File :-(, x, )
annoyingmouse
So.. I am applying for a new job, and if I get it, I am going to treat myself to a new DSLR. Already cleared the economical issue with the wife, so that's settled, just over a thousand USD is acceptable.
But what a jungle it is out there! I fell in love with the Nikon 200D, if anyone has any experience with it, please share. I think I can get my hands on a refurbished body for 1100 USD.
Is there any competition in that price range? I am looking at the Canon Rebel XTi (D400 I think) which is cheaper and will leave me some money for lens, but it seems more reasonable to invest my money in the best body I can afford and then collect lenses later.
What is the way to go?
>> ac
Better to get a cheap body and good glass than a good body and cheap glass.
>> Teus !QbSstcPD6U
>>45693
what he said. I love my D200, but it's nothing for amateurs actually.
>> annoyingmouse
OP here
I am an amateur, yes, but still photographed around 10,000 digital photos, and can manage with photoshop very well, so kind of an enthusiastic amateur. I can easily figure out and use all the features the camera offers. Truely I don't need most of them, but I like playing with them nonetheless. Besides, my current Nikon5700 had cost me almost the same some years ago... and even though it function very well, I feel that it limits me too much. So back to my question - if you don't recommend the D200, then what else?
>> Teus !QbSstcPD6U
D200 rules, get one then if you're familiar with shutter speed, fstop and white-balance... and you can shell out some money for nice lenses
>> des
If you can afford the D200 and not be broke, it's worth it for the viewfinder alone.
>> Anonymous
>>45701
Doesn't the D80 have the same viewfinder?
>> des
>>45705
No clue, haven't played with one. Googling says yeah.
>> Anonymous
I'm looking in sorta the same price range as you, and found the Nikon D80 to be the best bang for the buck, especially since I don't already have lenses to worry about having to match a new body to. $1300 at Wolf Camera for the body and a 18-300mm lens. Bam.
>> Anonymous
>>45699
Nice lenses as in something that has f/1.2!?

I want. ;_;
>> Anonymous
>>45718
DO NOT buy it from Wolf Camera. You can get the same camera from B&H, Adorama, or buydig.com for $100-150 less and not pay any tax either. Also, get the 18-135mm lens with it.
>> Anonymous
Ive had a D200, but traded it for a D80. I miss the 5fps on the D200, but i like my current D80 more.. +its a tad sharper than the D200
>> Anonymous
>it seems more reasonable to invest my money in the best body I can afford and then collect lenses later. What is the way to go?

Thirty years ago, this reasoning would have made sense, but in today's environment of almost disposable cameras, what you have to do is get good glass. The camera body will see updates every 3 to 4 years, and probably even sooner than that, whatever you buy will be obsolete. Not trying to troll here, that's just what I've noticed about the playing field in this day and age. Of course, good glass is good glass regardless of age, so i'd suggest indeed getting a cheapo body and investing in good glass, cause that will still work if and when you get a better body.
>> dave
>>45691
The D200 and the Canon are in entirely different leagues. It depends entirely of how you intend to use the camera. The D200 is a fantastic body indeed; its viewfinder is fantastic; the build quality is brilliant (its body is made of magnesium alloy); and an absolute pleasure to operate. The Nikon range of lenses is also fantastic; however, the same could be said of Canon.

The XTi is a totally different camera. It is not quite as well built as the D200; it is made of plastic, and the controls aren't anywhere as easy to use as those of the D200. However, that said, it is a lot smaller; and as has been pointed out by others; would leave you more money for quality glass.
>> Anonymous
If you can afford then D200 is awesome, but do consider D80.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
im getting a d40 possibly a d40x if i can find a good deal on ebay and then getting a fast lens such as a 50mm prime. i like fully manual everything so the autofocus is no big deal for me, and besides, i can get the 18-55mm real cheap if i absolutely have to have auto.

the d80 just seems sorta blah to me.

if you are a professional and need a strong, sturdy camera that takes super high quality pictures than go for it, that is, if you have the money.

the d80 with a mediocre lens will cost you roughly the same as a d200 body, and you will not get a huge difference in image quality compared to a d40.

and once the body gets old, i just get a new one, and that wont bother because i never payed so much in the first place...
>> annoyingmouse
OP again
I think that some of you are wrong about bodies becoming obsolete. the D200 is a camera for ever. What else would you possibly ever want from a camera? I think that the D200 is am investment for the future, and not a disposable body. Thats why I am thinking about getting the best body I can afford atm. Looking at the D80 now as advised, and I don't know... its a big step down. The D200 is closer in quality to the 4000$ D2x than to the <1000$ D80, so it seems only logical to get it. One thing is also the weather seals, which are very important to me.
>> ac
>>45975
>What else would you possibly ever want from a camera?
Just off the top of my head:
* Higher resolution
* Faster rate of fire
* Better low-light performance

If you really want the features of the D200, go ahead and get it. But a better body won't give you noticeably better pictures--better glass will.
>> Anonymous
>>45838
Enjoy squinting through that tiny dark viewfinder. DSLRs aren't designed for manual focusing at all.
>> Liska !!kPAOOFKxYLH
On one hand, though, a camera with a higher megapixel rating doesn't necessarily equal clearer pictures or better photographs. It's a matter of researching all the options out there and finding the camera that fits in your hands, and fits what you're looking for the best.

