Upgrading from a D3100

[Mike73]

Hi there guys. I am new to this forum and was told this would be a fantastic place to seek advice and learn from the pros.

I started photography not too long ago and I'm currently using a Nikon D3100 with a Nikkor 50mm f1.8G lens. I do mostly general photography which is limited to shooting pictures of items such as perfume bottle, small electronic devices, drinks, sneakers etc. I don't do portraits or landscapes or wildlife photography or photography or any large items such as cars etc.

With my D3100, I manage to get pretty decent pictures but I would like to upgrade my body to something better. My D3100 does not have an articulating screen which is a bit of a problem as I have to get down low to look through the OVF.

I am currently looking at the Nikon D5200, D5300 and D5500. I would like to know what benefits will I get in terms of picture quality? Would my pictures using my 50mm f1.8G be any better than my D3100? Are there any other camera bodies I should be looking at? Mirrorless is an option as well but I will limit it to either the Sony A6000 or A6300. Going mirrorless will cost me a bit more as the lenses aren't widely available and making the switch would mean I have to look for new lenses.

 

[weepete]

Well TBH I'd buy https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0415...ence+magic&dpPl=1&dpID=51uDPZ5dO-L&ref=plSrch and get a couple of speedlights and radio triggers, tripod and some modifiers first. Then probably a roll or two of seamless paper, stands and a whole lot of clamps. Then get some space and see what you can do with that first.

The reason being that in a controlled environment like you describe you might not get a benefit from upgrading and from your description I think the better AF, low light perfromance and stuff like weather sealing may not be what you need at the end of the day. But here is the real question, why do you think you want to upgrade?

 

[Mike73]

Well TBH I'd buy https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0415...ence+magic&dpPl=1&dpID=51uDPZ5dO-L&ref=plSrch and get a couple of speedlights and radio triggers, tripod and some modifiers first. Then probably a roll or two of seamless paper, stands and a whole lot of clamps. Then get some space and see what you can do with that first.

The reason being that in a controlled environment like you describe you might not get a benefit from upgrading and from your description I think the better AF, low light perfromance and stuff like weather sealing may not be what you need at the end of the day. But here is the real question, why do you think you want to upgrade?

I don't shoot indoors. I mostly shoot during sunrise in well-lit conditions outdoors. I take pictures at places like skate parks, beaches etc. The reason I need an upgrade is because the D3100 does not have an articulating screen which means if I'm shooting at ground level, it's a bit of a problem. I am also planning to print my images on A2, A3 or A1 pages so I think I'll probably need those extra megapixels. The other reason is that I'm assuming I'd get a better picture quality?

 

[Designer]

I would like to know what benefits will I get in terms of picture quality?

Probably none that you would be able to see. Mostly it would be things like dynamic range, focusing accuracy/speed, slight difference in processing. Printing on those sizes will be about the same with each body, even with a difference in pixel density.

If you need the articulating LCD, then go for the upgrade. Otherwise, you can up your game farther by lens choices and lighting manipulation.

Get some flashes and modifiers, try some different lenses, read more books, and practice. If you want opinions on your photography, post on here for C&C. That is one sure way to improve even without spending a dime.

 

[Mike73]

I would like to know what benefits will I get in terms of picture quality?

Probably none that you would be able to see. Mostly it would be things like dynamic range, focusing accuracy/speed, slight difference in processing. Printing on those sizes will be about the same with each body, even with a difference in pixel density.

If you need the articulating LCD, then go for the upgrade. Otherwise, you can up your game farther by lens choices and lighting manipulation.

Get some flashes and modifiers, try some different lenses, read more books, and practice. If you want opinions on your photography, post on here for C&C. That is one sure way to improve even without spending a dime.

Do you know of any sites or places I can look at to learn more about lighting? Also, which lens should I get to really see a difference in picture quality? I want something that is sharp and fast. I like to add some bokeh in my shots and I like to have a nice blur which separates the subject from other objects. For example if I place 3 objects next to each other, I would like to only have the middle object in focus with a nice blur on the other object. Here's an example I found online (https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/...vzFOsTcubcP7CdQtk4USTyMa6epjzynzX4nOGNGCj9s3c ) How can I get a picture like that? What lens should I be looking at?

 

[Derrel]

The "impact" of almost any picture is determined in a large part by where,exactly, the camera is placed when the photo is made. Moving the camera position around, to find the best camera placement, is a big,big,big deal. Camera placement is critical to many photos. The fact that you like to position the camera in non-standard ways is a great sign! And you're on a good tack as far as identifying what the 5xxx series Nikons offer over the 3xxx series. Easier framing and composing in low- or high-angle camera placement scenarios is something that might improve your shooting.

