Shall I invest in new or repair the old?

[judipurple]

And, by old, I mean the D3100 is 4 years plus...

The kit lens (AF-P DX NIKKOR18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G ) is a bit wonky - the part of the lens that glides in and out (when zooming) is wobbly - it seems to be in focus when on auto. But, my thoughts are to bring the body and the two kit lens (there's a 200mm zoom also) in to the camera shop for a cleaning and tuneup. I thought to ask the shop their opinion on upgrading...then *zing* - my brain kicked into gear and realized that their main focus (pardon the pun) is to get customers to spend $$. The gear I have is good, and I have taken some really good shots with it (not fantastic - I am still learning how to use the beast).

Now - there is part of me willing to part with $$ for a new camera and lens. Particularly a wide angle lens...and a 300mm zoom. And here is why:

In the summer of 2018, I will be spending a week in Alaska, at a bed-n-breakfast a friend's uncle owns, deep in the heart of the AK "outback". Then the following year, I will be getting married in October, and we are planning our honeymoon in AZ and Utah...4WD over rough roads to spectacular overlooks, cliffs, and wild locales. Look up images for Toroweap...Paria Mtn...Marble Canyon...various spots in Sedona....oh, I am drooling at the chance to get pix at these and other locations. Wide angle lenses are a must, IMHO, and a good zoom to capture wildlife.

I am not wealthy by any means, and these trips will put a major dent in my savings. But - I am also depleting my credit card debt between now and then, so spending extra on either a new setup or a couple new (fairly decent) lenses could be done without a visit to the poor house.

Soooooo....my queries are: Buy new or repair/update old? And any suggestions for setups for about $1000 or less? Or, the lens that would work with my little 3100?

Thank you kindly for any comments, help, opinions and assistance.

 

[Derrel]

It;s not that uncommon for wobbly kit zoom front barrels....weird, worrisome, yet--they often shoot quite sharp images!

D3100 has been improved upon with subsequent models...the 3300 is really quite a good shooter. A minor aside, you likely do NOT have the AF-P DX 18-55 from a D3100-era purchase.

They can not tune-up the kit zooms in the shop, except maybe to clean front and rear elements. I would do some reasearch and see what B&H Photo, Adorama, and BestBuy have for sale.

 

[judipurple]

Thanx for the reply, Derrel - you are right, it's AF-S, not AF-P DX...my bad. I should be able to use the old kit lens with a new 3100 or 3300?

(....and the shopping minx in me is rubbing her hands in glee of possibly buying new camera stuff!)

 

[vintagesnaps]

4 years isn't that old! lol But yeah, kit lenses are usually, uh, not that great. Consider used lenses. I agree, try Adorama and B&H, or KEH Photo, etc. (Don't forget, Alaska, wedding..... you may want to use those credit cards once you pay them down, for the trip, the wedding.... those unexpected expenses). You probably need to figure out a realistic budget and look at reputable dealers and sell/trade in the kit lenses to get a couple of primes.

 

[Derrel]

The D3100 design is NOT "four years old"--it's a 2010 camera model introduction, bsed on a roughly 2008-era camera R&D process...it's closing in on being "a decade old" in terms of the technology level it has, and is significantly behind the curve in what an APS-C sensor Nikon can do...it's not ISO-invariant, it's NOT a good dynamic range camera these days. It has about the same sensor score as a Canon EOS 1Ds Mark II, a camera from 2004.

The D3100 is signifcantly below current APS-C sensor performance standards from Nikon. Overall sensor score is a 67, which is bad compared to the newer D3400 which has a very respectable overall sensor score of 86. The D3100 has a DR score of of 11.3, the D3400 has a DR score of 13.9, meaning the D3100 trails by a factor of 2.6 stops: quite a significant difference. On color bit depth the D3400 is at 24.8 bits, the 3100 is at 22.5 bits.

