Which Nikon DSLR

[peter_schauss2]

<p>I shoot film almost exclusively so I have not kept up with Nikon's digital offerings. My son and daughter-in-law have asked me for advice selecting a DSLR to record the growth and progress of our new grandson. As far as I can tell they are looking for a camera which will take good still pictures and short videos. I suspect that most of their pictures will be either posted on line or sent to friends and family with a few 5x7s and an occassional 8x10. I would also expect that they will use the camera's automated features more than 90% of the time.<br>

One of my coworkers who is seriously into digital recommended the D90 with the 18-105mm VR lens, but I am wondering if this is overkill. My daughter uses a simple Pentax Optio to take pictures of her daughter and her only complaint about that camera is the shutter lag problem.<br>

Given the way he is going to use the camera can my son get by with one of the lesser Nikon models and, if so, which one?</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>The D90 is pretty old technology, introduced back in 2008. In particular, it was the very first Nikon DSLR with video capability. That area has improved a lot in the last four years.</p>

<p>If your son and his wife are casual photographers, the D3200 or D5100 should meet their need quite well. Please keep in mind that in the US, the D3200 is always sold with the 18-55mm kit lens (unless you manage to find a camera store that is willing to break up the kit themselves).</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>I'd lean towards the D5100, if possible with the 18-105VR kitlens (not sure whether that bundle exists for US, it does in the EU). The fold-out screen can be nice for the videos.<br>

It is worth noting too that most higher-end compacts nowadays do not have that much shutterlag anymore, and are more portable than DSLRs and often somewhat easier for video; or cameras like the Sony NEX can make a good alternative too. They're not quite as fast as DSLRs, but faster than most compacts.</p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>I'm going to preach some heresy on this forum and ask - why Nikon in particular? Nikon's DSLRs are good and well worth the money, but there are cheaper options if the only aim is an occasional 10x8 print. An acquaintance has a Pentax K-r (for example) which produces great results and she seems very happy with it.</p>

<p>I'd also echo that shutter-lag isn't really an issue any more with modern bridge and compact cameras. Most of the delay used to come from the AF systems which wouldn't lock until the shutter was pressed, but this has been addressed in recent models. In fact I often carry a fairly old Kodak 12x zoom "bridgepact" with me that gives nice sharp colourful images and releases fairly promptly whenever the button is pressed - as does a Nikon Coolpix P100.</p>

[LenMarriott]

<p>Peter, I'll beat the drum for a current model P&S camera. My happy experience has been with a 6mp Canon Powershot A540 which I like for it's image quality, versatility, and it's ability to use common AA batteries. Shutter lag has been a minor problem but, as Wouter claims, is likely no longer a problem with these cameras. For the intended end use a DSLR does indeed seem overkill to me. Search 'P&S' via 'Gallery>Photo Tags' for some samples. Best, LM.</p>

[sjoerd_leeuwenberg]

<p>I agree with the 'overkill' comments and that P&S's have become much better.<br>

But a point may be, do you expect them to continu with photography? Why do you ask this question in the Nikon forum? Maybe because you have Nikon and some nice lenses they could use. What lenses do you have if so and depending on the type, some cameras (D90/D7000) could be more interesting than a D3200 or D5100 because they will not autofocus with older lenses. Just a thought.</p>

[ariel_s1]

<p>I don't think that a D5100 with 18-55mm lens is much to any more difficult to use than a point and shoot camera these days, except that on the D5100 you have to look through the viewfinder. The image quality difference is immediately apparent, as even with the 18-55mm lens, you can more easily get some nice blurry backgrounds. I agree that you don't necessarily have to go Nikon, unless you want to be able to borrow lenses between father and daughter. The Sony NEX-C3 takes as nice photos as the D5100, but is much smaller and you use the rear LCD for composing instead of a viewfinder. The only real shortcoming is that the D5100 allows great flashes like the SB700, and when you get into recording moving subjects, there is nothing that can track motion like a DSLR.</p>

[andy_burkholder]

<p>The D5100 has live view, actually. You don't have to look through the viewfinder if you don't want to and the articulating screen gives a lot of versatility especially when taking pictures of small kids...</p>

[peter_schauss2]

<p>Thanks for all of the suggestions. I posted the question here because I had an idea that I should steer my son toward a Nikon. I have a couple of Nikon 35mm cameras and lenses and have been impressed with their build quality. From an engineering point of view I like the fact that Nikon has managed to keep the same basic lens mounting system since they started building SLRs in the last 50's, unlike Canon, Minolta, and Pentax. The idea is that if he starts out with a Nikon system he will be able to grow it without loosing his entire investment as he finds that he needs more capabilities.</p>

