What you've got versus what you should have.
Original: 9/5/2009
Updated: 9/7/2009
I've said it before, and I'll repeat it again before I present my detailed recommendations: it really doesn't pay to update from one Nikon DSLR to another every generation. For the amateur cameras skip a generation in order to save money, as single generation changes tend to be modest.
With that out of the way, here's my detailed recommendations for every Nikon DSLR user:
| |
Like What You've Got |
Dislike What You've Got |
| D1 |
Update. Really. The newer models are so much better than the original. On a budget, try a used D2h. But if you've got the dough, try a D300s, D700, or D3. |
Update. On a budget, try a used D2h. But if you've got the dough, try a D300s, D700, or D3. |
| D1h |
Then stick with it, but consider picking up extra batteries before they get hard to find. But you're missing out on CLS flash. |
Update to a D2h on a budget, a D300s or D3 if you want new. |
| D1x |
I'd ask you to reconsider. The D1x was good for its time, but it has two issues that keep it from being close to current state-of-the-art: the missing rows (it's really a 4024x1324 camera), and very poor shadow detail rendering. Also, you're missing out on CLS flash. On a budget, try a used D2x or even D200. Still have cash burning in your pocket, then buy a D300s or D700. |
Update to a D2x on a budget, a D300s or D700 if you want new. |
| D2h |
Stick with it. |
Realistically, only a D3 will make you happier. But you'll be realigning your lens collection. |
| D2hs |
Definitely stick with it. |
Again, the D3 is the natural upgrade path, and again you'll be realigning your lens collection. |
| D2x |
Definitely stick with it as long as you don't need more than ISO 400. |
This one is tricky. The D3 and D300s are a slight step backward at base ISO, definite steps forward at higher ISOs. If you need ISO 800-1600, the D300s. If you need higher, the D3, but prepare for realigning your lens collection. |
| D2xs |
Definitely stick with it as long as you don't need more than ISO 400. |
This one is tricky. The D3 and D300s are a slight step backward at base ISO, definite steps forward at higher ISOs. If you need ISO 800-1600, the D300s. If you need higher, the D3, but prepare for realigning your lens collection. |
| D3 |
Keep it. |
What are you thinking? Keep it. |
| D3x |
Keep it. |
The only sensible update is if you aren't satisfied with high ISO work (1600 and above), in which case a D3 (or perhaps D700) is the only option. |
| D100 |
As long as you don't need the extra pixels or really high ISO values, keeping it is a reasonable option. But you're missing out on CLS flash. |
D300s is the right answer, I think. You could wimp out and buy a used D200, but the D300s bump up in quality is bigger. A used D300 is another option for the price conscious. |
| D200 |
Hold the course for now. |
D300 or D300s nets you a modest boost in high ISO work, better autofocus, Live View, and faster card writes. Just barely qualifies as a reasonable upgrade. |
| D300 |
No need to upgrade. |
Are you kidding? What are you missing? There currently isn't a "more pixels" option in the Nikon side that makes sense for you, and moving from a D300 to D700 triggers a massive lens realignment problem. |
| D700 |
Count your blessings. |
You've got to be joking. There's nothing wrong with a D700. If you need a higher frame rate, get the MB-D10. If you need more pixels, wait. |
| D40 |
Keep shooting. |
You have to consider why you're unhappy. If it's just more features and pixels you want, the D5000 is your choice. If you just want more pixels, the D3000 is a consideration. If it's the lack of autofocus with older Nikkor AF lenses, you have to get to a D90 to fix that problem. If you're ready to make a big leap in functionality (and complexity), then a D90 or D300s might be reasonable choices. Forget FX bodies. If you needed FX, you'd already have one. |
| D40x |
Keep shooting. |
A subset of the D40 upgrade advice: if you want more features, a D5000. If you want autofocus with older lenses, a D90. If you're ready for a top of the line camera, the D300s. Nothing else makes any sense. |
| D50 |
Probably keep shooting. |
You have to consider why you're unhappy. If it's just more features and pixels you want, the D5000 is your choice. If you just want more pixels, the D3000 is a consideration. If you're ready to make a big leap in functionality (and complexity), then a D90 or D300s might be reasonable choices. Forget FX bodies. If you needed FX, you'd already have one. |
| D60 |
No need to upgrade. |
You have to consider why you're unhappy. Basically, it likely isn't pixels, as the D60 is adequate there. Thus, you're probably looking for more features. This means you'll skip the D3000. Depending upon which features you desire, the D5000, D90, and D300s are the logical choices. |
| D70/D70s |
Realistically, nothing wrong with what you've got. But if you bought into this level of camera, you're probably lusting after some of the changes that came downstream (more pixels, better high ISO, etc.). I'd say give in to those urges, you'll be happier. |
Two choices to stay at about the same level of sophistication: D5000 or D90. Your choice is basically as I outline in my D5000 review: tiltable LCD versus autofocus with older lenses (yes, I'm aware there are other differences, but that's the big decision point in my mind). If you're ready for more sophistication, a D300s or used D300 is another possibility. |
| D80 |
You must not be using matrix metering. Of all the consumer DSLRs Nikon has made, this is the weakest of the bunch, in quite a few ways. I'd urge you to reconsider: later cameras fix so many of the D80's flaws. |
D90 to stay at the same level, D300s to move up. |
| D90 |
You've got a fine camera, keep it. |
I'm not sure what you don't like, but it probably has to do with build quality and/or feature set. That leaves one possibility: D300s. |
That was easy, wasn't it?
You'll note that I'm basically against moving from DX to FX. Realistically, few people actually need FX. Indeed, when I quiz people asking the "should I get a D3/D3x/D700" question about why they want FX, most of them don't know. It's in some way vaguely better, but they can't define how it will improve their picture taking. If you can't define it, you don't need it. (Yet. You may some day.) We get so caught up in generalized absolutes (e.g. "bigger is better") that we start believing them without challenging them. Let me put it this way: if you haven't printed larger than 13x19" or shot at ISO 6400 lately, there's nothing wrong with DX. Even if you have done those things, FX isn't an automatic choice. I know many pros that shoot DX. I do it myself whenever I'm not doing landscape photography (24mp in the D3x is hard for a landscape photographer to pass over) or indoor sports (the D3's high ISO capability is unmatched for indoor sports work).
|
