Nikon help!!

[Jacobapp]

Does anyone have another suggestion for a different camera body for me to get that would be good (cheap options please)
Nikon or canon only please
-Jacob

 

[astroNikon]

Does anyone have another suggestion for a different camera body for me to get that would be good (cheap options please)
Nikon or canon only please
-Jacob

You are limited by your budget. Just take a peruse here --> https://www.keh.com/search/list?m=1&category[]=Bodies

 

[colnago1331]

If you can afford it, try to get the D7000 and the 50mm f1.8 af-d lens. On the used market this shouldn't cost more than maybe $800 - $900 total.

 

[astroNikon]

One of the best decisions I made a few years ago was stretching for the d7000.

It has an in-body motor for focusing older AF-D lenses.
My lens cost then dropped like a rock of AF-D versus G lenses.
80-200/2.8 was $700 instead of $1600+ for the 70-200/2.8 G version
and the list goes on from there. I was able to get certain lenses that I would never have been able to get otherwise (and maintain AutoFocus).

So looking at a d90 and d7000 would be my recommendation.
But the technological draw of a d3300, d5200/5300 is pretty good too, In that case you limit your $$ to strictly DX lenses which saves money too.

 

[dennybeall]

If I was getting a D5300 and could get just one lens I would get the 18-140. That'll cover most still photos as you proceed through your photography journey and do a good job with the video that camera is capable of.

 

[robbins.photo]

I think your best bet is to make a list of what it is you want, and then figure out how much you want to spend, and then pick the setup that is going to give you the best value for your money.

A couple of options that have been mentioned already - first, the D5300. It's a nice enough setup, but frankly if you want my opinion it is overpriced for what it offers in comparison to the much less expensive D5200 or the slightly more expensive D7100. The D5300 isn't a bad camera per see, but really for the price difference I just don't see that the few additional features it offers such as GPS and built in wifi are really worth the extra money when compared to the D5200 since your image quality will be almost identical. On the other side when you look at the price difference between it and the D7100, well the 7100 has so many more advantages and it really isn't that much more expensive, well as a result the 5300 just isn't at a real attractive price point for what it offers. So I'd either save myself some money and go with the D5200, or spend the extra and go with the D7100.

As someone else mentioned there is also the D7000 - it will give you the better external controls and the built in AF motor which can be a big advantage when purchasing future lenses because you won't need the ones with a built in focus motor. You can generally get used ones for about as much as a D5200 so the price point is attractive. The big thing to consider is that it's a 16 mp sensor as opposed to a 24 mp sensor. Now, if your shooting mostly portraits, landscapes, etc.. well you probably won't see a huge difference between the two. If your shooting more telephoto and needing to crop - that's where you will really see a big difference. So if your doing a lot more of the former rather than the later, the D7000 would most likely be the best option. If your doing more of the later than the former, then the D5200 might be a better bet.

And of course last but not least, the D7100 - if you can afford it this is without a doubt the best overall option. It's got all the advantages of the D7000's better controls, built in AF motor, etc - plus the 24 mp sensor. Only downside here is it is more expensive than the D5200/D7000/D5300. But if your pretty sure your going to be getting into photography seriously and you really want a good long term investment, this is probably the best option of them all provided you can fit it into the budget.

 

[Jacobapp]

I want to say thank you to everyone's comments. I have recently found out about the nikon d7100 and I believe that that is what I am looking for. Thank you for everyone's help I really appreciate it . I will keep you all updated.

-Jacob

 

[astroNikon]

great choice
Good luck !!

 

[Jacobapp]

Thank you astronikon

-Jacob

 

[astroNikon]

Thank you astronikon

-Jacob

I really think the body motor, even though more expensive, really opens up alot of choices of lenses and many which are much lower cost than all the AF-S lenses.

Even on the low end you can get a $200 50mm/1.8 G lens or a $100/1.8 AF-D lens. Quality is the same, you lose auto-manual focus override but it's easy to switch off auto-focus on the AF-D. So that's an easy $100 savings in one basic lower cost lens

Then filling in other focal lengths you have a lot of choices. Such as instead of a 24-70/2.8 AF-S G lens at $1400+ you can get a 24-85/2.8-4 AF-D lens at $350 .. a savings of over $1050. And as you progress you can always sell the AF-Ds and move up to the AF-S lenses.
UWA -- 18-35 AF-S at $700 versus 18-35 AF-D at $350 ... 350 savings.

This strategy has allowed me to get a wide range of lenses. It in essence, makes the d90/d7000/d7100 strategy cheaper to get into the entire range of lenses. With no body motor you have to (for autofocus) get AF-S lenses at a higher price.

But AF-S has it's advantage, especially in moving objects. You just have to learn to shot differently (more thought and practice).