Upgrade d60?

I enjoy using my Nikon D60 for macro (using sigma 105mm 2.8) and wildlife (Nikon 55-200mm) and having been really pleased with the results. But I am considering upgrading the camera body for the following reasons: ability to shoot at higher ISO without compromising on image quality, having live view and an articulated screen to make it easier to shoot macro in awkward positions, ability to shoot video, higher resolution for cropping, quicker focus speed for birds, quicker access to controls without diving into menus, and ultimately better image quality (though I'm unsure of how much an upgrade would help this compared to a new lens). So Im between the D5500 and D7100 (both used), I like the quick controls of the 7100 and from what I've read it seems recommended, but I really like the articulated screen of the D5500 and it is much lighter (though if I have a heavy macro lens on this doesn't seem super relevant).

 

Any advice on which may be more appropriate (even if I should consider an old used full frame like a D600), or whether an upgrade would not improve image quality much and I should instead invest in a lens such as sigma 100-400 which would be great for birds.

Thanks for any help :)

Had the D 60 plus the standard 2 lens kit , and used it for quite a few years - the photos stand up well even against Nikon FF. I first went FF because I had a lot of old Nikon lenses I wanted to use. Generally, results were great, but the best I got for wildlife were after I added a D 7200 - D 7100 much the same I understand. As to the articulated screen, I have it on one camera, got it because I do a lot of macro / bug work. Not only do I rarely use it, my feeling is that it makes the camera a bit more vulnerable to possible breakage, and slows acquisition of the camera out of the bag. All of us differ in our requirements, You will have a great deal of fun with your upgrade!

The D5500 is a real improvement over your current D60, but the D7100 is a bigger improvement, in handling and, especially, in autofocus performance, which uses a later and better design. Like Sandy, I rarely use the flip up mirror on my only camera that has it (a D750).

 

As to your thoughts of upgrading to a D600: for wildlife, you are better off with good DX body. As to whether to upgrade the body or the lens, the usual advice is the lens, but I don't believe the D60 (or the D5500 for that matter) can cope with the Sigma 100-400 maximum f/6.3 aperture at 400mm. I would first upgrade the body and then the lens, when you can.

Aside from the updated AF and various other improvements, the D7100 and 7200 are nice for DX macro and the like, when you need manual focus, in part because they have a much better viewfinder image than the lower models. It's still not up to something like an old F (but what is?), but I've found it a great improvement over the D3200, whose small and less bright image really required an eyepiece magnifier to be useful in manual focus. Whether this is more important than having an articulated live view screen is, of course, a question only you can answer, but I much prefer the viewfinder view.

 

If you have a liking for older lenses, the D7x00 family has a distinct advantage in being able to AF with screw-drive AF lenses, and the D7100 and 7200 will meter with manual lenses.

The D5500 is a real improvement over your current D60, but the D7100 is a bigger improvement, in handling and, especially, in autofocus performance, which uses a later and better design. Like Sandy, I rarely use the flip up mirror on my only camera that has it (a D750).

 

As to your thoughts of upgrading to a D600: for wildlife, you are better off with good DX body. As to whether to upgrade the body or the lens, the usual advice is the lens, but I don't believe the D60 (or the D5500 for that matter) can cope with the Sigma 100-400 maximum f/6.3 aperture at 400mm. I would first upgrade the body and then the lens, when you can.

 

I do find the autofocus on the D60 quite annoying! Yeah I agree, the DX crop would be useful paired to a full lens for the extra reach.

I would not recommend the 5500 simply because of the sigma 105 macro you use. I would not trust the strength of the mount. I have both the 105 and the 7000 and the combinations with the heavier lens are ok.

One drawback of the D7100 is the shallow memory buffer that fills up way too early when shooting a burst (around 6 shots) - the D7200 is a big improvement in that aspect. If the articulating screen is a must, then the D7500 would be the way to go - despite some of its shortcomings compared to the D7200. The ultimate DX body would be the D500 (if the budget permits - the difference to a D7200 or D7500 might be better spent on a lens like the Sigma 100-400).

In addition to the improvements in autofocus and the other features, would the image quality in terms of sharpness and noise be much improved from the D60?

One drawback of the D7100 is the shallow memory buffer that fills up way too early when shooting a burst (around 6 shots) - the D7200 is a big improvement in that aspect. If the articulating screen is a must, then the D7500 would be the way to go - despite some of its shortcomings compared to the D7200. The ultimate DX body would be the D500 (if the budget permits - the difference to a D7200 or D7500 might be better spent on a lens like the Sigma 100-400).

