Alright, I need a little help deciding on a new DSLR

[RoffleWoffle]

I have been wanting to buy a really nice DSLR to use for photojournalism and general photography during college. I would really love a 5d, but obviously, as a senior in high school, I can't afford to lay down that cash for a camera. I've narrowed it down to the Canon 30D and Nikon D200. I have about $500 or so invested in lenses for Canon, so not a horrible amount, but not nothing either. I love the Canon for it's ability to shoot higher ISO without a lot of noise, while I'm drawn to the Nikon for it's weather sealing and lighting fast shooting. There's a 2 MP difference between the two, but from what I've heard it will only make something like a 200x200 px difference.

So, choices:

Canon 30D ~$1000 I have a http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produ...3_50mm_f_2_5_Compact_Macro.html#goto_itemInfo and an old but reliable and sharp Canon 70-210mm already, but I may buy something along the lines of this: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produ...18_200mm_f_3_5_6_3_DC_Lens.html#goto_itemInfo


Nikon D200 ~$1500 plus around $600 for a nice lens or two.

Is the D200 really worth the extra $1000 that I would have to spend, or will I not really notice the difference?

 

[Zatodragon]

Well, if you do already have a nice canon lens, i'd still stick with canon. The 2 MP difference will also be very hard to notice. For you, i'd go with the canon. Me personally would get the D200 cause i really like Nikon's flash system as well as all time-lapse shooting, metering and focus controls right on the outside of the body, and the mirror up shooting mode that's wonderful for macro photography. But a lot of people don't use those options.

 

[EOS_JD]

If you already have Canon lenses, might be best to start there but I believe the D200 to be a better and more capable camera (although not a huge amount in it). Weather sealing (for your type of photography) would win it for me - but make sure if you go the Nikon route that you buy weather sealed lenses too......

Difference in image size is small.
D200 image size is 3872 x 2592.
30D image size is 3504 x 2336

 

[Mike_E]

Have you listed in order of importance which features you will be needing for your intended field of photography?

Being able to keep and use your lenses is tempting but the D200 is amazing to use in difficult, fast changing light. Almost as easy as using print film and letting the lab figure it out.

The noise thing IMO is way over hyped for 98% of photography. If the shot was exposed properly you just won't see it on the print without a loupe, and you will never see it on anything printed in a newspaper.

If you are one of those people who only use 'natural light' and don't want to spend the money on fast glass while still shooting weddings by candle light, get the Canon. Please under stand though that a photon is just a photon, it doesn't matter whether it came from the sun or a flashgun! Those from the sun contain more varying energy levels (different colors) than those from the flash but the flash can be gelled to mimic just about any light. And a flash doesn't set or climb to high noon.

$.02

mike

 

[RoffleWoffle]

I'm hearing pretty much what I have heard before. The differences are small, but at the same time, very noticeable/nice. If I were to get the D200 (which I am leaning towards), what lens(es) should I get. If I can afford it I'd like a standard 18-150or200 and a regular prime or macro prime. And if possible, weather sealed.

As for the canon lenses, it's not a HUGE deal because I am still going to be shooting and developing my own film, so I can still use them with my EOS film.

 

[Mike_E]

I shoot the D200 and on a budget I'd get the 18-70mm and a 24/28mm f2.8. For most shots the 18-70 mm and a little thought/shoe leather will get you what you need. 27-105m equiv)

For low light when you don't want to be noticed (I mean that you don't want the AF assist light to come on and scare the natives) you can set the 24/28mm to it's hyperfocal (at this focal range you get everything from about 12 feet to infinity acceptably in focus without having to play with the focus ring) and set the 200 to shutter priority/manual focus and fire away. No one is the wiser unless they hear the shutter click because you don't even have to bring the camera up to your eyes.

You have a large range of lenses new and used to choose from with the D200 as it meters very well with all of them. (manual lenses are not automatic though) That's AI (or AI'd) on to the very latest.

You can pick up the 18-70mm new or get it used for around $250 +/- and a 24mm I would think for under $150.

Zooms can come later and are reasonable. ( you probably will want to concentrate on one lens at a time though)

Good luck

mike

 

[jstuedle]

I myself am a Nikon snob, so I will let you know where my loyalties are. Having said that, let me tell you a little story. In Feb '06 I was shooting my grandsons 6th birthday party at a local pizza eatery. They had only been open for about a week, and the entire staff was new. The server came over to replenish our drinks with a full 2 qt. pitcher of coke. You guessed it, my D1X with 14mm f/2.8 was on the table, resting on it's back and the lens pointing skyward. After the "event", coke was pooled on the lens element, held in by the lens hood. Ice covered the camera and the assembly was floating in a pool of caramel colored liquid. I snatched up the camera and proceeded to dry it off with napkins the staff provided. I went on shooting and the camera has never shown any sign of a problem. I really trust Nikon's weather proofing now more than ever.

 

[RoffleWoffle]

Can you point me towards an 18-70? All I could find was this:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/449087-GREY/Nikon_2162_18_135mm_f_3_5_5_6_ED_IF_AF_S.html

Also, is this a nice prime?
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/66980-USA/Nikon_1919_Wide_Angle_AF_Nikkor.html

How can I tell if they are weatherproofed? It does not say in the specs/features.

