Best digital camera for b&w stills under $600

<p>Thanks in advance for your suggestions.<br>

My previous camera is a Minolta Maxxum 7000 from 1985. I've always developed the film and photographs myself. If I can get a digital camera that's notably better than that (I no longer have access to a dark room or the money to keep spending on the materials necessary for one.)<br />I'd prefer to not spend more than $600. If I can spend less than that, even better.<br>

I'll be making black and white images to be printed at gallery quality, so I suspect I'll always shoot in RAW, based on what I've read.<br>

I don't care about video.<br>

I'll primarily be shooting close and macro shots, but will also be doing some portraiture. I often use a tripod. High-speed shots aren't very important to me.<br>

I generally hate flashes. I use natural light and (occasionally) studio light.<br>

I'd appreciate lens recommendations as well, even if you're just recommending that I take a kit lens.<br>

Thanks!</p>

<p>What size prints are you looking to make? Will you be printing them yourself or have a service do this for you? Final print size may have an impact on the cameras available to you--especially if you are considering large prints, or images that may require significant cropping. Are you okay with used equipment? (<a href="http://www.keh.com">KEH</a> is a good reliable place to look for used equipment.) Are you also looking for a camera you can grow with--getting additional lenses as needed down the road?</p>

<p>If you go to B&H Photo and run a query on DSLR kits in your price range (<a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?ci=6222&N=4288586280&mnp=100&mxp=600">http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?ci=6222&N=4288586280&mnp=100&mxp=600</a>) you'll see what $600 and a bit less will get you in a new camera.</p>

<p>On the other hand, if you do not have to have a DLSR, there are a number of other options available as well.</p>

<p>Getting b&w photos from digital comparable to film and wet darkroom prints is primarily a factor of editing/processing the raw files. Be sure to budget for good raw editing software. Lightroom is excellent. But there are others for under $200 that are very good, and Adobe's cloud subscription service puts top notch editing tools within the reach of most budgets.</p>

<p>There may be minor differences in sensors and in-camera processing of raw files that can influence the results, but the most significant differences may be in the anti-aliasing and UV/IR filters on the sensors. Some monochrome digital photographers claim advantages to cameras without AA filters, or lighter AA filters. But there's an increased risk of moire, which may not be a problem unless you photograph subjects with repeating patterns - fabrics, fences or architectural details that may present interference patterns.</p>

<p>I still like my relatively ancient Nikon D2H for b&w, in part because of the relatively light AA filter and excessive sensitivity to near IR (which, conversely, makes the D2H a miserable choice for color photos under artificial light other than flash). But the 4 meagerpickle resolution limits me to prints around 8x10 to 11x14. And I'm not sure that I couldn't duplicate the results with a "better" camera, mostly because my editing skills have evolved and raw editing software is so much better now than when I first got that camera.</p>

<p>Back to your question and stated budget...<br>

For under $600 I personally would buy a good used or refurbished/reconditioned Nikon D90 with at least a limited warranty from B&H, Adorama or KEH. Those are selling for around $500, more or less. The D90 is compatible with my existing screwdriver autofocus AF Nikkors, and can be used with my existing manual focus AI/AIS Nikkors and third party lenses. I have incident and spot meters for use with my various meterless film cameras, so in-camera metering isn't a priority. But lens mount compatibility is a priority - I don't have the budget to buy new lenses.</p>

<p>However, right now there are incredible values in Micro 4:3 and APS sensor mirrorless cameras that can be used with a large variety of lenses by using adapters. So even if you buy, for example, a Sony NEX model, you're not locked into the Sony autofocus lenses. With the right adapter you have access to almost any remotely compatible manual focus lens. And the focus peaking assist ensures accurate focus. In comparison, my Nikon V1 is rather crude for use with manual focus lenses, and I have to rely on visual focus estimation, with no focus confirmation aids - no split image or microprism aids, no focus peaking, no green dot confirmation, nada, zippo. Fortunately the V1 has a very good EVF. Unfortunately the smallish CX (one-inch) sensor and 10mp resolution limits maximum print size, cropping and optimal quality to ISO 100-200.</p>

