where there’s smoke there’s forum fire
Hello everyone,
i've been using my D40x for years
but as time has past, it doesn't quite meet the needs that i have nowadays...
particularly, i'm an avid film maker and stop-motion animator and so realistically require film/live view functionality.
is the D5100 a worthy upgrade? or should i go to the D7000?
OR
am i better sadly heading towards Canon's 600d or 60d?
OH THIS IS ALL SOO DIFFICULT! it hurts my head all this research...
any thoughts NR?
thank you for your time
It'll be an excellent upgrade photography-wise. Plus, you can get it body only, which is a plus, since you probably have the 18-55 already.
I'm not so sure on the video side because I'm not interested in video at all. But the LCD screen is probably pretty useful.
Did you think about lenses too?
yeah i was thinking of maybe getting it with a 18-105mm, cause German Amazon seems to be selling it with one, and it wouldn't be expensive to ship it to the UK
if i keep my D40x as a family camera, then it would mean holding onto the 18-55mm which i guess could have some uses
although, maybe it would make more sense like you say to go Body only and then pick up a 200mm or 300mm to contrast... :P
thx
The D5100 is an obvious upgrade. The D7000 would have some more features. If feature wise you aren't missing anything then the D5100 sounds like a good one for you. If you feel like you need more then the D7000 might be what you want. Also one costs a bit more then the other.
Keeping the D40x with the 18-55 would be a good camera for just anyone in the family to shoot. No real reason to get rid of it or anything as it wouldn't be worth much anyway. If you got the 18-105 kit and the 70-300 VR you would be pretty good. You might want some faster glass though...unless you were OK with the performance of the 18-55 and never felt limited by it.
It all depends upon your video needs. If you're shooting video under controlled situations where you don't care about autofocus and will use a tripod and external mic, then the D5100 is a great choice. It will do everything well and has more flexibility in your video choices than the D7000.
If, on the other hand, you really need to flow seamlessly from stills to video, then you should say goodbye to both Canon and Nikon and look at the Panasonic GH2, which matches the D5100 for shooting stills (except its flash is a bit tempermental), but is way better for video. It shoots in AVCHD, has a electronic viewfinder so you can switch between video and stills without leaving the viewfinder, has autofocus that really works for video, and has lenses that are virtually silent so you can use the built-in stereo mic. I know this is heresy in the Nikon world, but reality is reality.
Incidentally, I've been playing with the GH2 for several weeks, but I'm still switching back to Nikon because I'm going to focus on stills and will only use video on occasion. I really don't want to become immersed in both disciplines. Just because you can integrate them in the camera, it doesn't make it easy to master the use of both. Unless you have a lot of time on your hands to dedicate to both.
P.S. I know what you mean about the d40 ... Forget the specs. It just takes great pictures. I'm not selling mine either.
@ tcole1983,
i do feel limited by the 18-55 all the time... To be quite honest, i find it a hideous focus length and would much prefer a fixed 50mm and then a zoom to change to, but i don't quite have the money for such an arrangement AND a new camera.. in that respect, maybe glass upgrade may have to come sometime in the future
@ TheCaz
I will definitely look into the GH2, i used to own a lumix which I wasn't too happy with, I found the nature of electronic viewfinders a bit depressing and aggravating... But maybe it's time to try again. Truth be told, I don't think I can better my Olympus OM1 for being the most comfortable camera I've ever used... I just love that viewfinder and satisfying click
But back to the D5100,this camera would be used as my professional tool of trade, so i would almost always be using an external mic and tripod.
thank you for all your help
Hey Edible,
I had an OM-1 as well as an OM-10. Great cameras. I was in heaven when I got a Vivitar 24-48mm wide angle lens, but that was in a galaxy far, far away.
As for the GH2, the electronic viewfinder is definitely different, no question about it, but it's huge in comparison to a 5100 -- larger than the D7000. Since you're shooting video with a tripod and don't have to worry about the mic, then the GH2's only real advantage would be its more versatile video modes. For that matter, the Canon has better movie specs than the Nikon as well (720 @ 60 fps versus only 30 for for the Nikon).
But the specs are numbing. Your real decision point is whether you need flexibility in video modes or whether you really need a dSLR with good lenses that you can shoot just fine at 24 or 30 fps. If you'll never need 60 fps, then Nikon works. As for which Nikon, the d5100 has an articulating lcd, while the D7000 has dual SD cards and much better viewfinder, but is $300 more for body only.
If you need 60fps, then do you want a camera with lots of lens choices (Canon) or more video features (Panasonic or Sony).
