$1400 worth upgrade

<p> Good day! Im a DX shooter. Im using the cheapest Nikon D3000 paired with Nikkor 18-55mm f3.5-5.6, Nikkor 55-200mm f4-5.6 and Nikkor 50mm f1.8. I was able to produce I can say decent pictures out of these gear. I decided I had enough. I'm planning to upgrade. I have a $1400 to spare. Should i buy a used nikon d600 and upgrade to full frame or just stay on dx format and buy the latest and full - feature packed Nikon D7100 or just buy the faster Sigma or Tamron 17-50mm f2.8? Please help.</p>

<p>If all you are getting out of your present gear is "decent", you don't need to upgrade, you need to work on your photography skills. What is it exactly that you are trying to achieve, and specifically how do you believe your present gear is unable to accomplish that?</p>

<p>The D600 vs D7100 debate depends a lot on the kind of thing you like to shoot. Obviously the 18-55 and 55-200 are of no use to you if you do move to a D600, so you'd have to replace at least those lenses (if you wanted the same flexibility).<br />

<br />

What exactly are your problems with your current set-up? Sure, a D7100 or (with the right lenses) a D600 will give you higher resolution and some better dynamic range and low light performance, and either will give you faster handling and better autofocus, but are these where you're finding yourself limited? If considering the 17-50mm f/2.8 lenses, do you feel that you take most of your shots in the 18-200 range and that you'd benefit from a small quality increase combined with two stops of speed mostly at the end where you already have a 50mm lens that's more than a stop faster still? What kind of thing do you find yourself shooting?<br />

<br />

Any of your options are an upgrade, but which is best (and whether something completely different - tripod, flash set-up, fast primes, tilt-shift, macro, software... - is better) depends on how you use your system. Give us a bit more information and I'm sure we can try to suggest what you should look at.</p>

<p>D7100. Sell the D3000 and use the rest for a good lens. You might have enough for the 17-50 2.8. I understand your plight. I had a D5100 and although it took great photos, the menu system drove me crazy.</p>

<p> Thank you, thank you for your time and sharing your ideas. it keeps me pondering. I started shooting last January. Im also using a set of yongnuo 622 flash trigger and Yn 568 ex and manual nikon sb16 speedlite. i have a small studio set up on my room with pairs of white umbrella light stand, large sized reflector and diy seamless white backdrop. my wife is my only model. last week i cover my first free wedding shoot and put my gear into test and realize how slow in focusing my wide and telephoto lenses, i suddenly realize i need an upgrade. it will be a big favor on my part if you drop by and comment on some of my pictures on fickr.- my account name is "doypidz".</p>

<p>Ah - now it becomes more clear that you indeed will benefit from faster focusing and low light shooting - when doing wedding work. Personally I'd make the upgrade decision in a couple of steps, given you've been shooting for a relatively short time. First...the decision to go full frame or crop....you could probably do ok with a crop sensor unless you are producing either large prints or fine art prints...if your results are primarily small (8x10) or internet deliveries rather than albums, I would think crop should do fine for you. Full frame, of course can give you greater pixel density/size to work with. Once you've made that decision -now is the time to look at the lenses. My experience is principally with mid range and short telephoto, and the general comment here is that in these categories typically the wider the aperture, the better the lens construction due to higher demands on tolerance when wide open...these are also more expensive $$$. My wide experiences have typically been with high end primes which have a flatter and sharper edge-to-edge sharpness and contrast with less vignetting. Good luck in choosing carefully the gear as you move forward.</p>

<p>The D7100 has a better AF than the D600. But faster glass may help your focus issues as well. Regarding print size, I've gotten amazing 36x24 prints from a D7000. With the 30 something points I have on the D7000 I still usually just use the one in the center.</p>

<p>I guess I didn't do a good job of answering your question yet, just giving you things to think about. One other thing to think about... When I upgraded from a D50 to a D7000, the first thing I noticed were that the pictures were... the same. I love the better interface, the cls, the better af, lots of things about the D7000. An I even get frustrated sometimes when I try to use the D50 in low light. But the pictures look the same. They're my pictures, and they look like I took them. The pictures didn't get better until I did. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>last week i cover my first free wedding shoot and put my gear into test and realize how slow in focusing my wide and telephoto lenses, i suddenly realize i need an upgrade.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>the question is, will you be doing event photography regularly, or just occasionally?<br>

<br /> if it's just occasionally, no need to go all-out. a FF camera doesnt make any sense on that budget because all you'd have is the camera and the 50/1.8, so you'd actually be worse off than your present situation, in some regards. A d7100 should be much faster focusing than a d3000, so that's a meaningful upgrade. you will also need a 2.8 zoom. the 17-55 is outside your budget, so i'd look for a used sigma or tamron, which are better lenses anyway because they are much more compact. i use the 17-50/2.8 OS sigma on DX for events, photojournalism, and walkaround, and it's trusty and dependable. it focuses faster than the tamron as well. not sure what the used price is, but the new price has dropped $150-$200 since i got mine, so should be affordable.</p>