I could go for the D7200 as it is only £90 more second hand, though I don't know if its worth it? The 25,600 ISO would be nice compared to the D7100 ISO of 6,400 (but it would probably not be great to go that high anyway?!) as well as the buffer.

The 7500 would be really awesome, but I'd rather get the 100-400 or similar lens for birds. Also I can compromise on the screen, it would be nice to have, for instance when laying face down in grass to shoot a mushroom or an insect, but I suppose that is part of the fun!

I could go for the D7200 as it is only £90 more second hand, though I don't know if its worth it?

I owned both the D7100 and the D7200 and bought the former only because I thought I could live with the shallow buffer - wrong assumption as it turned out. I cannot imagine shooting birds and not run into the buffer issue with the D7100 constantly. With a fast memory card the D7100 slows down to about 1-2 frames per second when the buffer has filled - unlike older Nikon models that froze up entirely once the memory buffer filled.

 

IIRC, then there's a thread here on PN that compares ISO performance of the D7100 to the D7200 - there's a clear advantage for the latter (though I doubt ISO 25600 will produce anything even remotely usable).

 

Given the choice, £90 is a small price to pay for getting a camera that is better than the D7100 in every aspect.

 

I also owned the D60 at some point - but never used it for anything that demanded speed. Same sensor as the D200 (slower readout though) - and with sensor cleaning to boot.

Hi James, wildlife photography is demanding on the equipment. In your case there are many ways to upgrade both your camera body and lenses. IMO 200mm is not nearly long enough to capture a lot of wildlife, especially birds.

 

It all boils down to:

• What kind of results you would like to achieve.
  
• What your budget is.
  

Once we have an idea about your budget, this forum has a lot of creative ways to help you empty your wallet. :D

You can easily spend 1000 Pounds to 20,000 Pounds and even more on new equipment for wildlife photography.

 

I still own both the D7100 and D7200, along with a D500. The D7100's shallow RAW buffer is well known, but I managed to live with it for 2, 3 years. You need to be careful not to blow your buffer on bad shots, and sometimes it can be frustrating. If you use 95MB/sec UHS-1 SD cards, you should be able to sustain 3 fps. Using 12-bit instead of 14-bit RAW also helps a bit.

 

If you can go straight to the D7200, definitely get the D7200 instead of D7100. But I think in your case, as in many cases, I would put the priority on getting a better and longer lens.

Another vote for the D7200. It's my only DX DSLR and I've yet to find any subject it can't tackle, or any lens worth using that it doesn't work with.

 

Yes, an articulated screen would have been a nice improvement, but Nikon obviously thought it would make a far too useful combination, and crippled the D7500 in other critical ways - well done Nikon designers, you numpties!

 

I digress. You can always add a right-angle finder to the eyepiece. 3rd party ones are available quite cheaply.

Hi James, wildlife photography is demanding on the equipment. In your case there are many ways to upgrade both your camera body and lenses. IMO 200mm is not nearly long enough to capture a lot of wildlife, especially birds.

 

It all boils down to:

• What kind of results you would like to achieve.
  
• What your budget is.
  

Once we have an idea about your budget, this forum has a lot of creative ways to help you empty your wallet. :D

You can easily spend 1000 Pounds to 20,000 Pounds and even more on new equipment for wildlife photography.

 

I still own both the D7100 and D7200, along with a D500. The D7100's shallow RAW buffer is well known, but I managed to live with it for 2, 3 years. You need to be careful not to blow your buffer on bad shots, and sometimes it can be frustrating. If you use 95MB/sec UHS-1 SD cards, you should be able to sustain 3 fps. Using 12-bit instead of 14-bit RAW also helps a bit.

 

If you can go straight to the D7200, definitely get the D7200 instead of D7100. But I think in your case, as in many cases, I would put the priority on getting a better and longer lens.

Yep I definitely think 200 is too small though I do love the VR it has. I'm looking at a range of lenses that go to 400/500mm, which would be over 600mm with a DX crop. Are there any telephoto lens that you recommend for a very tight budget (I can get a used sigma 100-400mm for around £500)? I've seen reasonable old sigma 150-500mm 5-6.3 for a few hundred pounds too.