<p>Michael - not to burst your balloon, but in addition to the camera, you are probably going to want to get post processing software to at least get your photos in shape to send to the printer. While programs like GIMP are free, more sophisticated ones will run you a couple of hundred $. As far as cameras go, you will, I am sure, have lots of input on different makes and models. I would suggest, given your budget, a used camera and lens. I happen to use Nikon gear and can easily recommend a used D300 body which you should be able to get for under $400. Yes, it is at least a generation or two old, but should serve your purpose very well. As for lenses, something like a used Nikon macro lens in the 60mm (equivalent to the field of view of a 90mm lens on your film body) range should serve you nicely for both macros and portraiture. I'll also mention that there are lots of used micro 4/3 bodies out there which could use your present lenses if you so desired via relatively inexpensive adapters. Results, due to the smaller sensor, wouldn't match the cropped Nikon sensor, but depending on the size of your gallery quality prints, and the cropping you might do, could produce gallery quality output.</p>

<p>"Gallery quality" is relative only to the print quality, including archival materials, mounting, matting and framing, not to the camera or recording medium. Among my acquaintances who have displayed and sold gallery quality prints up to 16x20 include folks who use pinhole cameras with "poor resolution" (by conventional bourgeois standards, to paraphrase HCB); Holga, Diana and other "toy" cameras; cell phone cameras; large format cameras with top quality film, with the potential resolution "wasted" by use of soft focus lenses and printing on cyanotype, ambrotype or other crudely hand-coated emulsions. I'd much rather spend money on a print by Kevin Parent from his various pinhole cameras or one of Craig Barber's wet plate, tintype or ambrotype photos, than on a "conventionally sharp and correct" emulation of St. Ansel's tripod holes.</p>

<p>By such standards, gallery quality b&w prints could be made within Michael's $600 budget by spending less than $100 for any decent 10mp digicam, another $100 or so for Lightroom or comparable software, another $100 on backup equipment (a good 500GB to 1TB external hard drive, DVDs, etc.), and the rest on a good monitor and calibration equipment. And perhaps a bit on materials for proofing at home before sending the files for final output to a pro lab.</p>

<p>Wow, all of your posts are carefully thought out and helpful. Thanks for taking the time.<br>

Okay, I need to clarify a lot of things based on what you've been asking and suggesting:<br>

<br />1. I already have Lightroom, lots of hard drive space (including 2 external drives), lots of flash drives for moving files around, and two good monitors. I'm just looking for help with the camera + lenses. That's all good advice though.<br /><br />2. I don't imagine I'll plan to print larger than 16x20.<br>

3. I'll pay someone else to do the printing.<br>

4. I'm okay with used equipment so long as it's still in good shape.<br>

5. Yes, I want a camera I can grow with. I don't want to be limited to a built-in lens.<br>

6. Texture is central to me, so moire isn't something I particularly want to invite. It depends on how much we're talking about.<br /><br />7. I suspect I'll be happier in the viewfinder than looking at an LCD screen.<br>

8. Lex nearly described my point of view about gallery quality. I just want to be able to print at 11x14 and 16x20 without loss of quality.<br>

9. Despite not owning a digital camera, I'm a computer nerd who is fascinated with useful systems and will easily learn while hungrily studying my camera, when I get it.<br>

---<br>

Okay, on to other things. I have questions!<br>

Regarding Lex's post:<br>

1. Lex is talking specifically about Nikon. It seems to me that Canon and Nikon are fairly equal contenders these days, right? If so, is there a somewhat equivalent Canon camera (for price and feature comparison)?<br>

