DSLRUsers.com

I have bought Nikon D5100 + 35mm f1.8 lens from Digital Rev for AUD 1000 last week with 12 months warranty. I just used it once and felt that the body isn't good if compare to D7000. So, should I sell it and get the Nikon D7000 + 18-105mm kit? If yes, where should I sell it?

Hi Stewart - the D7000 is a great camera (note I have one so perhaps I'm biased) - however in what way do you think the D5100 isn't working for you - is it a physical use thing or a functional thing or something else entirely?

Ok, let's look at this question from a couple of different points of view.

First of all, the D7000 is undoubtedly a better camera. IMHO, it's probably the best value DSLR on the market at the moment, offering a great featureset for a very good price.

But, the D5100 is also a great camera, and in many ways, it's almost as good as the D7000.

So, let's get to the nitty gritty, and understand a little bit about you, and the types of photography you want to be doing.

First of all, could you please educate us a little about what photographic background you might have? Is this your first serious camera, or do you have a long background with film SLRs? Somewhere in between?

What's the level of your photographic knowledge?

What sort of images do you like to make, and what sort of images would you like to be making in the future?

Do you aspire to be a pro?

Why did you buy the D5100; what prompted your choice of that body?

felt that D5100 is too small compare to D7000. and, I used canon DSLR before and so, have some background in photographing.

The small LCD on the top of the Nikon D7000 is very convenient. Not like D5100, have to view it from the articulating screen. The focus point of D7000 is more than D5100, which is 39 versus 11.

I bought the Nikon D5100 was because of the articulating screen. Great for video shooting. But, as I got the camera and used it once only, I felt that I seldom use the DSLR to shoot video.

any suggestion？

stewartlim wrote:felt that D5100 is too small compare to D7000. and, I used canon DSLR before and so, have some background in photographing.

There's not that much difference in their relative sizes. Were you looking at the D300s, I would say that size might be a differential consideration, but not so much with the D5100 vs D7000 comparison.

The small LCD on the top of the Nikon D7000 is very convenient. Not like D5100, have to view it from the articulating screen. The focus point of D7000 is more than D5100, which is 39 versus 11.

Ok, but what will you be shooting?

stewartlim wrote:any suggestion？

Please remember that it's a work day. People are busy at work, hopefully doing their jobs. A little patience may be in order.

gstark wrote:

stewartlim wrote:felt that D5100 is too small compare to D7000. and, I used canon DSLR before and so, have some background in photographing.

There's not that much difference in their relative sizes. Were you looking at the D300s, I would say that size might be a differential consideration, but not so much with the D5100 vs D7000 comparison.

The small LCD on the top of the Nikon D7000 is very convenient. Not like D5100, have to view it from the articulating screen. The focus point of D7000 is more than D5100, which is 39 versus 11.

Ok, but what will you be shooting?

stewartlim wrote:any suggestion？

Please remember that it's a work day. People are busy at work, hopefully doing their jobs. A little patience may be in order.

Fast moving objects like birds. Sometimes will use it to shoot some family photos. Seldom use the video shooting mode. There is just a small difference in size between D5100 and D7000, but D7000 is more stable and comfortable to hold it as plastic vs Magnesium alloy.

If, as you say, you have only used your new camera once then my suggestion would be to use it a bit more. It's already second-hand so the resale price won't be affected too much.

I don't know that anyone can make a proper assessment of a camera based on such little use.

Of course, if you just want to throw money away, no-one can stop you.

Photography is so much more than the type of camera you use. Some additional lenses now will help you more than another body IMHO. You can upgrade to a better body once you have a grater idea of your photographic interests.

the foto fanatic wrote:If, as you say, you have only used your new camera once then my suggestion would be to use it a bit more. It's already second-hand so the resale price won't be affected too much.

I don't know that anyone can make a proper assessment of a camera based on such little use.

Of course, if you just want to throw money away, no-one can stop you.

Photography is so much more than the type of camera you use. Some additional lenses now will help you more than another body IMHO. You can upgrade to a better body once you have a grater idea of your photographic interests.

