Nikon D5300 or D7100? Must Decide ASAP. Going to Alaska in 4 Weeks.

[Dick Whitman]

Hello,

As others have said, I realize this topic has been covered somewhat extensively, but I wanted to get some feedback based on my own situation and how I intend to use my camera. As the thread title says, I'm leaving for Alaska in just four weeks so I need to make a decision fairly quickly to allow for enough time to actually order the camera and, more importantly, to familiarize myself with the controls, settings, etc.

In the past, I've had the pleasure of visiting Spain, Canada, and Iceland, to name a few, but I was never equipped with decent gear - instead having to rely on, at most, an iPhone 4 and an old Canon Powershot SD850 IS. Yikes. This time I'm finally in a position to get myself a DSLR (i.e. I'm working and am no longer a poor college student). This will be my first real camera. Currently, I have an iPhone 5s, which I'm very happy with as a point-and-shoot, but I want something a little more serious and capable. In the past week, I've read and watched a lot of reviews, trying to educate myself as much as possible, and have really narrowed it down to the Nikon D5300 and the Nikon D7100 (though I'm open to other suggestions as well).

I had previously toyed with the idea of picking up a D7100, wanting to get a DSLR for some time now, so when I heard that the D5300 had the same IQ, but was also lighter and cheaper, I was very interested. Since I'll be doing a lot hiking in Alaska, the smaller size and lighter weight of the D5300 seems particularly useful. I've come across user reviews that have preferred the 5300 over the 7100 for traveling and hiking purposes, but a simple camera strap, or even a camera backpack, may solve any hesitations about the larger form factor. Camera-to-lens balance is something I think about too. Would a telephoto zoom lens feel awkward on a 5300? Would something like a battery grip help or is that just silly for a midrange DX camera?

I consider myself to be tech-savy and a quick learner so I'm not intimidated by the idea of having a higher DX series as a first camera. Having said that I would probably opt to shoot in JPEG format initially, which I believe the D5300 is better geared towards with the newer EXPEED 4 sensor. But I also want to think ahead. I'm not just getting a camera for Alaska. I want something I can learn and grow with well into the future. Also, the inclusion of a built-in motor in the D7100, while often spouted as a major benefit, would be absolutely no benefit to someone like me, just entering the market, and owning no old Nikon lenses.

Above all, taking amazing images is what is most important to me. I plan on using my camera primarily for landscape photography but also for photographing objects and perhaps some still video. Max budget is $1,500 though I have a $300 Amazon gift card that could provide some flexibility. Is it worth it, in the long run, to swallow the extra cost and weight of the D7100 for a potentially richer experience, or am I better off starting out with the D5300 and then waiting for the D7200, whenever that is, and for features like a tilting touchscreen display, WiFi, aperture adjustment in live view, and so on? What accessories would be good to get initially (e.g. UV filters, lens hoods, etc.)? I know you can save money by going with a bundle, but so far I've not seen any particular bundle that has interested me. Most of them seem to come with things I don't think I would ever need or use.

As for lenses, I plan on going with the 18-150mm kit lens, which I think will provide enough zoom for my purposes, and the 35mm f/1.8G, as I have read all favorable reviews on the clarity and value this (prime) lens provides. I think a 55-300mm or a 18-200mm lens would be nice, especially for shooting wildlife, but I think the 18-140mm would better serve as an all-purpose option. Obviously if I go with the D7100, I will likely have to use my gift card to get another lens and a few accessories. So, to recap, if any of you were in my shoes, wanting to get serious about photography, but also leaving for vacation in the near future, which camera would you get with (ideally between the Nikon D5300 and D7100) and why? Thanks!

 

[newmikey]

HI'm leaving for Alaska in just four weeks so I need to make a decision fairly quickly to allow for enough time to actually order the camera and, more importantly, to familiarize myself with the controls, settings, etc.

