Nikon Upgrade - Help me out - DPChallenge Forums

06/08/2009 08:57:42 PM · #1

I shoot Canon, but a good friend of mine is on the other side of the fence and is thinking about upgrading his gear, but doesn't know what would be good. Right now he's got a D40, the kit lens, and a 55-200mm zoom. I'd like to give him some good advice, but I don't know which models compare to their Canon counterparts. He's a hobbyist level photographer and is interested in the mid-to-lower price range, new or used. In addition to a new camera, there's talk of a new lens or two, something perhaps like the Canon 28-135mm.

If he shot Canon, I'd suggest an XSi or T1i. So what's the Nikon equivalent? And what's the deal with the whole focus motor issue? I understand that some bodies have the motor built in, but some depend on a motor in the lens... I'd assume that having the motor in the lens would be better (since that's how mine work).

This is all Greek to me, if you haven't guessed by now :-) Any insight?

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR

06/08/2009 09:21:26 PM · #2

Well....

It kinda depends on what it is that he wants to do and why he wants to upgrade.

There's nothing whatsoever wrong with what he's got, really.

What does he want? The 18-55 and the 55-200 are both very decent lenses for the money.

The whole setup is worth virtually nothing 'cause they're dumping D40s everywhere.

So....what's he going to do with the perfectly good setup he's got?

The D40 is a better camera than my D70s and the only reason I'm upgrading at all is 'cause after three years, I want a little more in some areas than the D70s can give, and it's dying 'cause I'm hard on it. And I'm only upgrading a little from what I have, mostly in the durability arena.

I may be the exception, but I really don't much look for more out of equipment than I really need simply because I don't need the complication. Is your friend upgrading because the D40 just won't cut it for what he does, or out of misguided advice from the plethora of "Experts" out there who feel that just because it's cheap & plentiful that the unit is somehow lacking?

I got my daughter a D40 a couple years ago, and I steal it from time to time just for fun. It is small for my big hands, but it's an easy to use, very nice camera. I got an 18-135 grey market lens for it from B&H for something ridiculous like $275, and it's an awesome combination.

Really & truly, the most reasonable upgrade he could make from this D40 and those two lenses would be to keep the lenses, and get a D300 body. Or go for the really good glass and keep the D40 body 'til he can justify the D300.

Other than that, anything else would really be just an unnecessary interim step to the D300. The D40 is a fine camera.

RulerZigzag

Nikon D750

06/08/2009 09:32:45 PM · #3

Definitely the D300 all the way. If he already has the D40 it doesn't pay to upgrade to the D60 or D90 since they are all in the prosumer class of SLR's.

If he wants something equivalent to your Canon 50D then he should look towards the D300. If price is an issue, perhaps he could find a used D200 somewhere?

As for lenses, depends on his shooting preference, go with a zoom lens if he's a beginner, the 18-135mm is ok for a go anywhere lens, just don't go past 50mm unless it's really sunny out and you're shooting with high shutter speeds.

ErikV

Nikon D7000

Nikon AF Zoom-Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8 VR DG IF-ED

06/08/2009 09:36:59 PM · #4

If you want something in the same ballpark as the Canon XSi and T1i, then the D5000 and D90 are the ones to look at. But if you want something in the Canon 40D or 50D ballpark then the D300 is the way to go.

06/08/2009 09:47:17 PM · #5

Thanks Jeb. I appreciate the straight answer - that may really be the best advice for him. I agree, it's not worth spending the money unless there's a genuine advantage.

It'd be nice to boost the megapixels from 6 to 8 or 10, with a modest increase in ISO performance. But otherwise I don't think there's anything he's unhappy with - the D40 serves his needs pretty well. Like I said, he's a hobbyist, no interest in going pro. A D300 would be way more camera than he needs - I can't imagine him ever aspiring to one of those. Simple is better in his case.

Based on the tiny bit of knowledge I have, I was thinking maybe a D60 would meet these points without going overboard? Or is that still not worth it?

Yes, good glass is where it's really at, and something like the 18-135mm you mentioned is just the range he was interested in. Is yours a Nikkor, or a third-party?

Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II

06/08/2009 09:52:51 PM · #6

Originally posted by RulerZigzag:

Something at the level of my 50D is going to be too much. I've been looking at the Nikon site, and I think a D60 would be the most he'd want. But if it's really not worth upgrading to that from the D40, then I'll tell him not to bother.

He just started shooting Manual/Av at my prompting. Just started shooting RAW sometimes. He likes shooting nature/landscape at the state parks, and he has a Sunpack flash he throws on to shoot family events and the like. That's the level we're talking about.

