psg Posted June 14, 2014 Share Posted June 14, 2014 (edited) Strange to be bringing such a topic up here, but I know that there are several photographers among you! My old Nikon D50 sporting a D70 18-70mm lens died with an error code about reading the SD card. Seems to be a common enough problem. I was thinking on replacing it with a C$570 Nikon D3300 w/ 18-55mm VRII lens. I am a bit worried about the short 55 mm, being used to 70 mm. Would my old non-VR lens be of comparable quality that I will be happy using it? Thanks Edited June 14, 2014 by psg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JL Sargent Posted June 14, 2014 Share Posted June 14, 2014 Well, now you can use the 70mm lens on the newer D3300 body, right? Should take pictures as good as ever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators dtel Posted June 14, 2014 Moderators Share Posted June 14, 2014 (edited) Edit; Jl beat me to it The 18-70 won't work on the D3300 ? If it does just buy the body and use your old lens. Not a terrible difference between 55 and 70 and you could always get another lens later. Nikon at one time had a 18-135 as the kit lens, I still use it, it's Ok nothing great but is very convenient. They are pretty cheap I think, or they were at one time ? I know Nikon make a few cameras that can use almost any lens and some models can use only certain lenses. Make sure the 3300 is one that can take the majority of the Nikon lenses, if not you will be stuck buying lenses that fit that model and if you switch cameras your old lenses will not work. This will make a big difference down the road, most people buy lenses to keep and switch out body's when they upgrade or one dies. Sorry I don't know if the 3300 is one that can use most lenses or not. I us a older D 80 and it can take most lenses Edited June 14, 2014 by dtel 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psg Posted June 15, 2014 Author Share Posted June 15, 2014 Thanks guys... Yes, my 18-70 mm lens is compatible. I considered buying the body only, the price for body only is $520 (not on sale) and the sale price with the 18-55 VRII lens is $570. So the lens is only costing me $50 plus tax. The 18-55 VRII is f/3.5-5.6G and my 18-70 is 3.5-4.5G, so my older lens is faster at longer zoom but the new lens has VRII. Worth the $50 to decide later which to use? The new one is said to be very compact... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psg Posted June 15, 2014 Author Share Posted June 15, 2014 The 18-55 VRII reatils for $250, but is usually purchased bundled. From http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2455239,00.asp Its price is high when bought on its own, but if you're buying a new Nikon camera with the lens thrown in at a modest premium, you'll be happy to know that it's a solid starter zoom. ...but there's no reason to upgrade from the previous 18-55mm lens to this one. Hum. If I'm really not going to use it, might as well not buy it even for $50 I guess. Although it would make an inexpensive spare in case something ever happened to my 18-70. It's not like I watch every $50 I ever spend either... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scrappydue Posted June 15, 2014 Share Posted June 15, 2014 does your 18-70 have a built in auto focus? not sure how old it is but if doesn't and the 3300 doesn't have an auto focus motor you will full manual. i know when i had my d5000 it had no focus motor so i was forced to have to always buy lenses with them built in. my new d7000 can use any lens as it has the focus motor built into it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators dtel Posted June 15, 2014 Moderators Share Posted June 15, 2014 (edited) Hum. If I'm really not going to use it, might as well not buy it even for $50 I guess. Buy it (imo) I only have one lens with VR and I have to say VR really works well, you will be able to take pictures with it that you would miss with your other lens even counting the one F stop difference. I have on the 70-300 and it works great, better than I could have ever hoped. Another cool lens you might consider is the old 50mm 1.8, fast, sharp and quick AF and it's Nikon's cheapest lens, right at $100 new with US warranty. The cool part is on a DX camera it acts just like a 70mm and is very handy at 1.8. A great deal. This at 300mm 1/10 sec 5.6f , iso 1000, I was sitting so I could brace myself a little, but pretty good for a room with florescent light and no flash used. Without VR I couldn't have done that without a tripod, it's not perfect but close enough to keep the pic. And that's at 300mm, at 55mm it would be easier. Edited June 15, 2014 by