# new dslr camera or new mountain bike. £500+ budget.



## Paintmaster1982 (Oct 23, 2007)

Alreet folks.

Right ive been working my ass off the past few months and managed to save a bit of a nest egg. I've got about £500 and more if the mood takes me to buy either a new camera or a new mountain bike.

Having been out of the loop in terms of whats out there camera wise iam wondering what would be the best upgrade for me. My current camera is a simple but able Nikon D40. 18-55 lens and 55-200 vr.

Would i get much money for this if i was to sell second hand?

Any help to aid my research would be gratefully recieved


----------



## Brazo (Oct 27, 2005)

Do you already have a bike?

The D40 is still a capable camera, although you could sell it to increase your 'nest egg'


----------



## Paintmaster1982 (Oct 23, 2007)

yeah i got a bike, had it about 10 years now. its a gt aggressor 1.0.

As for the camera it is a great little dslr but now that i've started to progress iam finding it to be a bit limiting in terms of the sensor etc. It very easily white washes on sunny days. I also want to start taking photos of stars and also hdr.


----------



## Glaschu (Sep 16, 2012)

Your current kit is probably worth around £250-300, all in. As Brazo says though, it's still a capable camera, worth about £150-200 with the 18-55 lens, the 55-200 being around £100. 

£500 won't buy you much new these days, other than essentially a newer version of what you already have, secondhand though you could get a nice D300, sell your old kit and you'd have enough for a couple of decent (secondhand) lenses too. It all depends on what you're planning to shoot though....


----------



## Glaschu (Sep 16, 2012)

Paintmaster1982 said:


> It very easily white washes on sunny days.


Do you mean it over-exposes the images? That's not really a fault/limitation of the camera, it's solely down to "user-error" and not metering the scene correctly....


----------



## Paintmaster1982 (Oct 23, 2007)

Glaschu said:


> Your current kit is probably worth around £250-300, all in. As Brazo says though, it's still a capable camera, worth about £150-200 with the 18-55 lens, the 55-200 being around £100.
> 
> £500 won't buy you much new these days, other than essentially a newer version of what you already have, secondhand though you could get a nice D300, sell your old kit and you'd have enough for a couple of decent (secondhand) lenses too. It all depends on what you're planning to shoot though....


I see. I dont mind going second hand as long as its been looked after etc. I tend to shoot anything and everything, from landscape to close ups to, track days etc so a mixed bag.



Glaschu said:


> Do you mean it over-exposes the images? That's not really a fault/limitation of the camera, it's solely down to "user-error" and not metering the scene correctly....


The problem i seem to be getting now n then on a bright sunny day if iam shooting somthing darker or in shaddow, iam getting complete blow out on the picture where the bright parts are. say cloud. It's hard to explain. no matter what setting i use and if i compensate it still is too much for the camera. Landscape and bright white clouds is probably the best to describe it. Ive asked about this before people have commenting on the sensor of the camera isn't upto the job in certain situations. Failing that every day is a school day and iam more than likely getting it wrong.


----------



## shane_ctr (Dec 17, 2006)

if u do go for a dslr im interested in yours if in good condition


----------



## Glaschu (Sep 16, 2012)

Paintmaster1982 said:


> I see. I dont mind going second hand as long as its been looked after etc. I tend to shoot anything and everything, from landscape to close ups to, track days etc so a mixed bag.


There are a lot of low mileage D300s ( that's 300 plural, not 300s) floating around at the moment, as well as cheap D90s (again, plural), either of those would be a nice upgrade.



> The problem i seem to be getting now n then on a bright sunny day if iam shooting somthing darker or in shaddow, iam getting complete blow out on the picture where the bright parts are. say cloud. It's hard to explain. no matter what setting i use and if i compensate it still is too much for the camera. Landscape and bright white clouds is probably the best to describe it. Ive asked about this before people have commenting on the sensor of the camera isn't upto the job in certain situations. Failing that every day is a school day and iam more than likely getting it wrong.


Essentially you're just asking too much of the sensor in your camera, it just doesn't have the ability to render both bright and dark scenes in the same image the way the human eye does. Upgrading your camera won't help with this as it's outwith the capabilities of what any sensor can currently do.

A graduated Neutral Density filter would help for landscapes and for portraits a bit of fill flash works wonders. For portraits your current camera actually scores over more recent ones, as the type of shutter it employs allows for flash to be used at much higher shutter speeds which can be used to produce some quite dramatic effects, in fact if I had a D40 I'd be loathe to part with it as it's a bit of a gem in that respect


----------



## Paintmaster1982 (Oct 23, 2007)

shane_ctr said:


> if u do go for a dslr im interested in yours if in good condition


Ill let you know what i decide buddy. It is in mint condition not a scratch on it.