[richard_meyers]

<p>Good luck.</p>

[rossb]

<blockquote>

<p> I like the fact that Nikon has managed to keep the same basic lens mounting system since they started building SLRs in the last 50's</p>

</blockquote>

<p> Keep in mind as mentioned above the 5100 and 3200 Nikon models do not have a motor built into the body. That means that they will not autofocus lenses that do not have a motor. That leaves out many quality lenses that you may already own. They will not meter with AIS lenses either. If that is not enough keep in mind that Nikon no longer will sell parts to repair shops. All repairs or service will have to be done at a Nikon service center as of last month. Basically no outlet for a better price. Just one more thing and that is if you are in the US make sure you do not buy a gray camera as Nikon will not repair it or service it. Gray camera's are basically disposable units these days. <br>

However the 3200 with compatible lenses would be very nice. A new one is covered by warranty for one year which is the usual. </p>

[kj_thomas]

<p>I would say a D3200 or a D5100 with the 18-55mm kit lens and adding a 35mm f/1.8 for low-light. That will give them everything they need until the little guy starts really running around, and at that point they will need to add a nice telephoto (like a 70-300mm).</p>

[alex_zepeda]

<p>I agree with Ross. Why Nikon? Why DLSR?<br /><br />With non-AF lenses on the Nikon bodies you're looking at, you don't get any metering at all (unless you chip the lenses). And non-AF-S lenses won't autofocus on the bodies you've mentioned. With non-AF/AF-S Nikon lenses on a mirrorless camera (Micro 4/3, NEX, Fuji X-Pro1) or Canon EOS body you at least get stop down metering.</p>

<p>DSLR-wise, Pentax has kept the same mount for ages offering a similar level of compatibility to Nikon. Plus, the K-5 is a bit cheaper than a similar Nikon body (D7000?). Pretty sure you can even mount M42 "screw mount" lenses on a modern Pentax body. You'd have to physically modify a non-AI lens to fit on a modern Nikon body.</p>

[mark_drutz]

<p>I use a brand new Canon A1300 P&S, a Fuji HS20EXR bridge camera, a Nikon D90, and a Nikon D3100. Neither the A1300 or HS20EXR compare to the DSLR's when it comes to shutter lag, next picture lag, focus speed, following movement, viewfinder quality, or low light ability. DSLR's can be operated as simply as a P&S or as advanced as they want to get. I think that for shooting children DSLR's are still the best way to go. I have a 9 year old granddaughter and one of the DSLR's go everywhere with us when a camera is called for.</p>

<p>The D5100 has come down in price. It would be my first choice together with a Nikon 18-105 VR or the new Sigma 18-200 II OS HSM. I have both lenses and the new Sigma is the sharpest superzoom I've used or seen tests for. Superzooms are not popular here, but they have gotten much better, and if they are not going print larger than 8x10 (11x14 for the Sigma) they are more than sharp enough.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>It looks like the people who will be using this new camera, i.e. the OP's son and daughter in law, are casual photographers who will be taking pictures and video of their baby. They are very typical owners of cameras such as the D3200 and D5100. These people will never need more than 2, 3 lenses. There are so many affordable AF-S DX lenses to choose from that I wouldn't worry about compatibility of any old lens.</p>

<p>Those photographers could also be happy with a good mirrorless camera with a couple of lenses, such as the Sony NEX, Nikon J1 and perhaps Micro 4/3. But a DSLR will give you longer lenses and in some cases a larger sensor and therefore better quality.</p>

<p>For DSLRs, I would only get Canon and Nikon, maybe Sony. Those brands have a large market share and will be around with updated products in the longer run.</p>

[zack_zoll]

<p>I would recomend a J1, with the longer lens added. The cost is the same as a 3200/5100 with the one lens, and casual photographers will probably appreciate the simple controls more than they will lament the lack of advanced ones.</p>

<p>P&S and bridge cameras have been recommended, but personally I would avoid them. It has been my experience selling them that even models that take the photo instantly, with no perceived delay, will develop a delay as they get older. I have no idea if the mirrorless cameras will do this (it's still too early to tell), but a P&S or bridge camera definitely will, and an SLR defenitely will not. SLRs may get slower on playback and accessing menus as the CPUs age, but the focusing and shooting speed remain constant, unless it gets a LOT of wear.</p>

<p>If you do go for the DSLR, I'd recommend the 5100 over the 3200 by a wide margin. It is $50 cheaper here in the states, and has the rotating LCD to boot. Granted the 3200 has many more megapixels, but that's the only advantage; and to a casual photographer, they are extremely unlikely to see the benefit to thatin more than a handful of prints throughout the life of the camera.</p>