Hmm... it makes sense... My friend advised me that tried to use the Nikon D5100 for another few years until I have greater idea o photographic interests and lenses are more important than body.

stewartlim wrote: I used canon DSLR before and so, have some background in photographing.

Which DSLR? For how long? How much background [in years] do you have? Need this info unless you want generic answers which are not relevant to you.

surenj wrote:

stewartlim wrote: I used canon DSLR before and so, have some background in photographing.

Which DSLR? For how long? How much background [in years] do you have? Need this info unless you want generic answers which are not relevant to you.

I owned a Canon 50d for 2 years and just sold it to switch to Nikon Gear. I just bought D5100 just because of the articulating LCD screen and have same sensor with D7000. I didn't do much research between D5100 and D7000, so didn't know what's the difference between them. After I bought D5100 and used it, don't really like it's plastic body as Canon 50d is well built magnesium body.

I guess you put this down as a lesson to research thoroughly before you buy, including handling the choices. You may still regret your purchase later, but at least you know you did research it.

One major thing that concerns me is that you have stated that the main thing you want to photograph is "Fast moving objects like birds". Unless you are talking about ostriches and emus, you're going to have a lot of problems with a 35mm lens (despite how nice a f/1.8 lens might be). Even the 18-105mm lens won't cut it.

If birds really are the main subject, I'd recommend keeping the D5100 for now and investing in some longer glass. The D7000 is not going to allow you to get any closer than the D5100, only longer lenses will do that. Even a relatively cheap 70-300mm lens will help.

ATJ wrote:I guess you put this down as a lesson to research thoroughly before you buy, including handling the choices. You may still regret your purchase later, but at least you know you did research it.

One major thing that concerns me is that you have stated that the main thing you want to photograph is "Fast moving objects like birds". Unless you are talking about ostriches and emus, you're going to have a lot of problems with a 35mm lens (despite how nice a f/1.8 lens might be). Even the 18-105mm lens won't cut it.

If birds really are the main subject, I'd recommend keeping the D5100 for now and investing in some longer glass. The D7000 is not going to allow you to get any closer than the D5100, only longer lenses will do that. Even a relatively cheap 70-300mm lens will help.

So, what I should do now is keep the D5100, buy some new lenses like 70-300mm and may upgrade the body, maybe 2 or 3 years later?

stewartlim wrote:So, what I should do now is keep the D5100, buy some new lenses like 70-300mm and may upgrade the body, maybe 2 or 3 years later?

Or sooner, if you find that the D5100 is really unusable.

ATJ wrote:

stewartlim wrote:So, what I should do now is keep the D5100, buy some new lenses like 70-300mm and may upgrade the body, maybe 2 or 3 years later?

Or sooner, if you find that the D5100 is really unusable.

What I don't like about D5100 is the plastic body, the handle of the body is smaller than my hand, focus point,no top LCD and shutter speed. The only thing I like is the articulating LCD screen.

In dilemma...

the things you mentioned are not going to improve your photography in any way. andrew is right on the money here, if you want to get better photos, get better glass. the d5100 is more than capable of doing what you want it to do.

d5100 + 70-300VR = better bird shots by a country mile than a d7000 and a 18-105 kit lens.

so if the end result, (ie: photos), is what you're after, get better glass. if you just want to feel better by buying a sexier body, then get the body. better still...get some more cash and buy better glass and the sexier body. lol

Rooz wrote:the things you mentioned are not going to improve your photography in any way. andrew is right on the money here, if you want to get better photos, get better glass. the d5100 is more than capable of doing what you want it to do.

d5100 + 70-300VR = better bird shots by a country mile than a d7000 and a 18-105 kit lens.

so if the end result, (ie: photos), is what you're after, get better glass. if you just want to feel better by buying a sexier body, then get the body. better still...get some more cash and buy better glass and the sexier body. lol

So, lenses are the most important in the end of the result of the photo?

stewartlim wrote:So, lenses are the most important in the end of the result of the photo?

No. The photographer is the most important factor in a photograph. They decide what to shoot, how to frame what to include what to exclude, what f/stop to get the desired depth of field, how the lighting should be balanced, and so on.