Lockke

Nikon D90

06/08/2009 10:07:30 PM · #7

I'm going to nix the d300 over the d90. The d90 has the same sensor and if he doesn't need the extra FPS in burst mode (for sports etc...) then you're paying a premium for a slightly more durable body. That being said, I would agree the d40 is still a great camera. Go to the d90 if he wants to shoot in lower light settings (less noise at higher ISOs over the d40) and maybe if you want the 11 focus points over the d40s 3. I have both and still shoot with the d40.

06/08/2009 10:09:36 PM · #8

Originally posted by OdysseyF22:

Seriously, I'd tell him that what he's got is terrific, and that as long as he hasn't gotten to a point where his demands outstrip the camera's capability, why spend the money?

Look at This Page

And it took me a long time to get past what I took with my 55-200 below.....it's still one of my all time favorites.

Equipment in this day and age is excellent and surprisingly affordable.

Tell him to go out and shoot 'til he KNOWS he needs more camera 'cause it won't get him what he wants.

06/08/2009 10:14:07 PM · #9

Originally posted by Lockke:

The D90 has a MODIFIED D300 sensor, the camera is about half the price, and they put the video thing in......where d'ya suppose the money came from for that?

Out of the quality of the camera......it's really a compromise unit.

It's also a MUCH more durable body. You're talking a night and day difference in the frame.

The D300 is a substantially better camera than the D90.

After three years I'm just starting to feel the angst from the low light limitations of my D70s......and it's generally considered by Nikon people as being one of the worst offenders for low light noise.

06/08/2009 10:19:47 PM · #10

One last thing, then I'll shut up.....

I compromised what I really wanted a couple of times before I got my 18-200 VR.

I was unhappy 'til I got what I thought I wanted. Once I did, I was really glad that I did and haven't regretted anything other than dinking around before I got that lens.

If he feels that he has to upgrade, then he does.....and help him make sure that he handles and plays with everything in the range that he is able to afford and to choose what feels best and he likes best on a visceral level.

Part of what it is about the D70s for me was the way that the thing fits absolutely PERFECTLY in my hand.

That was VERY important, and I just plain flat LIKED it instantly.

Gut feel is very important.

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR

06/08/2009 10:27:55 PM · #11

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

I think you're right. What he's got now is doing the job and he's getting some great shots from it - I'll tell him to save his money for either a new lens, or for the future day when he knows that he need a new camera. I don't think he really feels the need for an upgrade, I think he was just caught wondering "what if."

I really appreciate the input - thanks!

RulerZigzag

Nikon D750

06/08/2009 10:36:08 PM · #12

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Originally posted by Lockke:
I'm going to nix the d300 over the d90. The d90 has the same sensor and if he doesn't need the extra FPS in burst mode (for sports etc...) then you're paying a premium for a slightly more durable body. That being said, I would agree the d40 is still a great camera. Go to the d90 if he wants to shoot in lower light settings (less noise at higher ISOs over the d40) and maybe if you want the 11 focus points over the d40s 3. I have both and still shoot with the d40.

The D90 has a MODIFIED D300 sensor, the camera is about half the price, and they put the video thing in......where d'ya suppose the money came from for that?

Out of the quality of the camera......it's really a compromise unit.

It's also a MUCH more durable body. You're talking a night and day difference in the frame.

The D300 is a substantially better camera than the D90.

After three years I'm just starting to feel the angst from the low light limitations of my D70s......and it's generally considered by Nikon people as being one of the worst offenders for low light noise.

Noise is where Nikon cams fall short when compared to Canon, however, it doesn't mean the Nikon is inferior, if anything the Nikon lenses/cams are better in low lighting conditions; exposure wise, of course you will get some noise, good thing my D200 has noise reduction filter built into it, and theres always neat image...

Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II

06/09/2009 06:42:48 AM · #13

Originally posted by RulerZigzag:

I have experienced some of what people have talked about with the noise, but what that's done for me is taught me how to pay much closer attention to my exposure settings. I've also found that the noise issues aren't anywhere near as bad as what some say. Most of what I keep I enlarge to 8x10, and in print I really have very little where noise is a factor.

There are some situations that I'll actually cultivate noise for the effect, i.e. textured images and B&W street photography, some sunsets....and I really like how easy that is. Too many cameras/processing styles just look like an afterthought when you're going for that effect. It's funny to think of the noise thing as a bonus feature, but it is. I like Nikons, and just like everything else in life, there are trade-offs, yet what most people consider an issue with Nikon is for me just something that goes with the territory and I work within the parameters.

Lockke

Nikon D90

06/09/2009 08:40:18 AM · #14

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

I'm not trying to pick a fight, but Ken Rockwell said they used the same sensor. Not that he's the end-all-be-all of camera info, but it's the impression I was under. If we're wrong no biggie, they are both great cameras.

//www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d90.htm