I think I'll get a new camera soon P7100 VS D50

<p>I think I'll get a new camera soon to replace my old broken one....So this is what I got in mind...<br>

Nikon Coolpix P7100 and Nikon D50<br>

because I can find them and test them nearby here.<br>

I don't have much knowledge in photography in.... other word I'm still a beginner so I'm ok with any genre.<br>

Curently I have Olympus SZ-15 with me this will be my secondary camera in my bag.<br>

anyone got experience with these two? or any suggestion?<br>

Thank you for reply!</p>

Between the two, get the P7100. It's 7 years

younger than the D50, which in sensor and

processor evolution is several generations.

 

The P7100 is also better designed IMHO.

<p>I suspect that the CP7100 isn't so different from your SZ-15, but it depends somewhat on why you want one.</p>

<p>You don't say which lens you have with the D50, but if you are up to asking here, I suspect that the DSLR is a better choice. Later, you can upgrade to a newer model camera, and still use the lenses you have bought for the D50. (For DX camera models, anyway.) </p>

<p>A D200 or D300 might be a better choice. It will cost a little more, but also longer before you outgrow it. </p>

<p>I owned a D50, and currently own the P7700 which followed the P7100. The P7100 would yield more resolution at 10MP, than would the D50 at 6MP. Its optics are very good. The D50's much larger sensor would give you slightly better dynamic range. It would also be a somewhat faster performer. The P7100 would be lighter, smaller and has a quieter shutter. Both are very nice cameras at an affordable price. Can you try both out? Once you put them through their paces, one will probably surpass the other for you.</p>

<p>Do the choices have to be between these two cameras?</p>

<p>As far as I know, the D50 is only compatible with the original SD memory cards, not even SDHC (4G to 32G), let alone SDXC (64G and above). Today, it'll be pretty difficult to find SD cards that are limited to 2G. In any case, there are far better DSLRs than the D50 still at very reasonable prices in the used market today. I see few reasons to consider the D50.</p>

<p>Thank you for every reply! that's help me a lot.<br>

Both of them are below 50$ so I can afford it.<br>

Why I considered between these 2 cameras because<br>

D50 :<br>

- I got some Nikon lenses (kit 18-55 / 55-300 /35 1.8 DX /Sigma 150mm macro non OS) some are got fungus and worn out but not really affect the picture quality so I can still use them but may need to fix them in future.<br>

- and yes I got some old SD cards with my sony recorder so I can still able to use it too.<br>

- Battery is old and seller told me to buy a replacement so I need to save some for battery.<br>

- it gots 1/500 sync speed I think that might be useful if I don't need that much high HSS system and save more money.<br>

P7100:<br>

- I can save money for something else I don't need to buy new lenses so I can buy triggers and flash or other accessories for my project. ( I think 28-200mm F2.8-4 is not bad)<br>

- I have some EN-EL14 batteries from D5200 so I don't have to worry about battery life.<br>

- better function with flash sync like commander mode.</p>

<p>I usually shoot stock photos for manipulation and some graduation portraits both are nice I still try to figure out which one would suit me more.<br>

Thank you for suggestion! or if there are any choice that's better feel free to suggest your ideas.</p>

WRT synch speed - doesn't the P7100 have a leaf

shutter? In which case it should synch right up to

its maximum speed of 1/4000th s.

<p>I don't know the P7100, but I was very surprised when its (tiny) sensor was recommended as better than that of the D50, a camera which in the past has provided me with reasonably good results up to ISO 1600, so I set up the comparison on DXOMark. You can look at it <a href="https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Nikon-Coolpix-P7100-versus-Nikon-D50___733_195"><strong>here</strong></a>.</p>

<p>However, with the new information that your broken camera was a D5200, I wonder whether you will be happy with either of the two choices you have.</p>

<blockquote>I think 28-200mm F2.8-4 is not bad</blockquote>

 