The camera and lens are just tools. Yes, better glass will make it possible to take better photographs (if the existing lens is inadequate). Yes, a better camera may allow certain shots (e.g. low light). In the end it is the photographer that makes the photograph.

I could easily take a crap photograph with the most expensive gear that money could buy. I can also take great shots with cheap gear.

ATJ wrote:

stewartlim wrote:So, lenses are the most important in the end of the result of the photo?

No. The photographer is the most important factor in a photograph. They decide what to shoot, how to frame what to include what to exclude, what f/stop to get the desired depth of field, how the lighting should be balanced, and so on.

The camera and lens are just tools. Yes, better glass will make it possible to take better photographs (if the existing lens is inadequate). Yes, a better camera may allow certain shots (e.g. low light). In the end it is the photographer that makes the photograph.

I could easily take a crap photograph with the most expensive gear that money could buy. I can also take great shots with cheap gear.

Isn't the more the focus point, the better the camera in shooting fast moving objects? As D5100 has only 11 and D7000 has 39, is this means that D7000 is better in shooting fast moving object?

If you came from a 50D, then most likely a D7000 is not going to meet your expectations. I'm going on the assumption that you're on a tight budget based on what you've written so far and what you've bought, so feel free to correct me if I make any incorrect statements.

What was the gear you had previously when using the 50D (i.e., what glass did you have)? My suggestion, along with what others have said, is to invest in good glass. If you're interested in capturing birds, then I'd suggest at least getting the 70-200 - either Sigma or Nikon models. I believe that both of these will be of more use to you than the 70-300, and definitely more useful than the current lens you have on the D5100.

In order to capture great images/video, it comes down to the following (in order of priority):

1. The person behind the camera (that's you)
2. The lense
3. The camera body

Though I don't have as much photography experience as some of the guys here, I've owned and used my fare share of camera bodies from both Nikon and Canon amongst others. At the end of the day, it wasn't the body that made me a better photographer. It was working with what I have and upgrading the glass when I could no longer use what I had since it kept limiting me. For example, I prefer shooting a lot of available light (even in low light) so naturally I need fast glass (e.g., <= f1.8 ) and that's the approach I've taken. At the end of the day, it's the glass that will help you more than the body.

The D5100 offers a lot of creative avenues and the LCD screen will give you a distinct advantage that the other DSLR bodies won't. Learn to explore with the D5100 first, get decent glass, shoot and capture for at least 6 months and before you know it, you won't even care about the body construction. In essence, go out and take photos and worry less about the body

PiroStitch wrote:If you came from a 50D, then most likely a D7000 is not going to meet your expectations.

lol, im just gonna give you the benefit of the doubt and assume this is a typo...or you've been on the turps.

stewartlim wrote:
Isn't the more the focus point, the better the camera in shooting fast moving objects? As D5100 has only 11 and D7000 has 39, is this means that D7000 is better in shooting fast moving object?

Arguabley yes, in some ways you are correct and certainly the af of the d7000 is a cut above the d5100. But it all comes down to getting what you pay for. The d7000 is double the price of a d5100. So i think you need to clarify for yourself just how much you want to spend cos where do you stop ?

Rooz wrote:

stewartlim wrote:
Isn't the more the focus point, the better the camera in shooting fast moving objects? As D5100 has only 11 and D7000 has 39, is this means that D7000 is better in shooting fast moving object?

Arguabley yes, in some ways you are correct and certainly the af of the d7000 is a cut above the d5100. But it all comes down to getting what you pay for. The d7000 is double the price of a d5100. So i think you need to clarify for yourself just how much you want to spend cos where do you stop ?

Actually, I'm thinking of selling my D5100 + 35mm and get the D7000 body only. I have the 18-105 lens. Is it a good deal? Or just safe the money to get the flash and lens as well?

Have a look at this page from Thom Hogan.

stewartlim wrote:

Rooz wrote:

stewartlim wrote:
Isn't the more the focus point, the better the camera in shooting fast moving objects? As D5100 has only 11 and D7000 has 39, is this means that D7000 is better in shooting fast moving object?