 

In terms of what I want to achieve, I am a Biology student and I love wildlife so I've found that this seems a great hobby to find interesting animals (and plants) and photograph them. I am pleased with some of the photos of insects and fungi with the macro lens, and I've just started looking into birds more. I want to upgrade to get better image quality in lower light and greater sharpness, as well as other helpful features. I'd love to get a long telephoto lens at some point in the near future too. I may end up doing something in the field when I'm older so although I have no hopes/intentions of being a pro and this is just a hobby at the moment, I do want the photos to be as good as they can be! :)

Edited December 30, 2018 by jameshawke

Buffer - may be important, or not depending on shooting style. I do birds and bugs quite a lot, and shoot single frames as quickly as I care to. The very few times I have used bursts it has never proven to be an issue with the D 7200.

Budget lenses - my current favorite on the D 7200 is an old AF Nikkor 75-300 4.5 5.6 Macro. Can be had very inexpensively, in excellent condition - a brilliant performer that spends a great deal of time on the D 7200 where the top end comes out at 450. This just a bit ago - a fair crop, a gray and rainy day.

Since the D60 is a dated, entry-level body, there are plenty of ways to upgrade it to something like a D7200. However, I think getting a longer lens that reaches 400 or 500mm would benefit you more at this point.

I want to upgrade to get better image quality in lower light and greater sharpness, as well as other helpful features. I'd love to get a long telephoto lens at some point in the near future too.

 

- Long lenses bring their own challenges. Not least striking lucky with 'seeing' conditions such that the amount of air between camera and subject is clear enough to allow lens quality to make a difference.

 

IMHO, you're better off investing time improving your stalking, baiting or camouflage skills to get closer to the subject in the first place. As well as getting to know the habits of your 'quarry'. As a biologist those should be useful skills to acquire anyway.

 

Personally, I've had good results from a Tamron SP VC 70-300mm Zoom. I don't think the optical quality could be improved on without adding a zero to its price-tag (at the right-hand end).

 

Or if you're happy with manual focus, Mamiya's old 300mm f/5.6 Sekor lens for the M645 system can be picked up very cheaply. This sleeper of a lens puts most other 300mm lenses to shame. It needs an adapter of course, and only has an f/5.6 aperture, but it's fully useable wide open and no heavier or bulky than a lens purpose-made for smaller formats.

Edited December 30, 2018 by rodeo_joe|1

I have the D7100 and D7200 and imho the D7200 is the better camera and they are relatively inexpensive. I bought the D7200 last January for $599.00 and it was a refurbished camera that looked new and the shutter count was 14. My D7100 is also a a refurbished camera and I think I paid $699.00 for it and it too is awesome but the improvements incorporated into the D7200 make it the better camera.

I started with a D5100 and then I purchased a used Tamron 150-600. The pair work fine, with the Tammy having just sufficient IQ to match the 16 mp of the D5100. Fast forward a few years and I upgraded to the 24 mp D7100. I loved (and still love) the controls, performance, and handling of the D7100, but wouldn't you know that the new, higher res sensor showed up every flaw in that Tamron lens, even after a trip to the mfr for service? It only got worse with the recent D810. So, now the Tammy is relegated to backup use only on lesser bodies and as a loaner. My Nikkor 200-500 VR should show up in a few days, and I'm very much looking forward to testing it out. After in-store shooting comparisons and much online research, I'm convinced the Nikkor 200-500 is slightly less sharp than its closest competition, the Sigma 150-600 Sport, but the incredible weight and bulk of the Sigma, along with its higher price, was too much of a trade off, and I'm anxious to try the new Nikkor. (BTW, I found the Nikkor 200-500 in excellent used condition for right at US $1,000 just after Christmas.) If you can get a D7200 for only slightly more than a D7100, then I would go that direction. I would avoid the D7500 because it gives up backwards compatibility with older, manual focus, and non-chipped lenses. For wildlife I'd give a +1 to the D500, if you can find one in your price range. Whatever you do, remember that the very high-resolution and -performing sensors in the newer (than your D60) bodies will show up ever tiny flaw in lesser lenses, making the upgrade both frustrating and pointless. My 16 mp D5100 still serves admirably in the backup or at-risk role, and is far more forgiving of lesser lenses than either of the 24 mp or 36 mp bodies. LIke Sandy, I thought I would find more use for the articulated screen, but it mostly just stays in place, and is hard to see in full sunlight anyway.