In terms of lenses.. no matter what camera body you get, you're going to have to be able to invest at least a little bit in getting some quality lenses. AC is def. right there. You're going to, at the very least, need a wide angle lens and a zoom to go with it, a 7-210 or 70-180 usually takes care of the zoom pretty well.
>> Anonymous
>>45977

Actually the finder in the D200 is quite good for a DSLR. I use mine with several manual focus lenses and it's a pleasant experience. The finder is just slightly smaller than the one in my F4, and is of equal brightness.

That, plus the improved ergonomics (I prefer the button layout shared by the D200, F5, F6, D1x, D2x, and probably future high-end Nikons over the dial on the D80 and other mid to low end models), I feel makes the D200 about the best buy in DSLRs.
>> G-Reg
Nikon is severely overrated. The D200 and the Eos400D (Canon XTi) are in different ranges. The XTi's Nikon version is the D80. I would recommend going with the Canon for price and if you find you really really really enjoy DSLR and such, then waste your mula on a Nikon. Otherwise stick with Canon.
>> ac
>>45999
No, the Nikon competitor to the XTi is the D40x. The D80 is targetted more against the Canon 30D.
>> Anonymous
Here's the good news: you can't go too wrong. The Nikon D200 is certainly a good camera, but will leave you the least for good glass. If you want to save some money and go Canon, the XTi will serve you very well, and the extra cash you save can go towards good class. There's still the D80 and 30D to look at, too.

Personally, I think if you're going to get a D80, you may as well go for the D200. If you'd need the 30D over the XTi, you wouldn't be here asking questions.

I have the 350D, the predicessor to the XTi, and it works wonderfully. Sure, there are some things in the 30D and D200 I really wish it could do, but frankly, these are more technical things and don't really help me take much better photos. (They'd just make it a bit easier.)
>> annoyingmouse
     File :-(, x)
OP here
'ac' you are so greedy.
higher resolution and faster frame rate... We are already talking here about 10MP and 5 frames per second!! Do you have any idea how fast that is? I captured water drops (pic related), insects fighting etc. with a slower frame rate. Spent once about an hour trying to shoot fire-crackers set to explode inside apples, and didn't get lucky. I believe that with 5 frames a second and the huge buffer of the D200 it would be EASY. I think you can even capture a bullet with good lightning.
about the MP, I am sort of satisfied with 5 to be honest, since most of my prints are 300dpi 10x15 with the occasional A4. Of course once in a while I crop a lot when I find a nice detail, but well I guess using a zoom in the first place will solve that problem.
the low-light critique will be a problem if I ever shoot at 1600ISO, which I might. But I don't think that i will upgrade a camera for that. So I really think that the D200 can cover the future needs of almost all people.
I looked at the Canon 30D - and it's not a question, (at least according to dpreview.com)the D200 is comparable with the Canon 5D!. It really seems that in this price range, there is no competition. I think I will start looking for good deals on it, maybe a factory refurbished body to knock off a couple hundreds.

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeNIKONCamera ModelE5700Camera SoftwareE5700v1.1Maximum Lens Aperturef/2.8Focal Length (35mm Equiv)280 mmImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Created2003:09:03 17:55:48Exposure Time1/250 secF-Numberf/4.2Exposure ProgramShutter PriorityISO Speed Rating100Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceUnknownFlashFlash, AutoFocal Length71.20 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width2560Image Height1920RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoScene Capture TypeStandardGain ControlNoneContrastNormalSharpnessNormalSubject Distance RangeUnknownColor ModeCOLORImage QualityFINEWhite BalanceAUTOImage SharpeningAUTOFocus ModeAF-SFlash SettingNORMALISO SelectionAUTOImage AdjustmentAUTOLens AdapterOFFAuto FocusCenterSaturationNormalNoise ReductionOFF
>> ac
>>46191
Hey, I'm not saying that I want more than 5fps and 10MP right now. I'm just saying, when everyone else is walking around with 22 megapixel point&shoots and the high end cameras are doing 30MP with totally clear ISO6400 at 10FPS for the low end models, you might rethink your "This is the last camera I'll ever need to buy" statement.
>> annoyingmouse
can't remember where I read it, but 10MP is already too much for a point&shoot camera. The physically small and usually low-grade lens they have can't work with such high resolutions.
The only thing that will make me consider upgrading is when the build the first camera with PDA capabilities, which should be very easy to do. My qtek2020i has wife, bluetooth,and runs windows CE. It probably weighs about 50gr without the screen and the case, so the days are near when they implement that technology into cameras, and open the doors for completely new possibilities.
>> ac
>>46199
Also the small sensor they're cramming all of those pixels into means that each pixel is tiny, so higher noise.

However, I have faith in Moore's Law to keep on trucking. I'm sure somebody will figure out a way to get higher resolution and lower noise into smaller sensors. Or a cheap way to make larger sensors.

(That's another thing the OP might consider as a reason he might some day want to upgrade his camera. We might figure out how to make full-frame sensors cheaply)