# Camera Body Question



## coffeefilter (Jun 11, 2014)

I've been looking at the Nikon D5300 as an upgrade from the D40x. Would the D5300 serve as something I could eventually use at a pro level?


----------



## tirediron (Jun 11, 2014)

The D5300 is an upgrade from the D40, but it is still a consumer-grade body, lacking a metal chassis, weather-sealing, and many of the other 'usual' features seen in higher-end bodies.  Could you use it professionally?  Absolutely.  Should you?  Well, that's up to you, but to be honest, IMO, the bare minimum would be a D600.


----------



## kundalini (Jun 11, 2014)

tirediron said:


> ... Well, that's up to you, but to be honest, IMO, the bare minimum would be a D600.


Oi, my measly 12MP D700 still kicks ass and the older D300 ain't too bad.

My car is nearing 200K miles.  Do I hang on to things too long?


----------



## IzzieK (Jun 12, 2014)

kundalini said:


> tirediron said:
> 
> 
> > ... Well, that's up to you, but to be honest, IMO, the bare minimum would be a D600.
> ...


YES...if it ain't broken don't fix it. But if it broke you better be a good mechanic....


----------



## KmH (Jun 12, 2014)

Before I retired i used both FX and DX Nikon camera bodies in my photography business.

Nikon's compact entry-level DSLRs - D40, D40x, D60, D3XXX, and D5XXX lack some feature I feel are needed for doing professional level photography.
The issue is boils down to the ease and speed of making camera adjustments.

The missing features are - external exposure triad, metering, and white balance controls, a second command wheel, a top LCD, and DoF preview.
The compact Nikon's also do not have Nikon's auto focus motor and screw drive system that allows using the older generation AF lenses, but that is not needed for Nikon's AF_*-S*_ lenses that all have the AF motor in the lens.

So at a minimum I would recommend upgrading to at least a full size (not compact) consumer grade D7XXX DX camera or the consumer grade FX D600/610.
All of Nikon's current camera bodies from the D7XXX/D600/610 and up have the features the compact Nikons lack.


----------



## tirediron (Jun 12, 2014)

kundalini said:


> tirediron said:
> 
> 
> > ... Well, that's up to you, but to be honest, IMO, the bare minimum would be a D600.
> ...


I'm witcha'.. the D700 is still one of my daily drivers (and I think I've lapped the "expected" shutter count on the poor bugger too) and I only got rid of my last D300 last week when the AF motor finally went totally twitchy - BUT... I wouldn't recommend anyone buying a used D300 or D700 unless they REALLY knew what they were looking for; both those bodies are old enough to be very well worn now.


----------



## robbins.photo (Jun 12, 2014)

coffeefilter said:


> I've been looking at the Nikon D5300 as an upgrade from the D40x. Would the D5300 serve as something I could eventually use at a pro level?



Well it is certainly capable of taking professional quality images if that's your question, but of course in getting professional results a lot more depends on the photographer and their knowledge/skill level than the actual camera body itself.


----------



## astroNikon (Jun 12, 2014)

KmH said:


> ... The missing features are - external exposure triad, metering, and white balance controls, a second command wheel, a top LCD, and DoF preview.



What do you mean by "external exposure triad" ?


----------



## robbins.photo (Jun 12, 2014)

astroNikon said:


> KmH said:
> 
> 
> > ... The missing features are - external exposure triad, metering, and white balance controls, a second command wheel, a top LCD, and DoF preview.
> ...



Sounds like the Chinese Mafia might be involved, whatever it is.. lol


----------



## coffeefilter (Jun 12, 2014)

Seeing as how I'm spending a lot of time outside in unclean conditions, the weather seal is a huge selling point for me. I also want something with a high ISO and minimal noise, a fast shutter, focus motor for older lenses and video capability. It looks like the D600 or D7XXX series is where I'm going. Now I just have to weigh their individual features and make a decision . Thanks for the suggestions.


----------



## astroNikon (Jun 12, 2014)

coffeefilter said:


> ..... It looks like the D600 or D7XXX series is where I'm going. Now I just have to weigh their individual features and make a decision . Thanks for the suggestions.



I have both the d7000 and d600 .... both great cameras
Though since I got the d600 the d7000 is used very little - my kids use it more than me actually
but i had specific reasons to going to fullframe 

but the d7000, d7100 or d600/610 .. you can't go wrong at any of those price points.


----------



## coffeefilter (Jun 12, 2014)

I'm leaning toward full frame for the better ISO results. Are there any areas where the D600 is better than the D7000 and vice versa?


----------



## astroNikon (Jun 12, 2014)

coffeefilter said:


> I'm leaning toward full frame for the better ISO results. Are there any areas where the D600 is better than the D7000 and vice versa?



better low light/ISO as you mention.

I think upgrading from a d40 to anything modern would be a gigantic jump (I had a d70 at one time).
The d600 is heavier and slightly larger than the d7x00.  For the first time last weekend my right finger actually started hurting from the weight with a 80-200/2.8 lens.  My finger hasn't complained all year until then.  But then, the 80-200 is a large lens.

There's ton of stuff on the internet of d7000 v d600 .. d7100 v d600 etc you can read alot about what people like and don't like.

For me, I really like the photos from the d600.  But I also know my camera technique all the way to my post processing has significantly improved in the last 2 years.  

The fullframe also resolved a couple issues I had
1 - my basement wasn't big enough for home style portraiture with an 85mm lens and crop . ... I could not take another step back
2 - I really wanted a FF camera - as I had bought all FF lens after my kit d7000.  I really wanted to play with Ultra Wide Angle lenses and just a couple weeks I finally ventured out to a car show and did my first shots using my UWA and really enjoyed it. Of course, you can get good UWAs for a crop camera, but I was looking at the nikon 14-24 and it cost more than the d600 body ... so I just made the jump to FF and settled on a 18-35 lens which was inexpensive.

fps is faster on the d7000 than the d600
for the most part the d600 is slightly newer same features as the d7000 and I feel at home on both of them.
d7000 low ISO is 100, d600 base of ISO of 100 but can go to 50.  and being FF it gains an advantage of that I think even at 100.

but basically, if you have the money it will be a gigantic step forward.

but then .... Why the Nikon D600 is NOT a logical upgrade for DX shooters - In The Picture

of course a used d7000 body is $600ish USD and a d600 is still $1200+ ish


----------



## coffeefilter (Jun 12, 2014)

Ok, here's the plan: I have a 70-300mm VR lens already, and if I get the 24-120mm VR I should be covered on focal ranges for a bit. Later, I could get some cheaper, fast prime lenses like the 50mm 1.4 etc. Looks like I'm going to be saving up for the D600, since I only have two DX lenses totaling less than $300. Thanks for the input everyone!


----------



## kundalini (Jun 12, 2014)

astroNikon said:


> KmH said:
> 
> 
> > ... The missing features are - external exposure triad, metering, and white balance controls, a second command wheel, a top LCD, and DoF preview.
> ...


I believe what Keith means is the ability to change the exposure triad (aperture, shutter speed and ISO) without having to menu dive.  The upper tier Nikons have these features as wheels on the body.


----------



## KmH (Jun 12, 2014)

kundalini said:


> astroNikon said:
> 
> 
> > KmH said:
> ...


Yep. That's what I mean. No need to go menu diving.


----------

