Camera or lens?

shooter560

shooter560

Messages
135
Name
Gary
Edit My Images
Yes
The wife, bless her has offered to buy me something for our anniversary, next week, and has put £500 on the table, but what do I ge??

I currently have a D40x, kit 18-55 lens and a 55-200VR lens, but I can't make my mind up if to go for something like the 70-300VR lens and maybe something like a 50mm prime.

Or should I get a new body, D3100 or D5000 and save whats left to add to what I can sell my D40x for and get lens?

I've no set idea on what my fav type of shots are, well other than wildlife, hence thinking of the 70-300 lens.

I'm also wondering if the HD Video mode would allow me to grab stills from it if I caught a good shot. I know in time my needs will prob change but if I don't take advantage of her offer I know it'll go.

Any help, suggestions and pointers always very welcome, thanks in advance
 
im really no expert but have been looking for a Nikon myself so have read lots if reviews and got advice from others, im not convinced you would get a lot more benefit by going from the D40x to a 3100 other than having video and live view, would have thought getting a new lens would be better or going for a D90...

as i say im far from being an expert so happy to be corrected..


that said if you decide to upgrade i may be interested in you D40x myself...
 
I echo above. I don't think that going from a d40 to a d3100 or d5000 will make that much of a difference. However new glass would.

I've been reading that it's always better to buy new fast glass rather than upgrading the body..
 
Thanks for replies, exactly what my gut was saying, just wanted to double check.

So part 2, what lenses? was thinking something like a 70-300 and now either a 35mm or 50mm prime
 
i have both lenses and would be hard pushed to decide which to get rid of. i dont have a specific favourite type or style of photography, i just enjoy taking photo's (i wouldn't say i'm much good either, but sometimes get it right!)

Anyways, for 500 you could surely sell the 55-200 and get both lenses?

d90 isn't a bad idea at all, put personally i'de rather have a 70-300 on a d40, than a 55-200 on a d90. its a belter of a lens.

your money though, but i guess its down to what you want more. Your low light indoor stuff, or your 'out and about' photography?

Al
 
I was planning on getting both the 35mm prime and the 70-300, I know I'd have to add some but hey ho can't take it with me when I go :p

Anyway just found this and wondered if anyone knows what its like, I think I've read right and it'll work with the D40x Link
 
I'd keep the D40 and go with glass all the way. You could get a nice fast 35mm or 50mm prime for reasonable money and still have just about enough left for the 70-300mm should you wish. I have the 35mm 1.8G and it takes really sharp images but alot of people also recommed the 50mm prime which is great for portraits - both are great for lowlight indoor shooting.

The D90 is a nice camera however there are newer Nikons (like D3100) which cost less and are better specced in alot of areas.

I'd personally keep the 55-200mm as I find there's not alot of optical gain between 200-300mm. On the money saved I'd get a nice fast prime and perhaps a second hand wide angle lens.

Have a think about what you want to photograph as that will make your decision a bit easier.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top