Hoping for some DSLR advice...

[Panter]

I've had my trusty Nikon D100 for a few Years now, and am only just getting to grips with it. However, it has a major problem with dust on the CCD. As soon as I clean it, within a couple of lens swaps, it's back again no matter how careful I am.
Anyway, just got back from a recent holiday and, once again, am treated to a load of ruined pictures because of specks in the images.

Now, I'm thinking that it can't be normal to pick up dust that quickly, and the camera is probably in need of a service or proper CCD and lense clean to sort it out. But, that seems to be very expensive.

Anyhow, I've been half thinking of replacing it with something a little newer.
I have three lenses, mostly from my original F65 (so they're really getting on now) a Nikkor 28-100mm, a Nikkor 70-300mm and a Sigma 28-80mm that I use for macro shots as it has a convertor switch.

Prices on ebay for the D100 are insanely cheap, I wouldn't be able to cover a fraction of what I paid for it but would I be better off selling the body and keeping my lenses, or just flogging the lot and starting again with a camera and single lense kit, and slowly buying a couple of decent lenses as funds allow?

Or, is it worth having my existing kit serviced?

If I were to buy a new camera, I see a lot of them now come with a HD video recording function. Is this detrimental to the quality of the images, i.e is it just a gimmick or is it the norm now on DSLR's?
They also seem to have insanely high resolutions now, is it just a numbers game between manufacturers? is there a point above which quality will suffer from the need to cram in more pixels?
My D100 is 6.1M pixel and the couple of pictures I've blown up to really large sizes have been faultless, so I don't think I need much more.

I'm only a hobbyist photographer so certainy don't need a pro camera, although for the last few Months I've been shooting soley in manual mode so don't need umpteen programme settings either.

Any thoughts? and sorry for all the waffle...

EDIT: Oh, if I do end up buying new, I'm going to stick with Nikon.

 

[CopperBrompton]

I'm guessing that your D100 has a lot of dust inside it, so when you clean the sensor it is only a matter of time before the mirror movements result in other dust being relocated onto the sensor.

The good news is that DSLR technology has come on leaps and bounds since the D100 (lovely as it was for its time). These days there are decent bodies at all price-levels - if you can give an idea of budget, I can suggest ones to look at.

The umpteen program settings come with all the consumer bodies these days: it's only the pro ones that don't have them.

Your lenses will work with any new body, so you might as well hang onto them if you like them, though I'd suggest picking up a Nikkor 50/1.8 with your new body: for £80-ish, you'll have a lens that will leave your existing ones for dead (albeit one requiring use of two-legged zoom).

 

[Archie_tect]

Could it be static 'attracting' the dust?

 

[CopperBrompton]

Sensor do attract dust once it is inside the body housing. It could be thoroughly cleaned, but to be honest is worth so little now and is so far behind the curve that it probably wouldn't make financial sense.

 

[marzjennings]

My wife's gone through a D100, D200 and is now on a D300. Great cameras all of them. I would suggest getting the D100 fully serviced. It's not that expensive compared to the original price for the camera and even if you do get a new camera it's often handy to have a second body or a camera you don't mind taking to the beach.

Have you checked out dpreview? One of the best camera review sites on the web. There is a point where too many pixels have been crammed onto too small a sensor and that's why dpreview and other sites use a pixel ratio number as a rough indicator of image capture quality.

Nikon are currently behind the game when it comes to video on DSLRs (with Canon in the lead), but the addition of movie capability doesn't effect still image quality.

I'd recommend a D300 as it's a great camera and the new D7000 is supposed to be great also.

 

[Archie_tect]

Dropped our first office digital camera, bought as high spec [with top of the range 64mB card!] many years ago. Phoned insurance company to be told that a replacement camera with the same spec now cost £70.... the excess was £50. Not worth claim.

 

[Panter]

Many thanks all, much appreciated.

No, I'm not particularly enamoured with my lenses, they're all Ok but seem to be overshadowed by more current, even budget ones.
I don't think I'd bother with a spare body, as I say I'm very much only a hobbyist so if I did get a camera failure, it would be more of an annoyance than anything.
So, I guess I've talked myself into fleabaying the lot...

So, for a replacement...

