Thinking it is time to upgrade and wanted advice

[SashaT]

So I am sure that this question gets asked a lot. I was curious if I should upgrade my camera at this point. As I stated in my intro I was given a D3000 as a gift around three years ago. I mostly shot in the auto settings at first then ventured into the “dreaded” manual settings. I learned mostly from the trial and error method. I usually like to photograph nature and have recently started to dabble in the macro shots realm.

Since I have started to become more proficient using the manual settings, I have started to become frustrated with some things with this camera body. First I like using my 60mm AF 2.8 D micro lens quite a bit. I like the fact that I can produce clearer, crisp shots then with my other lenses. What I hate though is that I have to manually focus it as the D3000 lacks a motor.

My second major frustration is that when I am out and about and I try to shoot quickly. The camera seems to take forever to process the photo I just shot. For example I was at an air show; I attempted to shoot quite a few shots as a Mig-15 buzzed the crowd. I was able to get several shots off then the camera just sat there with the little hourglass symbol as it processed the shots that I just took. By the time it finished the jet was long gone. I do have other frustrations but I do not feel like writing a novel.

I started looking and playing around with different bodies at my local camera store. I have been looking more closely at the D7100 and the D600. I am not sure though that I would benefit from a full frame format for what I mostly use it for. Now the D7100 is also less expensive so I could take the difference in price and get some new glass to go with it.

So with all of that being said, does that sound like the best course of action? Or are there other options that I should consider.

Thank you.

 

[goodguy]

I just bought the D7100 and faced the same dilemma.
I really want the D600 but its 1000$ different between the D600 and the D7100 so at the end I decided to get the D7100.
Unless you are planning on shooting a lot in low light condition then you will be very happy with the D7100, you will not need more then that.
Except the low light performance the D7100 is very equal to the D600 but as I said almost 1000$ cheaper.
Oh and while its not as good in low light as the D600 is the D7100 is a solid camera in low light.

 

[jl1975]

I too had the D3000. I just upgraded to the D7100 a few months ago and I love it. The issues I had with my D3000 were the speed and the low-light capability. I am totally happy with the new body and I haven't regretted it at all. It's fast, and though some people have complained about the size of the buffer for continuous shooting, I haven't found it to be a problem. For the low light handling, just after I got it, my son had a wrestling tournament in an old arena with crappy light. I was able to shoot at iso 4000 and the shots were great. If you looked at them at 100% there was some noise but for images straight out of the camera I was very happy with them. I couldn't have gotten anything with the D3000. I also briefly considered the D600, but at this point for what I use it for, the D7100 made more sense for me. You won't be disappointed with the D7100

 

[Designer]

The speed of saving to card may be the camera, or it could be a combination of factors such as; saving large pictures, saving RAW + JPEG, saving to a slow card. Pull out the SD card and see what class it is (class 10 is faster).

 

[SashaT]

I should have added, yes my cards are class 10 and I shoot in RAW.

@jl1975: Yes the low light performance was another thing I was frustrated with. Unless I anybody has any other suggestions, I am 99% sure I am going to grab the 7100 here soon.

 

[Heitz]

So I am sure that this question gets asked a lot. I was curious if I should upgrade my camera at this point. As I stated in my intro I was given a D3000 as a gift around three years ago. I mostly shot in the auto settings at first then ventured into the “dreaded” manual settings. I learned mostly from the trial and error method. I usually like to photograph nature and have recently started to dabble in the macro shots realm.

Since I have started to become more proficient using the manual settings, I have started to become frustrated with some things with this camera body. First I like using my 60mm AF 2.8 D micro lens quite a bit. I like the fact that I can produce clearer, crisp shots then with my other lenses. What I hate though is that I have to manually focus it as the D3000 lacks a motor.

My second major frustration is that when I am out and about and I try to shoot quickly. The camera seems to take forever to process the photo I just shot. For example I was at an air show; I attempted to shoot quite a few shots as a Mig-15 buzzed the crowd. I was able to get several shots off then the camera just sat there with the little hourglass symbol as it processed the shots that I just took. By the time it finished the jet was long gone. I do have other frustrations but I do not feel like writing a novel.