Probably need a bit more than that but you can learn while on vacation - just make sure you are being overly redundant with shooting: shoot a few must-keep'ers on full auto, then experiment away.

have really narrowed it down to the Nikon D5300 and the Nikon D7100 (though I'm open to other suggestions as well).

Both are very competent camerabodies with a comparison showing where one really differes from the other: Dpreview side-by-side

Camera-to-lens balance is something I think about too. Would a telephoto zoom lens feel awkward on a 5300? Would something like a battery grip help or is that just silly for a midrange DX camera?

I think a telezoom would feel fine on the 5300 and a you will find that a grip adds bulk and makes the camera slighly less comfortable to "wear" on a neckstrap.

Max budget is $1,500 though I have a $300 Amazon gift card that could provide some flexibility. Is it worth it, in the long run, to swallow the extra cost and weight of the D7100 for a potentially richer experience, or am I better off starting out with the D5300 and then waiting for the D7200, whenever that is, and for features like a tilting touchscreen display, WiFi, aperture adjustment in live view, and so on?

As always, when a limited budget is available, consider the lenses you want at the price/quality level you want as a first step, then use whatever is left of the budget to get the body. In your case, I think that means going for the 5300, an excellent DSLR in its own right which comes very close to the 7100 but will leave you some leeway to get really good lenses.

What accessories would be good to get initially (e.g. UV filters, lens hoods, etc.)? I know you can save money by going with a bundle, but so far I've not seen any particular bundle that has interested me. Most of them seem to come with things I don't think I would ever need or use.

To start with the latter: you are absolutely right that bundles are a way for the camerastores to make more money, they seldom make sense for the budget-conscious photographer.

Hoods: an absolute must-have for both lens protection and image quality improvement (better contrast, less flare etc.)

UV filters: absolutely useless on digital cameras and potentially degrading IQ when used. Stay away and do not let anyone convince you you "need" them. Maybe get a clear protection filter but ONLY use it in rough conditions (water spray, sand blowing etc). In all other situations, a good lenshood will prove more than sufficient protection.

As for lenses, I plan on going with the 18-150mm kit lens, which I think will provide enough zoom for my purposes, and the 35mm f/1.8G, as I have read all favorable reviews on the clarity and value this (prime) lens provides. I think a 55-300mm or a 18-200mm lens would be nice, especially for shooting wildlife, but I think the 18-140mm would better serve as an all-purpose option.

I strongly recommend staying away from the extreme zoom-ranges. The larger the zoomrange, the less IQ the lens will give. (exceptions do exist of course) - I'd stick to a maximum zoom range of 3-4 times. A f1.8 prime is alway great to have in the bag, whatever the camera brand you're using, a 55-300 happens to be a very usable range when hiking and would deliver better results than a zoom that starts in the wide range and zooms all the way in to tele. Just too many optical compromises.

Just the 35mm and the 55-300mm would already get you very far. See if you can splur for a 14mm or f.i. a Sigma 10-20mm to capture those awesome landscapes with lots of depth.

 

[Mark S Abeln]

How long will you be hiking? Will you be away from civilization long enough that you have to worry about battery life?

I have no problem carrying two DSLRs, and a tripod, on hikes of say 6 miles or so — but then again, I’m only carrying water and snacks and am not doing any mountain-climbing.

An alternative is a remanufactured D7000, which is a very competent camera, which would leave you with enough money to get a better lens.

--

The Refracted Light

A website about the Art and Science of Photography

therefractedlight.blogspot.com

 

[LynniePad]

It's a hard decision, because the D5300 is a very capable camera, although I'm not fussed by the swivelling rear screen, GPS and WiFi. Your suggested lenses (18-140mm and 35mm) sound OK to me, but I would also suggest you look at the Sigma 10-20mm for those landscapes, rather than the 35mm. I've sometimes used the 18-140mm on my second camera (D3200) and it balances fine.