[rob_mulligan1]

<p>I would have to go with KJ Thomas - any entry level camera with a kit lens and a fast prime. On the other hand, the Fuji x10 P&S is an AMAZING (I've used a friend's) little thing that is very well made, feels good in the hands and works quite well. Another plus for the X10 is that it will probably go with the family when the DSLR stays at home in the closet.</p>

[sjoerd_leeuwenberg]

<p>@Zack, I work in electronics and I have never heard of CPU's that get slower when they age,<br>

some break (very rarely) and then they stop, but there is no reason for it to slow down as far as I know. (flash) memory can have trouble when it gets used a lot and can get slower because of fragmentation and checksums because of error spots, but the SD card is easy to replace and the internal flash only gets updated once or twice max with firmware upgrades. It is not like a windows machine that gets updates and installs all the time which can slow things down. I think maybe it is a perceived slowness, because faster alternatives become more common.</p>

 

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>I just want to back-up Sjoerd's comment - I can think of no reason why a digital camera would get slower over time. A mechanical camera might change behaviour as the battery flattens or the shutter gums up, but I can't imagine a point and shoot being more prone to this than a DSLR.</p>

[zack_zoll]

<p>Andrew, Sjoerd: I want to stress that I am merely repeating this. I'm not a physics guy or an electrical engineer, so this could be crap.</p>

<p>Capacitors go bad over time. This we know as fact. It can be years or decades, depending on type, usage, and electrical load. Since cameras (at least those with flashes) run off of a capacitor rather than the battery itself, old capacitors will take longer to charge, meaning that the shot-to-shot time slows drastically, especially when using the flash.</p>

<p>I can only assume that the reason this happens more with P&S cameras is because they use less powerful capacitors (because the flash is generally less powerful), and because they are most likely cheaper as well. I do not know this for a fact, but it explains why it happens more to pocket cams very conveniently.</p>

<p>The smaller motors and gears used for AF operation are usually plastic as well, and one can only assume that leads to more wear. I know kit lenses generally use plastic gearings; I've never taken apart a pro lens, so I can't speak about how they are built.</p>

<p>As far as CPU speed, you may be correct. I've never had the chance to examine two identical old models where one was heavily used and one was box mint, so I could indeed be attributing speed differences where they shouldn't be. Or maybe that's a capacitor issue too.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Zack: Fair cop. I said I couldn't think of a reason, but you've got some. I agree that flash recycling may change (although I'd sort of expect the capacity rather than the recharge time to drop, but it may be more complex than that) and that wear and cruft in motorized components can have an effect. I suspect the same is true of DSLR lenses too, although I'm not sure that "plastic gearing" is so likely (I thought everything was SWM these days, except - for some reason - almost every Canon lens I actually owned). I won't deny that you may have seen performance dropping off; in general I wouldn't expect a pristine camera shut in a cupboard for a few years to slow down (other than possibly capacitor leak on the flash and the battery dying), but wear and tear may be different. Of course, with a DSLR, at least you can replace the lens...</p>

[zack_zoll]

<p>The motors may be SWM, but they still need gearings to actually operate the focusing element. In the case of every kit lens I've disassembled (and there have been a lot) one or two gears may be metal, and the rest are plastic. Point and shoot cameras (and I've torn apart some Canon Gs too, but nothing new) are generally the same, but with smaller gears. Many cheaper cameras have no metal gears at all.</p>

<p>I don't know exactly how capacitors for flash work when expired. As you suggest, they may just lead to a reduced flash output. I know that with guitars and analog amplifiers, a dead capacitor prevents that particular control from working properly, but it at least the device operates otherwise. With digital amplifiers, they are programmed to run off of a certain electrical load. If the capacitor fries, that whole section of the circuit goes down.</p>

<p>Amps usually use capacitors to regulate load, and run off mains power. They generally shut off when a capacitor is dead, either because there isn't enough power to run it, or because there may be too much, and it will fry the system.</p>

<p>I would guess that if something is running directly off the capacitor, and is designed to work under a certain voltage, it would have to wait until the capacitor reached that voltage to operate. But again, I'm just speculating based on related knowledge ... I could be very wrong.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Thanks, Zack. I've heard so much about lenses having brass innards that it didn't occur to me that a duty cycle component like gears might be anything else - although to be fair, some plastic can be pretty solid. I'm more worried about stuff getting into the mechanism and the grease expiring. Then again, I'm a software engineer - as far as I'm concerned <i>no</i> hardware is reliable, and you need to work around all of it sometimes...</p>