Another Nikon D5000 or 5200

5200 should have substantially better performance in low light and superior dynamic range. (Ability to capture a wide range of brightnesses in the same scene at the same time without bright parts turning white and darks turning black.) Those features alone should be worth the upgrade, even shooting auto.

I would guess autofocus and auto exposure metering are slightly better too.

In reply to coolusername: is the 5000 (or 5200) weatherproof?

At the risk of sounding obtuse, if you shoot on full auto all the time, why are you even bothering with a DSLR? Do you need the resolution of the large sensor because you're cropping way down or running huge prints? Do you need the interchangeable lenses because nothing else suits your needs? If you're just shooting for fun, why drop that kind of money on a big, bulky DSLR when you could get photos that would serve just as well from a much smaller, easier-to-carry camera?

coolusername wrote: and i am not savy enough to delve into other shooting options, ...

Try them sometime. If nothing else, go to Aperture Priority and try some shots with something you want to draw attention to, and other stuff you want to blur. Make the aperture as wide open as possible (small number like f3.5 or 4 vs 18) and be sure to focus on the subject. Really helps define the subject as the stuff in front and behind will go out of focus the farther away they are from the subject.

I've been in Nikons since 1985 with my trusty FG in the Navy, and I use AP and occasionally Shutter Priority, other wise quite a bit of Auto myself. Focus (pun intended) on the composition more than how much shutter to go with the aperture for an exposure. (And thanks to spell check I know I misspelled aperture every time)

In reply to coolusername:

If you think you might get rained on again while out with your camera, check out the Pentax K5 paired with a weather resistant lens. Same (excellent) sensor as the 5200 but you get a weather-sealed magnesium body for a couple hundred $ less than the 7000-series Nikon.

I don't have the guts to do this to my K5 but it's a heck of an example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iok1I6loC-Q

Even the 7K is only semi-sealed and you need sealed lenses to actually get anything out of it.

I don't really believe in auto (although I use semi-auto aperture/shutter priority modes and autofocus etc heavily) but there are still definite image quality benefits to be seen from shooting an DSLR on auto. Nothing can touch a DSLR's large sensor when it comes to getting clean photos at high ISOs in low light, you get more and better lens options, the ability to throw backgrounds out of focus, and non image quality-related things like having a real physical viewfinder to look through and autofocus and general camera speed that a compact can't touch.

Personally if I was OP and didn't want to deal with too much on the fly, I'd get used to using Program (P) mode instead of full auto though. You still get automatic control of shutter speed and aperture, but it gives you the option to tweak some of the settings that you won't be changing every single shot but still can get effective use out of, like white balance, ISO, autofocus modes and AF point selection.

captain nemo wrote:

02 said: At the risk of sounding obtuse, if you shoot on full auto all the time, why are you even bothering with a DSLR? Do you need the resolution of the large sensor because you're cropping way down or running huge prints? Do you need the interchangeable lenses because nothing else suits your needs? If you're just shooting for fun, why drop that kind of money on a big, bulky DSLR when you could get photos that would serve just as well from a much smaller, easier-to-carry camera?

in the 70's i hooked up with a pro photographer in atlanta and he would drag me along on his missions, he got me hooked on nikon's and he had all the F's and i had FE's with motordrives, fish eyes, macros and long zooms and the quality of nikkor glass was second to none, i guess it boils down to the variety of lenses i just got a new 55 to 300 and i would love to see what twice the pixels will do when you enlarge that image......good question thanks for your input, i try to take pictures instead of snapshots, getting older and starting to travel and take more shots.

It all depends on your priorities. If you are after maximum resolution and the latest toys for their own sake, that's fine; from what I see on the various photography forums, you're certainly not alone. However, it is worth acknowledging the limitations of the approach:

• If you are shooting solely in auto, no matter how good your rig is, you're missing out on utilizing a lot of the components that make up a good photograph. Time spent learning how to use equipment effectively will make far more of a difference than simply buying new stuff.

• Carrying a big DSLR, especially with a long zoom lens, is cumbersome, especially when you're traveling. Unless you are willing to lug that thing around everywhere, you're going to miss pictures because you couldn't be bothered to carry it with you, and cameras take lousy photos when they're sitting on a shelf at home.

Everyone has their own preferences; hey, I shoot film primarily, and many of my cameras and lenses are 50-80 years old. All I'm saying is there's no point in spending tons of money when the same results could be had for far less.