Nikon D3400 vs Nikon D3100 | DxOMark

Seriously: as far as I am concerned, once Nikon hit the 13.7-stop DR level, with the Sony-made Exmor-generation sensors--THAT is when there was a quantum leap in usability and in the type of lighting that a digital camera can handle in non-flash, and non-fill-light type scenarios. I lived with 10.7 and fewer EV Dynamic Range: when I went to a Nikon with 13.7 EV dynamic range and a Sony-made sensor, my world was rocked.

I "get" why you might want a newer compact Nikon body.

 

[judipurple]

Thank you, Vintage, for your thoughts on my situation. Yes, part of the reason for knocking down the c/c debt is the upcoming nuptials, and the trips. Do you think I would be able to get anything for my old equipment? In addition to the 3100 and the two kit lens, I also have a 50mm (manual focus), which I rarely used b/c , with my eyesight, I was never able to focus reliably with it. I found a "deal" for a D3400 (actually through Adorama and B&H), including 18-55mm and a 300mm zoom...for about $600, allowing me the financial wiggleroom to find an autofocus 35mm prime, and extra batteries, etc. While it would be nice to buy the camera body then the lenses, not this year....

As a school bus driver, those marvelous D750's are out of my price range...but watch out if I ever hit the lottery!

 

[judipurple]

Derrel, that was VERY educational! Thank you, I feel good about my choice, and am excited to see the pix from the 3400. Oh, it'll probably be several months before I can swing the purchase, but at least I have a direction and locations to purchase it from.

 

[Derrel]

I think the 18-55 and the 50-200 (?) zooms might still be serviceable on a newer body. I agree about manual focus 50mm lenses; the viewfinder image on the 3300 and 3400 is just a little bit larger than in the D3100. Viewfinder magnification is one of the body-specs that have been upgrades from the 3100 to the 3200 to 3300 to the 3400 (not by a lot, and not enough to make manually focusing all that easy!).

I would also check into the D3300 as a viable D3400 alternative. Buying "one model behind" can save a lot of money. Nikon's best-selling models have tended to be not-curent models, but NOS, or New Old Stock models, often sold through large dealers like BestBuy and Walmart,etc..

 

[greybeard]

The D3300 is a better camera than the D3100 in every category.
Compare the Nikon D3300 vs the Nikon D3100

You should see a marked improvements in your pictures if you upgrade to the D3300-3400-etc.

 

[table1349]

If what you have now still does what you desire it to do, keep it and use it. If not then it is time to upgrade. Every 12 to 18 months you could upgrade to something new, but is constant upgrading really worth it in the long run for the benefits you might gain?

 

[Derrel]

The D3400 has an ALMOST 14-STOP Dynamic range capability in real-world testing....this was UNHEARD OF when the D3100 sensor was developed. The new Sony,Nikon,and Pentax d-slrs now lead the small-camera market for sensor performance, and for post-processing exposure,contrast,and tonal re-alignment potential. Hasselblad, Sony, and now Fuji are ALL using Sony's new small medium-format 50-MP 44mm x 33mm-sized sensor because the Sony sensory technology now allows a BLACK silhouetted image to be "lifted" in software, and a nice picture made from a horrifically under-exposed original exposure setting; THIS is the thing that these newer sensors can do. This is not a trivial upgrade: it's a remarkable advancement in camera usability.

Four and five-stop shadow "lifts" with very little penalty..this is a HUGE advancement in digitial imaging! This is not a minor uptick: this is a generational shift!

The difference between a camera like my old Canon 5D classic or my Nikon D2x with 2005-2006-2007 eras sensor technology and a camera that has a 13.9 EV dynmaic range capbility is ******HUGE******.

Many people upgrade every-other model generation. So....D3100,D3200,D3300,D3400...It's perfectly acceptable to wait three model generations before upgrading.You're shooting a camera that is four generations behind.

 

[jcdeboever]

I liked my D3300 when I had it. I was able to get nice images using it. I switched my system to Fujifilm (X-T2) because I wanted to standardize my operation of the camera. I like to shoot film and the X-T2 works in the same manner as my Nikon FM, Nikon F, and Pentax SP1000.

People buy cameras for different reasons and if the D3100 has served you well for the type(s) of photography your doing, then the D3400 would probably serve you well both financially and technically.

