New/used low cost body Nikon, Kodak, fuji?

Z

Zilog

Messages
275
Edit My Images
Yes
New/used low cost body Nikon, Kodak, fuji?

I currently have an old Nikon D40 and can afford to get a second body what one would you get.

New Nikon D5000
Used Nikon D90
Used Nikon D200
Used Nikon D2h
Used Fuji S3
Used Fuji S5
Used Kodak DCS Pro SLR/n

Or would you sell the D40 and spend a little more on the new body? Though I really could also do with a new walk about zoom lens so the less I spend on the body the more I can spend on the lens. Also if you where to go used how much would you pay up to for the body you where looking at?

Any advice or thoughts most welcome,
Many Thanks :)
 
Zilog said:
Any advice or thoughts most welcome,
Click to expand...
The New D200, D2h, S3, S5 and DCS are all a generation (or more) old.

The choice has to be between a D5000 and D90 and I'd pick the D90. (But why not just keep the D40 and spend money on lenses? The new body won't be that much better.....)
 
Last edited:
Go for a S5 Pro the image quality is superb maching cameras 3 times the price
 
Thanks for the replies. I wish I could afford your D300 Voyager but I think even if I sold my D40 that would be out of my price range. I have my eye on a used S5 and a D90 at the moment so will see if I can get one of them at a sensible price :)
 
I went to a d200 and a d2hs, and i can say i havent looked back. Yes the noise at high isos can be a little annoying but the build quality and high fps rate for a low cost were what i needed as i mainly shoot snowboarding events
 
Frenzied Dwarf said:
I went to a d200 and a d2hs, and i can say i havent looked back. Yes the noise at high isos can be a little annoying but the build quality and high fps rate for a low cost were what i needed as i mainly shoot snowboarding events
Click to expand...
The D200 is still very capable camera and superb build ..it will also take almost every Nikon lens ever made..opening the market to some fantastic used lenses
 
Personally I would go d200 or s5pro, I have a d200 which always produces great images at the iso's I shot at, I keep thinking of getting an s5pro for the dynamic range and skin tones it produces. I am sure that I will add one at some point.
 
knighthawk said:
The D200 is still very capable camera and superb build ..it will also take almost every Nikon lens ever made..opening the market to some fantastic used lenses
Click to expand...

I wasnt knocking it mate i was actually saying its a brilliant camera, at high isos it can be a pain but for the price you cannot argue
 
daugirdas said:
D90 has the best sensor of the lot. D2x may be and interesting option, not 4mp D2h doorstop. D300 is the most tempting one if you can stretch. You know you want to.
Click to expand...


Hardly a doorstop, 4mp can still print up to a decent size just means you cant be sloppy and crop stupidly to recover a bad shot. The 8fps really does come in handy depending what you shoot
 
Frenzied Dwarf said:
I wasnt knocking it mate i was actually saying its a brilliant camera, at high isos it can be a pain but for the price you cannot argue
Click to expand...

I no what you are saying pal ISO can be a bit lacking at anything over 800...But I can live with that as I try to keep the ISO levels as low as I can
 
What is your actual budget?

You can pick up a D300 for £700, a D200 for £400-450. The D300 would be nice if your budget can stretch....
 
daugirdas said:
D90 has the best sensor of the lot. D2x may be and interesting option, not 4mp D2h doorstop. D300 is the most tempting one if you can stretch. You know you want to.
Click to expand...


In what way is a D2H a "doorstop"? It's widely regarded as a camera that produces high quality images. Just because it doesn't have 10 zillion pixels doesn't make it bad.

If you do a search Andrew (AWP) posted some shots taken with one (a D2Hs actually iirc) of his and some of the same scene taken with his D3 and the D2Hs was more than capable of holding it own.

Fwiw I'd be happy with one as a back up body, especially when you can buy them for the same price as a D200....
 
I have had a good look at my funds and I think much over £500 and I would be struggling. So I think even the D90 and S5 may be a struggle for me :(
 
Last edited:
Zilog said:
New/used low cost body Nikon, Kodak, fuji?

I currently have an old Nikon D40 and can afford to get a second body what one would you get.

New Nikon D5000
Used Nikon D90
Used Nikon D200
Used Nikon D2h
Used Fuji S3
Used Fuji S5
Used Kodak DCS Pro SLR/n
Click to expand...

Just wanted to comment on DCS.

The DCS Pro in that list is quite different from the rest so I would not put it in the same category. It is full frame and unlike other cameras,does not have AA filters. Its RAW files generally require more postprocessing and more careful shooting but the resolution of it will make it worthwhile. Some say with good RAW converter like RPP it will outresolve D3X (though I cannot verify this).

The drawback of DCSs - it is quite old and slow but the major one - it will require full frame lenses only, so you will in all probability need to invest more in lenses.
 
Thanks Dalex 257 I was awaiting some one to comment on the Kodak. I had only listed it as it was a Nikon fit and within my price point. Most of my lenses 50mm f1.4, 70-200mm f2.8 and 70-300 all would fit. Its only my 30mm and 18-55mm that would not but I am wishing to replace the latter anyhow. Would you consider it worth a look at for me? Only real down side I can see with it is the 1.7fps, but the S3 and S5 look to be slow as well.
 
Last edited:
Perhaps a read of Thom Hogan's Ultimate Upgrade Guide would be a good idea (and it's not out of date either - from July last year)

He suggests - D40 Keep shooting. You have to consider why you're unhappy. If it's just more features and pixels you want, the D5000 is your choice. If you just want more pixels, the D3000 is a consideration. If it's the lack of autofocus with older Nikkor AF lenses, you have to get to a D90 to fix that problem. If you're ready to make a big leap in functionality (and complexity), then a D90 or D300s might be reasonable choices. Forget FX bodies. If you needed FX, you'd already have one. - seems entirely reasonable to me.
 
Last edited:
Zilog said:
Thanks Dalex 257 I was awaiting some one to comment on the Kodak. I had only listed it as it was a Nikon fit and within my price point. Most of my lenses 50mm f1.4, 70-200mm f2.8 and 70-300 all would fit. Its only my 30mm and 18-55mm that would not but I am wishing to replace the latter anyhow. Would you consider it worth a look at for me? Only real down side I can see with it is the 1.7fps, but the S3 and S5 look to be slow as well.
Click to expand...

To me the resolution of the images out of it are better than any in that list. But it demanding more efforts from the photographer plus it really needs the best RAW converter to make it shine so it really is a personal choice. if you want an easy handling like the current Nikons and ability to do things fast - then Kodak is probably not really suitable.

If you can find it, borrow the DCS from someone to try out and see whether it is suitable for you - that would be the best approach imo.
 
Last edited:
A belated comment on the DCS.

I use a DCS pro/n and a D3X.

DCS Pro/n plus points:
very high resolution images although needing a bit of post processing. Outstanding value for money at current secondhand prices
negative points:
very poor battery life, noisy at high iso, picky on memory cards.Not the quickest to use.

Summary: as a cheap way into high quality full frame for landscape, architecture or studio, it is an excellent buy. For anything else, not so good.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top