Glaschu said:


> There are a lot of low mileage D300s ( that's 300 plural, not 300s) floating around at the moment, as well as cheap D90s (again, plural), either of those would be a nice upgrade.
> 
> Essentially you're just asking too much of the sensor in your camera, it just doesn't have the ability to render both bright and dark scenes in the same image the way the human eye does. Upgrading your camera won't help with this as it's outwith the capabilities of what any sensor can currently do.
> 
> A graduated Neutral Density filter would help for landscapes and for portraits a bit of fill flash works wonders. For portraits your current camera actually scores over more recent ones, as the type of shutter it employs allows for flash to be used at much higher shutter speeds which can be used to produce some quite dramatic effects, in fact if I had a D40 I'd be loathe to part with it as it's a bit of a gem in that respect


Ah i see i was told this before yet they said if i upgrade to a better camera with a better sensor that would sort it. It is a great camera and iam more than happy with it. Thanks for the advice. Ill have a good old think and weigh up my options.

Just to add to this.

Why do people upgrade their camera's? I find the world of photography has two faces. One where you just start to understand how it all works and the other where it confuses the heck out of me haha


----------



## PJS (Aug 18, 2007)

Paintmaster1982 said:


> Why do people upgrade their camera's?


Boredom.
Change of brand.
Perceived (if not actual) better pictures will be resultant.
Money sitting burning a hole in their pocket.
Fancy a new toy.
Different type of photography now interesting them - sports/action, so faster burst shots wanted.
Improved low-light noise algorithms resulting in better high ISO shots.
Think it'll let their creativity shine through better/make them a better photographer.
Kudos among peers for having something they all perceive as desirable/better than what it replaced.
Ego massaging - tracks better photographer angle closely.

Much the same reason people change their car or remodelling the kitchen, when both work perfectly fine as is.


----------



## Glaschu (Sep 16, 2012)

If you "need" to spend money on photography then a Nikon 70-300 VR lens (around the £300 mark new/used) would be a good buy for track days, although tbh the extra reach isn't as huge as you might think over your current 55-200. 

You'd have enough left over (combined with the money from selling the D40) to buy something like a secondhand D90, but as I say, it won't cure the blown sky issue, so a tenner or so on a book like "Understanding Exposure" might be a better investment.


----------



## BRYHER (Aug 19, 2008)

Hi ,Try goggling "Ken Rockwell nikon d40" ,masses of info on his site to help you get a grip of your camera and it's controls......or read his site for info on newer cameras.
Enjoy the journey Michael


----------



## Paintmaster1982 (Oct 23, 2007)

PJS said:


> Boredom.
> Change of brand.
> Perceived (if not actual) better pictures will be resultant.
> Money sitting burning a hole in their pocket.
> ...


Good point. The high iso does appeal to me though.



Glaschu said:


> If you "need" to spend money on photography then a Nikon 70-300 VR lens (around the £300 mark new/used) would be a good buy for track days, although tbh the extra reach isn't as huge as you might think over your current 55-200.
> 
> You'd have enough left over (combined with the money from selling the D40) to buy something like a secondhand D90, but as I say, it won't cure the blown sky issue, so a tenner or so on a book like "Understanding Exposure" might be a better investment.


Thanks for that, What lens would you use for the track? And iam reading as much as i can about photography in general, it blinds me sometimes.



BRYHER said:


> Hi ,Try goggling "Ken Rockwell nikon d40" ,masses of info on his site to help you get a grip of your camera and it's controls......or read his site for info on newer cameras.
> Enjoy the journey Michael


Looked this guy up on the D40, lots of info etc, allot of the stuff i know about camera function. But ill still keep on reading. Thanks for the info.


----------



## Glaschu (Sep 16, 2012)

Paintmaster1982 said:


> Thanks for that, What lens would you use for the track? And iam reading as much as i can about photography in general, it blinds me sometimes.


I use either a 70-200 VR or a 300 f/2.8 AFS for motorsport, but they're both a wee bit more than you'll probably want to spend.....


----------



## WP-UK (Apr 24, 2011)

Glaschu said:


> I use either a 70-200 VR or a 300 f/2.8 AFS for motorsport, but they're both a wee bit more than you'll probably want to spend.....


70-200 VR is well worth the extra I think :thumb: one of my favourite lenses


----------



## GIZTO29 (May 8, 2009)

I would think most people in this thread would say buy a camera  Cant really add to what others have already said as it does sound like you getting to grips with the settings. Bare in mind a camera cant see a scene with such varying exposure between land and sky in the same way the human eye does which is why we use Graduated filters  HDR is one way around it. If you do want to upgrade and are interested in astro type shots check out the Nikon D7000 as thats available for around £650 now from Digital Rev and is capable of decent iso without much noise. Good luck on your choice 
Phil


----------



## Glaschu (Sep 16, 2012)

WP-UK said:


> 70-200 VR is well worth the extra I think :thumb: one of my favourite lenses


Tbh, apart from the quicker focus, which is handy for the big bikes at Knockhill, I didn't feel it was worth the £600 upgrade cost over the 80-200 mine replaced.


----------

