NikoDoby said:
Guys let's keep the discussion on the D3100. There are enough threads discussing lenses that we don't need to hijack this one.

@Tao, I guess we have to continue our conversation regarding the lenses either in an entirely new thread, an already started thread, via PM, or just discontinue it altogether.

Sorry for the inconvienance but thanks again for all of your input! I honestly very much appreciated it!

If anyone has a problem with interpreting what is or isn't on-topic then PM or email me and we can discuss it there. Otherwise the topic in this thread is about the D3100 and not about lenses or hammers. If you want to have a discussion about lenses then use one of the various other threads talking about which lens is best for X,Y,Z. Just trying to keep the forum discussion relavent to their titles for future searches.

Please read over the forum rules before making accusations of "censorship".

wow, 16 lenses! Man, I don't feel bad about my 5 anymore!!

Guys let's keep the discussion on the D3100. There are enough threads discussing lenses that we don't need to hijack this one.

See, I've heard mixed things about all of the 70-300 lenses. I've heard that the G sucks, the ED isn't much better, and that the VR is good, but not as good as others. I keep reading that the ancient 70-210 is what I should get.
But I apologize for not sharing what it is that I usually photograph. I guess I mainly capture people. Like, I love taking pictures of children. I also very very much enjoy high fashion photography. I have a friend with a studio that I borrow a lot and henceforth take a bit of somewhat decent pictures (I think I'm a bit modest...).

But thanks so much for your input, Tao! I honestly very much appreciate it! I don't have many buddies around here that are as into photography as am I, so I don't really get to converse too often. But thanks again! :D

70-300mm VR is Great! And it is full frame for when you upgrade. I actually use it more than my 70-200 vr mainly due to weight and size. If you want reach, this is a great bang for the buck. You can sell the 55-200 and 18-55mm to help pay for it. For the 18-105vr I have never found a good replacement for cheap.

For not knowing what you like to shoot, the other (Cheaper) lenses I suggest:
Fast - 35 1.8
Tele fast - 85mm 1.8
Wide - Tokina 12-24mm
Macro - older 60mm and 85mm 2.8 VR
I have 16 lenses now - used close to 30 and these are the ones I tend to reach for the most. I actually use the older 24-120mm VR a lot but I really don't like it and need to upgrade it.

You made some great points there, taoTeJared! I enjoyed how you broke down what each camera has to offer for each type of photographer! I asked for the opinions' of others to see how they feel. I'm grown and will ultimately do exactly what I want, regardless as to what other's say. I just like getting their insight on things as to make sure I make my decision on a well thought out comparison. Other's may note things that I possibly overlooked, henceforth having me change my mind at the last minute.

I do indeed love my D90. I feel like it is without a doubt the best camera in it's class (pre D7000). The ability to record video does not appeal to me; I'm a photographer- not a filmographer. However, I found it interesting that you also mentioned that I should get another lens. I've actually been on the hunt for a new one. I have the crappy 18-55mm lens, the crappy 55-200mm lens, an alright 18-105 lens, and the spectacular 50mm f/1.8 lens. I want a more soundly built zoom lens though. I want a 70-300mm lens, to be frank. I've done so much research on that type lens and have found that those lenses suck. The reviews mainly con the lens as being plastic and cheaply made, but lack appropriate recommendations for a replacement lens. I've been looking for this 70-300mm lens for about 6 months now. Maybe someone can make a suggestion?

@jonathennn - I think what you are seeing is that all of us have different price points that we are willing to pay.

To your comment on wanting to upgrade - I couldn't quite capture if you were asking should you OR which camera would we get? You can always chase the better numbers game no matter what time of year it is and something new is always around the corner.

If you have a D90, you have one of the better cameras out there and if it serves you well, I'm not sure how much upgrading would help you all that much. For example: If you shoot low light, it may help to move to the new D7000 or D700. If you shoot high school sports or other fast moving objects like birds, the faster FPS and 51 AF points the D300s may be better for you since it has more reach than the D700. If you are somewhere in the middle of those, rarely shoot video, and never blow your pictures up to 20x24 the D90 may be just fine - and it is time to look at another lens.

I guess my suggestion is to take an inventory of what you shoot the most, what you really enjoy shooting, and then look at the cameras to see what fits best with what you shoot rather than getting caught up in what others or marketing materials tell you what you need.

Yeah the D300s was an updated D300. it has some minor modifications and the ability to use video, but it was far from the overhaul we are seeing between the D90 and D7000. Whatever they replace the D300 with is gonna be awesome.