I had a quick look at those kindly recommended above, and they are above budget. I guess, realistically, I wouldn't want to go much above £500.00 for a camera body, but if there are significant advantages to spending a little more, I could dig a little deeper.
That would then leave me a little bit to buy a lens and then start saving for a telephoto and wide angle.
As I say, I'm only a hobbyist (and very much a part time one at that) so definately don't need a pro camera.
Anything worthwhile at that sort of price range?

EDIT: Re the dust problem, I do seem to remember reading somewhere that the D100 was particularly prone to dust, either the design of the CCD or the mechanism that induced a charge? anyway, I see a lot of modern offerings offer an automatic CCD cleaning function/dust reduction system etc so I guess that may be advantageous, if it works?

 

[Melvil]

+1 for the D300, though you'll be pushed to get it for the £500 mark. I love mine. It especially shines when taking pics of fast moving things (like sport and action) - it has a really great focus system (3D tracking) that spookily locks on to, say, a person and follows them all around, keeping focus, even when they're way off the centre of the frame. Very fast, too.

However, if speed isn't your thing and you take, say, landscapes and general purpose shots, the Nikon D90 is a great camera for the money and even outperforms the D300 at High-ISO levels. Also has video (which as said above, isn't quite as good as Canon but does the job). Lighter than the D300/200/100 as well, which can only be a good thing.

DPReview is a great source of advice for cameras, as are Thom Hogan and Ken Rockwell (both Nikon only and their views are highly informative but best taken with a little pinch of salt).

 

[Archie_tect]

Someone on our architects' intranet recommends this:

• The Canon EOS range starts from a very reasonable £349 with a 18-55 lens at Jessops, so digital SLR rather cheaper than it used to be.

 

[CopperBrompton]

I guess, realistically, I wouldn't want to go much above £500.00 for a camera body

For that budget, I'd spend £400-ish on a secondhand Nikon D200, then buy a new or used Nikkor 50/1.8 for £80-ish. That would give you a good starter setup, your existing lenses would do for now and you can gradually replace them as & when budget permits.

I see a lot of modern offerings offer an automatic CCD cleaning function/dust reduction system etc so I guess that may be advantageous, if it works?

Provided you are careful when changing lenses (indoors whenever possible, get the new lens ready before you remove the old one, hold the body mount-down when changing the lens), it's really no big deal. I get very little dust in mine doing that, and the little that does get in is easily removed with a rocket-blower. I have to actually clean the sensor maybe once a year.

 

[Rhythm Thief]

Agree with those suggesting a secondhand D200 with the fantastic 50mm f1.8 lens. The D300 was a genuine advance on teh D200, but it's easy to lose sight of the fact that the D200 remains an excellent semi-pro standard camera which is better than the average amateur will ever need. I've been using one for four or five years and have nothing but praise for it.

 

[Panter]

Many thanks again, all

I really wanted to buy new, but these things just aren't cheap, are they?!!!

The D300 seems to come in at well over £1000.00, never mind £500.00!

A 2nd hand D200 seems to be £350-400.00 (on ebay) so looks like being the best option. I quite like the look of the new, budget versions but it would be extremely handy to have the 6 fps shooting option as 3 fps (as I currently have) is, I must admit, very limiting for fast action shots.

Thanks Archie-techt, but I can't buy a Canon, it has to be a Nikon.

 

[Black Sheep]

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/index.htm is the place I go for kit reviews, I believe there is somewhere on that site a list of compatable kit from nikon

A friend of mine has a new D3 which he often uses SLR lenses on - the apature ring doesn't alter anything, that has to be set from the camera body, but they do work very happily

so I can't see why your D100 lenses won't work on a newer nikon.

 

[Archie_tect]

Many thanks again, all

I really wanted to buy new, but these things just aren't cheap, are they?!!!

The D300 seems to come in at well over £1000.00, never mind £500.00!

A 2nd hand D200 seems to be £350-400.00 (on ebay) so looks like being the best option. I quite like the look of the new, budget versions but it would be extremely handy to have the 6 fps shooting option as 3 fps (as I currently have) is, I must admit, very limiting for fast action shots.

Thanks Archie-techt, but I can't buy a Canon, it has to be a Nikon.

Sorry- missed the bit about your lenses!

 

[CopperBrompton]

http://www.kenrockwe...nikon/index.htm is the place I go for kit reviews

Please don't! The man is an idiot. dpreview.com is the place to go for reviews.

so I can't see why your D100 lenses won't work on a newer nikon.

All the lenses cited will work on a D200.