# Nikon D3100



## Vesie (Oct 28, 2017)

Hey guys 
I need your help... I am a beginner photographer - love photography and believe i am capable of taking pretty decent photos (not professional..)! 

I have been using a Nikon D3100 but would like to upgrade myself ... Therefore, I am facing a dilemma whether to buy a new camera and lenses or to upgrate the one I have with more powerful lenses.... Since it is an investment in any case i was wondering if anyone is able to help with any advice? 
Is D3100 good enough to be worth investing in buying new lenses for it rather than buying a newer camera with better qualities... 
With respect that the new is some cases better by default, i like my camera and if it is worth - i would not mind investing in it...

Any advice is valuable and much appreciated!! 

Cheers
Vessy


----------



## jaomul (Oct 28, 2017)

What lenses do you have already. What is your main type of photography


----------



## DGMPhotography (Oct 28, 2017)

How much shooting have you done? I only outgrew my D5100 after 5 years.


----------



## goodguy (Oct 28, 2017)

Best is good camera with good lenses, also what lenses would you want ?
DX or FX ?
If you thinking to move in future to FX body then FX lenses are the right way.
D3100 is ok but to be honest its pretty old, I would try to upgrade both slowly.


----------



## benhasajeep (Oct 28, 2017)

It deppends on your budget.  One camera to consider buying first before lenses is possibly a D7200.  It has a body focus motor.  It would allow you to buy very good used AF lenses that requires a motor in the body.  Thus saving money on good lenses.  The D7200 would have better dynamic range, better color, and better ISO performnace.  The D7200 was already replaced by a D7500 so it's a little be less than it was when it first came out.  If you don't mind used or refurbished can save a little more with them as well.

The D7200 will have a much better AF system, will be able to use a couple stops of higher ISO, has better controls with buttons or dials, instead of going to menu's to make a change.  Better built body.  All and all a better camera.  A D7100 which is previous version would also be a good candidate to upgrade too.  Both are advanced cameras.

Right now NikonUSA.com has refurbished D7100 for $569.96 and D7200 for $849.96.  Both are very good prices.  Either camera would be a good step up from your D3100.  Probably be really hard to beat that D7100 price.  Thats less than half of when it was new / introduced.


----------



## k5MOW (Oct 29, 2017)

benhasajeep said:


> It deppends on your budget.  One camera to consider buying first before lenses is possibly a D7200.  It has a body focus motor.  It would allow you to buy very good used AF lenses that requires a motor in the body.  Thus saving money on good lenses.  The D7200 would have better dynamic range, better color, and better ISO performnace.  The D7200 was already replaced by a D7500 so it's a little be less than it was when it first came out.  If you don't mind used or refurbished can save a little more with them as well.
> 
> The D7200 will have a much better AF system, will be able to use a couple stops of higher ISO, has better controls with buttons or dials, instead of going to menu's to make a change.  Better built body.  All and all a better camera.  A D7100 which is previous version would also be a good candidate to upgrade too.  Both are advanced cameras.
> 
> Right now NikonUSA.com has refurbished D7100 for $569.96 and D7200 for $849.96.  Both are very good prices.  Either camera would be a good step up from your D3100.  Probably be really hard to beat that D7100 price.  Thats less than half of when it was new / introduced.



I agree I upgraded from a D 5300 to the D 7200. I love the D 7200 and I am very happy with my upgrade. 




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## SquarePeg (Oct 29, 2017)

I would upgrade the camera first in your case.  The 3100 is old tech.  What features do you feel need to be upgraded? AF system? Number of MP’s?  Easier access to change settings?  Number of SD slots?  Better low light performance?  Flash options?  What you are using it to shoot and what needs improvement will determine your best options to upgrade.  Whichever body you decide to buy, consider used or refurbished to stretch your budget.  Spend the rest on a 35 or 50 1.8 to pair with your new body.


----------



## jaomul (Oct 29, 2017)

I respectfully disagree with anyone saying upgrade your camera without knowing lenses and style of shooting.

