Have a Nikon D40 with 55-200mm VR, 18-55mm lens. My question is should I spend the money for a new lens or a new D5100.
new camera or new lens
(17 posts) (13 voices)-
Posted 1 year ago #
-
that depends what you are shooting. a lot of people are able to capture everything they need with those two basic lenses but for low light, fast action, etc you may be wanting more. if you are happy with the lenses the new technology of the d5100 may be good. most people will automatically say lenses but the d40 is becoming very outdated.
Posted 1 year ago # -
the d5100 is definitely a better camera, however, if you don't shoot video and not lusting for more MP the d40 is a decent camera. I have been learning through d90 and currently using d700 then got to try my brother's d40. Other than the limited control compare to the more expensive models, I found the d40 is an awesome little camera.
I think the new lense gonna give you better pictures compare to the d5100 with the same lenses you currently have.
Posted 1 year ago # -
It's hard to make a good recommendation based on the information you've given us. Without knowing what you do with your camera, how much money you are planning on spending or how experienced you are we can only really give you generic advice. Personally, I would look at what you find to most limiting about your equipment.
Posted 1 year ago # -
jerl said:
It's hard to make a good recommendation based on the information you've given us. Without knowing what you do with your camera, how much money you are planning on spending or how experienced you are we can only really give you generic advice. Personally, I would look at what you find to most limiting about your equipment.yup .. more info please..
Posted 1 year ago # -
More information: the 18-55 lens is not VR which is hard to shoot without good light, the 55-200 lens is nice but again needs good light. Shoot everything from people and bugs to sports and wildlife. Was looking at the 70-300mm to the 105mm f2.8 macro. Don't get me wrong I love the d40 but was wondering if I could get more sharpness with a newer camera.
Posted 1 year ago # -
I don't know what your budget is, but if d5100 is any indication you probably better off with a better lens or 2. A new camera not gonna turn your pictures any sharper, but that 105 macro definitely will. It is one of the best macro lens around and a very good portrait lens too, albeit a bit slow at times. It is amazingly sharp that it may hurt :p
Posted 1 year ago # -
a camera can make your images sharper...at high iso the d40 will lose detail before the d5100 due to the newer sensor.
Posted 1 year ago # -
I think the D5100 has the same sensor as the D7000, this will allow you shoot at higher ISO values, which will allow higher shutter speeds, which, unless you allways use a tripod, will usually result in sharper pictures. You will also be able to stop down a bit which also will normally improve image quality
So if the problem is IQ in poor light, the D5100 might be your answer
Do check the auto focus of your lenses are compatible with the D5100Posted 1 year ago # -
Lenses are still up to date.
Camera is 6+ years old.
Get the Camera.
Posted 1 year ago # -
TaoTeJared is correct. Get a new camera body. Camera body technology changes faster than camera lens technology. With the D5100 you have an excellent sensor, plenty of auto features and full manual control if you need it. You probably won't notice the increased sharpness until you start looking at enlargements far larger than 8x10.
Posted 1 year ago # -
I would say both, but I will agree with TaoTeJared and say body. It seems like 2 model bodies is worth an upgrade and well you are beyond that change. I think you could also benefit from a lens or two as well. With some of the new inexpensive primes I think you could get a couple lenses for under $500 that would be a great addition.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Looking at your post, it seems your emphasis is on needing good light and/or high iso performance. Both options will help you here.
As others have mentioned, the d5100 is better than your d40, and you should definitely be able to get better performance at higher iso values. Usually going a few generations ahead (like you would if you went to a d5100) usually leads to substantial improvements there. You will probably also like some of the ergonomic performance and other little bits and pieces that have been upgraded.
New lenses can also help if you choose well. The 18-55 leads to a few upgrade choices, but I would not suggest the 18-55 VR model, which isn't enough of an upgrade to be worth spending money. Instead, I would look at the 16-85, 18-200, 17-55/2.8, or 35/1.8, leaning towards the 35/1.8 since it is the cheapest and the fastest. The 3rd part 17-50/2.8 zooms are possible alternatives, but I cannot vouch for them.
The replacement for you 55-200 would similarly have to be better than the 55-300, which isn't a big enough step forward to be worth it, in my opinion. I would suggest one of the 70-300, 80-200/2.8, 70-200/2.8 for zooms, with more recommendation on the first two for relative cheapness. The 70-300 you suggested won't do better than your 55-200 in low light, but it might be a little faster in autofocus. I am a little skeptical that it will give you enough benefit to be worth it.
An alternative is a fast prime if you don't need the full zoom range. Here, I would suggest the 85/1.8 and 105/2.8VR macro, which seem best in your price range. For longer reach and stretching your budget a bit more, you could choose the 180/2.8, 135/2 or the 85/1.4D.
In your case, I think you would gain the most benefit from getting a D5100, from a cost-to-benefit perspective.
Posted 1 year ago # -
You need to figure out what you need and want. If you would shoot everything stopped down, dont want to control depth of focus, then Tao Te may be right that you are better served to get a newer camera if all you want to do is go to higher ISO cleanly. But if yoare not sure what you want, I;d suggest you try a wide aperture lens or two on your current body as well as the new one to get a sense of what it allows you to do.
Posted 1 year ago # -
[cant delete my post... i wrote it before i thought... so its bad information]
in most cases, id say lense... but i think for you, i think body first. but know this, when you do, youre going to also want to upgrade your lense. just my two cents.
Posted 1 year ago # -
How long have you owned your D40? If you are the type of consumer that holds on to you camera body for a long period of time, then, if I were you, I would be leaning toward the new body. With that said, get the most your budget will allow. After that, I would invest in get a few nice prime lens (35mm or 50mm) to help with the low light.
Happy shopping :D
Posted 1 year ago # -
you should know the best,
if you got a nice camera, why do you need a new one ?get yourself the best lens that you can :)
good luck hope i could help :)
sue
-------------
superenalottoPosted 1 year ago #
Reply
You must log in to post.