<p>Well yes (actually it's f/2.8-5.6), but bear in mind that in terms of depth of field control and light gathering it's a 6-42.6mm f/2.8-4, or "equivalent" to a 28-200mm f/13-f/26 in full frame terms (a 19-133mm f/9-f/18 on your D5200). It'll be convenient, but don't mistake it for a DSLR, even with a cheap kit lens.</p>

 

<blockquote>However, with the new information that your broken camera was a D5200, I wonder whether you will be happy with either of the two choices you have.</blockquote>

 

<p>Agreed: you're giving up a lot between the D5200 and D50, and a (different) lot with the P7100. The P7100 gives you some portability in return, but it depends whether that matters to you. That range of Nikon lenses (and especially the Sigma macro) should get you money for a better compact camera than the P7100 if you have to trade them in because you have no DSLR (maybe even a Sony RX100?) but given that you already have that selection of glass, I'd vote for saving up for another D5200 (or at least D3200).</p>

<p>D50 is 6MP. I had one, it was great in its day, but that was 10 years ago. Do you get paid for this work? You ought to have more recent tools than that.<br /><br />Also, that old, the camera is just WAITING to fail on you for good, imho.</p>

<p>Is it really P7100, not D7100 you are considering? With P7100 you can't use your old optics.</p>

In depth of field and diffraction terms it may well be

equivalent to f/13 ~ 26 on full-frame Andrew, but the relative aperture is still f/2.8 ~ 5.6, and that's what its light gathering ability is.

 

Remember; that reduced lens area throws an image over an equally reduced sensor area. With a resulting illumination equal to any other focal-length lens with the same aperture number.

 

Nobody is looking at point subject brightnesses. And even if they were, I'm not sure the theoretical physical aperture hypothesis actually holds up in the real world. Otherwise star trails would need a lot more exposure on DX than full-frame, and they don't.

<p>"I think I'll get a new camera soon to replace my old" , congratulations.<br>

</p>

<blockquote>In depth of field and diffraction terms it may well be equivalent to f/13 ~ 26 on full-frame Andrew, but the relative aperture is still f/2.8 ~ 5.6, and that's what its light gathering ability is.</blockquote>

 

<p>Well, as you say RJ, the f-stop describes the light gathering per unit area - so the amount of light contributing to the image is still reduced by that much. I know I keep causing confusion by mentioning this, but the noise you get from the small sensor is similar to bumping up the ISO on a larger sensor to compensate for the reduced amount of light. It's not quite that simple because of the different types of noise, but it does mean that a P7100, with a sensor about 3.1x smaller in each dimension than the DX sensor, is going to capture about 1/10th of the light over the sensor area. That's about 3.3 stops, so you might expect similar noise from a P7100 at ISO800 as a DX sensor camera would give you at (just under) ISO 8000. It works, but you can expect it to be noisy.</p>

 

<blockquote>Nobody is looking at point subject brightnesses. And even if they were, I'm not sure the theoretical physical aperture hypothesis actually holds up in the real world. Otherwise star trails would need a lot more exposure on DX than full-frame, and they don't.</blockquote>

 

<p>I wasn't thinking in terms of that either (I was just trying to point out that a "fast f/2.8-5.6 28-200mm-equivalent lens" on a compact camera can't control the apeture or capture the light that an actual f/2.8-5.6 28-200mm lens would on a DSLR - which isn't surprising because it's comparatively tiny. But it's worth considering if you think you're getting the same thing when you compare a compact with a DSLR based on their nominal lens "equivalence".<br />

<br />

Remember my argument that a DX camera is effectively running at a higher-than-labelled ISO compared with an FX one? Well, it's not, because ISO measures response to light per unit area - but if you blow up the resulting images to the same size then the cameras behave like the DX body is running at a stop(ish) faster from a noise perspective. I think that's cancelling out any effect of the required aperture for star trails if you're using the same relative aperture on an "equivalently" shorter lens.</p>