For example if you have a slow old lens but like doing portraits, a 50mm f1.8 could be a great addition


----------



## Derrel (Oct 29, 2017)

SquarePeg said:


> I would upgrade the camera first in your case.  The 3100 is old tech.  What features do you feel need to be upgraded? AF system? Number of MP’s?  Easier access to change settings?  Number of SD slots?  Better low light performance?  Flash options?  What you are using it to shoot and what needs improvement will determine your best options to upgrade.  Whichever body you decide to buy, consider used or refurbished to stretch your budget.  Spend the rest on a 35 or 50 1.8 to pair with your new body.



Yes, I agree 100% with SquarePeg on this one...the 3100 is now old-tech...the 5300 and newer models have really improved the sensor performance that the 3100 era had. Also, the viewfinder magnification of the 3xxx series models has been updated; some of the newest 5xxx models have a touch screen with camera commands AND* tap-to-focus.
*
I would update from a 3100 if you want some improved camera features. Both the 3xxx and 5xxx series have slightly small pentamirror viewfinders; the 5xxx have the flip screen; the 7xxx models 7100 and 7200 have the ability to autofocus with the AF and AF-D series lenses, as well as the AF-S and ADF-S G series lenses, and the VERY-newest bodies can use the VERY-newest AF-P lenses like the 70-300 AF-P VR lens, which performs, according to Thom Hogan, like a big, expensive, top-level Nikkor zoom when shot on the D3400, which is a new cam that HAS built-in AF-P focus support.

The 35mm DX Nikkor, and the 50/1.8 AF-S G Nikkor prime lenses...VERY good,solid investments


----------



## Vesie (Oct 31, 2017)

Thanks a million you guys!!! 
Much appreciate your input! I will look into falling in love with a new body and invest in new lenses from then on  
Thanks again!! 
Vessie


----------



## Tomasko (Oct 31, 2017)

Derrel said:


> Yes, I agree 100% with SquarePeg on this one...the 3100 is now old-tech...the 5300 and newer models have really improved the sensor performance that the 3100 era had. Also, the viewfinder magnification of the 3xxx series models has been updated; some of the newest 5xxx models have a touch screen with camera commands AND* tap-to-focus.*


What does it matter that it's old-tech if OP isn't limited by it? Buying just for the sake of having "the newest tech"? She claims to like the camera, so it doesn't seem like the camera is the limiting factor.
But it's not my money, so whatever.


----------



## Derrel (Oct 31, 2017)

Tomasko said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, I agree 100% with SquarePeg on this one...the 3100 is now old-tech...the 5300 and newer models have really improved the sensor performance that the 3100 era had. Also, the viewfinder magnification of the 3xxx series models has been updated; some of the newest 5xxx models have a touch screen with camera commands AND* tap-to-focus.*
> ...


 Well smart guy, the OP said she wanted an upgrade. The camera was designed 10 years ago and premiered seven years ago. it has a 14 megapixel old tech sensor that's very crappy compared to the newest most modern sensors. Beginners and intermediate level shooters are the ones who benefit the very most from upgrades of Camera, and lens.the D3299 lacks the wide dynamic range and the incredible exposure recoverability and workability  of new or Nikon cameras.  I used to sell cameras. And once again for emphasis: My experience is that beginners and intermediate level shooters are the ones who benefit the very most from upgrading their camera, and their lenses. People like me with 40 years behind the lens?  We can easily compensate for crap cameras and subpar lenses, but Noobs do better with better gear. If it were me and I were going to sell this person a camera I would say by a Nikon D750. Because as I found out selling cameras to hundreds of people, the beginner or the intermediate benefits a huge amount by having a fast, responsive, good, camera. And that's why it's not your money that I'm trying to spend but rather the OP's money Clear now?


----------



## benhasajeep (Oct 31, 2017)

Tomasko said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, I agree 100% with SquarePeg on this one...the 3100 is now old-tech...the 5300 and newer models have really improved the sensor performance that the 3100 era had. Also, the viewfinder magnification of the 3xxx series models has been updated; some of the newest 5xxx models have a touch screen with camera commands AND* tap-to-focus.*
> ...



