Cheap camera Vs mid-high lenses... Is it worth it?

[sabbath999]

I totally agree with Jerry. My experience with that sensor came on a D3 doing some football sports work on contract, not the D700 but the sensor is basically the same on both cameras. There really is a big difference. It wasn't big enough for me to shell out the $5K for a D3, but the $3K for a D700 is prolly going to happen next year.

 

[kundalini]

............. but going back to the OPs original disjointed ..... hell, was it actually a question? Glass tops the body everytime unless you're shelling out $3K or more for the body. Even then.... I give glass a nudge.

 

[Samriel]

Really? Have you tried, or are just guessing? I never got as nice results from my Sigma 10-20mm DX lens and D200 ever as I do with the same 10-20mm DX lens on my D700, maximum resolution aside. There are things that I can capture now, that were never attainable and impossible previously.

I never implied that the same lens on both camera's wouldn't show differences - nobody is trying to dispute the superiority of the D700. What I said was:

Also, I don't think that a D700 with a kit lens will have higher IQ than a D200 with a pro-grade lens, and both setups will cost more or less the same.

I tried comparing a D200 with a Nikon AF-S VR 70-200mm F2.8 to a D700 with a Nikon AF 70-300mm F4-5.6 and also several other lenses about two months ago. The differences were present - the D200 (meaning the AF-S VR 70-200mm F2.8) took better pictures (sharpness, contrast), although the D700's sensor did manage to get the colours quite well.

Those are your needs, and I respect them, however, you are not basing any of your opinions on real life hands-on experience with a D200/D700 real life comparison, but I am... it's just too bad that unless you have the chance to get to know and use a D700... you won't know how good of a camera it really is.

Just because I don't own any of them, or at least don't have them in my profile, doesn't mean I never used them outside of the camera shop. I have over 30 hours of shooting with both, mostly studio, landscape and some street photography. Of course, the D700 is (much) better than the D200 (as I thought I made clear in my last post, but obviously I didn't), but the Nikon AF-S VR 70-200mm F2.8 is also much better than the Nikon AF 70-300mm F4-5.6. So here we go back to the poster's original problem:

The lens is going to be worth it's money even after 5 years if properly kept and maintained. How about the D700? It will probably be half it's price in two years, and even less later on. So, from my point of view, if your on a limited budget you should get better lenses first (as they will keep their value, and lens progress is quite slow compared to camera progress), UNLESS there is the urgent need for a better body (higher ISO, megapixels, sensor colour rendition etc).

Also, I still think that one should rather compare the D200 with the D300, and one should really keep in mind the unusually big jump which Nikon made by going from CCD to CMOS (and from DX to FX). On the other hand, looking at Canon, I don't see any huge differences between the 40D and the 50D, or at least nothing so spectacular as the ones between the D200 and the D300. So in the general case, I'd still suggest getting better lenses before getting better bodies, unless you REALLY need the better body.

 

[th3_man89]

wow.. chill... I am getting heated up just by reading it. anyway, thanks to you guys i understand better about all this issues. i was attending an exhibition in singapore and i had tried, hands-on, on d300 and d700. For me, a newbie, I can tell that D700 is on a different level. just then, i get a hand on D40. i felt like I was holding some camera toy. however after i bought it and took some shots, I realized d40 is not a bad camera. i was just thinking if I can get a better lens, i might be able to broaden my shots in many ways. currently I have 18 - 50mm and a 55 - 200mm VR. the range of shots that i've been taking so far can be seen in my flickr web (my signature). i'm still thinking on what lens should i save-up my money for. an suggestion??

p.s. do comment on my flickr to help me get a better shot. i'm not a photoshop-user but i believe i can get better shots with comments and advices. thx in advance.