Should I Upgrade?

[Beauty Through a Lens]

So right now I am using the Nikon D5100 for nature, wildlife and portrait photography. Would it be worth my money to save up for a newer Nikon in the D5 series? The only reason I would want to upgrade is to get more megapixels (quality of the photograph) and more AF points (the little squares in the view finder).

Would it be worth money to upgrade for those two things? Please explain your answer.

[IzzieK]

Adrian I did. If you are one of those who wanted to pixel peep, then the answer is yes. I bought the D810. No matter what anyone says, I am happy with it.

[Inkanyezi]

Whether or not worth the money is your decision.

OTOH, if you are planning on a move to full frame, it makes sense to plan for a future, by also getting lenses to cover that size. Still, I cannot tell whether it is worth it for you.

The quality gain from choosing a larger frame size is perhaps different from what many folks could imagine. It is rather subtle, and it stems from things as bokeh and "feel", which are difficult to quantify. The most quantifiable property is that of dynamic and tonal range, coupled to colour depth and ISO capability. From what we have seen the last decades, there's progress when it comes to small size sensors, which is slower in the larger size ones. The arguments for this boils down to marketability; there are fewer FF cameras sold. This may change in a few years, as also FF sensors are beginning to evolve more than they did a decade ago.

Anyway, it is not in the realm of pixel peeping, unless you use very good glass and nitty focusing, and often crop your shots as well. APS-C sensors of latter generations offer more pixels than most of us need.

So if you are into getting FF, for whatever reason, it may be worth it for you, particularly if your photography includes things as loving a smooth bokeh, and if you can see the rather subtle differences that FF would display compared to smaller formats. It is a different brush to paint with, and only you can decide if it is worth the efforts; not only price, but it is also heavier to lug around.

[Stagecoach]

The only reason I would want to upgrade is

to get more megapixels (quality of the photograph)

I would ask myself if I have exhausted every avenue in getting the best 'quality' out of my existing gear. This would include, my technique, my lenses used and my image post work.

It would be very interesting to see an image taken with your 16 megapixel camera that you feel would have been better if taken with a 24 megapixel camera.

The words, quote "quality of the photograph" could cover a multitude of areas.

and more AF points (the little squares in the view finder).

This would not be a consideration at all for me personally as for my shooting style 85% of the time I use only the centre point and for the other 15% the minimum number of points so I can move around them quicker with action subjects.

But if you are a shooter that frames the shot on a tripod, locks it and then spends time moving focus points around with the hope that you can put one over the exact needed spot it could be beneficial.

Would it be worth money to upgrade for those two things?

Only you can answer that question.

[Manfred M]

If you find your photography is being limited by your current camera, i.e. you are consistently not getting the images you would like to because of a lack of specific features on your existing camera and the camera you are planning to replace it with has those features, then go for it. For me, that is the only reason you should look at upgrading.

For the type of photography you are doing, I would have to say, I generally use a single AF point and more MP are not going to make a noticeable difference in your work. I find more autofocus points tends to mean that the camera locks onto the wrong place, especially with the long lenses used in wildlife photography and ends up blowing more shots. For portraiture I use the single point to focus on the eye closest to the camera and reframe. For nature photography I use a single focus point to focus in front of my subject and use hyperfocal distance to increase my DoF. So for me the features you are looking for would be a step in the wrong direction for the type of work you do.

[Mike Buckley]

You very helpfully explained the type of photography that your thinking about, what you're thinking of upgrading to, and why. Image quality probably won't be improved by the increased number of megapixels or focus points. Having more focus points might make it easier for you to use your camera as you have been using it, but as Manfred explained, you probably don't need any more focus points and might even get more keepers if you change to his method of using just the center focus point.

As you think about this, keep in mind that it's common for almost all of us including me that improving our capture and post-processing skills will improve our photography far more than upgrading the camera body we use. There are exceptions, such as benefiting from a far better high ISO capability (my reason for upgrading that proved to be effective), but those exceptions tend to apply to a very specific need having to do with a very specific type of photography.

[Mike Buckley]

Another thought just now occurred to me: You asked if the expense is worth it. Only you can decide that, but when you do make sure you take into account all of the expenses. As an example, the files created by the new camera will be larger and your enjoyment of photography may be lessened if your computer isn't powerful enough to handle them. You may want to increase the memory in your computer or buy a computer with both a faster microprocessor and more memory.