If you are technically adept, learning the D7100 shouldn't be a problem for you, it's just that there are many options, and you need some detailed photographic knowledge to get the best out of the camera. You will not understand various menu items unless you have some experience, and Nikon doesn't go out of their way to enlighten you.

There are various "How To" books for the D7100, and these might be worthwhile if you are pushed for time. I've compared the step-up from an entry-level Nikon to the D7100 as being similar to the difference between a basic word processor and a fully-featured program such as MS-Word.

First area to master is Auto Focus. The D7100 has one of the best AF systems, but that means that there are various modes and many options. When you start, it's easy to get tangled up with AF options and Exposure modes.

The D7100 can be used in beginner mode (e.g. P or program mode), of course, and there are various features which are very handy, such as programmable "User Modes" so that you can quickly switch between favourite configurations without menu-diving. There are also more external buttons that can be customised, and that may appeal to you.

Don't spend too much on accessories. Maybe a spare battery. I'm in the "protective filter" camp; I consider the protection against dust and grime is worth the miniscule reduction in image quality. In critical light conditions where flare might be a problem, you can take off the filter.

Final piece of advice is to practise changing lenses to minimise dust entry etc.

Good luck

 

[darklamp]

It seems to me that you're rushing a decision on this based only on getting it all up and running for this Alaska trip. That's a mistake, IMO.

I think you should take a little more time to work out what you need and get what you really need after that.

It's not that the D7100 and D5300 aren't perfectly capable camera, it's that you have no reason to think you're going to enjoy using them - everyone doesn't like using DSLRs.

Also you're talking about taking great images as if you'll be doing that after your four weeks of "getting to know" the new camera. Well that's very naive.

Good images come from good technique and there's no way you'll be getting any good technique going in four weeks.

So what you'll actually have on your hands is a big heavy DSLR and lenses and no real idea of the technique required to do what you want.

So hold off on the DSLRs.

If you want a better camera ( than a phone ) on a budget, then look for a used Sony RX100, or an Olympus E-PM2 with a 14-42 or something like that. They're good cameras and smaller and lighter than a DSLR - actually a micro 4/3 system is more suited to someone who hikes and travels a lot than a DSLR.

 

[Ido Scharf]

No matter what, leave about $300 for a good carbon fiber tripod. So that Amazon gift card will do. If your budget didn't allow it, I'd even go as far as saying a D3300 kit + tripod would make for a better pairing.

I can't help but recommend a compact system camera. They don't fall short on image quality whatsoever, and are much smaller and lighter. If you pick the right system, the lenses will be way smaller and lighter, too.

Olympus OM-D E-M10 with 14-42mm f/3.5-5.6 kit lens + Olympus 40-150mm f/4-5.6 lens ≈ $1,000, 700 g

If you think you'll photograph a lot of wildlife, definitely swap that 40-150mm for the Olympus 75-300mm f/4.8-6.7 II. That's what I did. It gives much more reach (600mm equivalent), but you need a bunch of light to shoot well with it…

By the way, going to Alaska with a "serious" camera, and not shooting Raw at all, should be a federal crime. At least shoot Raw + JPEG if you're worried you're not going to do anything with the Raw files. Take a computer with you, because even the most capacious memory card can run out of capacity in that beautiful place

 

[LynniePad]

Opinions vary on tripods. I never use one when I'm on holidays, and neither do many other travellers. VR and other similar optical manifestations make tripods less important these days.

I've had light tripod for about 35 years, and carried it in the car, but hardly ever used it. I bought a better one recently and that will probably also clock up a few kms just sitting in the boot.

 

[Ido Scharf]

Well, the argument certainly goes far in both directions. However, I think that in a place like Alaska, one should be able to shoot in the golden hours with a deep depth DoF, and that can become challenging when shooting handheld, even with great optical or sensor-shift image stabilization.

 

[darklamp]

I started using a small Joby Gorillapod as a handy gadget for long exposures with a P&S. I later got one of the larger ones designed for DSLRs for travel ) have a "real" tripod as well ). I find it's a useful device to have for travel for long exposures.