2. Can you explain why you would recommend the Nikon D90 for me?<br>

3. Do mirrorless (I'm lumping micro 4:3 and APS sensor mirrorless in here) cameras and DSLRs compare easily in price? I get the impression that mirrorless cameras are noticeably more expensive for similar feature sets (despite having distinct advantages and disadvantages.) Is that right, or not? I've been confusing myself trying to compare them. Also, Lex, I couldn't tell if you were really recommending a Sony Nex model (if so, which one?) or just describing personal experience.<br>

4. In your second post you talk about materials for proofing at home before sending the files to be printed. Can you give me an example of what you're talking about?<br>

Stephen:<br>

1. Can you explain why you would recommend the Nikon D300?<br>

2. What do you mean by "Nikon macro lens in the 60mm (equivalent to the field of view of a 90mm lens on your film body) range"? I got lost in that explanation of field of view. You're saying 60mm is the same as 90mm in some sense, but I don't quite understand why you're saying they're the same. Are you talking about the effect of the Nikon's cropped sensor?<br>

---<br>

I learned a lot just from looking up a few terms like Micro 4:3 and Peaking Focus. The only digital cameras I've used have been point and shoot, and I only used them when someone handed me one and asked me to use it. Please be patient if I miss something that seems obvious.</p>

<p>Michael,<br>

The relative merits for B&W work for a digital camera really comes down to the software. With Lightroom, you already have a package capable of excellent B&W conversions. The camera choice is really relatively secondary here, with one big caveat.<br>

The problem is that the default settings of many digital cameras nowadays is set to get the punchy, saturated colours that many like. In my view, these settings translate poorly to B&W (too hard contrast, poor tonality). Lenses partially play a role here too - in fact I vastly prefer older lenses for B&W work because their contrast is slight less. The main trick here is working with RAW files, which is also exactly where Lightroom excels. To get good quality B&W results where you have sufficient control, in my view, this is the key (plus, of course, the printer and the material you'll print on).</p>

<p>Even though I am also a Nikon user, I am not strictly going to recommend it :-) Basically, any digital camera can be made to do what you want. Your budget is clear (that's a most useful start!), no need for the sportsmodels with high-end AF for what you envision to do. Entry-level DSLRs (all brands) and the M4/3rd and NEX cameras mentioned can all do the trick.<br>

At your budget, all models will have a sensor that is smaller than the film you used in your Maxxum. As a result, the field of view changes, as the smaller sensor makes it seem like you cropped the image. This "crop-factor" is often translated as if you are using a longer lens - so on a APS-C sensor (18*24mm, instead of 24*36mm for film), a 60mm lens gives the same field of view as a 90mm lens would on your Maxxum.<br>

And 60mm lenses are widely available as macro-lenses; they would do excellent doube duty as a portrait lens too. Hence Lex' useful tip on this one.</p>

<p>Do you still have the Maxxum, and do you have lenses for it you feel worth hanging on to? In that case, the Sony Alpha models (A65, A57) could be of interest. Otherwise, I'd really recommend to visit a store with sufficient models on display to see which type of cameras you find pleasant to use; for DSLRs indeed no need to overlook Canon, but in my view especially Pentax has very attractive options at the moment in this range. Sony NEX and the Olympus/Panasonic m4/3rd cameras handle quite a bit different, and depending on your hands and habits that can be a blessing or a curse.</p>

<p>As Wouter notes, any of the latest entry or mid-level DSLRs will do. There are a number of decent review sites that do very thorough examinations and provide recommendations. dpreview and imaging-resource are two of them. If you want access to the largest number of available lenses, Canon or Nikon would be your best bet (neither is 'better' than the other). I shoot with a Pentax k-5ii and love it, and Pentax slr bodies are pretty much compatible with any lens Pentax ever made (unlike Nikon and Canon, which change lens mounts from time to time), so there are plenty of choices, but not as many as the other two.</p>