So, we should not buy new cars that get better mileage?  Should not buy smart phones and go back to flip phones.  Sometimes people want the newest / greatest even if they don't need all the features of the newest greatest.  Is that economical, no.  But the world has not been that way for a very long time!


----------



## Braineack (Oct 31, 2017)

benhasajeep said:


> So, we should not buy new cars that get better mileage?


ive actually never seen this to make sense


----------



## Tomasko (Oct 31, 2017)

Derrel said:


> Tomasko said:
> 
> 
> > Derrel said:
> ...


No, it's not clear. She asked for an advice if she'd benefit more from a camera or from a new lens. She never responded to any of the questions about her experience etc., but she said she likes the camera and if it's good enough, she wanted to invest in new lenses. 
It's nice you have 40 years "behind the lens", but you obviously don't care about her as a person/photographer and you calling her a noob just proves it. Not sure how it's in US, but actually it's quite offensive.
I don't pretend to be a smart guy, unlike someone else. I just believe many questions shouldn't be answered like "oh, I've got experience, it's like this!", but through discussion and finding out what the person actually wants, not what you think she wants. You'd be probably surprised, but those two things could be very far apart.


----------



## Braineack (Oct 31, 2017)

call the police, someone took offense for someone else on the internet!


----------



## Tomasko (Oct 31, 2017)

benhasajeep said:


> So, we should not buy new cars that get better mileage?  Should not buy smart phones and go back to flip phones.  Sometimes people want the newest / greatest even if they don't need all the features of the newest greatest.  Is that economical, no.  But the world has not been that way for a very long time!


We should not buy new cars just to have the newest model. Before judging whether to buy a new model you probably should ask the person first what does he/she uses current model for, what are the expectations etc, and find out, if you REALLY need a new car/camera/whatever, or you'd benefit more from a different investment.



benhasajeep said:


> Is that economical, no. But the world has not been that way for a very long time!


So that does make it right? No. If someone chooses to be like that, it's his/her problem. But to promote such behaviour?


----------



## Tomasko (Oct 31, 2017)

I understand some people buy new things because they got bored with the old one, but to assume others are the same is just plain silly. Telling her she will suddenly start taking better pictures because of a camera upgrade is just dumb.


----------



## SquarePeg (Oct 31, 2017)

Tomasko said:


> I understand some people buy new things because they got bored with the old one, but to assume others are the same is just plain silly. Telling her she will suddenly start taking better pictures because of a camera upgrade is just dumb.



Instead of picking apart and scoffing at other peoples responses, why not step up and offer some advice of your own.


----------



## benhasajeep (Oct 31, 2017)

Tomasko said:


> benhasajeep said:
> 
> 
> > So, we should not buy new cars that get better mileage?  Should not buy smart phones and go back to flip phones.  Sometimes people want the newest / greatest even if they don't need all the features of the newest greatest.  Is that economical, no.  But the world has not been that way for a very long time!
> ...


If everyone had the mentality of only buying what you need.  We would be in a very bland world!!!  All our clothes would be the same color.  Houses would all be the same.

I cannot agree to the argument that you should not buy something new just because you have not maxed out your previous items capability.  The fact is a new camera will have a higher dynamic range, better color gamut, faster processing, better auto focusing, better ISO, and more.  So, even a plain jane everyday snapshot from full auto mode just might be a better picture than from an entry level camera from a decade ago!   So, even the inexperienced could probably see a difference.  Now, more experienced photographers might be able to massage better pictures from that older camera.  In reality if you think about it.  The more you know, they less you should upgrade.  And the less you know, the more you should buy a more advanced camera to have the optimal output!


----------



## benhasajeep (Oct 31, 2017)

Tomasko said:


> I understand some people buy new things because they got bored with the old one, but to assume others are the same is just plain silly. Telling her she will suddenly start taking better pictures because of a camera upgrade is just dumb.



