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

[Don Simon]

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.

But you're happy to spend all that money on a D200? If you're planning to invest long-term in SLR systems you may have to accept that spending more on one lens than on the body is really not that unusual. You've decided on one of the best bodies available, so why not take the same approach to glass and make the most of the camera's potential?

 

[Mike_E]

You don't have any teenagers, do you?

I suggested this for the same reason I would suggest having a great foundation to put your house on. If your foundation crumbles or you just plain break it, all of those fancy rooms are going to be useless and you will have a very expensive pile of junk. The D200 is a Lot more rugged than a D80 -understand that I have not actually broken either of them, but go to a store and compare them side by side. The D200 is also a wonderful camera in changing light and teenagers move Fast!

As to why not get great glass to start with? He has already mentioned that to buy a 17-55mm f2.8 and a 70-200mm f2.8 he would be paying twice what he paid for the body. He is a Teenager and also needs money for cars, movies, girls and books! Oh yeah, food!!

With the ease of use with manual lenses he can get great glass for a fraction of the cost of new auto-focus lenses, if he wants to go that way he'll probably save enough to buy the D200!

Also, don't underestimate the 18-70mm. Go and borrow a 24mm, a 35mm and a 50 mm and do a test shoot at f5.6 and f8. I say f5.6 and f8 because that's what most people shoot at, even with a flash. It doesn't matter that that lens only goes to f3.5 because that isn't where it gets used anyway. It doesn't matter if you can't read the fine print on you car's lease agreement from 20 feet away either, they make copiers for that.

When I do portraits, I don't get below f5.6. Does it matter about the background? No because I don't shoot anyone against a wall and for the most part the background isn't an issue, if it is then I handle it in post.

These are some of the reasons to get the D200 first. LOL Did I mention that he said that he is a Teenager?

mike

P.S. RoffleWoffle, you didn't say if you were a him or a her so I use the standard convention. Also, there is nothing in the world wrong with being a teenager it's just that you have a LOT of ground to cover in a hurry and sometimes in those situations things get neglected. good luck in all your endeavors. mike

 

[Seefutlung]

RoffleWoffle-

As a former photo journalist and as you are not looking at the high end cameras I recommend the 30D over the D200.

Both are very capable cameras. To be honest both will deliver images similar in quality. A pro will get the same shots with a D200 as he/she will with a 30D. Neither camera is that superior or inferior as to inhibit you in any way from getting the "shot".

I recommend the 30D because of the better IQ at elevated ISOs. As a photo journalist low light photography is a significant percentage of what you will be shooting. ISO/ASA 1600 and journalism go hand-in-hand. Typically, photo journalist prefer available light to flash and for sports, on-camera flash should never be used.

Canon has the best Image Quality at high ISO than than any camera manufacturer ... and the difference is significant. That's not to say that tomorrow that Nikon may wear the crown ... but as of today .. the 30D beat the D200 in IQ at ISOs of 800+.

The monies you save can be used for a fast lens.

Gary

PS- The 5D at 3 FPS is way too slow to be a good photo journalist's camera. If you worked for a newspaper, 30%+ of the stuff you shoot will be sports.
G

 

[Don Simon]

You don't have any teenagers, do you?

Not at the moment... It wasn't too long ago that I was one myself though

I'm not sure about the foundation/house analogy... of course your rooms won't be any good if the foundation crumbles; the rooms will crumble too, they will be gone. But if the body breaks the lenses are only useless until you stick them on another body. Now obviously if you were getting into photojournalism seriously you would want the most rugged body - but frankly in that situation I would still want a backup anyway.

As to why not get great glass to start with? He has already mentioned that to buy a 17-55mm f2.8 and a 70-200mm f2.8 he would be paying twice what he paid for the body. He is a Teenager and also needs money for cars, movies, girls and books! Oh yeah, food!!

Sure, but you could get one expensive fast zoom and one cheaper slow one (replacing the cheap one when affordable) - which IMO would be better than having only the one slow lens. Again I was a teenager fairly recently - I still don't have a full-time job, and I haven't yet given up movies, girls, books or food (cars are another matter - I use feet and taxis instead)... but what little money I have I spend on the glass instead of the body. If the camera suddenly stops working just when I really need the shot (never happened yet), I can switch to a film body. Of course that's just my approach. I can definitely understand why people don't want to spend huge amounts of money on lenses - I'm not too happy about it myself

By the way the manual-focus lens suggestion is a great one. Good glass is good glass.

 

[JIP]

You don't have any teenagers, do you?

I suggested this for the same reason I would suggest having a great foundation to put your house on. If your foundation crumbles or you just plain break it, all of those fancy rooms are going to be useless and you will have a very expensive pile of junk. The D200 is a Lot more rugged than a D80 -understand that I have not actually broken either of them, but go to a store and compare them side by side. The D200 is also a wonderful camera in changing light and teenagers move Fast!

As to why not get great glass to start with? He has already mentioned that to buy a 17-55mm f2.8 and a 70-200mm f2.8 he would be paying twice what he paid for the body. He is a Teenager and also needs money for cars, movies, girls and books! Oh yeah, food!!

With the ease of use with manual lenses he can get great glass for a fraction of the cost of new auto-focus lenses, if he wants to go that way he'll probably save enough to buy the D200!

