Nikon D50, Time to upgrade, any suggestions?

The friendliest place on the web for anyone with an RV or an interest in RVing!
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

drakethib

Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2010
Posts
8
I bought my wife a Nikon D50 about 8 years ago, and while it still works, it is outdated and awful heavy.

I have several lense for it ( some zoom lense but not sure what kind)

Would like to get her another Nikon whereas we can use the same lense and maybe the camera wouldn't be so heavy.

Any suggestions would be appreciated.

P.S. I know nothing about cameras and she basicaly likes to take pictures of our travels and of our little one as she grows.

Thanks !!!!
 
I would recommend a Nikon Coolpix 7800. It is not a DSLR, it is bridge camera. It will be considerably lighter than a Nikon D50, it will be easier to operate and take photos that are just as good.

The entire DSLR market is drying up due to cell phones. For most photographers a smart phone works just as good as anything else. Bridge cameras are really starting to take over what is left of the photographic market due to price, ease of use and photo quality. And you don't have to drag a bunch of heavy lenses around and change them on a regular basis. It has a 28 to 200mm lens built in.

If you think that a bridge camera will not give you the quality you are looking for then simply click on My Portfolio below and click until you get to my 2006 album. It is full of photos taken with a bridge camera 8 years ago.
 
Depending on what you want to spend, you might look at the D5300, D3200, D610 or D7000.  I believe these are more in line with the the D-50 and perhaps a bit of an upgrade. For a more significant upgrade check out the D800.
 
Tom:  One word of caution:  The bridge is just as good when looking at images on the screen, but probably not as good when printed.  Small prints are not a problem and for most people that is fine, but if you intend to blow up the images, the differences will really begin to show.  Everything related to photography is a trade-off.  I haven't made a definitive comparison with prints, but I'm betting large prints with the bridge will begin to break down when enlarged.

I shoot everything in RAW because it gives me a lot more control of the image.  JPEG is processed in camera and has limited ability to be refined in post processing.  Presenting ones images on the screen or in small print are served pretty well with JPEG.

That's my two cents worth.
 
Ron from Big D said:
Tom:  One word of caution:  The bridge is just as good when looking at images on the screen, but probably not as good when printed.  Small prints are not a problem and for most people that is fine, but if you intend to blow up the images, the differences will really begin to show.  Everything related to photography is a trade-off.  I haven't made a definitive comparison with prints, but I'm betting large prints with the bridge will begin to break down when enlarged.

I shoot everything in RAW because it gives me a lot more control of the image.  JPEG is processed in camera and has limited ability to be refined in post processing.  Presenting ones images on the screen or in small print are served pretty well with JPEG.

That's my two cents worth.
I have printed many 8X10s from bridge camera and it looks identical to a DSLR print. I have never printed larger than 8x10 and I seriously doubt that the huge majority of camera users print larger than 8x10.

I too shoot everything in RAW but I don't recommend RAW to anyone. The huge majority of camera users today can get by just shooting jpg.

I haven't made a definitive comparison with prints, but I'm betting large prints with the bridge will begin to break down when enlarged.
Go ahead and print some large prints. I am betting they don't break down.
 
If you like the lenses you have, the Nikon D7000 is incredibly capable and readily available now for $500 to $600 used.  I've had two of them and they're fantastic for the money.

If your budget goes that high.  I can't speak to the lower end stuff, sorry.  I know the 5000 and 3000 series are excellent as well I just haven't used them much personally.  I did try a 5100 for a while which had a great sensor but the controls I often wanted were buried in menus so I sold it.  I still see those going for $400 to 500 which makes the 7000 look like even more of a bargain.

The Dxxx (like D800) or Dx series Nikons are going to be a lot more $ and actually a lot harder to use well so I'd avoid them unless you catch a very serious photography bug, in which case the new camera will be the least of your expenses!  ;D
 
If you want to stay in the DSLR format, the D7000 s a fantastic camera. If it is a little much for your budget look around for a good used D90. Folks are upgrading and dumping their D90's and it is no slouch either.
 
D90's seem to be going for $350-400.  Personally if I was going to spend that much I'd step up to the 7000 if I found one for $100 more.  It's a significant upgrade to the D90.

Personally, again, I think there's a sweet spot in getting used cameras that are one generation behind the latest ones - someone else has already taken the big depreciation hit, and you get to enjoy tech that's nearly as good as the state of the art.

Digital cameras got really good a few years ago and we're now hitting diminishing returns in almost all areas except low light sensitivity.  I like to photograph often in relatively low light and avoid flash like the plague unless it's off camera, so I want a body with great low light capability.  I have excellent images taken at iso6400, iso10000, etc - not really possible a few years ago.

The D7000 is probably better than the newer D7100 in low light although it gives up a few megapixels.  Here's a shot from halloween day this year, I jumped out of my truck on the way to work and grabbed this handheld with a D7000 @ iso1250

 

Attachments

  • FallHeron-17.jpg
    FallHeron-17.jpg
    189.1 KB · Views: 29
I just bought the Canon 70D and I really like the difference I see.  I do, however, think the Nikon D7000 is equal and because you have lenses, would think that is the way to go.  My daughter has that camera and takes great pictures.  After talking with 2 of my friends who are both photography crazy(experts?),  the printer you use also makes a big difference.  When I bought a printer from Best Buy, the reps for HP and Epson just happened to be in the isle.  I told them what I was looking for and to my surprise the HP rep pointed to the Epson rep and said talk to him.  My 2 friends also use Epson printers and it seems they agree on the 2880.  The 3000 just has a WiFi feature.  I think you will find the same with cameras.  The newer ones have some features you pay for but may never use.  My Canon can be used remotely using my I phone but I haven't set that function up and may never use it.
 
Well, not sure if the OP is around anymore but I did check and the D50 is pretty lightweight for an SLR.  The D7000, which I consider too small for my hands and very lightweight, will actually add weight to their kit.

So they may well be happier giving up some quality and speed and ditching the D50 kit for a point 'n shoot or all in one camera if light weight and small size are more important to them.  Those are still a good step up from a camera phone.
 
Back
Top Bottom