Actually thats insulting to the OP!  Hey, you don't need to buy a new camera, because you will just be taking the same drab pictures with it.  Just stay with the old one until you learn more! Sometimes a change can create a spark.  Also with a more advanced body with better controls it just might be easier for a person to learn more.


----------



## Tomasko (Oct 31, 2017)

benhasajeep said:


> If everyone had the mentality of only buying what you need. We would be in a very bland world!!! All our clothes would be the same color. Houses would all be the same.


No. We would live in a world where we would have things we actually need and use, instead of having things just for the sake of having the newest model. I'm not saying "don't buy xyz". I'm saying "know WHY you need a new model", because that will make your purchase decisions much better. Can you 100% say OP wouldn't benefit more from a new lens? Some people asked her (like jaomul), but obviously others don't care about the answer to those questions.



SquarePeg said:


> Instead of picking apart and scoffing at other peoples responses, why not step up and offer some advice of your own.


I'm still waiting for OP's answers to jaomul's, DGMPhotography's and goodguy's questions. I think it's quite irresponsible to give her "do this!!" type of answers before that. We're not talking about $10 purchases. An upgrade OP could need can be very well in $1000-$3000 range.


----------



## Tomasko (Oct 31, 2017)

benhasajeep said:


> Tomasko said:
> 
> 
> > I understand some people buy new things because they got bored with the old one, but to assume others are the same is just plain silly. Telling her she will suddenly start taking better pictures because of a camera upgrade is just dumb.
> ...


A camera is a tool. It doesn't make your pictures better, nor Derrel's, nor OP's. It's just the way it is. Yes, it can enable you to take some pictures you couldn't before, but it doesn't improve your experience and your abilities. And sure, it makes shooting easier, but for what we know so far, OP likes her current camera already. Can you 100% say she REALLY needs for instance a $1500 camera? Maybe she'd benefit much more from a macro lens because she always wanted to shoot tiny things.. Maybe she would benefit from learning flash and various techniques. She never responded to questions about that...


----------



## benhasajeep (Oct 31, 2017)

Tomasko said:


> benhasajeep said:
> 
> 
> > Tomasko said:
> ...



I do not disagree, that there is more for the OP to learn.  I have been doing it for almost 40 years now and there's lots I need to learn.  But, if you take her camera and a D7200 using the exact same lenses.  The D7200 will produce better pictures (given the scene).  Her camera is old enough the D7200 is 3 and 1/3 stops better in dynamic range, 2 full bits better in color, nearly 50% better in ISO performance.  Then you add the fact she's interested in better lenses than she has now.  A camera like the D7100 or D7200 could allow her to buy lenses that could possibly save the cost of the new body vs. buying new better lenses that works with her motorless body.  Now the D5xxx series would not.  And that's the reason I did not mention it.  I specifically went the D72oo as right now it's less than $900 as a refurb.  And is still a tremendous camera, and opens a very big door for lenses.  That could in the end save the OP money.  And allow her to have a newer more advanced body, and lenses!

Obviously what I am saying is just suggestions.  It's the OP that has any real say to the matter.


----------



## Designer (Oct 31, 2017)

Vesie said:


> I have been using a Nikon D3100 but would like to upgrade myself ... Therefore, I am facing a dilemma whether to buy a new camera and lenses or to upgrate the one I have with more powerful lenses.... Since it is an investment in any case i was wondering if anyone is able to help with any advice?
> Is D3100 good enough to be worth investing in buying new lenses for it rather than buying a newer camera with better qualities...


Hey, Vesie!  

How about a personal anecdote?  

Last year about this same time of year, I changed my camera from an entry-level D5000 to the very capable D7100.  I had several reasons for the change, one of which was the screw drive autofocus.  I wanted to be able to use some of the older lenses that can be had very affordably, but the D5000 cannot focus them.  There were other factors involved as well, such as the magnesium chassis, dual card slots, Nikon CLS commander mode, auto focus fine tuning, etc.  