 

[judipurple]

Thank you, Derrel, for clarifying the improvements of the 3400 over the 3100. Your information and my additional research has me leaning heavily towards the 3400. Which leads me to another query, perhaps you and others can assist me.

I have found three Prime lens (I think that's what they're considered) at reasonable prices at KEH - 35mm f/1.8, 28mm f/2.8, 24mm f/2.8, all low-end under $200. The main use will be as wide angle for landscapes for my upcoming trips, and any other uses I discover (portraits? Macro?). If I had to choose one, which and why? Or would adding a 50mm in there round things out? (i.e., should I get two different prime lenses?). Although I have had my 3100 for the past 4 years, there are still things about shooting DSLRs that I am still learning, and boy, am I glad to have found this forum! Again, one and all, my appreciation four your patience and assistance!

 

[Derrel]

With the 1.53x Field of View factor, the 24mm becomes a 36.72mm, the 28mm becomes a 42.84mm; the 35mm lens becomes a 53.55mm lens, all these are stated in terms of 135 format equivalent angles of view. A 50mm lens becomes equivalent to a 76.5mm lens. So, none of those functions as a very wide-angle lens. However, the 36.72mm equivalent view is semi-wide and I personally LIKE that angle of view for landscapes. Interestingly, the 42.84mm angle of view, or 43mm, shows up a lot in my full-frame shots outdoors and indoors, and for some inexplicable reason the 43mm focal length appeals to me.

The 50mm lens as equivalent 76.5mm....Pentax has a nice 77mm lens...Leica has made a 75mm for decades now for its 135 format cameras...the 50mm f/1.8 AF-S G is a good lens for the money, has autofocus, and is fairly light in weight, and will autofocus on the D3xxx and D5xxx series bodies.

If there is anything to watch out for with NIKKOR 24mm and 28mm lenses, it is that many are AF or AF-D NIKKOR models, meaning screw-driven focusing that requires an in-camera AF motor, which the D3000- and D5000-series bodies all lack. The 3xxxx and 5xxxx cameras require G-series lenses or AF-S series model lenses for autofocusing; so that is something to consider on very low-priced lenses, that they might NOT autofocus on your 3xxx series camera. If a NIKKOR lens is an AF-Nikkor or AF-D NIKKOR, it will NOT autofocus on a D3100 or D3400 body.

As far as what lenses to get: it always depends. Primes are often kitted up for an assignment or for a vacation in sets of two,or three, or four lenses, each with its own angle of view and strengths/uses.
I personally kind of like a 35mm lens on a DX camera as a "normal lens", and I like a 50mm lens on a DX camera, as a very short, fast telephoto lens. But that's just me.

 

[jcdeboever]

Derrel hit the nail on the head (as always). AF and AF-D will not auto focus on that body, you would have to upgrade to the D7xxx series to get the auto focus motor in the body. They (AF & AF-D) will meter but you will have to manual focus, which may not be a big deal because the camera will assist you with a green focus confirmation dot. It will flicker and turn solid / still once focus is obtained. Personally, I had a 35mm 1.8G and it was wonderful lens. You can use any lens for landscape, don't limit yourself to ultra wide. Sure ultra wide (10-24mm, $1000) is groovy for dramatic effects when interesting parts are closer to you.....but is limited in it's use. The 35mm is very sharp, good micro contrast, and versatile. It focus's close so it makes it very good in tight spaces (parties in small rooms), flower stills, portraits as long as your not up in their face, street, and yes landscape. I liked that little bit of wideness but just the right amount of compression for landscapes, it seemed just right. It's light, great in low light, super fast focus acquisition. I have learned that any lens will do the job, the key is figuring out or maximizing how to use it in different situations. Derrel once encouraged someone on here to look at some professional landscape photographers exif data on their photos and to my surprise, many had used a 70-200 or 70-300 type zoom lens. So my point is, it's not always about the wide, it's about creating the image. You create the image when you pre visualize the image and adjust the camera to match your vision. Nothing wrong with using your legs or cropping in post, it's all about creating that image as you see it.