The D300s is based off the D300, which was announced a while back.

Thanks so much for this feedback! I very much appreciate it all. However, I'm scared you guys felt as if I was indeed belittling the D3000 and D5000. I apologize for apparently coming off that way. What I was more aiming towards in responses was hearing the advantages of those cameras over higher-level cameras, such as the D3000's video performance and it being at the top of Nikon's video line. Other than that, I guess it was just the obvious reasons: price, size, etc.

As for the D300s and the D7000... Super Shooter stated that the D300s's body is four years old... Come again? Wasn't that camera released just last year in like July or something? Maybe the body of the camera itself is from an older model and that's what you mean. If so, I apologize for my apparent lack of knowledge on that part.

I'm personally leaning moreso towards the D7000 since it is brand new. I've not been able to compare the D300s and the D7000 side-by-side, so I can't approximately weigh the pros and cons of each, even though I know enough about both of them in respect to themselves rather than to each other. Nonetheless, I still feel like the D7000 would be my best choice, especially seeing how it's replacing my current D90. I just like everything about it and don't think I'd be as overwhelmed with such a jump from the D90 to the D7000 as I think I would be if I were to jump from the D90 to the D300s.

But thanks again for everybody's feedback! As I said before, I very much appreciate it all!

Super Shooter said:
I would still buy a D7000 over a D300. You get so much more for so much less. Plus the D7000 is lighter but still tough and weather sealed.

I would get a D300s instead. Why? It would work with the batteries and grip that I already own for my D700. The button layouts and menus are more similar to my D700 so I don't need to learn a new button layout, etc.

Lots of reasons for buyers to select different cameras. That is the point of having different bodies at different price point.

Where is the D400 literally confirmed? I haven't read anything confirming it.

i'd get the D3100 right now as a vaca body - I have my D3 for work, so I need something for play. I originally had the D90 for that, but sold it 1 month ago because of the rumors and realization the consumer line is getting rebuilt ground up.

i'd get the D7k right now if I needed a backup body - too big for vaca, and since all my lenses are AF-S, I don't think I could justify a higher priced body. But my lil' brother in NYC is getting the camera itch, so I might talk him into a D7k once xmas rolls around and they have discounts/packages - then I'll go in halfsies and snag it on my vacas (haha!)

the D400, which is LITERALLY confirmed after the D7k, will have Full Mag body, 100% VF, better battery management (I'll be pissed if they release ANOTHER battery style), dual CF's, probably the new AF-CAM Module (I'm assuming 4___?), and 51-100 AF-points (who knows, maybe by 2020 we'll have ALL points in the VF covered!!) but that's all solid speculation. . .

I would still buy a D7000 over a D300. You get so much more for so much less. Plus the D7000 is lighter but still tough and weather sealed.

Super Shooter said:
Am I missing something? Why the hell would anyone be debating the D300S over the D7000? You get 12 more AF points, a CF card slot, and a PC sync, wow big deal. SD cards are cheap and everyone I know uses wireless flash triggers nowadays. You also get to spend more money on a body that's four years old! In what way is the D300S a little tougher than the D7000? They are made with the same materials.

not exactly they are made with the same materials - d300s is full magnesium, while d7000 is only partly magnesium - and trust me there are some other BIG differences, for me the biggest are fps and better battery options (en-el4a)

jonathennn - welcome to the forum, as for Your question I will say: both d3100 and d5000 can give You exceptional image quality, sure they lack a lot of the goodies from the bigger brothers, but still not everybody needs all the features You can get on d7000 and higher models.
as for Your question about d7000 and d300s - it all depends if You need the total speed and durability or can justify a little bit and save a buck or two. make it shorter, I would say and recommend to You and any other forum member/wanna be member: if You are not 100% sure d300s will suite Your needs get d7000; if You know about the cons of d300s over d7000 You probably already have it in Your bag.

My understanding is the D300s has a full Magnesium body, the D7000 a part one, but your right, I'd have a problem buying a 4 year old model now, over an impressively specked new release.

Am I missing something? Why the hell would anyone be debating the D300S over the D7000? You get 12 more AF points, a CF card slot, and a PC sync, wow big deal. SD cards are cheap and everyone I know uses wireless flash triggers nowadays. You also get to spend more money on a body that's four years old! In what way is the D300S a little tougher than the D7000? They are made with the same materials.