Since some folks on here nix the upgrade for pragmatic concerns, but I will add this:

When you invest money and make the commitment to upgrade, you get a "shot in the arm" kind of morale boost, and find yourself motivated to learn more and do more.  This is over and above the practical considerations of "is your current camera good enough?"  I say go for the upgrade, as long as you can afford it.  

Oh, and have fun with it!


----------



## jaomul (Oct 31, 2017)

The OP is likely gone. They were given advise and took it, nobody knows what type of photos they take or what lenses they own or if they own a flash or even need one. They were told that a d3100 is old tech and it is. Dxomark gives the camera a low mark in comparison to newer models blah blah.

I don't know guys, it makes no difference to me as I'm at home just enjoying the photo forum, but recommending a certain upgrade without knowing a little bit more seems self serving (oh o got a blah blah and it's better blah blah). It's also ok for someone to have a different opinion without the need to get almost insulted.

Come on, it's a job for some, a hobby for others and a bit of fun. This thread got not nice for no reason


----------



## Derrel (Oct 31, 2017)

HERE's a GREAT example of what a modern, current Nikon DX camera could offer the OP: THREE and ONE-THIRD more f/stops' worth of dynamic range...as well as ZERO pattern banding on horribly under-exposed and thens rescued .NEF images...

The D7100 was a fine camera, but had pattern banding on rescued under-=exposed shots; the D7200 was/is an absolutely state-of-the-are APS-C sensor camera, and has basically zero pattern banding even when rescuing 4- and 5-stop under-exposed shots. THAT is one of ****the**** critical things that the very-=newest sensor technology offers the beginner: the ability to shoot at almost any f/stop and shutter speed needed in rubbish lighting, and to then be able to "lift" an almost-black frame up to a usable photo.

The D3100 is a poor imager unless the exposures are very close to right on.

Once a person moves up to the 80-plus DxO Mark overall sensor score, the cameras are vastly better in tricky lighting conditions, or when one wants to deliberately shoot in rubbish light, under-expose, and then "lift" the shadow areas up, in software.

Oh...and the D3100 has weaker, less-rich color than newer Nikon cameras...




Look into ISO invariance...which the D7200 offers...it is an entirely new world...a world that the D3100 simply cannot even live in, because it is old, outdated technology that absolutely demands ETTR.

EVERY, single Nikkor lens will benefit if it is shot on a newer, better sensor than the one a D3100 has. And slow, kit zooms will benefit MORE than fast, pro-grade lenses. Ergo...my recommendation is to move 10 years forward in the camera department, and buy a newer, better-shooting Nikon body.


----------



## Braineack (Nov 1, 2017)

I bought a D3100 to replace my D40.  The D40 was better.


----------



## Derrel (Nov 1, 2017)

Braineack said:


> I bought a D3100 to replace my D40.  The D40 was better.



YES, I know what you mean! You are comparing the last CCD sensor camera Nikon made, the D40, with one of their earlier CMOS sensor models with poor sensor performance. Yeah...I agree, the D40 was a better imager. The D40 was the end of the line for CCD...and it had a certain "something" about its files! I liked the D40 a LOT. I bought one for my wife for Christmas. The very large pixels (only 6 million) and the CCD, plus the ability to synch flash at 1/4000,etc.. made it a great little camera. 

The 3100 by comparison was awful. The D40 is sort of a hidden little gem...BIG pixels, CCD sensor, CCD color...a really nice little rig!


----------



## Braineack (Nov 1, 2017)

yup. pretty much.  I was enticed by video -- where I've probably taken like (2) ever.

The CCD sensor looked much better, and like you mentioned had much better features for even an entry level.  Hell it still had the infrared remote -- something they removed on the d3100.


----------



## benhasajeep (Nov 1, 2017)

Derrel said:


> Braineack said:
> 
> 
> > I bought a D3100 to replace my D40.  The D40 was better.
> ...



I beg to differ on the D40.    The D40X was the last CCD sensor Nikon slr camera.    Still have mine in working order.  But,  the D40X lost the high speed sync from the D40.  And was $200 more.   Same sensor as the D80 btw.


----------