Looks like my total will be nearing around $2000 with an extended warranty.

 

[forzaF1]

I love my D200. The 5fps comes in handy a lot, so I would defintely go with the D200.

 

[JIP]

I'm hearing pretty much what I have heard before. The differences are small, but at the same time, very noticeable/nice. If I were to get the D200 (which I am leaning towards), what lens(es) should I get. If I can afford it I'd like a standard 18-150or200 and a regular prime or macro prime. And if possible, weather sealed.

As for the canon lenses, it's not a HUGE deal because I am still going to be shooting and developing my own film, so I can still use them with my EOS film.

At the risk of stirring something up again if you buy the D200 please do not buy an 18-200. Really if you can aford such a nice budy you should besmart enough to put great glass on it. I can think of much better places to put $750.

Like to start with you can spend a little more and get this.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/300490-USA/Nikon_2147_17_55mm_f_2_8G_ED_IF_AF_S.html

 

[Mike_E]

LOL No, you have other things to do with your money just now.

If you are on a tight budget (remember that you are eventually going to need a flash) check out used lenses. If B&H or KEH say that they are in good shape then they usually are. And good lenses last a long time. There should be a lot of 18-70mms out there because a lot of newbies buy them and then get on forums and listen to experts rant about kit lenses. (yes there are better lenses but the kit lenses -Nikon anyway- are very good for their intended use for beginners- people who aren't beginners don't buy them in the first place)

This is not to say that the lens -guys- don't know what they are saying, it's just that they can oft-times spend more of your money than you are likely to have. (one thing all photographers seem to have in common is the ability to make do with what they have ) If you can't afford the best glass get what you can and take care of it because eventually you can sell it to fund what you really want.

The 18-70 will have the gasketing but I don't know about the 24.

One other thing about the extended warranty, the people who sell those things make a Lot of money. You might just be better off setting some money aside to have the camera repaired yourself and spend the rest on real insurance- talk to your family insurance agent about it!

mike

 

[RoffleWoffle]

At the risk of stirring something up again if you buy the D200 please do not buy an 18-200. Really if you can aford such a nice budy you should besmart enough to put great glass on it. I can think of much better places to put $750.

Like to start with you can spend a little more and get this.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/300490-USA/Nikon_2147_17_55mm_f_2_8G_ED_IF_AF_S.html

I hope you're kidding. Obviously quality glass is super important, but there's no way I'm spending more on ONE lens than on the entire body.

 

[JIP]

All I'm really trying to say is that the 18-300 is a waste of money. If you really want quality glass why take all that money ($750) and waste it on a slow, marginal, non 2.8 lens. With that lens you get range and speed and sharpness is sacrificed for it. You mentioned photojournalisim in your original post if you really intend on getting into professional photojournalisim that lens (18-200)is a total joke. You will be a a serious dis-advantage without a good solid 2.8 lens. I shot for several weeklies here im Pittsburgh before I got into weddings one I quit because the burden of renting or borrowing a 80-200 2.8 for every friday football night got to be too heavy the other I was given an ultimatum "buy a 200 2.8 or you will get no more assignments" well at the time I chose to go another way and invested in medium format gear to shoot weddings but I hope you get my point. Also if you understand anything about cameras it should not come as any kind of shock that your glass will be more expensive than your body just look at my sig.

Here is another suggestion for a better place to put that $750 you might spend on an 18-300

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/92012-USA/Nikon_1940_Telephoto_AF_Nikkor_180mm.html

 

[Mike_E]

I hope you're kidding. Obviously quality glass is super important, but there's no way I'm spending more on ONE lens than on the entire body.

LOL And you don't have to. If you want length though, for $870 you could have this
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/124669-USA/Nikon_1986_Zoom_Telephoto_80_200_f_2_8.html

But, seeing as you have yet to enroll in college You most likely need to start with the wide to medium zoom (18-70 mm) and a fast prime 24/28 f 2.8, 50mm f1.8 for low light. If you get the D200 you can also use manual lenses easily which you can get for a song compared to what an auto focus goes for. For instance that 180mm in a manual focus went for $40 on a recent auction on ebay (really ticked that I didn't bid on it), you can find 135mm (202mm equiv) f2.8 for $50. quite often.

If you get the D200 you will have a Great start and many options to pursue whichever branch of photography you care to follow.

good luck

mike

 

[JIP]

I honestly don't undestand the point in starting with a body like the D200 and then throwing cheap glass on it. So say you start out with a D80 instead of the D200 you save what $700 on the body still have the 10mp and can easily get excellent glass (wich by the way has a much longer useful life than a body). And later if you need to you can get the D200 then you have a D80 as a very reliable backup body. If you look at my sig. you can see that is the decision that I personally made D70s, 70-200VR 2.8, SB-800, 85 1.8 and, ofcourse the kit lens but that was just to have a wide lens and when I bought this stuff (all at the same time) the long lens was more important to me to be fast so I did this and have plans in the future to do just what I suggested to you (buy a D200 body).