Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

So very true! Zoom lens design has improved vastly over the decades, to where a modern 3x zoom range can be just as good as fixed focal length lenses. An optical bench test will still show a slight difference, but not enough to see in a print. (It was only a couple of decades ago when a 2x zoom was the limit, so keep that in mind when buying legacy zooms.)

And at 5x zoom there is a visible difference. Nikon only makes two 5x zooms that have a gold ring indicating professional level performance. The 80-400mm and the 24-120mm zooms are the only ones that qualify, and they just barely make the grade.

None of the "super zoom" lenses even come close.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

Can't really disagree with this although "just as good" is subjective. It really depends on where the images will be seen.

Posted on-line at a reduced size you are going to have trouble telling an image from a 36+MP camera from one taken at 12 MP or with a smartphone or even on film. With a decent zoom or with a prime lens you really have to pixel-peep the full size image to tell the difference.

If you enlarge your image or crop heavily and print, any zoom will have a narrow range of focal length where it does the best job. This could be anywhere along its range, usually near the middle. A 3x zoom just has a better chance of performing well because fewer compromises were made in its design to reach the extreme limits of its range.

But the entire question is academic if your goal is to shoot casual family pictures and street photography. One of the newer smartphones would probably be good enough. Only a purist would argue otherwise.

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

For those who find a smartphone satisfactory, what you say is valid. Others probably should not be labeled "purists", but they will certainly argue that a DSLR is a better tool, and equipped with appropriate lenses a DSLR is even better than that.

Use the tool that fits your needs, and abilities...

SusanFromVermont Loc: Southwest corner of Vermont

Any photo at reduced size will look sharper than enlarged. So if this is the only use a person makes of their photos, it hardly makes a difference what camera and lens is used. However, I suspect this is not what will satisfy a huge percentage of photographers, myself included. Small differences in qualities may have to be "pixel-peeped" to find them, but the human eye detects subtleties without the brain realizing exactly where the difference comes from.



I guess I qualify as a purist! Even family journalistic images can profit from a quality camera and lens, as long as the photographer is interested in learning the basics of photography. For me, the best I can afford is the goal. Right now I have an older camera, the Nikon D7000, which was the best of its class when I purchased it. This is my first-ever DSLR. Instead of upgrading the camera, I have concentrated thus far on upgrading the glass. Buying FX lenses with f/2.8 is a good investment so when I do save enough to get the D810 it won't mean dumping another several thousand dollars on lenses!

You are correct saying the entire question is academic for those who just want to snap photos. As a purist, I am presenting a purist point of view!!!

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

There is nothing wrong with the D7000 other than its crop format. It has the same pixel pitch as the D8xx, just 16 MP instead of 36. I traded mine for a D610 for a little more resolution and because all my lenses are FX.

But when I want large high resolution prints I use medium or large format film. So maybe that makes me a practical purist.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

My Dad was a business systems manager. I became one for part of my career. There is an old saying in systems analysis that optimization of ONE part of a system that is out of balance with the REST of the system... is undesirable. It is wasteful, unnecessary, and has no appreciable effect on the outcome. I've found that to be true in many areas of life. Photography is no exception.

If you are a photographer, one of the most mature things you can do is to balance what you use with your end goal or purpose. If 99.7% of your work is printed smaller than 16x20, posted on the Internet for viewing on mobile devices, or used for some other smallish printing purpose, you can do it with a decent APS-C or Micro-4/3 camera. Hell, the latest iPhone is pretty amazing — for what it is. And even images used on billboards can be photographed with just about anything, because of the laws of physics (you're viewing a huge image from 1000' away — it appears no larger than a postage stamp!).

If you make BIG prints that will be scrutinized at CLOSE distances (as in a 40x60 inch print viewed from 12 inches to make out a person with a tiny head in a group photo), then maybe you can benefit from a full frame, 32 to 55 MP dSLR. If you work in extremely low light with fast action, maybe you need a high end, LOW MP DX body like a Nikon D500. If you photograph products for LARGE point-of-purchase display prints that, again, will be scrutinized closely, then maybe you need a high end, high MP full frame body.

But if marginal and extreme situations are not on your agenda, put the money into lenses, software, and ABOVE ALL ELSE, spend it on knowledge, experience, training, and other educational pursuits.

A well-experienced, well-trained photographer with a good eye for color, line, form, composition, light, perspective, moment, viewpoint, etc. can make GREAT photos with average gear. But putting the best gear in the hands of an untrained, inexperienced "wannabe" photographer will result in disappointment or boring photos.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

... not to mention a big waste of money.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

So true.

I'm reminded of the father of a high school friend. He was a heart surgeon in the 1970s, back when they could pull in $500,000 a year or more. He bought two black Nikon FTn bodies and six Nikkor lenses and put them all in the fancy Nikon leather cases. When he died, his daughter found them in the back of his front hall closet. They had been taken on ONE vacation trip, at least 26 years earlier (according to the expired film in the camera bag), and some of the lenses had never been used!

She recalled how he had been extremely frustrated that he would have had to spend time reading the manual to learn how to use them, and didn't want to do that... He'd rather have driven his Corvette around on weekends, instead. She sold the stuff at a charity auction.

SusanFromVermont Loc: Southwest corner of Vermont

I agree that balance is important! And your description of what equipment fits with different purposes is right on.





Reminds me of one of a photographer's pet peeves - the person who asks what kind of camera you have, because they think having that one will make him/her a better photographer!

topcat Loc: Alameda, CA

You could look at a refurbished D7200 or a even a 7100. The 5100 is a fine camera, but you must decide why you want to upgrade. Sometimes we think that a new camera will make us better photographers, and then we are not happy when they don't.

That being said, the 7100 or 7200 allows the use of more lenses. But if i was doing it today, I would look at the Sony A6000 series. The new 6500 that was announced has 5 axis internal stabilization. I first for APS cameras. If I didn't have Nikon gear, I would seriously be looking at that. If money is no concern. Maybe even if it is.

rmorrison1116 Loc: Near Valley Forge, Pennsylvania

If you are looking for a camera to photograph action related subjects, go for the D500. If you want a really nice full frame and aren't planning on shooting a lot of things in fairly high speed motion, and want exceptional build quality, consider the Df. It may not have as many bells and whistles as some of the other models and it's only 16 megapixels but, it is capable of producing excellent images and it is a really good looking camera.