garyaosborne

Hi folks,

I'm new to the Hog. Would like some opinions. I am considering upgrading my equipment. Currently I have a Nikon D40X with 2 kit lens that came with the camera. For the most part I use the camera for backyard bird photography. I use the kit lens, Nikkor AF-S 55-200mm ED DX VR.

I have been able to get some great photos with this set up but want to upgrade. So here are my options.

1. Keep D40X and upgrade lens to Nikon 70-300 DX VR ED.

2. Upgrade D40X and keep current lens.

3. Upgrade both.

As for the cameral upgrade I have been looking at the D3300 and the D5300.

Comments and suggestions welcome. Thanks in advance.

MT Shooter Loc: Montana

Always keep in mind that its the lens that takes the image, the camera is simply a recording device. Upgrading a lens will usually make a bigger improvement than upgrading the camera body with the same lenses.

Cdouthitt Loc: Traverse City, MI

If you do end up upgrading the body, then save for at least the 7100. But I agree with starting with better glass. It makes a difference.

garyaosborne

Thanks guys, that's what I thought.

wilsondl2 Loc: Lincoln, Nebraska

If you are shooting most of your pictures f/5.6 to f/11 your current lenes may be OK. I would say save for D7100. Your camera is 3 or 4 upgrades back and unlike film cameras there is a lot of differance in cameras. Why I say the D7100 is that it has a motor for focus. You can buy some great glass on ebay now that needs to motor. With the low light abilaty of the D7100 you may find you dont need a lens that you would with your present camera. - Dave

joer Loc: Colorado/Illinois

You will see a big difference between 6 MP and 24 MP. Cropping with the higher MP is almost equivalent to extending the high end of your zoom (by a lot).

You may want to eventually upgrade both camera and lens. Do the camera first, the lens later and maybe skip the 70-300 altogether and save for a better birding lens.

Leon S Loc: Minnesota

Just to clarify, the 70-300 vr is not just a fx lens that also works on dx cameras.

joer Loc: Colorado/Illinois

It is FX and works even better on DX.

gsconsolvo Loc: Ruidoso, New Mexico

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

Gary, welcome to the Hog.
I'm a little surprised at the answers you have gotten. I also had to look up the 40x. Gary, that camera is ancient. Camera tech moves as fast as cell phone tech, and nobody would use a cellphone that old!!
The best, most expensive lens would barely make a visible difference, if at all!
Gary, resolving bird feathers is about the hardest thing to do in photography. A new lens would make a few % difference in what you see. A NEW camera, ANY new camera, would make an ENORMOUS difference, especially with birds. If you have to crop even a little, the bird will start to fall apart. You have only 10mp, that is nothing by today's standards. You will see a huge jump in IQ.
Gary, GET A NEW CAMERA!! The lens can wait. Lenses are forever, but that's because lens tech moves really slow.
Gary, I can't believe someone compared the camera to just a box?! There is a lot of misinformation out there. The camera is an extraordinarily complex, palm sized computer, with a myriad of sensors.
In your shoes, that's what I would do.
Gary, again, welcome to the Hog. ;-)
SS

amehta Loc: Boston

With film, the lens and film were equally important in producing the photograph, while the camera basically held them together. The same is true today: the lens and "digital film" are equally important in producing the photograph. The one "problem" with digital, though, is that when you buy the camera, you are also buying all the film you will ever be able to shoot with it. If Fuji or Kodak came out with a new film (Velvia, Ektar, Gold 1600, etc), you don't get to go to the camera store and pick up a roll.

Since your D40x came out, Nikon has basically developed new "digital film" which is better. There are also improvements in the camera itself, especially the autofocus system, which might make your backyard bird photography better.

On the lens question, it is true that significantly better glass will improve your photos. From your consumer-level 55-200mm lens, a significant upgrade is not the consumer level 70-300mm, but a pro-sumer or pro level lens like the Nikon 70-200mm f/4 or Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8.

I believe the difference between a D40x and D5300 camera is significantly larger than the difference between a 55-200mm and 70-300mm lens.

amehta Loc: Boston

If I had seen this before I finished my post, I would have deleted mine. SS says it much more eloquently and decisively. :-)

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

the 70-300 is not going to get you better image quality between 55mm and 200mm - and the quality is even worse as you get to 300. If you had a higher level camera with a built in AF drive, you could get exceptional results with an 80-200 F2.8 AF-D which is extremely sharp, and a constant F2.8 for max apertuer regardless of zoom.

So the answer is, you probably want to do both. If you can go to a D7100, it would be preferable to the other choices.

queencitysanta Loc: Charlotte, North Carolina

Why not look at the D7100 camera?

wingnut1956 Loc: chicago

Don't make the same mistake I did..I had a d70 (one model up from your d40) a few years back and hadn't used it in a while.. I was at Costco one day and bought the 3200 2 lens kit, and 2 months later I realized how much better the d7100 is and now I have that. I also replaced the 55-200 zoom with a Tamron 18-270 and absolutely love it. The 7100 is so far advanced from the 3200-3300, especially in the focusing. .51 points as opposed to I think 11? If you're going to upgrade, do it right the first time and get the 7100..