are a nightmare with mine, maybe there's a malfunction or maybe it's just the fact it doesn't do well in low light. Even outdoors there is a noticeable lag that is starting to affect quality. I plan on doing sports photos for a school here and my camera just isn't keeping up.

pixmedic · May 17, 2015

the D7200 is, im sure, a fantastic camera, but the D7100's are a real bargain right now and is almost the same camera!
the extra money could have gone into flashes and modifiers.
also, for even better low light performance, the full frame D600's are going for under $1000 used now and are considered by many to be one of the best "bang for the buck" deals.

Derrel · May 17, 2015

Stephanie Stewart said:
Thank you all! The better AF system And the faster fps was what I was looking for. I just ordered the D7200! Low light photos are a nightmare with mine, maybe there's a malfunction or maybe it's just the fact it doesn't do well in low light. Even outdoors there is a noticeable lag that is starting to affect quality. I plan on doing sports photos for a school here and my camera just isn't keeping up.

The D7200 has amazing new sensor technology and superior electronics in it. Check out the dPreview First Impressions article's pages 9 and 10, for comparison samples like this one: D7200 vs Contemporaries.jpg photo - Derrel photos at pbase.com

The D7200's sensor technology is astounding. It can be shot with the camera set to ISO 100, and the exposure values made briefer and briefer, and the images darker and darker, and then the resulting images "brightened up" in software, to a higher degree than basically, any camera dPreview has ever tested or used. They call this ISO invariability; this camera represents a huge, new shift. This camera comes closer to realizing the Holy Grail of true ISO invariability than earlier Nikons, or competing models from other manufacturers.

See Nikon D7200 First Impressions Review Digital Photography Review

Look at how much obvious pattern noise there is in the D7100 example in my screen cap, as opposed to the D7200's almost pattern-free, random noise. Compare the God-awful Canon 5D Mark III with its atrocious combo of pattern AND chroma noise when its shadows are "brightened up" five stops.

While the D7100 is a fine, fine camera, it's pretty clear that the very-latest Sony sensor generation has made a remarkable technical advancement; this is also shown in the new Pentax 645's astounding ultra-high ISO performance. The way I see it, the D7200 has high-ISO capabilities that are about equal to the D750...maybe even a bit better, actually. And far,far,far better than what Canon can achieve. Gains for Sony sensors are hard to come by, but I think the D7100 to D7200 gain is a solid 2-stop gain in terms of avoiding patterned noise; pattern is deadly...it looks so digital, so objectionable.

Stephanie Stewart · May 17, 2015

That's a relief to hear! Anytime you purchase something over the $1,000 mark there is a lot of anxiety involved! I tried to research extensively and have pretty much came to the conclusion that while the D7100 had great reviews, for $200 more there was a lot I was gaining! I did look into the D610 but kept going back to the 7200.

Stephanie Stewart · May 17, 2015

Also, anyones take on whether the kit lens that comes with it is worth it? Or stick with the body and my 55-200mm 35mm 1.8f and 50mm 1.8f? And grab a better lens down the road. It's the 18-140mm lens and is $300 more

Derrel · May 17, 2015

Lenses are a tricky thing...for "generalist" or "walkabout" use, I'd say yes, the 18-140 has the focal length range that would be best for the camera in terms of usefulness in decent lighting conditions, and for a one-lens solution, plus the VR which allows hand-held shooting at smaller f/stops where tripods are not allowed, or not handy to carry along. Fact is, adequate depth of field is MORE-critical to making many,many photos than anything, and that means f/8,f/9,f10,f/11,f/13,even f/16 at times. FORGET about theoretical issues like diffraction hurting "sharpness"--because in thousands of real-world situations what is needed is having stuff within the depth of field, meaning you simply MUST stop the lens down...theory and practice diverge very strongly...a few hundred more line pairs per millimeter by shooting at f/4.8 versus getting chit in-focus and recognizable at f/13...the better answer is "f/13"...and in scenic work, etc.. this is why the VR Nikkors and IS Canon shorter lenses are being developed so widely now.

But...again..lenses for specific uses: the 18-140 according to Thom Hogan, is really not that good, optically, on the new 24 MP sensors, at least for his demanding standards and for high-end landscape/nature work. It's not a professional-grade lens, but the camera has a high-resolution sensor, capable of showing its best only with the highest-grade primes, and the absolute best zooms; these are lenses in the $800 to $2499 price zone...

I'd suggest going to Thom Hogan's dslrbodies.com site, and extensively perusing his articles on lenses and lens sets. "Rational lens sets" as he calls them depend on the user's desires, budget, and the camera in use. One needs to filter on-line advice through the lens of who is giving the advice, and what the advice is geared toward; landscape nuts need great wide-angles. Portrait shooters want great bokeh lenses. Sports shooters need fast-focusing and wide-aperture lenses. Hobby shooters need or want lenses that are more all-arounders. And in Nikon, a $300-$450 lens is NOT an expensive optic these days.