Upgrading Nikon body & lens

306dean

306dean

Messages
341
Name
Dean
Edit My Images
Yes
As some may know of my recent purchase of a D70 as a stop gap until some more money came my way. Well it seems that I should have the funds next month which turn out to be more than anticipated.

I'm going to be upgrading my body as I need something with a battery grip for portrait shots as my wrist isn't up to bending around the body.

My choices are as follows:-

D200
D2x
D300

Main photography will be portrait shots with some airshows and motorsport thrown in over summer.

The D200 would leave me a nice chunk to spend on a couple of lenses.

Thoughts on the bodies?

The lenses I'm looking at are the following:-
Nikon 50mm 1.8
&
Nikon 80-200 2.8
Or
Sigma 150-500

I'm not convinced the 80-200 will offer the length required for airshows or circuit racing.

Again thoughts or suggestions.

Overall budget will be approx £1k give or take.
 
Nothing wrong with any of those, have had two of them.

The D200 is still an excellent body, and 'may' represent the best value if you're looking to get good glass (The D300 is a bit better at high ISO stuff, but I'd rather have the 200 with some top glass than the 300 with mediocre..). Ive not used a D2x.
A good friend still uses two very battered D200 bodies every day as a photojournalist!

The 300 is definitely better, but not 'incredibly' so, so if funds allow then go for it but if funds are tight the 200 gives >90% of the results for a much smaller percentage cash!

The 50mm f.1.8 is excellent for the money, works really well on a crop body which uses it's sweet spot.

The sigma 150-500 is good value, but you may find needs very good light for best results at the long end - not many alternatives giving that reach for the money though, so its a compromise worth living with. A monopod may be useful, to allow some quick flexibility of movement but still a bit of extra support when using that long lens..

Just my 2p worth!
 
If you're after any ISO performance above 800, the D200 is probably not the best choice, I'm afraid. The D70 is better at that. At lower ISOs though, the D200 is OK.
 
Nod said:
If you're after any ISO performance above 800, the D200 is probably not the best choice, I'm afraid. The D70 is better at that. At lower ISOs though, the D200 is OK.
Click to expand...

To be honest the biggest gripe with the d70 is the lack of functioning battery grip which is becoming a bigger issue than I ever thought it would be for me.
 
I bought the little darling D70s as a learning tool before upgrading to current D300s. Big step forward! :D

Spend a long time comparing D300 with D300s before deciding, that the 'improvements' were worth the few extra £'s.

For complete list of feature and specification differences, look here: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond300s/


And Ken Rockwell says the "Info" button alone is worth everything!
duck.gif
 
I've had at least two of each of those! Terrible GAS. Still have a D300.

You could make a case for any of these to be honest so there isn't a right or wrong answer.

Here's how I rate them. D200's are going for less than £200 these days and I think that is an absurd bargain. Surely nothing else in Nikon's back catalogue offers value like that. In use, it it nearly as good as the D300. Certainly very similar. My one gripe with it is the image review controls where you seem to have to press several buttons just to zoom into an image. IQ wise, at ISO 100, it is superb. If you are working in good light, it will never leave you disappointed. It does struggle at higher iso though. There is no denying it. 800 is about as far as you'd want to venture.

The D2X, I love. It offers the full on pro body experience. Built like a brick erm external lavatory and there is something very nice about having a proper built in grip as well as the additional LCD and controls that throws in. Very high FPS if you want it. The IQ at low iso is as good as anything I've seen, full frame included, it really is excellent. Thing break down fast at high iso but you probably knew that. It's similar to the D200 in terms of what is usable. There are some other drawbacks. Lack of modern features such as big quantity of focus points, live view etc but I never felt too bothered about those things. A good D2X should set you back no more than £400 these days.

The D300 feels pretty modern. It has most of the mod cons that we're now uses to. Live view, a plethora of AF points. The AF system is exceptional even by today's standards. ISO usable up to 3200 but you do have to be careful up at that level. 1600 is fine. It also has Nikon's CLS flash commander which I value pretty highly. Downsides? A good one is at least £400. It isn't a gripped body like the D2x and isn't built as well though build quality is quite acceptable. Sticking a grip on is nice but it's not that same as a built in one, it always feels a bit clumsier and less manoeuvrable.

Couldn't say which one you should should choose. The D300 maybe is the most obvious choice as it doesn't really do anything badly. The D2X would be my choice by a mile if I was in a studio. The D200 is the value choice but you wouldn't feel short changed.

You could probably get a D300, 50mm 1.8 and 150-500 for £1000. That does sound like a nice set up.
 