 

<p>I shoot weddings with the D7100--it is plenty good enough. Where you are REALLY hurting is lenses! For starters you need a 17-50mm f2.8 zoom of one brand or another. A 70-200mm f2.8 with image stabilization would be next. These are the only two lenses you should typically need, but I would NOT go with lenses any slower than f2.8. I would also suggest you add a used SB-900 flash, or an SB-910. There are times you need to shoot fast, and the Nikon iTTL gives you that plus some quick impromptu off camera capability. The D7100 has blazing fast focus, even in dim light.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

<p>Do it! Make the move to FX as soon as possible, before you invest in any more pricey DX glass! You seem to have a growing interest in photography, and so you'll likely build up a decent FX lens inventory in time. And, now, prospective Nikon buyers have far more affordable FX options than ever before. When anyone asks me which camera they should get, my knee-jerk reply is, "Get a D600, an AF-S 28mm f/1.8G, and an AF-S 85mm f/1.8G." Never has this much "stuff" been available in this price category.</p>

<p>I just say this from my own experience--I didn't realize this until late into my DX buying phase. When I bought my first ultra-wide DX zoom, I later realized that $600 would've been better spent toward the purchase of (at the time), a used D700 instead (I now shoot with dual D3s bodies, and a D800E). Especially images of people, when shot with my FX bodies, just look "smoother," than any of those shot with my DX bodies--a subtle quality that's difficult to quantify, but noticeable nonetheless.</p>

<p>As the D5200 has the same AF module as the D7000 he could save a lot of $$$s in <strong>not</strong> getting a D7100 that would otherwise eat pretty much <strong>ALL</strong> the budget!!</p>

<p>$1400 minus a D7100 body won't get far in the really weak area.....GLASS! As the OP has all AFS lenses, he'll not need the screw-drive. OK, no AF fine-tune and metering with much older glass.</p>

<p>The flexi-screen is invaluable for over-head or low angle creativity.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I have used a D5100 as backup camera at weddings, and it did work. The autofocus is not as strong as what's in the D7100, but most of the "action" at a wedding is pretty slow. With fast lenses AFS it can keep up. I do agree that lenses are the BIG weak spot here, and that's where money should go. As I said before, a 17-50mm f2.8 type lens and a 70-200mm f2.8 lens of one brand or another is reallly all you need for a wedding. It's the lenses that are the important thing. I have considered getting a D800 to shoot weddings, but in the end I know that NONE of my customers will ever see any difference in the shots. NONE will pay me more $$ because of the camera I use. The D7100 (D5200 has the same sensor) gives me about the same image quality that I was getting from my Bronica 645 medium format camera, a camera that was popular for pro wedding work. The classic beginner's mistake is to put too much money into a camera and then have to go cheap on the important thing--lenses.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

<p>My D5100's AF isn't great in dim light with moving subjects. I assume the D5<strong>2</strong>00's ex-D7000 AF module helps a-lot here.</p>

<p>No Commander mode in the D5200 either and only one memory slot...maybe important for wedding 'security'?</p>

<p>Secondhand the D5200 in the UK is ~£380, the D7100 is about double that @~£760. </p>

<p>When I wanted to upgrade my D90 I couldn't justify the additional cost of selling my 3 DX lenses at a loss and replacing the with more expensive full-frame equivalents. I bought the D7100 not long after it came out and I have no regrets, its a fabulous camera. But if you are going to looks at replacing lenses as well and budget is tight could the D7000 be option - I have no idea of the price difference in the US though between D7000 and D7100.</p>

<p>another option is foregoing the d7100 and getting a used d7000. that's still a significant leap from the d3000, and leaves more budget for good glass. you dont get the multicam 3500 AF module, but you still get better AF, better hi-ISO, and improved metering, plus 2 command dials, etc., over a d3000.</p>

<p>the real question, though are what are the OP's actual needs? is the OP trying to do paid work? become a pro wedding photographer? or just have a better set-up for occasional event/low-light shooting?</p>

<p>in any event, $1400 wont get you very far. new 2.8 telephoto zooms start at about $1000. new FX 2.8 24-70 zooms start at about $1300. a used d600 will eat up practically all of the budget. there is no way the OP can get another body, a 2.8 standard zoom, AND a 2.8 telephoto zoom for $1400.</p>

<p>so something's got to give, and here's where the tough choices must be made. FX or DX? d7000 or d7100? in moving forward, you need an upgrade strategy. realistically, you can't upgrade your entire kit in one shot on that budget. and, if you plan on doing events regularly, i would highly recommend a more advanced body which doesnt require you to go into menus for basic adjustments and/or has two card slots, which is a plus if you plan on shooting paid weddings.</p>

<p>Or a refurbished D7000. It is a nice camera.</p>