Arguabley yes, in some ways you are correct and certainly the af of the d7000 is a cut above the d5100. But it all comes down to getting what you pay for. The d7000 is double the price of a d5100. So i think you need to clarify for yourself just how much you want to spend cos where do you stop ?

Actually, I'm thinking of selling my D5100 + 35mm and get the D7000 body only. I have the 18-105 lens. Is it a good deal? Or just safe the money to get the flash and lens as well?

firstly, a d7000 runs at around $1200 body only last i checked. your d5100+ 35mm will get you what...$800ish ?? so you;re still shelling out another $400 and you;re stuck with a kit lens.

stewart, ultimately the decision is yours my friend. i think personally you;re fishing for answers here and hoping someone tells you you're doingthe right thing just so you feel better about doing it. i dont mean to be offensive here at all, just providing you with what it looks like from my end.

photography is a funny thing you know stewart. i love shooting with my stuff. i just love it. and im sure that this placebo effect of loving shooting with it is an artificial stimulus but i could care less if it works for me.

if buying a d7000 is gonna make you FEEL better then by all means go ahead and enjoy it buddy. i think all we are saying is that it would be a qualitative choice, not a quantitative one. there are no right or wrongs here champ. the secret here is do what makes you happy.

Rooz wrote:lol, im just gonna give you the benefit of the doubt and assume this is a typo...or you've been on the turps.

Lol if this is a nitpick out of my entire post, then you've missed the point. Admittedly breathing in the lovely haze in Beijing has had an affect on me already

Back on topic...

Stewart, I would highly not recommend selling the 35 1.8. While it's tempting now in order to fund the d7000 body, you'll need the lens in future Cop it on the chin as a lesson and sell the D5100 plus fork out the extra for the d7000 body.

I am uncertain if the D7000 will improve your photography, I am with Andrew....D5100 + 70-300VR (or even the Tamron 70-300 VC) will be better than a D7000 + 18-105VR for moving birds.

If you are having second thoughts in terms of the handling and are willing to cop the loss on the D5100 then go and order a D7000 BUT definitely keep that 35mm f/1.8

Rooz wrote:

stewartlim wrote:

Rooz wrote:

stewartlim wrote:
Isn't the more the focus point, the better the camera in shooting fast moving objects? As D5100 has only 11 and D7000 has 39, is this means that D7000 is better in shooting fast moving object?

Arguabley yes, in some ways you are correct and certainly the af of the d7000 is a cut above the d5100. But it all comes down to getting what you pay for. The d7000 is double the price of a d5100. So i think you need to clarify for yourself just how much you want to spend cos where do you stop ?

Actually, I'm thinking of selling my D5100 + 35mm and get the D7000 body only. I have the 18-105 lens. Is it a good deal? Or just safe the money to get the flash and lens as well?

firstly, a d7000 runs at around $1200 body only last i checked. your d5100+ 35mm will get you what...$800ish ?? so you;re still shelling out another $400 and you;re stuck with a kit lens.

stewart, ultimately the decision is yours my friend. i think personally you;re fishing for answers here and hoping someone tells you you're doingthe right thing just so you feel better about doing it. i dont mean to be offensive here at all, just providing you with what it looks like from my end.

photography is a funny thing you know stewart. i love shooting with my stuff. i just love it. and im sure that this placebo effect of loving shooting with it is an artificial stimulus but i could care less if it works for me.

if buying a d7000 is gonna make you FEEL better then by all means go ahead and enjoy it buddy. i think all we are saying is that it would be a qualitative choice, not a quantitative one. there are no right or wrongs here champ. the secret here is do what makes you happy.

I don't think that I can get 800 for selling D5100 + 35mm... probably just 700 as it can be considered as gray market...

I don't think I've ever quoted Ken Rockwell before but he says the answer to your question is No.

Ken Rockwell wrote:People are always asking me if they should upgrade.

Should you get that new lens, new camera, or just as often, since you're considering lenses and bodies, should you just upgrade to a better brand of camera?

If you have to ask, then the answer is a clear

NO.

Why? Simple: if you have an obvious need for something, like a telephoto lens to photograph your kids at sports, there's no question that you ought to get it. If its obvious, you're not asking anyone, although you might be trying to sell your wife on the idea.

