upgrading my camera

[colin_murphy2]

<p>Hi everyone,<br />I'm after a little bit of advice, I have recently decided to upgrade from my Sony A65 to either a Nikon D5300 or a D7100 but can't decide. I am an amateur but enjoy taking night time shots of the sky and sunrises (already been offered money for a few to appear on a local companys webpage, thats pretty awesome right?) and i found the A65 just not cut out for the job. I like what both the D5300 and D7100 have to offer. Can anyone help steer me into the camera to buy. For all you canon fans my hearts already set on a Nikon, sorry :-P</p>

[andylynn]

<p>Both of those Nikons are somewhat better than the Sony for low light shooting, but not so much so that I'd jump systems for that alone. Maybe there are ways to get more out of your Sony. What lens(es) are you using? Are you shooting on a tripod? Using manual and raw and bracketing exposures?</p>

[Andy Murphy]

<p>I like the D5300 for the WiFi, enabling quick forwarding of images.</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>those kind of shots require a camera to be in full manual for best results in my experience, and I doubt you'd see a difference between a properly exposed shot on a tripod of a shot like that between any DSLR currently available and any other one.</p>

[alan_bessler_sr]

<p>Get the D7100 anything is better than a Sony only my opinion though I had an A77 for 2 hours once !</p>

[owen_omeara]

<p>Another vote for the d7100.</p>

<p>-O</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>If you really want a nikon, go for it. maybe there are things about the Sony that you don't personally like, in terms of the ergonomics or interface.</p>

<p>But it won't take the kind of photo you describe any better than what you have, I bet.</p>

<p>And if you don't have a sturdy tripod for that kind of stuff, you won't get your best shot.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>In which way the A65 isn't cut for the job? I'm happy to cheer for the yellow brand, but nighttime sky/sunrise shots is something any recent digital camera, which certainly includes the A65, should be able to do quite adequately. A nikon is not going to be leaps and bounds better, I think.<br>

So, well, what Peter already wrote.</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>Wouter, unless the A65 has an interface that makes it clunky to work with. I know, for me, that my mirrorless is a pain in the butt to change certain things on. Other than that, it takes the same photos that my D90 takes.</p>

[Member69643]

<p>The Sony SLT cameras are pretty much a love 'em or hate 'em kinda beast. For any kind of action they are woeful. Other than that, there are advantages; some real, some exaggerated, and some imagined by Sony fanboys. For shooting landscapes and sunsets at low ISO's the a65 and either Nikon you mentioned with yield nearly indistinguishable results.</p>

[rick_m.]

<p>The parochialism is a bit misleading I find. I vote for the D7100. The A65 is not even in the same class of camera. You will love the D7100. Why is it better?</p>

<p>It has over a stop better dynamic range. Its low-light capabilities are better. Its color depth is better. The viewfinder...well I suppose someone might like the Sony, but I don't know who that is. The viewing screen is better. Battery lasts longer....on and on.</p>

<p>The D5300 is a great camera but inherent in your decision between the two is the assumption that the money difference is not that big a deal. The D7100 gives you more room to grow than the D5300 does. </p>

<p>I have a D3 and D4. My D7100 has charmed me. It is a great camera and easy to fall for. Get one and don't look back.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Peter, agree completely, handling can ruin the whole experience - no arguing there. No arguing at all, actually.<br>

And yes, the D7100 is a better camera, no arguing on that either. It comes into its own with good lenses - the normal kitlenses do little to show how good the AF is, for example. And that's a bit a point not touched yet: which lens sits on that A65 today, and how much lens can you get on the budget available to move to Nikon? As nice as a high-level body is, lenses do still matter a great lot too. Not switching but getting a better lens for the Sony may leave a better allround kit, despite the D7100 being better.</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<p>i found the A65 just not cut out for the job</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Please elaborate - what is it the A65 can't do?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I like what both the D5300 and D7100 have to offer.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Please be specific - what is it that you like on those cameras (that's not offered on the A65)?<br>

