What choice to obtain goal

This post involves 2 camera bodies and 2 lenses. I am going to Alaska (and just because 18-300 is same weight and size as 18-200) and am looking for a longer reach.

I have a Nikon D90 with Nikkor 18-200mm travel zoom

Should I?
a) Use the D90 and buy the Nikkor 18-300 lens to obtain x amount of result/resolution/sharpness at 300
or
b) get a higher megapixel body and use my 18-200 and crop obtaining the same x amount result/resolution/sharpness at 300 equivalent after crop?

Thanks for your ideas. Buying both is not an option right now after $15-20,000 for the trip

Jon Robert said:

This post involves 2 camera bodies and 2 lenses. I am going to Alaska (and just because 18-300 is same weight and size as 18-200) and am looking for a longer reach.

I have a Nikon D90 with Nikkor 18-200mm travel zoom

Should I?
a) Use the D90 and buy the Nikkor 18-300 lens to obtain x amount of result/resolution/sharpness at 300
or
b) get a higher megapixel body and use my 18-200 and crop obtaining the same x amount result/resolution/sharpness at 300 equivalent after crop?

Thanks for your ideas. Buying both is not an option right now after $15-20,000 for the trip

Click to expand...

First, welcome to the forum.

Many people really love their old D90 bodies but it is old tech and low MP. If it were me I would go for a newer body. The D7100 is going for very good price now especially for a factory refurbished body.

Nikon D7100 Digital SLR Camera Body - Factory Refurbished includes Full 1 Year Warranty for $595.

Don Kuykendall said:

First, welcome to the forum.

Many people really love their old D90 bodies but it is old tech and low MP. If it were me I would go for a newer body. The D7100 is going for very good price now especially for a factory refurbished body.

Nikon D7100 Digital SLR Camera Body - Factory Refurbished includes Full 1 Year Warranty for $595.

Click to expand...

I agree with Don. I bought a refurbished D7200 back around Christmas at a great price and I have been very pleased with it but it was a bit more than the D7100 even at the special price. It was like brand new. I think you would be well pleased with the improvements. The D7100 is hard to beat.

Get a new/refurbished D3300 with its kit lens (I would avoid D3200), that is around US $400/ you cannot get cheaper than that. A refurbished D7100 would be $200 more, but I prefer the D3300 due to its weight and battery life.

Instead of spending money on an 18-300, see if you can get refurbished 200-500. That will complement the existing 18-200 perfectly. You can also look for refurbished 300mm F4 AFS.

Thanks for the ideas - I have decided

Thanks for your mind stimulating ideas. I have decided that I really don't dislike my daily driver set up so no upgrade is "required" What I need is longer reach on occasion. So after waffling, pondering options, I decided to think outside my box and go with the Nikon P900. Yeah I know all about the think in the box small sensor etc. After careful exam It will serve its intended purpose at the right price ($499), size etc. I will use both cameras, D90 DSLR closer, P900 for long distance.

Thanks again for the ideas.

Best quote (tongue in cheek) "Win! The D810 absolutelyclobbered the P900. I’m so delighted and relieved that I spent the extra$21,000." https://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-coolpix-p900


Visual exam of the P900 reach. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVDAzYVt2rE


Tech exam of the P900http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/nikon-p900/nikon-p900A.HTM

If money is tight, I agree with my buddy Don picking the refurbished D7100! But if you have enough, I would likely choose the D7200 for the extra perks as my buddy Dan mentioned. Both of these Nikon's have quick access buttons and dials for settings, even better than the D90, and they like your d90 has a built in focus motor to run those great Nikkor af-d lenses you can buy pretty cheap!

aroy said:

A refurbished D7100 would be $200 more, but I prefer the D3300 due to its weight and battery life.

Click to expand...

The D3300 has a rated battery life of 700 shots where the D7100 has a battery life of 950 This is straight from the Nikon website. The D750 goes up to over 1300. The more expensive Nikon cameras have longer battery life. Go figure.

One thing to remember also is that the D3?00 series cameras are not weather sealed but the D7100 is. Going to Alaska that might be important. Well, actually it is pretty important everywhere.

Don Kuykendall said:

The D3300 has a rated battery life of 700 shots where the D7100 has a battery life of 950 This is straight from the Nikon website. The D750 goes up to over 1300. The more expensive Nikon cameras have longer battery life. Go figure.

One thing to remember also is that the D3?00 series cameras are not weather sealed but the D7100 is. Going to Alaska that might be important. Well, actually it is pretty important everywhere.

Click to expand...

This is why I'm leaning towards a 7200 as my next one.

Ta2Dave said:

This is why I'm leaning towards a 7200 as my next one.

Click to expand...

The weather sealing is one of the reasons I moved from the D5100 to the D7000. I actually went out shooting the other night in the rain with my D750. We had a sinkhole in the road near my house so I went to shoot it. I would never think of doing that with a camera that was not weather sealed. When I was shooting with my D3100 or D5100 and if it even looked like rain I would not go out. Now I generally don't go out in the rain to shoot because I just don't like getting rained on but at least I don't freak out if I am out shooting and it does start to rain.

I've been caught in the Nevada desert during rain, dust, wind and heat. No fun. I actually haven't been in the desert in awhile. Last time it was like 104, and hiked about six or seven miles...

