D3100??

[jorge-vasconcelos]

<p>Hello,<br>

I'll be buying my 1st digital camera. was thinking about D3100 - 14.8 mega.<br>

now there's a new camera D5100 - 16.2 mega.<br>

is there a really big difference (noticeable) in image quality 14.8 to 16.2 mega??<br>

(well, in euro is about 200,00.)<br>

thank you all!<br>

Jorge Vasconcelos</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>In terms of pixel count, once you reach about 10 to 12MP, adding a few more pixels will provide a negligible difference in terms of image quality. However, when I went from the 12MP D300 to the 16MP D7000, I was surprised that the D7000 is a lot more demanding on lenses. The D5100 uses a similar (or maybe the same) sensor as the D7000, so it is also going to be demanding on lenses.</p>

<p>The D5100 will give you a high-quality swivel LCD and a few more features. The hinge of the LCD also blocks the left side of the camera so that the D5100's control layout is different. Make sure you are happy with that. I didn't get to test a D3100, but the D5100 has one extra stop of high ISO rating, so I assume that you can get better high-ISO results.</p>

[jorge-vasconcelos]

<p>'...is a lot more demanding on lenses.'<br>

????????</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>Jorge,</p>

<p>How will you be using your photos. If you only view on-screen and print up to 5 x 7 or the occasional 8 x 10, you won't see the difference. But if you get a 16MP camera because you want to print really really big or crop in a lot, the D5100 will show the shortcomings of lenses more than others do.</p>

<p>If you are just getting into this, it might not be much of an issue.</p>

[richardsnow]

<p>Jorge -</p>

<p>I would suggest you go to a local shop and try the two cameras. Because of the swivel LCD the D5100 handles a bit differently that the D3100.</p>

<p>As your first DSLR, both are great cameras. Unless you plan on printing very large or pixel peeping you'll likely not see much of a difference between the two.</p>

<p>RS</p>

[lachaine]

<p>No, there is no noticeable difference in image quality based on megapixels. Even if there was, it would be easily overridden by the many other variables that enter into taking a picture.</p>

[ariel_s1]

<p>I would without hesitation recommend the D3100 as a first SLR. Don't waste your money on the higher end stuff; it is still a better sensor than what the professionals were using even 5 years ago. The megapixel difference is negligible. When Shun says that the higher megapixel count is more demanding on lenses, he means that if there are any small manufacturing defects or if the lens wasn't designed to be an absolute-great performer, you will notice the defects in your photos. This means that you have to be more careful which lenses you buy for your camera, as some of them may not perform well.</p>

[jim_jones3]

<p>While I prefer large format film cameras for the best quality, I often print 10x14 and sometimes larger from a D3100, and am happy with it.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>'...is a lot more demanding on lenses.'<br />????????</p>

</blockquote>

<p>High pixel density with 16MP on an APS-C-sized sensor (16x24mm) challenges the resolving power of lenses. Any mediocre lens becomes obvious once you mount that on a D5100, and the D3100 is not far behind.</p>

[mihai_ciuca]

<p>Jorge, you can ignore the difference in megapixels... what is more important is the better behavior in low light of D5100. You can pay extra 200 Euro on body but if you decide to save these 200 you will end paying much more on glass. In my experience is better to buy f stops in bodies and not in lenses. For instance, for taking the same picture at the same ISO, with same shutter speed, if with D5100 you need an aperture of f2.8 when changing to D3100 you will need at least an aperture of f2. Fast glass is very expensive... so better buy a body with high ISO abilities. Definitely D5100 is such as body. And because is your first digital camera you will not have any problem with the way controls are arranged on the camera.<br>

For those 200EUR extra you will also receive a nice swivel display and the most advanced video features from Nikon family. Be absolutely sure that "what you pay is what you get" is true here :-)</p>

 

[jorge-vasconcelos]

<p>Thank you, Shun Cheung, Peter Hamm, Richard Snow, Pierre Lachaine, Ariel S, Jim Jones, Mihai Ciuca.<br>

I own Nikon F3 w/ MD4 and N-80 w/ MB-16 -Holga 120 and 4x5 in (Calumet)<br>

Nikon lenses 80-200mm f4 - 24mm f2 and AF 35-70mm f2.8 D<br>

I've contacted Nikon and yes I can use them w/ D3100 -<br>

"How will you be using your photos." at least 11x14in.<br>

"..higher megapixel count is more demanding on lenses, he means that if there are any small manufacturing defects or if the lens wasn't designed to be an absolute-great performer, you will notice the defects in your photos. This means that you have to be more careful which lenses you buy for your camera, as some of them may not perform well." I believe the Nikon lenses i lested above shouldn't be a problem!!! I'd buying the kit, <strong>camera plus lens 18-55mm VR</strong>.<br>

