D610 vs D3100 with DX kitlens?

[kelly_de_jong]

<p>I have a nikon D3100 but I wasn’t happy about the iso performance. Therefore I bought a second hand D610. My only lenses are the 18-105 and the 55-300, they are dx lenses. I don’t always use high iso, so its not necessary to use the D610 as my primary camera. That said, I wouldn’t mind ditching the D3100 altogether.<br /><br />What stops me is that Ive read that the picture quality on the D610 is worse with the 18-105 than on the D3100 because the sensor is bigger, and the higher megapixel count shows the ’flaws’ in cheap lenses. However, if I downsize the 24MP of the D610, will that change anything?<br /><br />I mean, will pictures look better on the D610 after downsizing, or will I be better off to use the D3100 when I don’t need the high iso capabilities?</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>Two things:<br /><br />First, if you use DX-format lenses on the D610, the camera will only be recording an image from a smaller, cropped portion of the larger FX sensor. So at some point you'll want to consider getting a lens or two that can take full advantage of that larger sensor. Right now, you're only using a piece of it.<br /><br />Second, yes (sort of). The D610 may indeed record the inherent flaws in those less expensive lenses better than the D3100 ... but it doesn't matter. Actual prints or web-sized output from the D610 will look at least as good as the D3100, but probably better because of the superior low light performance. At least one stop worth's, even though you're cropping away a good portion of the D610's sensor. You're NOT using 24MP right now, because the camera is scrapping quite a lot of those 24MPs, since the DX kit lenses can't project an image that covers the whole FX sensor.</p>

[kelly_de_jong]

<p>So, even at iso 100, the D610 will perform better with the 18-105 than the D3100? (both downsized to 12mp)</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<blockquote>

<p>So, even at iso 100, the D610 will perform better with the 18-105 than the D3100?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>At ISO100, no, I don't think you can spot any meaningful difference. At ISO3200, yes. But, if I can be brutally honest, what you're doing makes all relatively little sense. The D610 is a better camera in every way - if anything, the D3100 ought to be the backup, not the D610.<br /> But even so, it isn't said that getting a camera with better high ISO performance is going to solve your problem by definition. It is not necessarily the camera that might be holding you back. The high ISO performance of the D3100 isn't terrible, but if you're working in really low light, using it with two lenses that have slow (f/5.6) aperture is making things a lot harder. Getting lenses with a wider aperture (i.e. the cheap and good 35mm f/1.8DX) could possibly have been an easier and much cheaper answer. Or a flashgun as the SB500 or SB700.<br /> A second consideration is a somewhat wrong expectation about low light; a lot of low light situations are diffuse and indirect light, which is simply bad light. No camera, regardless of its high ISO performance, can solve that. I see very often claims about "bad high ISO performance" where the actual issue is the bad quality of the light.<br /> <br />As a first step, maybe post some photos of the D3100 here which you aren't happy with, to see if the problem is really the high ISO performance of the camera, or being hindered by slow lenses, or lousy light to work with. Because the right answer to the problem you try to fix might change a lot depending on that. Maybe the answer is faster lenses, maybe flash, or maybe technique.<br /> Now since you already have the D610, it only makes sense to get the right lenses for that camera. Yes, it is, as Matt wrote, about a stop better than the D3100 probably regardless of lens. But so are the D3200, D5200 or D7000 - all of which are a lot cheaper to buy, and DX lenses do make more sense on those bodies. <br />Personally, I'd look to sell the D3100 and both your lenses and use that money to get the 24-85VR and 70-300VR lenses (yes, they are more expensive: nearly everything about FX is more expensive), or sell the D610 and D3100 both and get a D5200, D7000 or D7100 instead.</p>

[rick_m.]

<p>What Wouter said. </p>

<p>Again we are pole vaulting over mouse droppings. The overwhelming majority of your photos will show no difference. </p>

<p>As they say in golf,, "you can't buy a game". As a beginner, pick your camera and spend your time and money on training, education and practice. Any of these will improve your shooting far more than an equipment change. </p>

<p>Consider this. Your camera hold technique will affect your low-light shots FAR more than any lens change, no matter which camera you use. </p>

[Hector Javkin]

<p>I agree with the above replies, there is something missing: Kelly has already bought the D610.</p>

<p>Even though the cameras will not, of themselves, create better image quality, the D610 is a far more pleasant camera to use that the D3100. The viewfinder alone makes a huge difference, between the D3100 penta<strong>mirror</strong> cropped size and the D610 penta<strong>prism</strong> full frame. Unless the light weight of the D3100 is important to you, keep the D610 and, when you can, get FX lenses for it.</p>

[User_6502147]

<p>The D610 is a superb performer. If you want to enhance your images get some quality FX primes. I have no intention of knocking down any good zooms, but most often the primes will outperform the zooms. Eventually, you'll wonder "why haven't I done this long ago" ? :>)</p>

<p>Les</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>At the least, buy one of the (cheap) <a href="

50mm f/1.8 G</a> lenses. There's no better bargain for a normal lens on an FX body.</p>

<p>These posts, by the way, on "kitlens" always suck me in, thinking that the topic is "kittens". </p>

[CoryAmmerman]

<p>One thing to point out, the D610 is only 10.3 megapixels in DX crop. So the D3100, with 14.2 MP actually has a higher pixel density, which would show lens flaws faster. You would actually have to upsize the photos from the D610 to compare to the D3100. </p>

<p>My advice would be to sell the D3100 and lenses, and get some FX lenses. To start with, you don't necessarily have to get the newest thing out there. My old 28-105 AF-D is my most used lens. It's not an f2.8 zoom, but it's still slightly faster than the kit lenses you've been using. And it can only be found used, which would save money that can be put towards a fast prime or longer zoom, if you're okay with buying used gear.</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>To keep it short: the picture made on the D610, using the same lens you'd otherwise use on the D3100, will not be worse if you use the image in the same way.</p>