Entertaining Upgrading My D100

This body has been an absolute workhorse and has been

great to use. However with some of the shots I've been

wanting to do and have been I've come to a limitation of the

hardware. Resolution. Especially with astrophotography this

limitation shows.

 

Now I have no desire to get a bleeding edge body. Just

something at least as good as my D100 with a more suitable

sensor. I'm wondering if anyone can give some suggestions

for such a body. Ideally Im interested in something any $300.

Used is fine. But I am open to other suggestions as well.

 

Thanks in advance.

D300 is an easy choice, should be somewhat familiar going from your D100. It is tough and good. Should also be

available around that price point on used market.

<p>Even though it is now an 'old' camera, a D300 should be a joy for you. I've sold most of my Nikon equipment - gone to Fuji X - but have kept a D300. Compared with the D100, you would be entering another world.</p>

<p>There are many more 'modern' Nikons, but the feel of the D300, combined with very decent performance, gives me pleasure.</p>

The D300 is a lovely body handling-wise, but it's

somewhat behind other budget options in sensor

technology. Question for you, Paul: for astrophotography

are you looking to take short exposures at high ISO, or

longer exposures (such as with a tracking mount)? If the

latter, one of the post-D7000 generation bodies and their

dynamic range behavior may be of interest.

 

It depends what level of handling you can live with in the

D300/D7000/D5x00/D3x00 continuum. If one dial isn't

too intrusive, something like a D5200 might be good,

especially since you might want the tilt screen for

locking infinity focus on stars (but you might also want

lossless raw compression).

 

While it would likely blow your budget, the other option

for high ISO night sky shooting is something like a D700,

if you have full-frame lenses, just because the sensor

gathers more light. All else equal I'd tell you to get a

D7100 - but if you find one for $300 there's probably

something wrong with it!

 

There's nothing fundamentally wrong with a D300, but it's essentially a mini-D3 sports and photojournalism camera. I'm not sure you've said that speed and autofocus ability (the D300's strengths, especially for the time) are your priority.

 

After you do this, you might want to get your D100 IR-

converted, which would give you more interesting night

sky options. :-)

 

Good luck - hope that's a start.

<p>D7000 is in that range. Far better choice than D300 imho.</p>

<p>When your starting point is an ancient D100 (introduced back in 2002, and I still own one today), it is very easy to find a used DSLR to top it.</p>

<p>The D7000 maybe a better choice due to the newer battery type (EN-EL15) and (dual) SD card slots. The EN-EL3/EN-EL3e is deemed unsafe in Japan due to its exposed contacts, and CF memory cards are being phased out. However, the D7000 is smaller, which one may or may not prefer.</p>

<p>D300 or D300 S<br>

Layout of the controls are very close to the D100 and it will use the same CF cards and batteries. But then I still use them alongside my D4 so I guess I have a soft spot for them</p>

<p>Michael, the D100 originally came with the EN-EL3 battery, but the D300/D300S require the newer EN-EL3e, which can also be used on the D100. However, if the OP has the original EN-EL3, they cannot be used on the D300. Similarly, while the CF card's physical format hasn't changed much, I still own some 256M CF card I bought way back in 2002 with my D100. A few years ago, I inserted that card onto my D800E. It worked, but after formatting, it showed the capacity of a grand total of 3 images, and image write time is crazily slow.</p>

<p>Not sure the OP has newer batteries and cards for his D100, but some upgrade maybe necessary anyway. Today, I would rather use the EN-EL15 battery and SD cards (or better yet, XQD cards). Most computers have an SD slot and it is much easier to upload your images.</p>

I'd bite the bullet and go for the D500. You'll have approximately 2x the linear (height and width) resolution and much

better signal to noise ratio. You might also appreciate the tilting preview screen.

<p>SHun<br>

I Have not had any problem using batteries from the D100 in my D200 or D300.</p>

 

<p>Michael, please take a look at this thread: http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00XrlN</p>

<p>In any case, it is probably a moot point anyway. Any Li-ion battery over 4, 5 years old is kind of suspect. One might as well get new batteries. That is another reason I would rather not get something that requires the EN-EL3(e), which has been banned on new products in Japan since November, 2011. In the longer run, battery supply can be an issue.</p>

<p>I'll go against the grain here. After all, I'm a practical Midwesterner. For what you want to do, the sensor is the whole thing. Buy the best sensor for the least amount of cash you can. I just bought a small camera to use as back up, and when I didn't want to carry the heavy D800E. I bought a used D3300 from ebay. Yes, entry level camera. However, I only paid $250 for it! It has a 24mp sensor where the D300 has half that. It does ISO 2000 very cleanly, where the D300 begins to get noisy at ISO 800. It's very lightweight, so it works well on Astrotrackers etc. It has live view for focus, where the D300 does not. I do shoot some astro myself. I honestly believe that this is the best option for what you want to do. D3300 has more resolution, no anti-alias filter, shoots higher ISO. You won't find anything even close to its performance for anywhere near $300.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

<p>Well, if we start talking about anything in the D3000 and D5000 series, plus D40 and D60, we need to consider what lenses the OP has. Potentially there may be no metering or no AF. Only the OP can decide whether those are issues or not.</p>

<p>With a limited budget, there are trade offs between older electronics with more capabilities or newer electronics in the consumer grade.</p>

<blockquote>

 

 

<p>With a limited budget, there are trade offs between older electronics with more capabilities or newer electronics in the consumer grade.</p>

 

 

</blockquote>

 

 

 

 

For astrophotography, the newer consumer grade cameras have considerably more capability.

