Is there a reason to upgrade dslr?

[hamlet]

Is there a point to ever put down my d3200 and buy one of the higher model dslr's? I don't really see it myself.

 

[SCraig]

Yes there is.

 

[hamlet]

There could be things i'm unaware of, but of the things i am i have found a way to get around my cameras limitations.

 

[Tailgunner]

Yes.

The controls on my new D7100 for example was well worth the switch from my D3100 alone. It also has better High ISO handling and the second memory card is nice as well.

 

[hamlet]

So more for the convenience factor is what you're saying? There is no real practical reason to upgrade.

 

[MeddlinG]

Well, upgrading from d3200 to d7100 is convenience.

Upgrading to full frame increases low noise capabilities.

It's up to you to decide whether your camera is limiting you.

 

[SnappingShark]

Yes, there are practical reasons.

You may decide that you want the sharpest, fastest glass. You could use these on your d3200, but Full Frame would make them way more special.

You may decide that you need programmable dials as you find yourself always heading back to that same subject.

You may get frustrated that you need to change battery every 500 shots on your d3200, a d4 for example would give you over 2000 shots per battery!

You may want to shoot both raw and jpeg - in which case, a camera with a second memoryslot will allow you to separate them.

You may find you use speedlights more and more - making that pop up thing on the top of your camera quite redundant, and a waste of space.

Many more reasons, BUT, they are all reasons you will encounter once you reach the potential of your current camera, and realize you want to go further...

 

[hamlet]

Well, upgrading from d3200 to d7100 is convenience.

Upgrading to full frame increases low noise capabilities.

It's up to you to decide whether your camera is limiting you.

That could be a good reason, but the iso comparison on for example: d800 and d3100, the differences are unremarkable even @ iso 64k.

 

[DarkShadow]

What they said.

 

[matthewo]

if your looking for a huge jump in image quality I doubt you will find it changing cameras. even the lowest end dslr are very good at producing great images when used within their optimal range of ISO and the images are not cropped a lot. you will probably see more differences with the lenses you use with the camera then that actual performance of the cameras sensor.

other then that, after using a d800 and d7000, I bought a d5100 again as a secondary body(was my first dslr and liked it). boy that didn't last long, it felt terrible in the hands after using my d800 for a year, way to small, not enough buttons to change settings, had to go into too many menus. I sold it. but it had nothing to do with the image quality, it was basically all physical design of the camera body. well that and the autofocus was a little slow and shutter lag as well as the tiny view finder.

I plan to get a d7100, that and the d7000 is just a great camera. IMO at the prices the d7000 are right now make it a great value for performance.

also the shots I have seen from the d7100 at higher ISO are pretty amazing, Im sure the my D800 is better, but not much... its hard to justify using my d800 and not buying a d7100, as optimal sharpness of much glass is DX center frame, as well as the crop factor and pixel density if im going to be cropping anyways for wildlife photography

 

[hamlet]

Yes, there are practical reasons.

You may decide that you want the sharpest, fastest glass. You could use these on your d3200, but Full Frame would make them way more special.

You may decide that you need programmable dials as you find yourself always heading back to that same subject.

You may get frustrated that you need to change battery every 500 shots on your d3200, a d4 for example would give you over 2000 shots per battery!

You may want to shoot both raw and jpeg - in which case, a camera with a second memoryslot will allow you to separate them.

You may find you use speedlights more and more - making that pop up thing on the top of your camera quite redundant, and a waste of space.

Many more reasons, BUT, they are all reasons you will encounter once you reach the potential of your current camera, and realize you want to go further...

The one in bold is the only one i can concede because there could be something there i don't understand yet. The rest are redundant to me because they have never been a problem to me personally.

 

[pgriz]

Personally, I upgrade the gear when I've reached the limits of what I can do with it. That depends on the type of shooting one does. If fast action under low light levels is what you do, then having the most recent sensors with excellent high-ISO performance and good "bright" lenses is definitely required. I don't shoot that, and for 99% of the shooting that I do, the current gear gets me the image. To make better images, I need to improve on the composition, the lighting, timing, posing, and so on, that are not camera-dependent.

On the other hand, the camera ergonomics are important too. A pretty good reason to upgrade would be to get a camera where the menu system, the location of controls, and the overall handling makes the operation of the camera intuitive and easy. In my case, I can work all the controls without looking at them, and I know where to find what I need in the menu system very quickly, so the ergonomics are "good enough". Of course, there's always the attraction to shiny new toys, and it's a lot of fun to play with the new gear.

 

[Derrel]

The viewfinder of the D3200, with its small and relatively dim pentamirror, pales in comparison to say, an FX camera with a pentaprism viewfinder. The ability to see through the camera with a larger, brighter, crisper viewfinder image is one of the main differences between a lower-priced camera with a pentamirror, and a camera with a viewfinder system that is state of the art, as opposed to an economy-designed finder. The clarity, brightness, and the eye relief of the better cameras, the ones that Nikon equips with the ROUND EYEPIECE, is one of the physical design advantages of the higher-end Nikon bodies.

The actual imaging sensor of the D3200 is currently pretty much state of the art. But it is trapped in a $500 body. Also, if you want to do things like FP-Synch flash, shooting flash at high shutter speeds in bright light, the D3200 is simply unable to do that. The D3200 also cannot command remote Nikon flashes either. Those features are reserved for higher-line models.

 

[kathyt]

Yes. Buy the best and newest gear you can afford. Hell, go into debt for that matter. The girls will flock to you.

 

[hamlet]

The viewfinder of the D3200, with its small and relatively dim pentamirror, pales in comparison to say, an FX camera with a pentaprism viewfinder. The ability to see through the camera with a larger, brighter, crisper viewfinder image is one of the main differences between a lower-priced camera with a pentamirror, and a camera with a viewfinder system that is state of the art, as opposed to an economy-designed finder. The clarity, brightness, and the eye relief of the better cameras, the ones that Nikon equips with the ROUND EYEPIECE, is one of the physical design advantages of the higher-end Nikon bodies.

The actual imaging sensor of the D3200 is currently pretty much state of the art. But it is trapped in a $500 body. Also, if you want to do things like FP-Synch flash, shooting flash at high shutter speeds in bright light, the D3200 is simply unable to do that. The D3200 also cannot command remote Nikon flashes either. Those features are reserved for higher-line models.

People have done a lot with much less. As for the flash sync? I'm currently in the process of learning how to get around this problem, it is possible for me to shoot at whatever shutter speed i want with a little macgyvering here and there.