Thank you again, Jorge Vasconcelos</p>

[ariel_s1]

<p>Jorge, there is one big issue with your lenses. If they are not autofocus lenses, then they will not meter on any camera lower than a D7000. Also, neither the D3100 nor the D5100 have an autofocus motor in the body, so they will not autofocus with your 35-70mm lens. If you are doing careful tripod work, then this is not an issue, as you can always use an external meter, and evaluate an image after you take it to make sure that the exposure came out correctly. In addition, Live View is very helpful for dialing in that perfect focus, because the viewfinders are rather small.</p>

<p>Mihai, I completely disagree about getting a better body and cheaper lenses. In addition, this goes against all advice I've ever been given from respected photographers, and what I've seen from people online. First, you are exaggerating the advantages that a D5100 has over a D3100. Looking at DXOmark's testing to back this statement up with numbers, a D3100 image at ISO 919 looks like a D5100 image at 1183. That is not a huge difference, definitely much less than you're likely to notice. Both are a little better than the current pro-sumer camera anyway, the D300, and are worlds better than the last generation professional's camera, D2X. In addition, in 2 years or less, the D3100 or D5100 is going to be replaced by the next latest and greatest, while your lenses will still be relevant. While the new Sony sensor used in the D7000, K-5, D5100, etc. is very respectable, it seems to have developed a bit of hype online.</p>

[errol young]

<p>I use a D300 and a D7000 on the job but the D3100 is with me as a walkaround. High IQ and light with the great kit lens. Forget the fast glass until you move to bigger cameras. Have fun.</p>

[mihai_ciuca]

<p>Ariel, with all respect I completely disagree with the way you interpret my advice. I never advised OP to invest in cheaper lenses. Instead I said: "In my experience is better to buy f stops in bodies and not in lenses." For instance you can have a professional 24-70/2.8 and in certain situations, at 24mm f2.8 you don't have enough light in order to shoot at your minimum accepted shooter speed. Then you raise the ISO or change the glass. Raising ISO with one stop without to compromise your result is 200 EUR paid one time. Changing the glass with a faster one means many hundreds or even thousands Euro at every single focal length. I can show you superb images at 3600 ISO and perfect usable at 5000 and 6400 ISO that I took in dark lit concert settings with a D7000 and old glass like 180/2.8 AF-D or 105/2.5 AI-S. At one time, a cousin of me, with D3100 and 105/2.8 VR was almost crying near me with his results at 3600 or more ISO. So whatever numbers DXO marks are presenting on the field between D3100 and D5100 is at least 1 fstop difference. I will not think twice to pay that 200Euro for this further f stop. And as you see someone who put in balance 200 EUR difference when purchasing a body is not going for any pro glass but for the kit lens. In this situation the 200 Euro difference make even more sense. </p>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>Nikon lenses 80-200mm f4 - 24mm f2 and AF 35-70mm f2.8 D<br /> I've contacted Nikon and yes I can use them w/ D3100 -</p>

</blockquote>

<p>the 35-70 will <strong>not</strong> AF on a d3100/d5100. i would either consider a d90, used d300, or d7000, or selling all the old glass and getting AF-S lenses. mihai is right about low-light performance being critical difference between d3100 and d5100--and d90/d300 performance would be closer to d3100, but would allow for more latitude with legacy lenses.</p>

[lachaine]

<p>By the way, using older manual Nikkors on a camera like the D3100 is an interesting thing to do, but it does get old very quickly. I do that on my D3000 now and then, only because I don't have any modern telephoto lenses long enough for the shot I want to take. It's usually a tripod situation. It all works fine, but it's kind of pokey for common, everyday use.</p>

[jorge-vasconcelos]

<p>"And as you see someone who put in balance 200 EUR difference when purchasing a body is not going for any pro glass but for the kit lens. In this situation the 200 Euro difference make even more sense."<br>

You missed the point, Mihai. 200 euros or dollars isn't the issue here.<br>

Thank you Pierre. I shoot a lot of film and love my lenses (have them for little over 25 years).<br>

Thank you Eric. I've been focusing manually all my life, so I'm comfortable w/ this.<br>

Nwxt week we'll be going to Germany, and then I decide. Thank you all.</p>