I know many of you take wonderful photographs as evidenced by the ones you post here. I'm looking to replace my Nikon D100 with a newer Nikon (I've got too many lenses to switch brands at this point). Do any of you have suggestions on a Nikon as sturdy as the D100 but with more than the 6.1 MP this camera body has? I'm about to start a project of shoot headbadges of the 1000s of bikes I see each week in Philadelphia using my Nikon 105mm f/2.8 VR macro lens, and the D100 camera body is making it's way through South America with a relative. So, I'm looking for a replacement.

Budget? D90 at around $800 (body only) to D700 or D7000 depending on what you want to spend. D90 is VERY popular these days.

Can't recommend a Nikon model, there are so many different ones, I use Canon for digital. Best place to go for DSLR info is here or here.

+1 d90

The current Nikon models like the D90 and D700 are due for replacement later this summer though the tsunami/earthquake problems may slow that down. I personally would go with the full frame D700 at this time and I think 12mp is plenty. My Canon 5D2 has 21mp and the files are huge. Unless you plan to print very large I'm not sure you need that many mp though the new models will certainly have more mp.

low light capabilities are the latest thing to look for in a camera.

What is interesting is that 95% of shots will be either printed as 4x6 or on the web, for a 4x6 at 300DPI resultion you need 1200x1800 pixels so 2MP is actually good enough, and that's probably double what is needed for the Internet. For the few that are larger 5x7 needs 3MP, 8x10's really need about 8MP, but when you get to 8x10 and larger, you actually don't need as high a resolution, each size larger you go, the viewing distance increases, so figure a 16x20 the resolution doesn't need to be higher then about 200DPI, and 13MP would be sufficient. What it does do though, it eats up disk space like crazy. Actually I get a very good 8x10 from a 6MP RAW file on my Canon, I am unlikely to print much larger then that size.

Maybe incipient replacement will cause prices on current models to drop. I shoot full frame, my RAW files run to 37 meg each.

B&H would be my choice for buying a new camera. They generally match or beat any advertized price. I can't recommend a model, but I've always shot with Nikons so I would certainly stick with the brand.

Have a look at this:
https://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/reco...as.htm#serious

I think any price drop has been offset by lack of supply due to the problems in Japan.

I shoot with a D300. It is a very nice camera. It is not really state of the art now. Nikon now has the D300s which is a bit of an update. The build on the D300 should be comparable to your D100 so it should "feel" right in your hands. The D300 also has 12 Meg. Since the D300 is out of production, you can probably get a nice price break on a used one. KEH carries used cameras and you can pick up used equipment on the Nikonian board (the people there often sell very nice equipment on the classifieds). The D300 is a bit dated now. It was so good when it came out that it still stands up. People are thinking that Nikon may come out with its successor this fall (Nikon likes fall releases). But predicting what Nikon is going to do is not really possible. I think Nikon has better security on its secrets than the Pentagon. They certainly beat the US State Department all hollow.

If you want a more current technology, the D7000 came out this year. It is not as good a physical build as your D100. But I hear it is still good. It has really nice high ISO performance. Its autofocus is not quite as good as the D300, or so I understand.

++++1, This is what I use and it is a great camera...

I think you are the key expert on this question.

When, exactly, do you find your D100 falling short of your needs/expectations/wants?

Many people can tell you about fine cameras in general but only you can decide what's right for you.

I would go with the D7000. I love my D90, but the D7000 has newer technology, plus is a tougher build than the D90. (More weather sealing and metal in the body)

Although, you can get a used D90 in really nice condition for pretty darned cheap these days, if price is a major factor. The D5100 is also a very nice camera, despite Ken Rockwell loving it......lol. (JUST KIDDING, KR fans!!!!)

An excellent place for more, and extremely detailed Nikon info is Thom Hogan's site:

https://www.bythom.com/

When a family member is using it abroad for the next 18 months.