As far as lenses that really show "quality"...and which offer very rapid transition from the out of focus foreground to a narrow focus band and then a rapid transition to a defocused background: probably the best lower-cost choice would be the 85mm f/1.8 AF-S G lens, or at a higher price, the 70-200/2.8 or 70-200 f/4 type zoom lenses. Nikon's 50mm f/1.8 AF-S G lens is okay; I own one, and it's sharp, but if you want more-limited depth of field and more capability to do selective focus shots, a longer focal length lens is often helpful. But I'd caution you to remember this: the photographer's job is also important...you need to know how DOF works, how camera-to-subject distance is a KEY (critical!) factor in getting shallow DOF effects, and subject-to-background distance is also important. A zoom lens can be useful to vary the focal length, and in that way, gives you the ability to adjust camera-to-subject distance, in a way that a single focal length lens does not allow you to adjust. There's a balance between lens length, and being forced to stand too far back, which can lead to backgrounds that are somewhat recognizably in-focus. The bottle shot you link to is a close-range shot, and at those shorter camera-to-subjct distances, almost any lens can give that type of shallow DOF effect; at longer ranges, like 20 to 40 feet, it becomes trickier to get shallow DOF effects unless you have full command over the lens length and the camera-to-subject range that you can work within, and still get the desired framing.

As to the bottle shot: an 85mm macro lens or a 105mm macro lens would be easy to use for that type of a picture. You could also use a 70-200mm zoom lens, or a low-cost, used, discontinued 135mm manual focus Nikon lens from the 1990's; a number of lenses could make such a photo; the key part if the photographer selecting the right lens length, and the right camera-to-subject distance.

 

[Designer]

Aside from the book linked above, go to the strobist. He has a multi-episode class on lighting. But get the book anyway.

 

[Mike73]

Thanks for all the help guys. I figured I should first learn lighting and DoF before going out and spending on a new body and lens.

I think as far as body's go, I would probably choose either the Nikon D5200/D5500 (More expensive) or I'll switch to Canon and get the 760D coupled with some new lenses. I don't have much Nikon gear so switching bodies won't really be an issue.

With regards to lenses, if I go with either bodies, I would most probably look at getting a 85mm or 105 or equivalent macro lens.

I just need to research more about the bodies and which brand offers well priced, sharp macro lenses.

 

[Mike73]

@Designer Thanks for the information about The Strobist. I'm currently checking it out and learning from there.

@Derrel Thanks so much for taking the time to write all of that. There was a lot of excellent information in your post and I am definitely going to take your advice and learn a bit more. At least now I know what focal length lenses I should be on the look out for. I'm going to see Canon's 85/105 macro lenses and prices and compare it to Nikon and thereafter choose a body. I don't really need to stick to Nikon because I haven't bought a lot of Nikon gear so switching is definitely an option if it will work out cheaper for me. Looking at bodies, the 760D is cheaper than the D5200/D5500. The prices of lenses will determine which body I will go for.

 

[ac12]

Thanks for all the help guys. I figured I should first learn lighting and DoF before going out and spending on a new body and lens.

I think as far as body's go, I would probably choose either the Nikon D5200/D5500 (More expensive) or I'll switch to Canon and get the 760D coupled with some new lenses. I don't have much Nikon gear so switching bodies won't really be an issue.

With regards to lenses, if I go with either bodies, I would most probably look at getting a 85mm or 105 or equivalent macro lens.

I just need to research more about the bodies and which brand offers well priced, sharp macro lenses.

WRT bodies. If you do low angle shots, you really want a pivoting/articulating screen. I've been belly down in the dirt doing the low angle shots, and that wasn't fun.

First, look at which system (Canon or Nikon) has the lenses that you will want.
It sucks if you get a system, THEN find out that it does not have the lens you want.
Example. Nikon has a DX 35mm f/1.8, Canon does not. For Canon you have to buy the $550 FF lens or the Yongnuo lens.

 

[Mike73]

Currently I'm on the look out for the Nikon 85mm 1.8g or the Nikon 105mm. I managed to find a Micro NIKKOR 105mm 2.8 and I was wondering if its any good?

It's a fully manual focus lens.

 

[ac12]

YUP, the 105 is fine.
The good thing about the 105 is that it gives you more working distance, so it is easier to light the subject without the lens getting in the way.

Tip: If you are going to do macro work, get a 4-way rail. It makes life a lot easier than having to move the tripod a 1/2 inch.

 

[Mike73]

YUP, the 105 is fine.
The good thing about the 105 is that it gives you more working distance, so it is easier to light the subject without the lens getting in the way.

Tip: If you are going to do macro work, get a 4-way rail. It makes life a lot easier than having to move the tripod a 1/2 inch.

I do photography of items like cards, bottles, perfumes, sneakers etc. This is the old Micro Nikon 105mm (1983 was the introduction year I think)

 

[ac12]

YUP, the 105 is fine.
The good thing about the 105 is that it gives you more working distance, so it is easier to light the subject without the lens getting in the way.

Tip: If you are going to do macro work, get a 4-way rail. It makes life a lot easier than having to move the tripod a 1/2 inch.

I do photography of items like cards, bottles, perfumes, sneakers etc. This is the old Micro Nikon 105mm (1983 was the introduction year I think)

Depending on how small the items are, I would still get a 4-way rail and even a tripod dolly.
But the dolly is a studio gear, not something you would take outside.

I use the 55 micro Nikkor.
I have not gotten around to getting a 105 micro/macro lens.

 

[Designer]

I was wondering if its any good?

He likes it: