Bushpilot185 From United States of America, joined Mar 2011, 8 posts, RR: 0 Posted (3 months 3 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 1860 times:
Hello again, I know I just posted a topic a few days ago so please don't bash. My last post was about a lens and Ive decided on the AF-S 70-300mm. But for the past month or so I have been going back and forth between the Nikon D3100 and D5100. This will be my first DSLR. Ive herd that its mainly lenses that matter. So my question is, is it worth the extra money to get the D5100 or should I go for the D3100 and put the rest towards the lens. Once again sorry for posting so soon but I really do appreciate it.
DL747 From United States of America, joined Nov 2012, 273 posts, RR: 0 Reply 1, posted (3 months 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 1853 times:
I've got a D3100 and love it. I only have a few bad notes:
1. it has absolutly terrible high ISO noise, I mean really bad, so low-light capabilities are pretty much nil
2. it has a few too many not needed buttons
I cannot vouch for/against a D5100, but I know of a new D5200 that you may want to look at, but frankly I think it is a step back for low-light with Nikon now cramming a bigillion pixels on a crop sensor. If you have the cash, I haven't heard anything bad about a D7000. Definitely invest in glass, though. I bought a 18-55, 55-300 (soon to be replaced with a 70-300 and maybe a 50-500 Bigma) and a 16-85, which I absolutely love. Built like a tank, and IQ is fantastic. I would get a D3100 and buy the 16-85 or 18-200 for medium tele, 10-24 for airshow wide, and 70-300 for tele work. Glass will last forever if treated right, bodies need to be (or you will want to ahev them) replaced about every 5 years, so invest in lenses.
Just like the shirt says, Boeing Builds It Better!
Kedharf1 From Canada, joined Feb 2013, 1 posts, RR: 0 Reply 4, posted (3 months 2 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 1570 times:
I looked at the both when I got mine. I went with the D5100 cause it has the same sensor as the much more advanced D7000! and I got a really good used deal for it. Maybe that helps
Bushpilot185 From United States of America, joined Mar 2011, 8 posts, RR: 0 Reply 5, posted (3 months 2 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 1520 times:
Quoting Kedharf1 (Reply 4): I looked at the both when I got mine. I went with the D5100 cause it has the same sensor as the much more advanced D7000! and I got a really good used deal for it. Maybe that helps
Thanks for the reply! I ended up buying the D5100 and im very happy with it, I also got the Nikon 70-300 VR as well getting a very good deal, nearly $300 off!
Fallap From Denmark, joined Jan 2009, 86 posts, RR: 0 Reply 6, posted (3 months 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 1048 times:
I have the Nikon D5100, I've only field tested it a bit in my local town. But so far so good, but compared to my old Sony A300 is does have some flaws that bothers me.
a. Battery time feels very low! Plus it's meassured in three bars, and not in % like my Sony did.
b. It's VERY slow and inaccurate when trying to focus in Live View mode, also you can only use one AF point in Live View mode.
DL747 From United States of America, joined Nov 2012, 273 posts, RR: 0 Reply 7, posted (3 months 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 1019 times:
Quoting Fallap (Reply 6): b. It's VERY slow and inaccurate when trying to focus in Live View mode, also you can only use one AF point in Live View mode.
I never use live view and find it useless. You cannot see the screen. I would recommend using the viewfinder under every possible circumstances.
Just like the shirt says, Boeing Builds It Better!
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Mar 2011, 8 posts, 
From Canada, joined Oct 2004, 1311 posts, 
From Denmark, joined Jan 2009, 86 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