<p>As for printing, there are some excellent home printers available that you might want to consider, that will print up to 13x19. I have a Canon Pixma pro-100, which is a dye printer and can be had for around $400 with a $300 rebate typically, but the pixma pro-10 is a pigment printer that many like, and Epson makes comparable models as well. I think the pigment printers are preferred for B&W.</p>

<p>Happy hunting.</p>

<p>Based on what you've said, I'd go for a used Nikon D5100. The D5200 is out now but you should still be able to have a good look at a D5100 in a store. I think it will have everything you need. If buying used, take a pic of the clear sky and check if there is dust or spots on the sensor. Look inside the camera as well for signs of any damage. If you buy any lenses, take the caps off and hold them up to the light to check for scratches or fungal damage.<br>

If you want something slightly more professional where all the features are more accessible (without going into sub menus) and also has no low pass filter (in theory increasing sharpness) then I would go for the D7100 (which I think has the same sensor as the D5200), but that's way above your budget.</p>

<p>I agree, if you don't need advanced features then a basic Canon T3i/ 600D, T4i/650D, etc. or an older 50D or 60D will work fine. But <strong>lens</strong> and lighting are also important for portraits so factor that in. Even those that claim to only shoot natural light use flashes and reflectors!</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Basically, any digital camera can be made to do what you want. Your budget is clear (that's a most useful start!), no need for the sportsmodels with high-end AF for what you envision to do. Entry-level DSLRs (all brands) and the M4/3rd and NEX cameras mentioned can all do the trick.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Exactly so. The main determinants of quality will be first, your skill with the camera (you are already experienced) and with postprocessing (this will take you some time), then as a distant second lens quality, and then as a very distant third body quality. Any recent DSLR should do the trick. Both Canon and Nikon have minor advantages and disadvantages, but for the most part, they are trivial in comparison. I have yet to meet someone for whom the choice between them was a bottleneck. I personally shoot Canon, but some of my best friends shoot Nikons :-)</p>

 

<p>The Maxxum uses an A mount, which Sony took over. You might want to consider a Sony body if you wish to continue using your current lens setup. They might be compatible. You can Google to find out.</p>

<p>Hi again Michael - well, you certainly are getting a number of recommendations to think about! Responding to your specific questions to me - I suggested the D300 because it can easily do what you want and much more, and it is well within your budget. The 60mm (90mm equivalent FOV) recommendation for the purposes you indicated (still life macro & portraits) you expected to use the camera for, is directly a function of the cropped sensor, and I mentioned it since you are transitioning from a film camera where cropped sensors aren't an issue. If you plan to use your current lenses you can test things out and potentially not an issue, but if you are buying new, you want them to meet your specific expectations even without trying them in person first; I often use a 90mm lens with my film bodies for portraits, and to achieve the same results without changing my subject to model distance, would use a 60mm lens on my digital body. I also prefer a 90-105mm macro lens on my digital bodies as it gives me a significantly greater working distance between my subjects and my body, but have used 60mm lenses occasionally there as well.</p>

<p>When speed is not needed Canon 5D (mark I) is still a strong contender image quality wise. 35mm sensor, nice large viewfinder, 12Mp, pretty weak anti-alias - pixel sharp images are easy to get. For a while I shot with Canon 5D and 7D. While 7D was Fast and fun to use 5D sensor produced much more naturally detailed prints (especially landscapes, "infinite detail subjects") without much editing hassle. 16x20 no problem at all. Furthermore ISO 100-200 images were cleaner, tightly packed aps-c sensor seemed to often produce slightly gritty over all feel. Yes, I'm nit picking here, but still. In Lightroom 5D files require zero noise reduction (even high ISO noise is very evenly distributed and not offensive) and even the default sharpening amount can be a bit on the strong side.<br>

Compared to other Canons in the price range like 40D/50D 5D wins hands down in image quality and compared to Rebels it wins in ergonomics too. New Ti range could be interesting if you require snappy jpgs straight from the camera, good quality back screen and a small body, otherwise not much there.</p>