Answering these two questions will make it a lot easier for anyone to help you - and may even clarify which to chose for yourself.</p>

[donholmes]

<p>D7100....</p>

[JeffBryce]

<p>I own the D800 and recently added the D5300. I have owned the D300, D70S (now converted to IR), and D70, and am familiar with the D7000 and D60.</p>

<p>Main advantages of the D5300 over the D7100: slightly better IQ, flip screen, smaller (about 20%) and lighter (479g vs 765g), cheaper, slightly better light sensitivity, and very slightly lower noise at high ISO.</p>

<p>Main advantages of the D7100 over the D5300: weather sealed, better battery life, more focus points, and built-in focus motor (so you can autofocus old Nikon and non-Nikon lenses).</p>

<p>For me, I was looking for a small size and flip screen primarily for potential street photography use and so I chose the D5300. <br>

</p>

 

[Andrew Garrard]

<blockquote>Main advantages of the D7100 over the D5300: weather sealed, better battery life, more focus points, and built-in focus motor (so you can autofocus old Nikon and non-Nikon lenses).</blockquote>

 

<p>I agree that it would be good to establish why the Sony isn't doing the job, but in the mean time...<br />

<br />

Firstly, <a href="http://www.dpreview.com/products/compare/side-by-side?products=nikon_d5300&products=nikon_d7100">here's a feature comparison</a>, if it comes down to that.<br />

<br />

Otherwise, the D5300 is newer, but the D7100 is a higher-end product. The image quality difference is <a href="http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Nikon-D5300-versus-Nikon-D7100___919_865">pretty negligible</a>.<br />

<br />

To me, the big differences would be the pentaprism on the D7100 vs the pentamirror on the D5300 (brighter and 100% coverage on the D7100, at higher cost and weight) and the additional control dial on the D7100 - and the flip-out screen and AF differences that were already mentioned. The D7100 is more configurable. If I were considering both, and if I didn't need the flip-out screen (which Nikon allegedly leaves off its higher-end bodies for robustness reasons), I'd take the D7100, no question. But the money left over to spend on lenses might matter more.<br />

<br />

From that perspective, I'd also think about the D5200 and maybe D7000.</p>

[Brad Cloven]

<p>I recommend an upgrade to Fuji Velvia 50, AIS primes (24, 50, 105), a tripod, ND Grad filters, and any of several Nikon bodies with mirror lockup and a good meter (FE, F3, etc.) Process both slides and digital through NCPS.</p>

<p>That kit can cost you as little as $500 complete, leaving you about $1,000.00 left over for film and processing. And, it won't be technically obsoleted or mechanically fail in this lifetime. When you're done and bequeath it to the kids, it will be worth MORE than what you paid for it, and will probably still be working when your great grand-kids are old.</p>

<p>And the quality of the photos will blow your mind.</p>

<p>:-)</p>

<p> - Film Bigot checks in, and ducks out the back door before the counter arguments start.....</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>Brad Cloven writes:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>And, it won't be technically obsoleted or mechanically fail in this lifetime.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>referring to 20 and 30 year old cameras for which parts are no longer available from Nikon...</p>

<p>whatever...</p>

[Brad Cloven]

<p>Still shooting a $50.00 1938 Rolleiflex that has needed no parts for 76 years so far. That's a 100 megapixel capture system.</p>

<p>Where are your first, second and third digital cameras, and how much did they cost you?</p>

<p> </p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>We're so far off topic, but I'll bite: My first digital camera was an Agfa ePhoto 1680, which is admittedly a paperweight. My second was an Eos 300D, which still works, and was still getting used up until I got my D800. My third was a D700, which saw active use, and still occasionally does, mostly as a back-up body. They weren't cheap, but when I got them, film was a lot cheaper than it is now. And we can divert into a discussion about resolution and film grain, but I don't think it will help us much. I do still occasionally shoot 645 film for fun, and I'd still like to pick up a 5x4 body, but my D800 killed my practical need for 645 and my D700 killed my practical need for 135 film.</p>