Trading in my D3000 for D3100 will that affect my lenses?

i have a NIKKOR 70-300 1:4.5-5.6 G and NIKKOR 18-55 1:3.5-5.6--since I'm trading up the camera body to a D3100 from an old school D3000, does that present any issues with my old lenses or can all Nikon DSLRs utilize the same lenses? Thanks so much.

Lens will interchange and really, none of my business but why not a little bigger jump?

I agree with John Thomas. Why not a 3300 for instance?

The D3000 and D3100 (and D3300) are DX cameras and so your DX lenses will work fine. If you had gotten an FX camera then they would only work in DX mode as they are not able to provide full coverage for the larger FX sensor. But you are good to go!

It's a good question--the answer for which, I don't know 100%--I was thinking that beyond a certain megapixel, it really doesn't make much difference and i do like large format photos and printing them, so I thought the 3100 would be good enough---but maybe I'm misguided. Would appreciate your thoughts. Thanks!

The D3100 is a great camera. But if you can advance further that wouldn't be a bad thing.

I've got about $400 to spend on a refurbished Nikon. Pretty much limits me to a D3100 but if I could be convinced the jump to a 3300 or 5100 weren't just a megapixel thing or a video thing (which I'm not into) I may do it. Any advice appreciated

MontyMontgomery said:

I've got about $400 to spend on a refurbished Nikon. Pretty much limits me to a D3100 but if I could be convinced the jump to a 3300 or 5100 weren't just a megapixel thing or a video thing (which I'm not into) I may do it. Any advice appreciated

Click to expand...

Betwen the D3100 and and the D3300, the latter wins, hands down. The D3300 loses the OLPF (Optical Low Pass Filter, also known as an AA filter); that's reason enough right there. Removing the OLPF will give you significantly better overall image quality. The '3300 also has significantly better color depth and dynamic range. The '3300 also uses the latest Nikon processor, the Expeed 4. Overall, you get a lot more horsepower with the D3300.

....

Here is a good analysis of why you should at least go to a D3200. Hope this helps!

One more comparison is right here.

MontyMontgomery said:

I've got about $400 to spend on a refurbished Nikon. Pretty much limits me to a D3100 but if I could be convinced the jump to a 3300 or 5100 weren't just a megapixel thing or a video thing (which I'm not into) I may do it. Any advice appreciated

Click to expand...

Taking a very quick look at Amazon, I see that to be about the current going rate for a refurbished D3200 with the standard 18-55mm kit lens. I see a D3200 body only for about $300.

One thing of which you should be made aware, if you're considering going from a D3000 to a D3100, is that for some odd reason, the D3100 does not support an infrared-based remote control, even though both the D3000 and D3200 do. This came up in another thread. If you care at all about being able to use such a remote, then that, by itself, is plenty of reason to skip the D3100 and go at least to the D3200.

The D3200 is also the earliest camera in the D3?00 line to support the WU-1a unit, which lets you control the phone from your mobile device and transfer pictures from the camera to the mobile device.

From D3000 to D3100 seems like much too small a step to be worth nearly as much money as you're thinking of paying to take it. It doesn't look like they added any significant features to the D3100 over the D3000, other than more megapixels which you seem to be claiming not to care about) and a faster processor; in fact, they removed at least one significant feature. The D3200 at least gives you back the support for an IR-based remote (which the D3000 has, but the D3100 does not), as well as support for the WU-1a wireless adapter, even more megapixels, and an even faster processor.

Just a real quick comparison of the D3100 and D5100. The D5100 clearly beats it nearly everywhere and you can get a refurbished D5100 for the money you want to spend.

Nikon D5100 vs D3100 - Our Analysis

If you like the smaller size the D3200 is just as good of an option.

Nikon D3200 vs D5100 - Our Analysis

This is really helpful Thanks everyone!

Skip all this nonsense and just go for the D7100. You'll be on here in 3 months selling everything you love just to be able to get one.::what::

MontyMontgomery said:

i have a NIKKOR 70-300 1:4.5-5.6 G and NIKKOR 18-55 1:3.5-5.6--since I'm trading up the camera body to a D3100 from an old school D3000, does that present any issues with my old lenses or can all Nikon DSLRs utilize the same lenses? Thanks so much.

Click to expand...

[h=2]Trading in my D3000 for D3100 will that affect my lenses?[/h]No your lens will remain the same they will not change to Sigma or Tamron

Save alittle longer and get the D3300..

Even I would suggest that you skip D3100 and get the D3300. As others have pointed out, you gain a lot more "horse power" with the 3300. Even I do not need movies or the other gizmos, but find the 3300 a fantastic buy.

Just sell your D3000 with the kit lense it came with, and then save up some and get the D3300 with its kit lense. The new kit lense is much much better than the older one. At higher F stops, the 55mm it is as good as the 50mm F1.8, same is the case at 35mm where it compares with the 35mmF1.8 DX.

I just checked in the Amazon site
Amazon.com: Nikon - Megapixels: 3 selected / Digital SLR Cameras / Digital Cameras: Electronics
D3100 (body only refurbished) ~ $300/
D3200 (body only refurbished) ~ $300/
D3300 (body + kit lense - new) ~ $ 600/
So you are getting the latest D3xxx camera with a lense for just $300 more than a refurbished body only. If you sell your D3000 with its kit lense even for $200, for just $400 you get the new camera with full warranty. If that amount seems high, just save up and buy. Do not make the mistake of buing older technology just because it is cheaper today. Think of tomorrow.