<p>Few cons.<br /> JPG quality is really out-dated. RAW is pretty much the only option.<br /> Focusing is not nearly as bad as some say. Accuracy is very good using the middle point but it isn't an action camera by any imagination.<br /> It feels more like a 35mm film slr than digital. Back display isn't very good and it has absolutely no bells and whistles, not even different automatic modes on the dial, just A, Av, Tv, M. You also hear and feel the mirror in a very different manner than with newer designs.</p>

<p>So, under $600, accustomed to older gear and not in a hurry... I can't really think of anything better. Unless you simply don't want Canon that is. :)</p>

<p>Coming from film, you're coming from full-frame, so I'd recommend something like the original Canon 5D, or equivalent from Sony or Nikon. (I'm a Canon guy, but I recommend going with what feels good in your hands and sticking to it).</p>

<p>I use DxO Optics Pro 9.1 with DxO FilmPack installed for my B&W emulations. It's fantastic. LR is great and since you're already with it, look for a plug-in that'll expand its B&W possibilities.</p>

<p>As suggested, shoot in Raw and apply your B&W emulation during Raw conversion. Search for "Expose To The Right" or ETTR, to find out about one critical difference between exposing a digital sensor vs. exposing film. To preserve the most dynamic range with digital, you want to raise the exposure as much as possible without blowing out important highlights. You "normalize" the exposure in Raw conversion; otherwise, the image will look washed out and over exposed.</p>

<p>Welcome to digital photography and good luck.</p>

<p>I'm now leaning heavily toward a refurbished Nikon d90 or d7100, which seem quite similar to each other and sell for nearly the same price (refurbished). http://snapsort.com/compare/Nikon-D5100-vs-Nikon_D90</p>

<p>Any thoughts on which would be preferable and why?<br>

Also, I'm now trying to figure out which lens(es) to get. I've been practicing with my friend's d7200 which has an AF-S Nikkor 18-55mm lens which lets me get about as close as I want to at 55mm. I'm a bit wary of zoom lenses though. How noticeable is the loss in quality? I'm not sure I'm noticing anything yet, but I don't have a regular lens to compare to.<br>

I like to get detail in something as small as a doorknob, but not much more than that. I also take portraits and occasional, slightly wider shots.<br>

If I bought the above lens and a d90, I would spend about $450 total, which is pretty okay.</p>

<p>A few advantages to the Nikon D90 and D7000-series over the D5100 and similar models:</p>

<ul>

<li>Front sub-command dial for controlling aperture in manual and aperture priority modes, and can be assigned other functions such as exposure compensation in full program mode. I'd feel thwarted without the front sub-command dial on a dSLR.</li>

<li>Compatibility with screwdriver type autofocus AF Nikkors and comparable third party lenses (some older Tamrons used screwdriver autofocus rather than AF motors built into the lens). Gives a lot more options in lens choices.</li>

</ul>

<p>Check the following because I may be disremembering, but the D7000-series also enables metering with manual focus AI and AIS Nikkors. While other lower priced Nikon dSLRs may physically accept these lenses, it may be without metering.</p>

<p>Whether this matters depends on the subject. For candid and spontaneous photography, especially in rapidly changing lighting, I want full metering function. But for some types of photography of static subjects, it's not a big deal. I can use a handheld meter, or even use a fully functional lens to meter, then switch to a less compatible lens to actually make the photo. Also, with a little practice and checking the histogram you can quickly guesstimate exposure. I occasionally use manual focus lenses on my Nikon V1 mirrorless model, which offers no metering with those lenses. Usually I can guesstimate exposure within 1 stop and adjust to a perfect exposure within two or three frames.</p>

<p>But for photographing peak sunset moments, especially on windy days with cloud formations and patterns of light and color changing rapidly, full in-camera metering is much more convenient.</p>

