Nobody seems to be giving straight answers.

[Bram]

Alright my setup consists of: D40x, standard kit lens, 55-200mm VR, sb600 speedlight, and some other things. Now my real question is: would upgrading my D40x BODY ONLY to persay, a D3100 be that beneficial I mean the price it's going for on the nikon website for body only is $569.95 for BODY only. Would this be sucha huge upgrade from my D40x. Which would you prefer to upgrade to? Considering your working on a $11.50/h wage, full time. A straight honest answer from my point of view would be great. Thanks alot.

 

[Dao]

You may want to ask yourself what is the limitation of your current system. And that limitation(s) stop you from achieve the result you like to have.


For example.
I would like to take closeup photos of an insect, but my current setup cannot do it.
I would like to take low light photos, but the result were not good. Either the photos were blur or noisy.
I would like to take photos of birds ... but the birds were too small in the photo.
I would like to use the Nikon 50mm f/1.8 lens, but my camera do not have the in body AF motor drive pin.
I would like to shoot multiple frames sports type photos, but my camera fps is not high enough.
...
...
...
...

 

[mwcfarms]

+ 1 Dao. Why do you feel the need to upgrade.

 

[Bram]

To me I feel personally that some pictures that look fantastic on the LCD screen of my camera, turn out a little pixxy when placed on the computer, I find maybe a better body would fix that since I have tweaked just about every single seting on my D40x which I have had now for abot 8 months. Not only do the photos look pixxy some are also.... I don't know, not as i pictured they would look like, It's hard to describe. Example: i'll try and explain. Me and my girlfriend went to the top of the mountain last weekend to watch the sunset. I had my camera with me so I trid out some shots. turned out great on the LCD screen took over 70. When I put them on the computer some looked fuzzy and so unreal. I was not pleased with this. Below in my sig you can see my full setup.

 

[tirediron]

The camera body is just about the least important aspect of your gear. There's always the chance that there is a problem with your gear, but it's highly unlikely. Post a couple of the images with which you have concern (including EXIF data) and perhaps we can offer some insight into possible causes.

 

[mwcfarms]

I checked out some of your pictures on Flickr and dont really see what you mean on pixxy. It might help if you post a specific example to illustrate what you mean.

 

[Bram]

Most people on here say that the body of the camera has nothing to do with your photos, wrong. Everybody on here says its all about your glass, all about your lenses. Also wrong. Your body has a huge impact on your photos.

1.

2.

3.

 

[Bram]

For example.
I would like to take closeup photos of an insect, but my current setup cannot do it.
I would like to take low light photos, but the result were not good. Either the photos were blur or noisy.
I would like to use the Nikon 50mm f/1.8 lens, but my camera do not have the in body AF motor drive pin.
I would like to shoot multiple frames sports type photos, but my camera fps is not high enough.

Nailed it pretty much right ont he dot. I want to do some portraits and kind of get into that aspect of photography. I am a HUGE sports fanatic so I shoot as many sports as possible. I am also very interested in night photography but my photos do turn out a bit blurry and kind of noisy. My close-up semi macro shots are not focused in enough. and the more I crop the worse it gets.

 

[mwcfarms]

Well if you upgrade your body you will be able to push your ISO further with less noise, I believe having read reviews on the D40x. I'm not familiar with sports photography at all so cant comment there. Macro you need a 1:1 ratio lens which will definetely improve your pictures. Anyways Im sure the pro's will jump in here. On the flip side a faster lens with better low light capabilities on that body would probably work too. Its six of one, half a dozen of the other thing.

Side note though some of your pictures are very nice, not sure what you are not happy with.

 

[SageMark]

I shoot with an old Nikon D2h, 8fps. We went bowling the other day, and I can perfectly stop the ball traveling down the alley at any point I want. It's encridibly fast. Came with a 50mm 1.8, off Craigslist $400. If you know what to look for and are working minimum wage jobs, then look elsewhere than new.

 

[KmH]

No one can give you a straight answer because like most things...It depends.

Do you shoot RAW or JPEG?

JPEG converts the pixels of the image into MCU blocks (minimum coded units) typically 16 pixels an a side.

Most time people are seeing the edges of those blocks, not the actual pixels.

 

[kundalini]

When I put them on the computer some looked fuzzy and so unreal.

I used to get fuzzy shots too.

​

I found out that "I" was the problem, not the camera.


If the financial hit to upgrade doesn't interfere with other, more important obligations, why not?​

 

[Bram]

Side note though some of your pictures are very nice, not sure what you are not happy with.

Thank you very much those are some of my good ones.

Everytime I shoot in RAW I cannot see them on my computer for whatever reason, the thumbnails are blank and I cannot view them in any software I use. Why this is. I unfortunately do not know. So I shoot JPEG.
A comment on the faster lens with low light capability. My budget is not ever lasting and a good fast lens for sports, costs well over $1000.00 which I cannot spend right now. Therefore since I cannot get a better lens, I turned to my outdated body. Which after all is vert replacable, and I have checked on craigslist as well thats where I got my camera. I paid a little too much for it but back then I thought it was a smashing deal.
Anywho, checking craigslist for lenses is cheaper but still some are out of my reach.

 

[Bram]

Thats not what i meant by fuzzy, you being a problem is great. My photos are not that fuzzy, they have a slight fuzz to them aka noise is what I believe they call it.

 

[JG_Coleman]

To me I feel personally that some pictures that look fantastic on the LCD screen of my camera, turn out a little pixxy when placed on the computer, I find maybe a better body would fix that since I have tweaked just about every single seting on my D40x which I have had now for abot 8 months. Not only do the photos look pixxy some are also.... I don't know, not as i pictured they would look like, It's hard to describe. Example: i'll try and explain. Me and my girlfriend went to the top of the mountain last weekend to watch the sunset. I had my camera with me so I trid out some shots. turned out great on the LCD screen took over 70. When I put them on the computer some looked fuzzy and so unreal. I was not pleased with this. Below in my sig you can see my full setup.

The straight answer is this: yes, the D3100 is a much better body than the D40x... but the problems you describe don't really seem to be inherent to the body you're currently using.

That's where the difficulty comes in.

You can go for the upgrade, but it's just unusual that you feel your pictures look pixellated. Honestly, at 10MP, you really shouldn't see all that much pixellation... my D5000 has 12MP, only 2MP more, and I can't say that I've ever had a problem with photographs looking pixellated. And as far as the photographs just looking wrong overall, it seems to me more like you're not yet used to how a camera sees differently than your eyes... this will be a hurdle to overcome no matter what camera you use.

If you want the better body, go for it... but in all likelihood, the fact that your photographs don't look as you "pictured they would look" probably won't be remedied by the upgrade. That's all.