 

[Dick Whitman]

As always, when a limited budget is available, consider the lenses you want at the price/quality level you want as a first step, then use whatever is left of the budget to get the body. In your case, I think that means going for the 5300, an excellent DSLR in its own right which comes very close to the 7100 but will leave you some leeway to get really good lenses.

I think you may ultimately be right. Going with the D5300 will allow more for lenses and accessories. This may seem silly but I came across a Flickr account that features the D5300 almost exclusively, and I was very impressed with the IQ. The 18-200mm is also listed as the lens used for many of the photos, and a lack of sharpness doesn't seem to be a particular problem. Still, the Nikon 18-200mm is a $600 lens. What really impressed me was the lightning balance between the sky and landscape. Maybe this is something that most DSLR's easily tackle, but in my experience, just using my iPhone and my old Canon PS, the camera would always overexpose or underexpose the sky or landscape.

Loading…

www.flickr.com

To start with the latter: you are absolutely right that bundles are a way for the camerastores to make more money, they seldom make sense for the budget-conscious photographer.

Hoods: an absolute must-have for both lens protection and image quality improvement (better contrast, less flare etc.)

UV filters: absolutely useless on digital cameras and potentially degrading IQ when used. Stay away and do not let anyone convince you you "need" them. Maybe get a clear protection filter but ONLY use it in rough conditions (water spray, sand blowing etc). In all other situations, a good lenshood will prove more than sufficient protection.

Would you recommend a tripod, as others have, or a rain sleeve?

Just the 35mm and the 55-300mm would already get you very far. See if you can splur for a 14mm or f.i. a Sigma 10-20mm to capture those awesome landscapes with lots of depth.

Would it maybe be better to go with something like a Sigma 10-20mm, or even a Rokinon 14mm F2.8, over the Nikon 35mm f/1.8g?

 

[Dick Whitman]

How long will you be hiking? Will you be away from civilization long enough that you have to worry about battery life?

I have no problem carrying two DSLRs, and a tripod, on hikes of say 6 miles or so — but then again, I’m only carrying water and snacks and am not doing any mountain-climbing.

An alternative is a remanufactured D7000, which is a very competent camera, which would leave you with enough money to get a better lens.

--

http://therefractedlight.blogspot.com

I'll only be hiking for a few hours at a time - returning to a hotel each night - so battery life shouldn't be much of a concern. I'll also be carrying a backpack with me.

 

[newmikey]

Maybe this is something that most DSLR's easily tackle, but in my experience, just using my iPhone and my old Canon PS, the camera would always overexpose or underexpose the sky or landscape.

This is where the guy behind the camera comes in with some skills. Set to automatic, most DSLRs will "always overexpose or underexpose the sky or landscape". The automatic exposure is no magic wand (regretfully). The D5300 will not do very differently from the D7100 in that aspect.

Would you recommend a tripod, as others have, or a rain sleeve?

Alaska? Rainsleeve, probably (maybe disposable) but tripod? I have one and find it cumbersome to lug around. Find myself without it when hiking. Maybe get a nice beanbag so you can sit your camera on a rock or something.(I use "the pod")

Would it maybe be better to go with something like a Sigma 10-20mm, or even a Rokinon 14mm F2.8, over the Nikon 35mm f/1.8g?

I like the 35mm prime, have a Pentax f2.4 myself and love the quality it delivers but only you can judge. If it is an "either/or" situation, I'd go for the 10-20, yes.

 

[Dick Whitman]

It's a hard decision, because the D5300 is a very capable camera, although I'm not fussed by the swivelling rear screen, GPS and WiFi. Your suggested lenses (18-140mm and 35mm) sound OK to me, but I would also suggest you look at the Sigma 10-20mm for those landscapes, rather than the 35mm. I've sometimes used the 18-140mm on my second camera (D3200) and it balances fine.