<p>Personally, I'd *rather* have the D7100. In part because it's a handy size (after almost a decade with a D2H, and previous experience with an F3HP and MD-4 motor drive, I'm tired of bulky, heavy SLRs, and the D300 models are a bit larger than I'd like). In part because it can meter with my AI and AIS Nikkors. And overall because it's the best value in the Nikon dSLR lineup, with excellent image quality costing significantly less than any FX Nikon.</p>

<p>But good used D7000 and D7100 models are beyond my budget, which is why I'm personally leaning toward the D90, which really impressed me when I tried it in a local shop when it was newly introduced a few years ago.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"I'm a bit wary of zoom lenses though. How noticeable is the loss in quality?"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Even the budget grade Nikkor zooms are comparable to a good prime within their sweet spot. Usually midrange zooms suffer from barrel distortion at the widest focal length, which can be corrected in software. Most of them have excellent center sharpness and good edge and corner sharpness between wide open to f/5.6 or so.</p>

<p>And most zooms, even the budget priced zooms, have outstanding correction to minimize chromatic aberration and other problems that plagued earlier generations of zooms. My 18-70/3.5-4.5 DX kit zoom beats some of my older Nikkors in terms of minimizing CA and flare. While some of my primes have slightly better resolution and slightly less barrel distortion, I also need to do a bit more post processing to minimize CA, purplish fringing, and, depending on lighting conditions, may also need to boost contrast to compensate for veiling flare and internal flare.</p>

<p>Many budget grade zooms nowadays are incredibly good optical performers. Usually the manufacturers compromise on build quality rather than optical performance. So a variable aperture zoom costing $100-$300 may nearly equal the best from Nikon or Canon, but will be very plasticky and put together with snap-together parts and tape - I kid you not, even some expensive zooms use tape in some places.</p>

<p>But in terms of optical performance this generation of budget zooms offer incredible value. Just don't drop them, or tote them in an unpadded backpack. The plastic lens mounts can break if too much stress is put on them. But they don't break under normal use.</p>

<p>I was confused about the price of the D7000. I'm now leaning heavily toward a D90. Looking at lenses primarily now.</p>

<p>When in doubt, just start out with one of Nikon's budget price midrange zooms, like the 18-55 VR. After using it awhile, you can check the EXIF data to see which focal length you use most often. That's a pretty good indicator of which prime you might get the most use from. Or, you might decide the zoom is so convenient that you'd rather just upgrade to a faster zoom or one with a bit more range.</p>

<p>Several years ago I was one of the doubters about slowpoke variable aperture budget kit zooms, like the 18-70 DX that was often bundled with the D70. It took a few years but I gradually came to appreciate the convenience and optical quality, and use it about as often as my various primes. </p>

<p>In fact nowadays I'm more inclined to embrace the "flaws" in my older primes, such as my <a href="/photo/17670937">soft focus Portragon</a>, which includes tons of chromatic aberration in addition to soft focus; and my 1970s era Lentar 135mm f/3.5 T-mount preset, which is actually quite sharp but with low contrast due to the simple single coating and internal flare. Combined with the rounded aperture and good bokeh, it's a nice alternative to my super sharp 105/2.5 AI Nikkor. If conditions cooperate I'll use one or both of those this evening for a sunset, unless the gusting winds blow me away.</p>

<p>Thanks for all the very helpful posts everyone! I'm going to update you and ask for a little more.</p>

<p>First, I'm fairly confident that if I get a D90, I will get <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-50mm-Nikkor-Digital-Cameras/dp/B00005LEN4/ref=fn_ln_s1_D90DXNikon_tit?ie=UTF8&pf_rd_i=6207565011&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_p=1561025342&pf_rd_r=048V3QRMD89V41CQR5FN&pf_rd_s=center-5&pf_rd_t=101">this 50mm lens</a>. Narrowing things down! I've been playing with an 18-55 on a D5200 today and was happily keeping it at 55mm for most of my shots. You can see the results <a href="https://www.dropbox.com/sh/3x4b5z1k4msu8rw/onIv2L4TAv">here</a>.</p>