On the other hand, if you have to ask, the answer is NO.

Murray,

Ken makes sense.

gstark wrote:Murray,

Ken makes sense.

I've got nothing.

I just wanted to quote Garry giving Rockwell credit for having sense!

alot of those "SOOC" photos with crap cameras are clearly not SOOC. they have been sharpened and had significant curves adjustments. so while i agree somewhat with what he is saying, i think he is being disingenuous with his evidence.

stewartlim wrote:I owned a Canon 50d for 2 years and just sold it to switch to Nikon Gear

Thanks for this info!

One more question, is there any chance of going back to Canon? [Do you have any canon lenses left? If you do, this would change the game slightly]

If you really want a flip screen, you only have a few choices as of now. 60D would be one but you may feel it's a downgrade from 50D. 7D would be excellent for birds in-terms of advanced AF, but no flipscreen.

Otherwise you have been given some excellent advice already.

surenj wrote:

stewartlim wrote:I owned a Canon 50d for 2 years and just sold it to switch to Nikon Gear

Thanks for this info!

One more question, is there any chance of going back to Canon? [Do you have any canon lenses left? If you do, this would change the game slightly]

If you really want a flip screen, you only have a few choices as of now. 60D would be one but you may feel it's a downgrade from 50D. 7D would be excellent for birds in-terms of advanced AF, but no flipscreen.

Otherwise you have been given some excellent advice already.

I might not go back to Canon again as most of my friends are having Nikon body + gears. So, we can share lenses among us. I just checked the 60d specifications, plastic body, definitely NO for me. I would rather add another 200 to get D7000 instead of 60d.

Most of the reply just asked me to stay with Nikon D5100. In dilemma...

Go try out the D7000 at a store first before you sell the D5100. Who knows, once you hold it you might end up finding something else you don't like about it and want the D5100 again

stewartlim wrote:I might not go back to Canon again as most of my friends are having Nikon body + gears. So, we can share lenses among us. I just checked the 60d specifications, plastic body, definitely NO for me. I would rather add another 200 to get D7000 instead of 60d.

Being able to share lenses is NOT a sufficient reason to choose a brand. What if you are not with your friends when you need that 1000mm f0.95 lens that one of your friends has but you do not. What if you are with your friend, but he is using it and doesn't want to lend it right now? What if your friend drops YOUR 1000mm f0.95 lens that is worth $5000000 and just says "Sorry" Or even worse, just gives it back to you and doesn't even mention that he dropped it and broke the Autofocus.

Yes it is good to be able to share lenses, but you should not rely on it.

What do you have against plastic bodies? They are generally as tough as, if not tougher than metal bodies. Regardless of the body, most of the lenses these days have plastic barrels anyway. I am not telling you not to steer clear of plastic bodies, but I am telling you to think about why you don't want one, and to think whether it really matters. Whether you stay with your D5100, move to the D7000 or choose something else entirely, it is unlikely to be the last camera you buy. YOu don't need to get the very best right now.

Mr Darcy wrote:

stewartlim wrote:I might not go back to Canon again as most of my friends are having Nikon body + gears. So, we can share lenses among us. I just checked the 60d specifications, plastic body, definitely NO for me. I would rather add another 200 to get D7000 instead of 60d.

Being able to share lenses is NOT a sufficient reason to choose a brand. What if you are not with your friends when you need that 1000mm f0.95 lens that one of your friends has but you do not. What if you are with your friend, but he is using it and doesn't want to lend it right now? What if your friend drops YOUR 1000mm f0.95 lens that is worth $5000000 and just says "Sorry" Or even worse, just gives it back to you and doesn't even mention that he dropped it and broke the Autofocus.

Yes it is good to be able to share lenses, but you should not rely on it.

What do you have against plastic bodies? They are generally as tough as, if not tougher than metal bodies. Regardless of the body, most of the lenses these days have plastic barrels anyway. I am not telling you not to steer clear of plastic bodies, but I am telling you to think about why you don't want one, and to think whether it really matters. Whether you stay with your D5100, move to the D7000 or choose something else entirely, it is unlikely to be the last camera you buy. YOu don't need to get the very best right now.