I think the swiveling rear screen and WiFi could come in handy at times. GPS not so much because I've read that it's a battery drain and doesn't work all the time on the D5300. Geo-tagging would be nice though, just for providing more image data, and allowing me to see where exactly my photos were taken. Do you know if there is a way to manually geo-tag photos after they've been taken? Also, I'm starting to consider a Sigma 10-20mm over the Nikon 35mm 1.8g based on what others have said as well.

First area to master is Auto Focus. The D7100 has one of the best AF systems, but that means that there are various modes and many options. When you start, it's easy to get tangled up with AF options and Exposure modes.

I've read some threads where people have reportedly encountered AF issues in the D5300. Not sure how true that is or if it's more of a user error more than anything.

Don't spend too much on accessories. Maybe a spare battery. I'm in the "protective filter" camp; I consider the protection against dust and grime is worth the miniscule reduction in image quality. In critical light conditions where flare might be a problem, you can take off the filter.

Any specific protective filters in particular?

 

[newmikey]

Do you know if there is a way to manually geo-tag photos after they've been taken?

Yes, of course. Get yourself a mini-GPS tagger, stick it in your pocket and use software to add the GPS coordinates to your images afterwards. Added benefit: you document your whole hike, not just tag the images.

 

[Dick Whitman]

It seems to me that you're rushing a decision on this based only on getting it all up and running for this Alaska trip. That's a mistake, IMO.

While I'm definitely rushed to get a camera in time for my trip, this decision has been a long time coming.

I think you should take a little more time to work out what you need and get what you really need after that.

It's not that the D7100 and D5300 aren't perfectly capable camera, it's that you have no reason to think you're going to enjoy using them - everyone doesn't like using DSLRs.

I've used DSLR's in the past. My family owns a Nikon D3000 (an entry level DSLR, but still a DSLR).

Also you're talking about taking great images as if you'll be doing that after your four weeks of "getting to know" the new camera. Well that's very naive.

Good images come from good technique and there's no way you'll be getting any good technique going in four weeks.

So what you'll actually have on your hands is a big heavy DSLR and lenses and no real idea of the technique required to do what you want.

I didn't mean to suggest that I expect to take pictures on the same level as much more experienced photographers, but rather that I'm confident that any images I take (especially in comparison to my older devices) will look great.

If you want a better camera ( than a phone ) on a budget, then look for a used Sony RX100, or an Olympus E-PM2 with a 14-42 or something like that. They're good cameras and smaller and lighter than a DSLR - actually a micro 4/3 system is more suited to someone who hikes and travels a lot than a DSLR.

The Olympus OM-D-E-M5 has certainly grabbed my attention as well. The classic, retro-like, compact design is very appealing, but I've been so fixated on a DSLR that it's hard to try and change my mind.

 

[Limburger]

It seems to me that you're rushing a decision on this based only on getting it all up and running for this Alaska trip. That's a mistake, IMO.

While I'm definitely rushed to get a camera in time for my trip, this decision has been a long time coming.

I think you should take a little more time to work out what you need and get what you really need after that.

It's not that the D7100 and D5300 aren't perfectly capable camera, it's that you have no reason to think you're going to enjoy using them - everyone doesn't like using DSLRs.

I've used DSLR's in the past. My family owns a Nikon D3000 (an entry level DSLR, but still a DSLR).

Also you're talking about taking great images as if you'll be doing that after your four weeks of "getting to know" the new camera. Well that's very naive.

Good images come from good technique and there's no way you'll be getting any good technique going in four weeks.

So what you'll actually have on your hands is a big heavy DSLR and lenses and no real idea of the technique required to do what you want.

I didn't mean to suggest that I expect to take pictures on the same level as much more experienced photographers, but rather that I'm confident that any images I take (especially in comparison to my older devices) will look great.