As I haven't had a "serious" camera since I traded in my Yaschicamat-124G on a Nikon digital point-and-shoot, I can't offer any photo help except to say that others here are offering great advice.

On the other hand, it would seem that you have on obsession with bicycles. One question: Is this obsession with bicycles causing any problems in living your life?

The headtube from the Raleigh Rampar my wife rode 30 years ago is now siliconed on the frame tube above the stoker's bottom bracket on our Screamer.

Pointed and shot.

No, not yet. But, then again, I my family are all enablers.

I shoot with a Fuji S2 pro, and if I had the money, I would go to a used S5. They use Nikon lenses, but since they are not Nikon cameras (well, some are gutted Nikon film cameras with Fuji guts) you don't have to much of the whole Canon v Nikon issues, Nikon recoginze that it uses their stuff, and Canon people appreciate gutted Nikons.

Nikon F3,works much better than all that other stuff.....
Bud(with a whole bag of nikons )

I also have an N90s, and while it's no F3, it's still a damned nice film camera. And that's the problem....I'd be willing to bet that the OP is wanting a digital camera, just for the convenience of the digital aspect. There are quite a few of us old schoolers out there, that still like film(I use it to keep me from getting lazy with my digital....makes me a better photographer, imo)......

But film has a lot of problems, too, ie cost, availability, quality development, and cost, cost, cost.....plus, you can't post process it like you can digital....unless you still have your own lab, but even then, computer post processing is one hell of a lot cheaper to do.

Digital doesn't have the drawbacks that film does(for A LOT of people.....I'm not talking about us old diehards......lol), plus, the end results are just as good now as some of the best film shots. The technology has made huge leaps since it was first introduced, which makes it very difficult to argue film, unless you're a diehard......like some of us still are, myself included.

Seriously, NOS88, I would just go get a D7000 if I were you......you'll be happy with that body for years......

I'm a pro shooting Nikon, using D700s as my main body and the D300s as back up and some tele work. The D700 is incredible given what it can do in next to no light. This capability comes in handy when I'm working but in my many years of travel, my personal photography centers on the awe of nature and I've not needed D700 capability. Though the D700s and D300s are my own, I do not carry them while traveling. Instead I carry the lowly D70s and never fail to bring home shots that blow my friends minds and truly surprise fellow pro's when they learn what I've shot with. This is a 6 mp camera that has been put through the wringer and still looks like a 9-. I think I dropped the thing from knee to waist height during our backpack around Mont Blanc something like 4 times and it has zero issues. Go to photoSig and look at what is being produced with the camera bodies you're interested in.

My advice is to go to a camera store, look at them all and see what you like the feel of and are willing to carry. With that, consider how much you want to be liable for during your travels. If someone makes off with my D70s, or I drop it in the river, I'll be more upset about the photos on the card. If the same thing happens with one of my D700s I'll be cursing about having to replace roughly $4000 of gear that may or may not be available due to demand. But the main reason I don't carry a magnesium weather-guarded body camera while traveling is because they weigh a ton. These days I have neck trouble from all the fun I had in the USAF.

Now since I'm not quite 50 yet, I'd better scram while I can.

cameras are like bike's, buy what fits you best. N+1 also applies.

Thanks for all the comments; they are appreciated. I think I've narrowed it down to a handful of bodies that will work. Now it's just a matter of finding the best deal I can find. Some of my lenses are older and will only work with a few of the Nikon Models (e.g. the D5100) via manual focus. I've eliminated them. A few are way out of my price range. I think my first pick is the D7000 if I can find one. Once again, thanks for the input.

I use Canon for Digital, if someone prefers Nikon, Olympus, Pentax or Sony, good for them, I like seeing other people out shooting with equipment, different from my own, if we all used the same camera and the same lenses photography would be boring. It's like Bicycle riding, if I am on my Norco, and someone else is on a Trek, and someone else on a Giant, we can still ride together....