Thanks for the advices... anyway, I'm going to stay with my current camera body and lens as I did read some review on 35mm f1.8 lens, and it's really good lens. So, might save some money to get the new lens as well as Nikon flash unit... this probably would be the best decision for me.

stewartlim wrote:I'm going to stay with my current camera body and lens

Good idea. Hoepfully your patience will see you improve your skills and make your next buy more suitable for you. At least you can try all the nikon lenses without paying for them.

Here's a great shot of a bird in flight taken with a D5000: Roseate Spoonbill In Flight. The D5100 should be better than the D5000.

And another: Osprey In Flight Over The Beach

In the interests of fairness, it should be pointed out that these were taken with a 300mm lens. This is a long way from the kit lenses mentioned earlier in the discussion.
So once again, in order of importance for this type of shot:
1. The photographer
2. The lens
3. The camera body.

Mr Darcy wrote: it should be pointed out that these were taken with a 300mm lens

An unusual zoom range for that matter. 55- 300mm!

surenj wrote:An unusual zoom range for that matter. 55- 300mm!

Yes I noticed that too, but the relevant factor was, I felt, "Full Zoom" which meant they were taken at 300mm. You are not going to get a similar image with

18-105mm kit

let alone

+ 35mm f1.8 lens

As nice as this lens might be for people and pets, it is not going to cut any mustard with a wild bird in flight. There is a reason serious wildlife photographers spend $10,000 and up on a single lens.

Mr Darcy wrote:In the interests of fairness, it should be pointed out that these were taken with a 300mm lens. This is a long way from the kit lenses mentioned earlier in the discussion.

Indeed which is why I suggested the use of a 70-300mm lens in my very first post in this thread.

surenj wrote:An unusual zoom range for that matter. 55- 300mm!

It was introduced about a year ago and is now commonly found as 2nd lens in two-lens D3100/5100/7000 kits.




Cheers
Steffen.

Steffen wrote:It was introduced about a year ago and is now commonly found as 2nd lens in two-lens D3100/5100/7000 kits.

Thanks Steffen. That's a nice range indeed. I guess it's good for someone who wants only two lenses to span a large range.

surenj wrote:

Steffen wrote:It was introduced about a year ago and is now commonly found as 2nd lens in two-lens D3100/5100/7000 kits.

Tanks Steffen. That's a nice range indeed. I guess it's good for someone who wants only two lenses to span a large range.

Yes - one of my workmates bought this lens with his D7000 and I borrowed it and gave it a try - it was actually very good for what is a kit lens - not as good as my 70-300VR but very nice none the less for around half the price.

If the D5100 isn't right in the hand in terms of size & weight, the D7000 as a tech marvel for its price range & competition probably won't be your instant wow.

You probably should wait for the D300s replacement..... which may be 12 months?

I say this as I have a mixed bag of gear in the house.

My wife has a D3100 and 18-55kit lens (& SB400) and she loves it, and gets great family photos. she just wants to point and shoot, without any lag.....

I have a larger amount of older gear - D200 and a handful of lenses, some older pro spec (28-70 f2.8, 80-200 f2,8) some slightly lesser (80-400VR), and some others.....

And while I will also grab the D3100 to get the shot as its there, its just way too small, way too light etc. I nearly jumped on the D700 a bit over a year back when they were cheap and everywhere, but didn't due to cash constraints due to renovating and lack of use.

Still have the lack of use issue, but want to go back to carrying a camera more in the car as work is going to have me going a lot further now due to a promotion to being state-wide.

And I don't want a D5100, and probably not a D7000 from the very brief handle I've had of it.

ATJ wrote:

stewartlim wrote:The camera and lens are just tools. Yes, better glass will make it possible to take better photographs (if the existing lens is inadequate). Yes, a better camera may allow certain shots (e.g. low light). In the end it is the photographer that makes the photograph.

I'd just like to add that some of the best shots i have taken have been on my iphone, not a fancy, expensive digital camera or DSLR.

Murray Foote wrote:Have a look at this page from Thom Hogan.

Thats a really interesting website, very helpful