Gad-westy thank you very much. My heart says D2x as I really do love the look and feel of them. Browsing about imbl struggling to find any for much less than £500 with less than 100k shutter count. Which then throws up the fact I can get a low count D300 for similar money.

I think certainly with the 50mm 1.8 I wouldnt be shooting above iso 800.

Something else with the D2x is the need for an external flash steaight away. Although the an sb600 or yongo can be picked up for around £70ish.

The dilemma continues.
 
306dean said:
Gad-westy thank you very much. My heart says D2x as I really do love the look and feel of them. Browsing about imbl struggling to find any for much less than £500 with less than 100k shutter count. Which then throws up the fact I can get a low count D300 for similar money.

I think certainly with the 50mm 1.8 I wouldnt be shooting above iso 800.

Something else with the D2x is the need for an external flash steaight away. Although the an sb600 or yongo can be picked up for around £70ish.

The dilemma continues.
Click to expand...

I guess those are dealer prices? I think my D2X's were bought privately but I don't think I paid over £400, certainly not £500 at least. Again £500 sounds a lot for a D300 to me. MPB have this one as an example. They have a D2XS as well for less than £500.

http://www.mpbphotographic.co.uk/us.../used-nikon-digital-slr-cameras/nikon-d300-3/

I personally would factor a flash in regardless of which option you choose. I only say this because even at 1.8 in a typical darkish room sometimes iso 3200 isn't enough, depending on what you're shooting of course. A basic speedlight just gives you a few more options. This is also where a D300 comes in handy as you can control and fire an off camera flash directly from the camera with no additional equipment required. I use mine with a Nissin Di622 MK2 which was pretty cheap but not only allows off camera flash but does wireless iTTL as well which is very handy if you are working quickly.
 
I used to have a d200 many moons ago and whilst it was/is a great camera except at high iso I would think you would be better off with a d300 or d300s.Better at high iso and the af system is amazing.I have just sold my d90 to purchase the d300s so still in the honeymoon period but seriously its a fantastic camera!;) I picked mine up for £510 and its mint with relatively low clicks.If your budget is about a grand that would leave you enough to get something like the nikon 80-200mm (plus a 1.4x if too short) and a 50mm 1.8,you may have to add a few quid but its certainly close to budget. The d300 is even cheaper and some great bargains on the classifieds to be had at the mo.
 
For the 1k budget you are spoilt for choice in the classifieds section at the moment to get all 3, d300, 50mm, and 80-200.

There are about 6 of 'us' selling d300s about the 400 ish mark, an 80-200 for 500 and a 50mm for new with the remaining 100.

There's a big jump from d200 to d300.. The above kit would be a more that decent set-up.
 
I went from D50 to D2x to D300 now.


I went to the D2x from D50 as I wanted to experience pro build quality and vertical grip which was great, however the image quality never blew me away. It didn't even seem much better than the D50, which punched above it weight a fair bit.

The D300 was a significant step up in IQ though in my opinion. Felt much more confident I was taking decent pictures again. Build quality is still great but no built in vertical grip. Still use this now and no intentions to change it.

D300s wasn't worth the premium for me just for the extra SD card slot.

Go for the D300 and I don't think you'll regret it.
 
D90??

I had a D200, great camera ... until you try some higher than 200 ISO shots ... : / needs good light +/or flash to really shine.

I sold it on and bought a D90, so much better. You can get cheap grips for it too, and the body should be very cheap these days.
 
My reason for not considering was purely because I cant see it feeling very balanced with a large and fairly heavy lens on it. Bodies are approx £250ish on the bay.
 
I have had just had to give a d200 back that I had borrowed and when choosing a body to buy I went for the d300s.

Chose this over the d300 as its still a current model, wasnt interested in video but the dual card slots is a bonus but not a necessity, also whilst hunting around I found them just a little more than a d300.

It is a bit of a jump up from the d200, and as said the d200 does struggle a bit at high ISO, and although you say you dont need it, there may come a time when you do.

If you do go for the d200 then get some spare batteries as found mine drained them as if on a day out, would need at least one battery change.

Looking in classifieds, the d300 is going for just over £400, worth the money.
 
Last edited:
As with most things in life, it's better to have something that outperforms your needs than suffer from not having all you need. Currently you don't need high ISOs but they do open up new possibilities, whether it's a faster shutter speed or a narrower aperture.

That's a good point Reidy makes - my D200 chewed through charge faster than the D70 used to and the D700 does now, and I've always carried spare batteries for them!
 
would choose D300 as it has 6fps, 51 AF points. and these days they don't cost too much still leaving plenty for lenses.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top