D3100 alternatives?

[tq-g]

Yes, this is one of those "newbie asks for camera adice" types of threads.

For the last few weeks i've borrowed my ol' dads D90, with a 28-85mm(I think...) zoom and a Nikkor 60mm f/2.8 macro. While I don't have much to compare it to, I like the camera very much. As far as lensen go though, i've mostly just used the 60mm one.

Anyway, now it's about time I bought my own camera, so i'm looking for advice on a good camera and lense combo. The budget for this is as little as possible and asap. Meaning, I have very little money to spend on this and i'm not gonna sit around and wait for better times, when I can be out with camera in hand while there's still a lovely summer here.

This has led me towards the Nikon D3100. It's cheaper than a D90 and seems to have a slightly better sensor. The two major drawbacks i've found is that it can't use old AF lenses and there's no exposure bracketing. Other than that, it seems like the handling isn't as refined. Considering the price, including the 18-55mm  lense, is about as much as a used D90 body it seems like a pretty darn good deal.

My primary interests are landscapes and cityscapes. I do appreciate if it's a little bit versatile, but I have zero interest in street photography or sports.

Now I mention the D3100 because it's cheap and seems to have alot of bang for the buck. However, I don't know much about the alternatives. That's why i'd like to know your thoughts on the matter. Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

[RobSaecker]

Convince your dad it's time to update to a D7000, and offer to take the D90 off his hands for cheap?

Seriously, I bought a D5000 a couple years ago, and shortly found that it's limitations for landscape work drove me nuts. The viewfinder is simply too dim to be useful for focus, and the monitor doesn't have enough resolution to work for live view, except for large features. So you're limited to AF-S lenses for autofocus, and using the focus confirmation dot for anything else. That has one advantage, and that's that it forces you to slow down.

I haven't handled a D3100, but I doubt it's going to be much different.

[tq-g]

Knowing my father likes new gadgets almost as much as I do, he might actually agree to that. However, my conscience would force me to advice him against such foolishness. Not that there would be anything wrong with such an update. It's just that he's got the camera nicely tucked in the bag for 10 months per year, and then brings it out on his yearly vacation. The D90 is already a hell of a camera for that kind of use.

What you're saying about the viewfinder could pose a problem. I'm fine if it just means I need to slow down and take a little extra care in poor light, but if it renders manual focus lenses unusable i'm not so sure...

Part of my dilemma here is that I could spend the extra money for a used D90 and, say, one of those 50mm primes you can get for a bargain. Or, get the D3100 - preferably used as  well - with the 18-55mm zoom and try to squeeze in something like a 85mm prime(or tele-zoom). Then perhaps later on get one of those bargain 50mm primes, and I ought to be covered until other people start paying for my equipment(if that ever happens). But, there's always a but, then I also must be able to live with the D3100's flaws...

[RobSaecker]

Knowing my father likes new gadgets almost as much as I do, he might actually agree to that. However, my conscience would force me to advice him against such foolishness. Not that there would be anything wrong with such an update. It's just that he's got the camera nicely tucked in the bag for 10 months per year, and then brings it out on his yearly vacation. The D90 is already a hell of a camera for that kind of use.

OK, then buy the 3100 for him. And take the 90 for yourself.  

What you're saying about the viewfinder could pose a problem. I'm fine if it just means I need to slow down and take a little extra care in poor light, but if it renders manual focus lenses unusable i'm not so sure...

Not unusable by any stretch, just often really frustrating, for me. I mean, there are times when I want to be able to take a shot "right now". With manual focus lenses on the D5000, I couldn't do that. The process was: compose, twiddle the focus ring while watching the focus confirmation light, recheck composition, shoot. And that's not just in poor light, it's in any light.

I should mention that one of the cool things about the consumer Nikon DSLRs is that you can mount any Nikkor lens on them, unlike the higher end models that require at least AI lenses. I shot a fair amount with a 55 micro that's almost 50 years old on the 5000, and it makes great images. Just not fast.  

Part of my dilemma here is that I could spend the extra money for a used D90 and, say, one of those 50mm primes you can get for a bargain. Or, get the D3100 - preferably used as  well - with the 18-55mm zoom and try to squeeze in something like a 85mm prime(or tele-zoom). Then perhaps later on get one of those bargain 50mm primes, and I ought to be covered until other people start paying for my equipment(if that ever happens). But, there's always a but, then I also must be able to live with the D3100's flaws...

I probably shouldn't say this, but I wasn't really crazy about the 18-55 either. Most of the time it was in the bag, and only came out when I was in a situation where I didn't want to have to twiddle-focus. But you know, at some point you just have to stop analyzing and jump. Maybe the 3100 will work for you in a way that the 5000 didn't for me. Whatever, get a camera and make some photos.  

[tq-g]

Haha, I could always try though I suspect my chances would be rather slim.
On the other hand, the lowest price around here on a D3100 just dropped by 400$ over night. That's looking really tempting right now.

For me, auto focusing isn't such a big issue as long as manual focus works without selling your soul and performing dark rituals. Well, sort of. It's also good as long as i'm not tempted to throw the camera in the bushes and just walk home. I don't mind taking it a little slower to set things up. And in the end, maybe that little extra time will help produce better pictures.

My understanding is that the 18-55mm is optically very similar to the 16-85mm, which i've used. Most of the time i've been using the 60mm micro, but the last couple of days i've spent some more time with the zoom. While it's clearly not as good as the 60mm I think it's very usable, especially considering the focal length is more versatile.

Yeah, I think i'll jump on the D3100, now that it seems available here for campaign prices.