I think you are missing something. I purchased the D5000 because it fit my needs. Just as I assume the D3100 will fit peoples needs, as might the D5100 if there is one. At the time I didn't care about the non-body AF motor. Now I kind of wish I had it, but it hasn't really dampened me liking the D5000. It takes comparable pictures to the D90, but cost less and that was probably the major factor. I will admit the D3000 and most likely the D3100 have somewhat less features then I would like, but they are still usable. If you look at the pricing of the new D3100 it is actually ~$90 more expensive then the D5000 (I guess that is just because it comes with the kit lens).

So anyway, just because you don't care for the cameras it doesn't mean there isn't a market for them. If everyone has had a DSLR before and had tons of experience and money then we would all just buy the biggest baddest camera out there wouldn't we? The two cameras you mentioned are very much more expensive then the $450 or so that I got my D5000 body for.

jonathennn said:
the point of this post is to ask two things:
One, what is it about the D3100, D5000, and the apparently anticipated D5100 that has everyone asking about them?
Two, which would you guys recommend: the D7000 or D300s?

Lets take a moment to think about question #1. First point, cost, there are lots of amateurs who like the idea of getting a DSLR, but cannot justify the expense of a high end camera body ($1000+) and would rather put money on glass to better suite their photography goals.

Secondly, not everyone wants or needs the features, and weight of the higher end cameras. I know people who shoot with D40s that get better shots than people with D3s's, the body type does not determine the photographers skill. Also some people like the idea of a vary angel LCD for shooting self portraits and making home movies, or video blogging.

As for your second question, that is a matter of preference. Both are good cameras, the D300s is a little tougher and supports CF and SD cards. Having CF support could be important if you shoot with higher end bodies and don't want to deal with different kinds of memory cards. That being said, for most people the D7000 is the better choice, due to the higher resolution sensor, the smaller, lighter body and the use of SD card slots.

They work with all of nikon new AF-S lenses, but no, they have no AF motor, so the older lenses are out.

that is a big deal breaker for me, but nikon is in no way hurting on availability of AF-S lenses that cover low end, mi grade, and even thier high end pro lineup.

They are both excellent cameras, thy both support vieo if you are into that, and both produce fantastic images. The D5000 has the same sensor the D90and D300s use, however, no AF motor.

To many people buying the AF-S lenses is no big deal, they would preffer the newer more updated lenses.

As for D700 or D300s, they are so close in capabilties, the D7000 exceeds the D300s in many ways, and the D300s still surpases the D7000 in many ways.

i would go with the D7000 unless you are looking for a camera for professional (meaning you are getting paid) work. Then it would be whichever feels better in your hands.

Because they are cheap and lightweight, and in the D3100's case, have better video than anything else in Nikon's lineup that you can buy right now (which matters to some). People who do not own older AF lenses don't care much about the lack of focus motor. Also, you can put non-AI lenses on the entry level cameras without damaging them. Not a very big deal, but it's another little thing that comes up from time to time (it does for me, as my dad has some very old lenses).

I don't understand why people are debating on whether to buy such cameras as the D3100 or the D5000, or even the anticipated D5100? To my knowledge, these cameras are at the bottom of Nikon's SLR list. For instance, it's my understanding that those lower-level cameras don't even have focusing motors and barely work with lots of Nikon's lenses. I am in no way trying to bash these cameras, so I apologize if seemingly coming off that way. I'm just taken aback by the numerous posts I see related to those lower-level cameras. In my opinion, I'm debating between the beautifully brand new D7000 and the D300s.

If you guys would allow, I'd like to share a bit of my personal experience as a pseudo-photographer as to not seem to be talking out of the side of my neck. About five or so years ago I started out with a film Canon as to learn photography rather than take advantage of it. I also took a few dark room classes and digital photography/photoshop classes. I then upgraded to the Nikon D60 when it had first come out. I knew I wasn't ready for the big boys so I stuck with the entry level cameras. I purchased a D70 to get a taste of a higher-level camera, even if it was old and discontinued. I didn't like it. I think it was because of it's age. But, I bought myself the D90. I loved it. I've had it since it first came out, I do believe. Now I'm ready to upgrade again. I would LOVE to get the D700 for it's full frame sensor, but I feel like it's outdated and will henceforth be replaced soon. So I considered the D300s... before I heard about the D7000. Now those two cameras are battling it out. I love everything about both of them!

So I guess the point of this post is to ask two things:
One, what is it about the D3100, D5000, and the apparently anticipated D5100 that has everyone asking about them?
Two, which would you guys recommend: the D7000 or D300s?

Thanks for your time!