# Change of camera.



## zenith03 (Apr 30, 2016)

Hello guys!

New to this forum. I apologise if I've put this in the wrong section. 

I've currently got a Sony a200 and want a change. I like the look and sound of Nikon and wouldn't mind a D80 or D90. My question is though, is it worth swapping the a200 to one of these? 

I know both are old now and go quite cheap (which is a bonus) but hardware wise, are they still worth it?

Thank you so much for your time and help. 

Tom.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## nerwin (Apr 30, 2016)

What is your budget?


----------



## zenith03 (Apr 30, 2016)

nerwin said:


> What is your budget?




Oooooh budget? I'd say probably around £200 £250. 

Thank you. 

Tom.


----------



## nerwin (Apr 30, 2016)

You can find a used D3300 or D5200 around that price with kit lenses, and they will blow the water out of the D80 and D90 hands down. 

That's my recommendation at that price point. Its the best bang for the buck.


----------



## jaomul (Apr 30, 2016)

If you change your a200 you'll have to get Nikon lenses. You might be better looking at some more advanced Sony


----------



## zenith03 (Apr 30, 2016)

Hello guys. 

Thank you for your answers. 

I've seen the D5300 with built in wifi and GPS I like the sound of that and I could finance the difference? 

I've only got 2 lenses for my Sony so that doesn't really bother me. Plus I like the look and feel of NIKON. The weight is good too 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## zenith03 (Apr 30, 2016)

Also is the jump between the D5300 and 7100 really worth the difference?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## jaomul (Apr 30, 2016)

The d7100 is better built, has two control wheels, weather sealing and a better autofocus with two cards slots and can use more older type lenses than the d5300. No WiFi gps or moveable screen though


----------



## Designer (Apr 30, 2016)

zenith03 said:


> Also is the jump between the D5300 and 7100 really worth the difference?


This is how budgets become inflated.  Without knowing your particular situation, I'll say "yes!" it is probably worth the difference, so if you can afford it, that is definitely worth thinking about.


----------



## Derrel (Apr 30, 2016)

I dunno...the D80 and D90 are from an earlier time in sensor development, and while the camera bodies and the controls on them are good, the rear LCD, and the sensors, are from an entirely different era. I'd personally rather have a better imaging sensor in an entry-level D3xxx body of the most-recent vintage I could afford--and NOT a D3100 or D3200.

The improved High ISO capabilities, and the vastly-improved shadow recovery and highlight-gholding capabilities of the last two generations of D3xxx and D5xxx and D7xxx cameras is really a major, major difference in the real-world capabilities as far as being able to shoot in dim light, or in being able to shoot backlighted subjects and still have a really good, usable file to work with later in Lightroom or PS.

The D3xxx and D5xxx cameras are also nice and compact. Another major bonus of the D3xxx and D5xxx series--but not the D7xxx series, is that the 3- and 5-series cameras can mount older, pre-AI F-mount lenses, so that opens up some great deals on pawnshop-priced prime and zoom lenses, and things like say the 55mm f/3.5 pre-Ai Micro~NIKKOR macro lens, which is like $25 in rough shape from KEH.com; you can also use some older, very low-cost extension tubes, and put a lot of low-cost, old lenses on a D3xxx or D5xxx, for fun, and for experimenting, and for actually using. I mention the pre-Ai 55/3.5 because even in THRASHER shape, the front element is like 1.5 inches inside the barrel, and the outside can be rough and scraped, but the glass is almost always very good, and on a crop-body it's a short* tele-macro* capable lens. THis is a design/build that was made like an Army tank.

A large number of older lenses, like 135mm f/2.8 primes from the 1970's are still quite good, and can be bought for $10, $12 these days.

MOST Nikon cameras can NOT,repeat, can NOT accept the pre-AI or non-Ai-moidified manual focusing lenses without damaging the camera body in one, or two, different location; these lenses are therefore in low demand, and low-cost. The "baby Nikons" however, CAN accept pre-Ai lenses and accessories like extension tubes, bellows,.etc.


----------



## gsgary (Apr 30, 2016)

Stick with the A 200 until  you have more money

Sent from my SM-G903F using Tapatalk


----------



## Watchful (Apr 30, 2016)

I would never buy anything with financing, if you don't have the cash, wait and save until you do.


----------



## goodguy (May 1, 2016)

My first DSLR was Sony a300 which is an upgraded a200, lovely old camera.
Anyways I would recommend getting a Nikon D3300.
This will be a huge step up from the a200, older camera with more features wouldn't be the course I would take, I rather have new and capable sensor over old sensor with lots of features.
I own the Nikon D3300 and use it as my second body, great camera, a lot of value for the money.


----------



## zenith03 (May 14, 2016)

Hello guys. 

Thank you so much for your help and advice. I had a looooooong look at this lot and although it would be brilliant to have, I just couldn't justify the extra costs of the D71/7200.

I think the D3300 is a good shout. 

Thank you al again. 

Tom.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------