Hope this helps.
however much i feel i might need 60fps in the future, part of me hates the idea of moving to canon... such strange loyalty we have...
surely in the long run Nikon and canon have practically the same lens choices? only old Nikon don't auto-focus?
what do you mean by video features? are we talking in camera editing? cause i can do that in Final Cut. Or do you mean like simulating a tilt-shift lens etc?
I would separate the world into two: Stills and Video.
For Stills, the D5100 is a great camera, you will see the improvements from the D40x CCD sensor towards a better CMOS sensor (in relation to noise and resolution). All the lenses you have will be suitable for the new one, that is another point you may take into consideration. If you can, you can jump to the D7000, which gives some additional features you may love. (e.g. dual SD cards, use of old lenses,
For Video, I do not have a lot of experience, but from the specs, the D5100 is the best video DSLR from Nikon, but even this fact, the camera is still oriented towards taking photos and not video.
Maybe Panasonic (or Sony) cameras may be more suitable for you if you look for better video capabilities (like @TheCaz mentioned).
Edible Handshake said:
however much i feel i might need 60fps in the future, part of me hates the idea of moving to canon... such strange loyalty we have...
surely in the long run Nikon and canon have practically the same lens choices? only old Nikon don't auto-focus?what do you mean by video features? are we talking in camera editing? cause i can do that in Final Cut. Or do you mean like simulating a tilt-shift lens etc?
I was simply talking about video modes. The D7000 only has 24fps; the D5100 adds 30 fps; Canon adds 60fps @ 720; the Lumix GH2 has 60fps in AVCHD at both 1080 and 720 as does the Sony A55. It probably only matters if you know why you might need them, although 60 fps supposedly allows slow motion work.
But the bottom line is what's in your heart. I switched to the Panasonic because of its flexibility while traveling (I have a travel site -- -- to which adding video snippets might be kinda cool), but in my heart I really liked my Nikons. So if that's the case, get the Nikon you want and live with the results. When they do add 60 fps if you really need it, which will certainly come with the D800 and the next round of mid and low level upgrades, then you can always sell what you have for about 50% of its original price and get the newest model.
Never underestimate the power of eBay. Part of the reason I switched to the GH2 was because I knew I could sell it largely for what I bought it because it's in very short supply right now. So it's very easy to switch back, which I'm going to do. Hope this helps.
thank you, you've all been very helpful
seeing as my heart is in the Nikon, i think i might give the D5100 a go
particularly when stop-motion animation only requires the live feed to make my life easier.
and then with actual film work this would be an experiment in itself (moving away from mini DV)
regardless i will definitely be giving the Panasonic and Sony a look at
Thank you all
Just to add to the already great points mentioned; The Canon offerings do have more video options if you really need them, but you can't beat Nikon's video quality and especially still photography quality, which Canon just can't match. If you don't need 60fps, stick with Nikon!
The Canon 60D doesn't get a lot of love, even from canon users. I actually got to use one for a while (I didn't use video though) and I have to admit I really liked it. It's the most Nikon-like canon DSLR that I've used. The plastic body feels solid like a Nikon and is nothing like a Rebel. The ergonomics are very Nikon-like too with button placements making more sense to me then with other Canons.
The decision is a bit tricky because you have a number of decision points. You're also excluding both Sony and Panasonic, both of which are better than Nikon or Canon for video.
I'm in a similar boat in terms of upgrading from the D40, and am considering the D7000 or D5100, which is essentially a choice between the lighter weight, articulated screen, and lower cost of the D5100 versus the flexibility, better viewfinder, and better AF of the D7000.
In general, if still photography is your most important reason for getting the camera, and you're going to pull focus when using video, then Nikon or Canon work well. The decision point there would be whether you need 60 fps. That one is actually fairly easy.
The complication comes if still photography is of lesser importance than video, especially if you'd like the ability to switch seamlessly between stills and video or want autofocus that really works. If that's the case, then I'd look at the Sony A55 and Panasonic GH2. Both have huge electronic viewfinders that work for both stills and video. While they're both fairly good taking basic still shots, however, they're not as good as Nikon or Canon when using flash or in low light, and don't have the wide range of available lenses either.
in a word yes, a worthy upgrade, IF and ONLY IF you have the following:
1. Lots of Nikon lenses. . .
Otherwise, Canon does have solid Video-offerings.
However, one huge plus for the D7k and D5.1k are the AF. . .constant AF is a huge plus, something no Canon offers in their video based DSLRs.
Could also check out the Panasonic G3. . .if you don't have a huge lens commitment. .
You must log in to post.
