Camera buffs is it worth upgrading?

PolarityMan

I have a Nikon D60 and a collection of about 5 lenses and with a family holiday coming up I wondered about upgrading it as it's a little long in the tooth.

Are the newer entry level Nikons (D3200 / D3300) worth the upgrade? It looks like I would get better sensor, higher megapixes and video, does it give me anything else from a still shots perspective?

I'd quite like auto exposure bracketing so i can play with HDR.

I would say im not sufficiently into photography to warrant a huge expenditure and I dont want to jump to cannon as want to keep my lenses....so what do you guys think?

rlw

No - spend the money experimenting with what you've got.  What do you do with the pics?  Unless you are blowing them up hugely, more megapixels are a waste of money.  Enter some competitions and see what you can do.  

Unless you fancy a new camera of course....

PolarityMan

I have made some canvas prints of my photos. its more if there are some neat features i might be missing.

Nikko

I used to have a D60 and it was a lovely little camera. The major area I found it lacked was its low light performance. Its probably worth an upgrade for  that reason alone to be honest. A  D3300 is around £300, so for that money id probably be looking at a second hand D7000 instead. It has a weather sealed body, built in focus motor (so you don't have to buy AF-S lenses), a larger/brighter viewfinder, greater dynamic range and higher frame rate.

Just my 2p

PolarityMan

D60 has no video, no smart phone integration, no AEB, only 3 point focus. Just not sure if the entry level stuff is decent or if to really get the benefit you need to go up a step. 

PolarityMan

Nikko said:

I used to have a D60 and it was a lovely little camera. The major area I found it lacked was its low light performance. Its probably worth an upgrade for  that reason alone to be honest. A  D3300 is around £300, so for that money id probably be looking at a second hand D7000 instead. It has a weather sealed body, built in focus motor (so you don't have to buy AF-S lenses), a larger/brighter viewfinder, greater dynamic range and higher frame rate.

Just my 2p

It does seem a bit grainy at low light, or obviously for the same reasons at the highest zoom end of my 300m lens.

BigMonka

I did a similar (but Canon) upgrade a few years ago. I went from a 350D, released in 2005, to a 700D, released 2013. The old camera was good and I did some great prints from it at A2 kind of size.

But, for me, it was totally worth getting the newer model. I've done a few videos, the articulated screen is handy, the quality of pictures at higher ISOs is miles ahead, the higher megapixels means I can crop it closely and still be able to print at a decent size. It's just better in every way.

I think having an upgrade schedule of 5-8years for a body is sensible as the technology really moves on. Any camera money in the mean time should go on lenses which are probably more important than the body.

stickyfiddle

If you already know what you're doing I wouldn't bother with the 3xxx series, as its a very consumer-targeted DSLR. Unless you *want* video and HDR and nothing else I'd aim higher. More focus points is definitely good but HDR is horrible and tbh lightroom will get you 99% of the tasteful stuff you can do with it with the RAW files a lot of modern sensors can produce. 

I'm not familiar enough with the Nikon range to talk specific models, but if you want to look at Fuji I'm your man/zealout/crazyperson! They're awesome!

PolarityMan

BigMonka;1137767" said:

I think having an upgrade schedule of 5-8years for a body is sensible as the technology really moves on. Any camera money in the mean time should go on lenses which are probably more important than the body.

The D60 is pretty ancient but I still reckon ill get 70-80 quid back on it which also makes upgrading a little less stingy. I think I got it around 2009-2010 or so.

ThePrettyDamned

You only really need the centre focus point to be honest. Bracket - do it manually with a tripod. Or avoid HDR because it mostly looks nasty and indicates an image with unnattractuve light in the first place. Most of my favourite images of all time were shot on velvia which has less dynamic range than most modern digis. I upgraded to a Nikon d200 as it was useful upgrades - 5fps, weather sealed, magnesium body, excellent and colour accurate rear lcd, excellent access to important settings without removing eye from viewfinder. Most modern cameras pale in comparison. It even has auto bracketing. Out of camera JPEGs are generally very good, and 10mp is a good file size for big prints. Not much cropping to be had but that's why you practice composition. The thing you really miss out on is high ISO settings. I'd love better low light shots. But it syncs, in manual mode, to 1/320th second not 1/250th as it says in the blurb.

strumjoughlamps

ThePrettyDamned said:

You only really need the centre focus point to be honest. 

yep, I pretty much only used centre point, and remember most cameras apart from the very high ones only have a cross type AF point on the centre so if you use f2.8 or faster lenses using the non cross type AF points is just a waste. I think my 1dsmk2 has 45 AF points but only 7(or maybe 11) are cross type..

do not upgrade because of it only have 3 focus points.

Lodious

IMHO HDR and waterfalls taken with a ND filter are to photography what two handed tapping is to guitar playing ;-) By all means have fun with it, but generally HDR pictures from 3-4 years now just look like 'HDR pictures'.

As Bing Monka said, I went from 350D to something like a 550D and the difference in image quality was huge (cheap Canon DSLR's with 3-4 years between them). I was very pleased with the upgrade, but quickly moved on to a camera with a bigger body as the small DSLR's feel very cramped to me, then went Full Frame.

Multiple focus points were pointless to me until I had a dedicated joystick to move the selection.

Do you do much post processing? Learning Lightrooom or similar can make a huge difference to the final output.

A lot depends on how you use your camera, but you could also consider something like a Sony RX100 to give you a bit more freedom, or some off camera flash equipment and modifiers to use with your DSLR.

I'd push on with what you are trying to do with your current equipment and then choose what to buy once you hit the limits...it will be then be more obvious what the next move should be.