Is It Worth The Upgrade?

Squidgy Black

Hi all,

I've been using a nikon d3000 for the past 4 months or so, and i'm not exactly 'pleased' with it. i HATE the lack of an af motor in the body, which makes most of the lenses a lot more expensive and less common. also, the noise handling at iso's over 800 is pretty terrible, the grain's quite evident. i've been doing a few gigs, and in a lot of the venue's the lighting's poor so this has ruined a few of my shots.

My problem is i'm still in school, and most of the stuff i do is unpaid as it's hard to be taken serious when you're a teenager am i mad to be wanting to upgrade already? i've got work experience with a studio and a sports agency soon, and i just don't think the d3000's anywhere near good enough.

Because of my tight budget i'd be looking at the d90 or maybe even the d200. has anybody got any suggestions or even comments on what i can do or if i should just stick with the d3000?

macnab

from my limited experience I think its all about the lens and not the camera, that said there is not much point shelling out big bucks for a decent lens for a D3000 as a lot of the cost is for the inbuilt motor (as you already pointed out) The D200 is not great in low light either as far as I know. The D90 might be a good move for you.

CabanSail

What lens/es are you using?

My experience is that noise is more of a problem if you are under exposing shots and then trying to pull back detail than if you use a higher ISO and expose properly, or slightly over expose.



Not a great shot but as an example. This shot was taken on my D300 last week. It was at ISO 1600 and f2.8 If I had used a lower ISO there would have been more grain. The D300 does probably handle low light a bit better than the D3000 but I don't think the difference is a huge amount. To get a much a big change you really have to make a move up to full frame.

Thecageyone

D200 user here, and though I think it's a great camera, does everything the D300 can just about, but it fails miserably on the noise handling. You really do have to keep it below ISO 400 to maintain any kind of good clarity. I have actually considered trading for a D90 numerous times, though I would much prefer to keep the bigger, better, weather sealed body.

I want to get rid at some point and get me a D300 mostly for that reason ... plus the live view and better focusing, other than that the Body difference is where you'd find the biggest change between your D3000 and a D200/300 [and of course built in motor to AF with almost all Nikkor lenses] - not sure how much bigger a D90 is? But it is a bit at least, and I would recommend it over a d3000 if someone was to ask when making the choice.

The major difference between the Dxxxx and Dxxx models is size, weight, quality of build and the D200/300/300s bodies have much better on-body controls. remember these cameras are semi-pro build and might not suit a beginner so much. Best used in full manual modes. There is no Full Auto.

Caban is right about how noise can be worse in images which have a lot of dark area or under exposed images. Lighting is the key there to begin with.

Look into the newer D3100, it might have the same non-body motor issue[?] but I have seen test shots taken at night, at high ISO levels , with zero or no noise in them. If you already have the VR kit lens you'd only need sell your D3000 body and pay a little extra for the newer model.

Squidgy Black

i'm using the kit lense (18-55 mm af-s) or a sigma 70-300 for those out of distance shots. i was thinking of picking up an af 50mm 1.8 and just using it as a manual focus, like my sigma 70-300, but i'd prefer if i had the ability for autofocus. the af-s equivalent is near 300 euro.

Thecageyone

Well, I have my D200 w/50mm f/1.8 up for sale as it happens :P

But ... if you've not the readies for that, I'd say try sell your D3000 body, keep the lens if you can [maybe sell the 70-300 too as it's not a great lens tbh, I had one, terrible chromatic aberration] and seek out a used D90

Squidgy Black

Thecageyone wrote: »

Well, I have my D200 w/50mm f/1.8 up for sale as it happens :P

But ... if you've not the readies for that, I'd say try sell your D3000 body, keep the lens if you can [maybe sell the 70-300 too as it's not a great lens tbh, I had one, terrible chromatic aberration] and seek out a used D90

yeah i'm thinking of selling the d3000, not sure if i won't hold onto the sigma until i can afford a replacement telephoto though. the only thing is, with the new d3100 out i can't imagine getting more than 250 for the d3000 body, which would leave my budget at a measley 550-600

Thecageyone

I had a few telephoto lenses in the past, got rid of them all because each had it's own issue. I had a Tamron 75-300 which I found better IQ-wise than the Sigma - bought it off a D3000 owner who was selling because of the non AF issue, as it happens. But at the longer end it had terrible purple fringing, where the Sigma had terrible CA ..

I also bought a fully Manual hunk of a lens, a Vivitar 70-210 f/3.5 which also has great macro capabilities. I just find it too heavy for my liking as a manual lens [It's just shy of 1kg, on top of the cam which is just under 900g w/battery]

in the end I settled for a Nikkor 55-200mm VR. Much better. It may not have the reach but it's certainly better IQ than either the Tamron or Sigma plus the vibration reduction which is handy for hand held shots in low light, without having to up the ISO too much. it's also lighter and more fun to use/easier pack away. That and the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 lens I bought used, are all I really need atm. I still use the 50mm, just not as much since getting the Tamron so I added it in a bundle with the D200, hoping to sell and put the rest to a used D300 at some stage.

Best of luck


[Edit] If you find you don't need the 300mm end of your lens so much, here is the lens I mentioned going for very little on adverts:

http://www.adverts.ie/328472/lenses/last-price-nikon-55-200mm-vr-dx-af-s-f-4-56g-ed/page-3/#poststart

You won't get better than that for a VR lens! And you'll probably get about same selling yours

It's what I'd suggest, as 300mm may well be longer, but Vibration reduction more than makes up for that. If really needed to stretch you can crop down a little and still have better IQ. VR allows you to hand-hold easily at slower speeds, like 1/30 for example, slower if you've a nice steady hand. Try that in dim lighting with the 300mm non-VR and you know you're getting mostly blurred shots.