I started looking and playing around with different bodies at my local camera store. I have been looking more closely at the D7100 and the D600. I am not sure though that I would benefit from a full frame format for what I mostly use it for. Now the D7100 is also less expensive so I could take the difference in price and get some new glass to go with it.

So with all of that being said, does that sound like the best course of action? Or are there other options that I should consider.

Thank you.

I also have the 60mm 2.8D micro. Keep in mind, though, that while autofocus is always nice to have, I, and many others, will prefer manual focus for macro shots (including this lens). The problem is that when you get in real close, your DOF is so shallow that the AF may miss what you want, even when it's functioning properly.

 

[SashaT]

I also have the 60mm 2.8D micro. Keep in mind, though, that while autofocus is always nice to have, I, and many others, will prefer manual focus for macro shots (including this lens). The problem is that when you get in real close, your DOF is so shallow that the AF may miss what you want, even when it's functioning properly.

Thank you for the feedback, don't get me wrong I like using manual under some conditions. For what I normally shoot though having the ability to also use auto would help. For example here are a couple of shots I took on my trip yesterday. These photos are not altered except for converting from RAW and re-sizing. As you can see I had a hard time tring to manage the fish in the first shot and focus at the same time. The lighting was also poor at the time and I had a hard time trying to focus. Actually the image looked pretty clear in the low light through my viewfinder. This typically happens when 1. I have a larger fish and/or 2. when the lighting is dim such as the early morning (like in the first shot). The second picture (also unaltered) was taken with the same lens as well. The difference is that the fish was much smaller (16") and it was bright out.

 

[goodguy]

I also have the 60mm 2.8D micro. Keep in mind, though, that while autofocus is always nice to have, I, and many others, will prefer manual focus for macro shots (including this lens). The problem is that when you get in real close, your DOF is so shallow that the AF may miss what you want, even when it's functioning properly.

I dont know anything about you but I am pretty sure you are well under the age of 40.
Around 40 something in your eyes give up and gets really lazy.
I found this problem with me and from speaking with few people north of the 40 age they agree its nearly impossible to manually focus.
I personally would love to manualy focus but I just cant see good enough through the darn view finder.
AF is my only option and thank god for these wonderful effician Japanese engineers that made the AF system so good on my D7100 or else I probably had to give up this wonderful hobby.

 

[SashaT]

Hey now, I am only down to 20/20 near/far from 20/15



My issue is that I find it really hard to hold a fish with one hand and try to take the pic with the other. When the fish are over 20 inches it becomes about impossible. One trick that I do is that before I start to fish, I focus the camera on my hand at the rough distance I would hold a fish. Then I move the ring from manual to auto so it wont move. When I catch a fish then I just try to adjust the physical distance to bring the subject into focus. As evident in the previous examples this method doesn't always work. Especially when the fish are larger and the distance is different.

 

[goodguy]

Actually in regards to take picture of my fish I solved my problem a long time ago.

1.I dont go fishing-problem solved LOL
2.I go to the super buy a fish put it on the counter and take a picture of it-so simple!!!

Sorry I just had to

Back in the old country a co worker was really into fishing but he used to dive with a speer gun and catch the fishes that way.
Every time he used to come with a different fish, some pretty weird looking and everytime we asked him what kind of a fish is that he had the same bloody answer

A DEAD FISH :mrgreen:

It was pretty funny but left us in the dark in what kind of a fish it really was.

 

[SashaT]

LOL that is too funny... Well problem solved, I picked up the 7100 a little while ago.

 

[coastalconn]

The best way to get pictures of fish is to have an Osprey hold it...

Osprey with fish profile 1 by krisinct, on Flickr

On a serious note... If you are tight on money you might want to consider a refurb D7000 as they are very cheap now and are still a good performer. under $700 or if you want speed on a budget a D300 can be had used for under $500. Being outdoorsy the D300 is built like a tank although you wouldn't gain tons in ISO performance..