[DanK]

I'll echo Manfred and Mike: it depends on what you want to shoot, and what specific features of your current gear are holding you back.

To put my comments in perspective, I have both formats: a 7D generation 1 (crop sensor) and a 5D3 (full frame). it is sort of a historical accident that I do--I suspect that if the 7DII was already out when I bought the 5D3, I would have bought that and been content--but regardless, this has given me two years of shooting both formats side by side. Whether it matters, and which is better, depends on what you shoot and how you present (in particular, how large you print, if at all).

Nonetheless, a few generalizations:

-- for a lot of photography, if you are just going to post on the web or print small, you aren't going to see much if any difference in quality. How you process will matter more.

--FF (not just the camera, but also the lenses) means bigger, heavier, and costlier. I like the larger size of the body itself--I have big hands--but other than that, this is all negative.

--Other things being equal, FF handles low light better, but the difference isn't huge.

--FF has a narrower DOF, by a stop or so, at a given aperture. That can be a plus, a minus, or (most often) of no consequence at all, since in most cases, you can just change the aperture.

--If you do very wide angle, the larger angle of view of a FF is an advantage.

--Relevant to you, I suspect: if you do wildlife with a telephoto, the crop sensor is in my opinion superior--more pixels on the target for any given focal length of lens. (This is a function of pixel density, not sensor size as such.)

--If you are an old-timer like some of us and spent years with 35-mm SLRs, FF feels like coming home. that is of zero advantage for people who didn't grow up with the 35mm format.

[JBW]

So right now I am using the Nikon D5100 for nature, wildlife and portrait photography. Would it be worth my money to save up for a newer Nikon in the D5 series? The only reason I would want to upgrade is to get more megapixels (quality of the photograph) and more AF points (the little squares in the view finder).

Would it be worth money to upgrade for those two things? Please explain your answer.

This is more practical than technical. Are you near a shop or club that will let you try the camera model you want?

[dubaiphil]

Picture quality is not directly proportional to mega pixels, nor autofocus points

[rpcrowe]

Image quality is not the only parameter to consider when deciding whether or not to "upgrade" from one's present camera.

IMO, all cameras (be they crop or full frame) combined with top-line lenses are capable of achieving very good to excellent imagery.

However, there may be certain parameters of one camera that suit you better than another camera.

As an example, when I wanted to add a camera to my Canon 10D, I became quite stingy and did not want to spend the money on a 20D. Instead, I purchased a Canon 350D which was capable of as good imagery as the 10D but, I never liked using it. I had gotten used to the Canon two dial system on the 10D and did not like the menu driven system of the 350D. The 350D was also too small for my hands, when holding the camera, my right thumb was placed right over the button which shifted the camera from single shot to self timer and to burst. I would often inadvertently shift from single shot mode to self timer. When I depressed the shutter button and the camera began cooking off the self timer, I would say to myself "Oh *****" I did it again.

I ended up replacing my 350D with a 30D and then replaced the 10D with a 40D. I shot with these two cameras for a long while until I went to the 7D system. I am not considering the 7Dii because, I am quite happy with the work I do with the 7D.

I do shoot with excellent glass. All my Canon lenses are "L Glass" except for the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens...

I don't know what lenses that you use with your present camera but, if they are not top-line glass, I would make a guess that you might see a greater and more immediate improvement in image quality by upgrading lenses than by upgrading your camera. However, if you are already shooting with top-line lenses and are not happy with your image quality, perhaps upgrading your skill set might be the way to go. BTW: I have no idea what your skills are and I am just talking in generalistic terms...

[dennybeall]

If I could afford it I'd go with the D5500 since I have lenses with focus motors already. I don't know if I would use the touch screen but probably. I do use the screen on the D5300 a lot and have to use it for video (no other choice).
How important is having the "newest" model to you?
I find that the D5300 will do everything I want to do now and more. What do you want to do? Have you decided?

[JBW]

If I could afford it I'd go with the D5500 since I have lenses with focus motors already. I don't know if I would use the touch screen but probably. I do use the screen on the D5300 a lot and have to use it for video (no other choice).
How important is having the "newest" model to you?
I find that the D5300 will do everything I want to do now and more. What do you want to do? Have you decided?

There is the ultimate question to find the right answer. 'What do you want to do'? Answer that and the tool you need will come into focus.

[Shadowman]

I'm late to the discussion but how about posting examples of nature, wildlife, and portraiture along with the typical lens you use? Also why you chose that particular lens.