dtel Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators dtel Posted June 15, 2014 Moderators Share Posted June 15, 2014 my new d7000 I was looking at that camera for a long time, the 7100 came out and now you can get them about half price used, I want to get one pretty bad but have to many other projects going. Very good specs on the 7000, especially for low light. Good choice Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psg Posted June 15, 2014 Author Share Posted June 15, 2014 Food for thought guys, thanks! Yes, my 18-70 mm lens is also AF-S (G) so will autofocus. But I had a few other lenses from my late father's F90 that are AF, that I would occasionally use on my D50. I guess they wouldn't autofocus on the d3300. The d7000 is available for $839 (and available but out of stock at $705 on amazon.ca). I hadn't thought of that. So lower megapixel count, lower max ISO, lower processor (gen 2 vs gen 4), but still a better camera huh? yes according to http://snapsort.com/compare/Nikon-D3300-vs-Nikon_D7000 I wouldn't have it in time for next weekend either... Decisions, decisions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scrappydue Posted June 15, 2014 Share Posted June 15, 2014 its not about megapixel at all anymore. you could buy a 7 year old top of the line full frame from nikon and it would take better pics than my d7000. also just cause it has higher iso doesnt mean that it performs as good at higer iso like the 7000 does. in all reality we are talking about a company selling something. look at it like companies blowing up numbers on rms output on avr's. its the same thing really. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psg Posted June 15, 2014 Author Share Posted June 15, 2014 True enough. Still, the d3300 is likely leaps and bounds beyond my old D50 so I should be okay. Also, I could get the older d5200 (body only) for the same price as the new d3300 with lens kit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psg Posted June 15, 2014 Author Share Posted June 15, 2014 Scrappydue was right about auto-focus; from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nikon_F-mount_lenses_with_integrated_autofocus_motor: The following list of Nikon F-mount lenses with integrated autofocus motor includes F-mount lenses which fully autofocus on Nikon F digital single-lens reflex cameras without an autofocus motor. Today these are the Nikon D40, D40X, D60, D3000, D3100, D3200, D3300, D5000, D5100, D5200, D5300 models and all Nikon 1 series cameras with FT1 adapter. All Nikon Nikkor-lenses designated with AF-S (introduced 1996) and the older AF-I (introduced 1992) fully autofocus on these cameras. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators dtel Posted June 15, 2014 Moderators Share Posted June 15, 2014 (edited) If it were me I would get the 7000 body and use your lens. I say this because from what I have read it does better on higher iso than many models and I would think a better camera all around than the 3300. Not having compared the two that's just a guess but I think the 7000 was a good bit up the chain to start with and has very good reviews especially about noise from high iso. Your right do as much research as possible before deciding, as Scrappy said the full frames are really nice but the prices are in a whole different range compared to a DX. From what I remember from reading years ago when I got mine the D-50's was a good camera, it's part of the reason the models that followed like the 60 thru 90 models sold so well. Edited June 15, 2014 by dtel Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scrappydue Posted June 15, 2014 Share Posted June 15, 2014 To me the d7000 was as much as I could justify spending since I am not a pro. And I'm happy with it and payed full retail for it plus tax. It would be even better for less. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psg Posted June 15, 2014 Author Share Posted June 15, 2014 Bought a d3300 with 18-55mm VRII lens. Boy that thing is tiny! Works well tough, I'm happy with it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators dtel Posted June 16, 2014 Moderators Share Posted June 16, 2014 Had no idea they were smaller, it is a little aggravating that they are so many different models. I understand they are trying to be at every price point but it's a little crazy all the different models. It looks like a good a good camera, it's amazing how fast the rate of improvements are in cameras, it wasn't that long ago digital cameras were not so good unless you went really expensive. Have fun, bet you end up liking the VR. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.