<p>Alright, sorry to keep asking new questions about new things, especially after moving so solidly in the D90 direction, but:<br>

1. If I can rescue my (hopefully just dirty) Minolta 50mm lens, is there a camera somewhat comparable in price and capability/features to a D90 (or the seemingly comparable D3200) that would fit it? Possibly the Sony A3000 or A65?<br>

2. The D5100 is cheaper than the D90. Which is preferable? The D5100 won't autofocus the 50mm lens I want to buy. I've never had autofocus before, but it seems as if it would be incredibly useful for candid portraits, right? I can get a different 55mm for $100 more if I choose the 5100. Anyway, are there other advantages to the 5100 that make it worth the loss/extra lens cost? (Lex, I meant to ask this before but mistakenly said D7100.)</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Several years ago I was one of the doubters about slowpoke variable aperture budget kit zooms, like the 18-70 DX that was often bundled with the D70. It took a few years but I gradually came to appreciate the convenience and optical quality,</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br /><br />That is a particularly good 'kit lens'. I have one on my D3200 but I bought it for a D100 ten years ago.</p>

<p>Additional note/question:<br>

I just discovered that the 50mm lens I named above only focuses as close as 45cm away. I'd really love something similar to it (in price and speed) that focuses at something closer to 11cm (like the 18-55mm standard for a lot of Nikons.) In fact, there's a chance I'll choose that lens despite not being very interested in the zoom capability of it and despite wishing for a faster (brighter) lens. Any suggestions for something between these two options?</p>

<p>Michael, the 50mm you linked to has one major attraction: its price. Otherwise, it's not great wide open, stopped down it gets incredibly sharp. It's not a macro-lens by any means of definition. Finding something similar in the same price-bracket that has the same aperture - I am sorry, but that's not going to happen. The closest in price are the 35mm f/1.8DX, which focuses a bit closer, but it's wider and the 50mm f/1.8G, which is an updated and much improved version of the lens you already looked at (twice the price, though).<br>

The <a href="/equipment/nikon/lenses/40mm-f2.8-af-s-dx-micro/review/">AF-S 40mm f/2.8DX</a> Macro could be interesting, though. It's a bit more expensive, but it can focus down to 1:1 and f/2.8 is still reasonably fast. It will focus on a D5100; it is still a bit short for portraits maybe. Another lens to consider would be the Tamron 60mm f/2 Macro - fast aperture and a more suitable length for portraits, plus 1:1 macro.<br>

The 18-70 Lex mentioned can often be found 2nd hand for decent prices, and is a really good lens. Likewise the "kitlens" 18-105VR, while slow and variable aperture, a good performer for its price.</p>

<p>Between a D90 and D5100, it's hard to say which is preferable, because both have their clear advantages and disadvantages. The D5100 has the better sensor, the tilting screen (can be very useful with macro) with a decent Liveview implementation; it's small and light but the handling can be a bit cramped if you have larger hands and many settings are only accessible via menus. The D90, larger, heavier, more direct controls, wider compatibility with lenses. But an older sensor that isn't as good at high sensitivities as the D5100, and in general some of the technologies on it are clearly of an earlier era (liveview and video most notably).<br>

Both are really fine bodies - I think the handling issues is what set them apart most, and that really depends on your hands.</p>

<p>Your previous camera is the Maxxum 7000 and it was quite old and that's a good thing. Good thing because you don't have the urge to upgrade with every model introduction. You seem happy with that except now the processing become difficult and expensive. For that I recommend you to find a good used Sony A900 or A850. These 2 cameras will take your A lenses and work exactly as the Maxxum 7000. An APS-C size camera would make all your lenses now too long. When you shoot film you don't have very high ISO film I think and for that the A900 and A850 would perform very well at ISO400 and below. <br>

In this way you only need to buy the camera body to replace the maxxum 7000 and the film and then some post processing software to take the place of your darkroom.</p>