If you want a better camera ( than a phone ) on a budget, then look for a used Sony RX100, or an Olympus E-PM2 with a 14-42 or something like that. They're good cameras and smaller and lighter than a DSLR - actually a micro 4/3 system is more suited to someone who hikes and travels a lot than a DSLR.

The Olympus OM-D-E-M5 has certainly grabbed my attention as well. The classic, retro-like, compact design is very appealing, but I've been so fixated on a DSLR that it's hard to try and change my mind.

For travel something light and compact is the way.

My dslr stays home when travelling. I actually started taking more pictures with a Fuji X100 over my 7D on trips.

If you want a dslr that's fine but buy it because you need it.

Also have a look at the Sony RX10 and RX100.

What I am finding out is that with less gear it is easier to develop a certain style. Your keepers go up. YMMV.

 

[Dick Whitman]

I can't help but recommend a compact system camera. They don't fall short on image quality whatsoever, and are much smaller and lighter. If you pick the right system, the lenses will be way smaller and lighter, too.

Olympus OM-D E-M10 with 14-42mm f/3.5-5.6 kit lens + Olympus 40-150mm f/4-5.6 lens ≈ $1,000, 700 g

If you think you'll photograph a lot of wildlife, definitely swap that 40-150mm for the Olympus 75-300mm f/4.8-6.7 II. That's what I did. It gives much more reach (600mm equivalent), but you need a bunch of light to shoot well with it…

By the way, going to Alaska with a "serious" camera, and not shooting Raw at all, should be a federal crime. At least shoot Raw + JPEG if you're worried you're not going to do anything with the Raw files. Take a computer with you, because even the most capacious memory card can run out of capacity in that beautiful place

The Olympus OM-D-E-M5 has somewhat interested me but I've been so deadset on a DSLR that it's hard to try and reconsider at this point. Also, it probably is a better idea to shoot RAW + JPEG. If I do so, can I expect any kind of performance or battery trade-offs?

 

[Dick Whitman]

Thank you all so much for your feedback. I just got finished booking a helicopter and dog-sledding excursion so things are quickly coming together. I really want to see the D7100 in person, which I have, but that was almost a year ago. A friend of mine has this camera so I might try to swing by his house later this weekend. Anyway, does anyone have anything positive to say about the Canon EOS 70D? Just curious.

 

[LynniePad]

I'm starting to consider a Sigma 10-20mm over the Nikon 35mm 1.8g based on what others have said as well.

I've read some threads where people have reportedly encountered AF issues in the D5300. Not sure how true that is or if it's more of a user error more than anything.

Any specific protective filters in particular?

I took a Sigma 10-20mm on my last holiday, and it stayed on the camera most of the time. It's flexible enough to be useful for general landscape as well as the really wide ones. In photo #2 below, the foreground rocks were literally at my feet, while everything was in focus; characteristic WA shot.

I'm not aware of any specific AF issues with the D5300. May have been a lens issue that you saw reported.

Plain filters are usually available as "UV Filters". The UV part is unimportant for digital, but if you get one, a better quality multi-coated is preferred. Around $50. You could also think about a Circular Polarising filter to cut down reflections from water, but this is optional.


Sigma sunset.


Sigma coastal. At 10mm, you get 100° horizontal view,

 

[Limburger]

Thank you all so much for your feedback. I just got finished booking a helicopter and dog-sledding excursion so things are quickly coming together. I really want to see the D7100 in person, which I have, but that was almost a year ago. A friend of mine has this camera so I might try to swing by his house later this weekend. Anyway, does anyone have anything positive to say about the Canon EOS 70D? Just curious.

Get your lens(es) sorted, this matters way more than the body. The 70D with STM lenses is hands down the best dslr for video with AF.

You imho care too much about the body and neglect the lens(es).

Most beginners want big zooms (I was no different) but ended up shooting wider and wider angles.

You mentioned wildlife and a 18-200, imho a not so great (compromizes) and too short for wildlife.

--
Cheers Mike