 

 

Kent in SD

 

Hello everyone. I appreciate all the responses!

 

As far as my equipment is like to be be able reuse goes I just

need my glass. Honestly couldn't care less about my

batteries, CF cards, or other bits. Both of my lenses are AF

(Nikkor 1.8f 50mm, then a nikkor vr 18-55mm lens.)

 

Of those mentioned the D300, D7000, and D3300 all seem

appealing. Photography is a hobby of mine, not something I

make money with. Not very good as evident with my gallery

but I still enjoy it.

 

The D500 suggested, while hide looking is well outside my

realm of spending, however.

<p>I bought a used D200 a few years ago, as it had the features I wanted (such as AI follower) and the price was right. Both the D200 and D300 have come down, so I think the D300 is your choice.</p>

<p>If you can stretch some more, the D700 is usually below $800. That should last you some years.</p>

<p>The Canon 5D should be getting close to $300, too.</p>

<p>Paul, you have an interesting case. Almost any newer DSLR will be a big step up. I went to D200, D300, then D7200. Each is a big improvement over the previous. Follow any of the advice above. For $300, it's probably a D300, and you can use your Nikkor lenses.</p>

<p>Those in consideration are quite different cameras. The main difference between the D300 and D300S is that the later S version has dual CF and SD card slots (the D300 is CF only). The D7000 has a newer sensor but a slightly weaker AF system, and it has dual SD cards and uses the current EN-EL15 battery.</p>

<p>The D3300 is a consumer-grade camera but newer. It has only one command dial and its viewfinder is not as good. It uses a tiny battery such that if you do a lot of time exposure in astro photography, you may need to carry more batteries.</p>

<p>I hope Paul can learn a bit more details about the differences and make an informed decision. Good luck.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The D3300 is a consumer-grade camera but newer. It has only one command dial and its viewfinder is not as good. It uses a tiny battery such that if you do a lot of time exposure in astro photography, you may need to carry more batteries.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Batteries are about fifteen bucks on ebay. So far, I have not run into battery issues with this camera. I've been testing the D3300 I just bought from ebay for $250. Really, it's not a bad little camera. For shooting at night, it blows the doors off the D300 (which I also had in the past.) If shooting sports or anything else requiring really fast focus and fast write time, the D300 is the better choice. BUT, if all you want is 24mp resolution, high ISO, and something light/compact, the D3300 actually seems to be a noticeably better choice for "general" use, and especially for night use. Only having one dial wasn't a big deal for me. I simply use "S" mode when I want the wheel to control shutter, "A" mode when I want aperture control (most of the time,) and I assigned ISO changes to the Function (Fnc) button. Camera does what I need it to do. I was surprised the D3300 did not have a histogram, but so far this hasn't been a deal killer for me. For $250, I got a camera with one of Nikon's latest 24mp sensors. Helluva deal! Camera was purchased to serve as (1) back up on trips (2) light/compact on high altitude hikes (3) small body for my wife to take flower photos with (4) an inexpensive camera that I can use in places too risky for a more expensive one. I also like to shoot at night, and this camera can do it much better than my old D300 did.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

<p>Of the two lenses Paul mentioned, the 50/1.8 AF-D won't AF with the D3x00 and D5x00 series - seems to be moot to suggest them (the budget for the new camera suggest that upgrading lenses isn't a consideration).<br>

Within the budget are the D200 and D300, and just outside the D7000. A D300S costs quite a bit more still. Of the ones mentioned, the D7000 would probably be the best choice (most modern), unless handling, and ergonomics are not a good fit.</p>

<p>For astro, a D3300 plus a used Samyang 14mm f2.8 would be best bang for the dollar. Manual focus, but you do that anyway with astro photography using live view.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

<p>The best bargain out there right now is the D7100 (used) on the auction site. If you do get one by that route, be sure that the seller accepts returns and has a very, very high feedback rating. If you don't mind having only one control wheel, the D5200 is ridiculously cheap right now. All in all, though, the 7000 series is much to be preferred to the 5000 series, which in turn is to be preferred over the 3000 series. Unless you are doing sports or other action photography, you simply don't need the D500.</p>

<p>Go back and reread my first ten words. I really do mean what I say about the D7100.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p>If the limit is $300, the D7000 would be the best all purpose camera body. For night/astro shots, the D3300. Both of them used, from ebay etc.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I'd bite the bullet and go for the D500. </p>

</blockquote>

<p>why? not sure this would make sense even if the OP had the budget. unless you shoot a lot of action and also need 4k video, the d500 is simply overkill for something like astrophotography. a used or refurb d7000 would be a considerable upgrade from a d100.</p>