Don Kuykendall said:

The weather sealing is one of the reasons I moved from the D5100 to the D7000. I actually went out shooting the other night in the rain with my D750. We had a sinkhole in the road near my house so I went to shoot it. I would never think of doing that with a camera that was not weather sealed. When I was shooting with my D3100 or D5100 and if it even looked like rain I would not go out. Now I generally don't go out in the rain to shoot because I just don't like getting rained on but at least I don't freak out if I am out shooting and it does start to rain.

Click to expand...

I do. My camera might be weatherproof but I'm not.

aroy said:

Get a new/refurbished D3300 with its kit lens (I would avoid D3200), that is around US $400/ you cannot get cheaper than that. A refurbished D7100 would be $200 more, but I prefer the D3300 due to its weight and battery life.

Instead of spending money on an 18-300, see if you can get refurbished 200-500. That will complement the existing 18-200 perfectly. You can also look for refurbished 300mm F4 AFS.

Click to expand...

Hey Aroy, I'm curious why you suggest avoiding the D3200? Since I got D7100 my D3200 has only really been used by my wife and I don't give it much thought. But what makes the D3300 a better option in your opinion? I haven't really looked into the differences or any review comparisons.

Apologies to the OP for taking this slightly off topic. I think from another thread I saw you've decided to go with a P900? That could be a really good options for your needs, I've not used one so I couldn't say. I did just read that it isn't weather sealed so that may go against it in Alaska. A 24mpix camera will allow you to crop more than your D90 does.

Elliot87 said:

Hey Aroy, I'm curious why you suggest avoiding the D3200? Since I got D7100 my D3200 has only really been used by my wife and I don't give it much thought. But what makes the D3300 a better option in your opinion? I haven't really looked into the differences or any review comparisons.

Apologies to the OP for taking this slightly off topic. I think from another thread I saw you've decided to go with a P900? That could be a really good options for your needs, I've not used one so I couldn't say. I did just read that it isn't weather sealed so that may go against it in Alaska. A 24mpix camera will allow you to crop more than your D90 does.

Click to expand...

The D3300 is priced very near D3200, but has the following advantages which are not worth forgoing for about US $50 difference
. No AA filter, sharper images
. Longer battery life
. Marginally faster burst rate
. Better Video performance
. In camera HDR

In fact most of the time D3200 is priced at or slightly higher than D3300 at discounted sites.

OT
As others have said, the camera may be weather sealed, but I am not, that is why I do not fancy paying more for weather sealing. Another problem is that many lenses are not weather sealed, and any way the seal deteriorates and has to be checked and changed before it starts leaking. A few drops of rain have never affected my D3300, but I am sure a powerful spray would.

aroy said:

The D3300 is priced very near D3200, but has the following advantages which are not worth forgoing for about US $50 difference
. No AA filter, sharper images
. Longer battery life
. Marginally faster burst rate
. Better Video performance
. In camera HDR

In fact most of the time D3200 is priced at or slightly higher than D3300 at discounted sites.

OT
As others have said, the camera may be weather sealed, but I am not, that is why I do not fancy paying more for weather sealing. Another problem is that many lenses are not weather sealed, and any way the seal deteriorates and has to be checked and changed before it starts leaking. A few drops of rain have never affected my D3300, but I am sure a powerful spray would.

Click to expand...

Where is the in camera hdr on 3300?!?!?

Ta2Dave said:

Where is the in camera hdr on 3300?!?!?

Click to expand...

Page 55 of the manual, I could not copy the text, so here it is

"Each time photo is taken, the camera shoots two frames at different exposures and combines them for painterly effect that emphasizes details and color."

You enter it by setting the mode dial in "Effects" and then choosing HDR. I have tried it and for a fast and easy HDR it is quite good.

Thanks for the ideas. My question was: Buy longer lens, better camera, or crop center of what I have for my Alaska trip. My pondering led me to buy the relatively new Nikon P900 as a satisfactory answer/solution. The cost of a mega zoom lens for a DSLR towards 2000 mm was out of the question and any affordable tele/reach improvement would have been relatively minimal for the cost.

I did a little comparison to see just what would be the difference had I just cropped a center out of my D90 and 18-200 mm lens. Very happy with this P900 option/solution.
Read more: http://nikonites.com/coolpix-p-seri...er-what-i-have-p900-vs-d90.html#ixzz47mqNIMCc

My purpose is just souvenir travel photos of whatever including wildlife. I have been working out the idiosyncrasies of the P900 quirks. So far I am finding that scene mode, birding is a very helpful setting in counteracting shutter lag and getting just that right subject pose. With my D90 the lag is nothing and I rarely miss the right instant. Also I cannot crop so tightly with the zoom as the subject (bird) might leave the frame during the 7 shots. The 7 images per "shot" means I will need a much larger SD card than I am normally using. I shoot a lot to begin with x 7 =? . Capturing a still from a movie might also defeat the shutter lag issue. I have chosen a 3:2 image size setting and that only delivers 14MP, that even with the smaller sensor for souvenir photos it is perfectly adequate. But to gain the reach at the $500 price point I will learn to live with the idiosyncrasies.

Thanks again for the ideas/thought generation.

aroy said:

Page 55 of the manual, I could not copy the text, so here it is

"Each time photo is taken, the camera shoots two frames at different exposures and combines them for painterly effect that emphasizes details and color."

You enter it by setting the mode dial in "Effects" and then choosing HDR. I have tried it and for a fast and easy HDR it is quite good.

Click to expand...

I'll check that out when I get home. Thanks!