Which Additional Body?

WillyB

WillyB

Messages
353
Name
William
Edit My Images
No
I am thinking about getting a second body to go with my D5000, I would like a built in motor.

I am thinking along the lines of a D200, or, if the funds allow, a D7000.

If I got a D200 would I regret not going for a D7000?

Has anyone had both of these cameras and can share their views.

My interests are wildlife and maybe start doing some macro.
 
Actually I'm the opposite. I've got D7000 and want a second body. Most likely will be a DX body until my fund is allow then get the D700.

Was thinking about the D200 as well.
 
How about getting a D90
 
pete.rush said:
How about getting a D90
Click to expand...

I must confess I hadn't really thought about a D90. I suppose I am thinking that if I am stepping up from the D5000 it should be a little higher than the D90.

Still not sure though.

Anyone any thoughts?
 
The D80 and D90 were very worthy follow on's from the D70(s) and it was still one of the nikon bodies that had built in focus motors thus you could use all of nikons old series of lenses and still retain autofocus.

I must admit, however days with all the different models, that it can get abit confusing where to place the D90, but I would attempt to say its on par with canon's XXD range, semi pro.

Personally the D200 would be your main body as its a pro camera, the D5000 is still very much an entry level (consumer level) camera and I would even put the D90 above the D5000 if I was to list them in order. The D7000 is the new D90 in my opinion.

The pro bodies would be D200, D300, D300(s), D700 and their D series.
 
WillyB said:
... If I got a D200 would I regret not going for a D7000? ...
Click to expand...
Yes ... I think you would; it's got an older type of sensor and Nikon technology has moved on quite a bit since the D200 was introduced.

Here's a link to a comparison of some models you might like to think about.

As you have the D5000, you'll be aware of it's limitation to AF-S lenses so that AF will function ... some others also have that limitation.
 
I use a D5000 at work and it does the job well, very well indeed.

However, I had prviously used a D70 and recently purchased a D90 (new and cheap) as I knew the D90 offers me so much more over the D3000/D50000 range.

Now since the D7000 came out I was torn but the cost was unjustifiable at this time. I think a D90 would be a great option for you and can be found at reasonable prices second hand saving money for glass :-)
 
Thanks everyone for their opinions. I'm think I am leaning towards the d7000 as it seems quite future proof. Well, as much as any technology can be. I reckon that if I went for that I wouldn't need to change for quite a while.

All I've got to do now is keep my eyes on the classifieds for something which is within my price range.

Thanks again for the help.
 
Thanks PickleB for that link, very interesting. Trouble is it's thrown another hat in the ring in the shape of the D300. Hadn't even thought of that one! :eek:
 
PickleB said:
Yes ... I think you would; it's got an older type of sensor and Nikon technology has moved on quite a bit since the D200 was introduced.

Here's a link to a comparison of some models you might like to think about.

As you have the D5000, you'll be aware of it's limitation to AF-S lenses so that AF will function ... some others also have that limitation.
Click to expand...

As long as you are not after high ISO use, the d200 is still a more than capable camera, plus its built like a brick.

I dearly wanted to go from a d200 to something with the high ISO performance of the d7000 but was put off by the build of it
 
antihero said:
As long as you are not after high ISO use, the d200 is still a more than capable camera, plus its built like a brick.

I dearly wanted to go from a d200 to something with the high ISO performance of the d7000 but was put off by the build of it
Click to expand...

Good point. High ISO use is not something I'm too worried about which I suppose lessens the need for the D7000.

I thought the build quality is supposed to be good.
 
WillyB said:
Good point. High ISO use is not something I'm too worried about which I suppose lessens the need for the D7000.

I thought the build quality is supposed to be good.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I was on my phone earlier and tend to keep things short.....

I didn't mean that the D7000 is poorly made, because it obviously isn't. It's just a little more plastic than a D200/D300/s, and if you have never used a D200 I doubt it would be a concern.
 
I uses D7000 but want to buy D200 as back up body. Went to the shop and try a used D200 with Grip. First impression on the build quality was amazing. Big robust camera with good balance. It make my D7000 with grip look very small.
 
D300.... Tried a d7000 but its to small and plasticy for my liking. But don't go jumping on a d300 if one appears on the forum, the next ones mine :) lol
 
Last edited:
stokes said:
D300.... Tried a d7000 but its to small and plasticy for my liking. But don't go jumping on a d309 if one appears on the forum, the next ones mine :) lol
Click to expand...

You might have to be quick!! :lol:
 
The D200 is a cracking camera. I have a D200 (for the moment as it is in classifieds looking for a swap) plus a D300 and D700. The D200/D300/D300s have little between them having used them all. The only real issue with the D200 is lower light shooting.

The D200 is 10Mpx which is absolutely fine for prints up to A3+ and how many of us actually go higher !

The D200 does loose out to the D300 and D300s at ISO over 800 where you do get a bit of noise. In the studio and for most work we like to keep ISO at 400 or less anyway so I can't really see the difference.

The professional models really do feel much sturdier than the Dxx00 models. I don't like them due to the size being smaller and them being made of plastic the other advantages of the Dx00 models is the easy access to the major settings, shooting modes etc etc.

Also they are far more weather proof and lastly they have FOCUS MOTORS which means that you can use lenses which don't have motors such as the brilliant AF 50 f1.8 or something like the AF 80-200 f2.8
 
Thanks for that info cowasaki. I must confess I do find the D5000 a little small as I have fairly big hands. Having looked at comparison pictures of the D300 and D7000 it is obvious how much bigger the 300 is.

This is really a very difficult decision.
 
WillyB said:
Thanks for that info cowasaki. I must confess I do find the D5000 a little small as I have fairly big hands. Having looked at comparison pictures of the D300 and D7000 it is obvious how much bigger the 300 is.

This is really a very difficult decision.
Click to expand...

Go into a camera shop and pick up a D300s and a D7000. The D300s is exactly the same size as a D200.

The thing to remember is that lenses keep their value and make more of a difference than bodies!

If you have £2000 to spend (as an example) you will get FAR more image quality by buying a D200 + AFS 24-70 f2.8 then buying a D300s + AFS 18-200 f3.5-5.6 (or whatever!).

Spend less on the body and spend the money you have saved on the glass BUT make sure you spend enough on the body to get something that does what you need it to do.
 
Thanks. That looks like sound advice and I will certainly take it into consideration. I suppose we, or should I say I, tend to look at the better spec bodies rather than lenses.

Going to have to change my mindset I think.
 
I'm getting a D200 body as backup but i got a feeling when i attached the nikon 28-70 f2.8 on the D200 and shoot outdoor with good light condition, i may end up leaving my D7000 at home ........ lol.

I already got the feeling that i will be using the d200 with a 28-70 f2.8 and my d7000 with a 70-200 f2.8 on wedding.

Since my 70-200 have no OS that mean require to bump the iso up to get a reasonable shutter speed in the church. Which the D7000 is capable of doing that.

Does that mean the D200 become my main camera? hahaha
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top