Also, don't underestimate the 18-70mm. Go and borrow a 24mm, a 35mm and a 50 mm and do a test shoot at f5.6 and f8. I say f5.6 and f8 because that's what most people shoot at, even with a flash. It doesn't matter that that lens only goes to f3.5 because that isn't where it gets used anyway. It doesn't matter if you can't read the fine print on you car's lease agreement from 20 feet away either, they make copiers for that.

When I do portraits, I don't get below f5.6. Does it matter about the background? No because I don't shoot anyone against a wall and for the most part the background isn't an issue, if it is then I handle it in post.

These are some of the reasons to get the D200 first. LOL Did I mention that he said that he is a Teenager?

mike

P.S. RoffleWoffle, you didn't say if you were a him or a her so I use the standard convention. Also, there is nothing in the world wrong with being a teenager it's just that you have a LOT of ground to cover in a hurry and sometimes in those situations things get neglected. good luck in all your endeavors. mike

Did you read my post If he were to go from a D200 and an 18-300 as he had suggested he might to a D80 and mabye a 17-55 2.8 the price would be close if not the same.

 

[Mike_E]

Good points Zaphod, the point of the house analogy was that if what you base everything on is broken then everything that depends on it is useless too and if you have spent all of your money and have to spend all of your time in collage and Not working for wages. then it will be a long time until you can get the camera replaced.

Ever seen a musician with a broken Ax? It's just sad.

mike

umm, it's 18-200mm and not so much, I was reading his posts more and he seemed to have just thrown that out because he didn't know himself as he called it a "standard 18-150or200". It seemed to me to be a case of this is what I want to do so how do I get there.
Sorry if it seemed that I was ragging on you it's just that one size does not fit all with these systems. m

 

[RoffleWoffle]

First of all, thank you all for your help. The first thing I want to clear up is that I didn't mean that I want to cheap out on glass, I just would rather buy something used or without all the bells and whistles like IS or AF than blow 2000 extra on lenses up front. As others have stated, I am still in high school, so I can't exactly afford to buy that much on lenses right now. I'd rather buy one very good used lens now and upgrade later.

Secondly, I am not going to be using this exclusively for photojournalism- that's just one thing I want to do. I'm also very into nature and portrait photography.

My apologies for being ignorant and calling it a "standard" 18-200. What I meant is that I was thinking of an all around type tele lens and a prime. Also, I'm a guy.

 

[jstuedle]

In the film days, a camera was just a box to trap light, the glass made the picture. Today in the digital world we have sensors, image processors and buffers in the camera that trap and modify the light into a digital file, but it is still the quality of the glass that makes the real difference in the image. This assumes a pro vs. pro, or prosumer vs prosumer body etc. One thing to look into, the D200 will accept and meter MF glass. Some of the older AI ED-IF Nikkor glass is simply outstanding. I still shoot a MF 300 2.8 and a 400 3.5. For portraits, I still prefer a 85 or 105mm MF lens. Some of this MF glass is surprisingly inexpensive compared to new.

 

[JIP]

First of all, thank you all for your help. The first thing I want to clear up is that I didn't mean that I want to cheap out on glass, I just would rather buy something used or without all the bells and whistles like IS or AF than blow 2000 extra on lenses up front. As others have stated, I am still in high school, so I can't exactly afford to buy that much on lenses right now. I'd rather buy one very good used lens now and upgrade later.

Secondly, I am not going to be using this exclusively for photojournalism- that's just one thing I want to do. I'm also very into nature and portrait photography.

My apologies for being ignorant and calling it a "standard" 18-200. What I meant is that I was thinking of an all around type tele lens and a prime. Also, I'm a guy.

I think the bottom line to all the responses you have gotten is that you suggested that you wanted to buy a D200 with a relatively cheap lens like the 18-200 when this is really not the best way to go. Although there are recent innovations in lenses like VR, your lens is your better long-term investment so when you say you want to get a D200 with a relatively cheap lens alot of people are going to think this is not a good investment as the body will prbably be the most likely thing you will want to upgrade at some future time. That is if you buy decent lenses now ans save your money on your body.

 

[Mike_E]

I think this horse is just about dead.

First: RoffleWoffle, ignorant is just another word for unlearned and that is a condition that everyone of us finds themselves in each day (not everyone can recognize it but still..) and that wasn't a dig at you . I was just pointing out that you weren't familiar with it and were likely bringing it up simply for discussion. (btw, I thought you were I just didn't want to offend if you weren't )

Second: The thinking that camera bodies are disposable may be sound thinking for people in the business who can depreciate their cameras and budget replacing them every 3 years or so, but that is not the case for the hobbyist (non-pro) or a student for that matter (someone who may need to have their camera see them through 4 years of school and then a couple more working to get them started). The body they buy is the one that they will shoot for years, no matter the advances in technology, as long as it produces an acceptable image. Get one that feels good and has as much of everything you want that you can afford.

Third: Jstuedle picked up on a point that is very important to you. Manual Focus glass is inexpensive and you can save enough on Great Glass to pay for the D200 (but not I think with the Canon). There are split image screens to help with focusing too (do get one of those should you go this way) That $50 135mm f2.8 is equal to a 200mm f2.8 (for wedding shooter want-to types, you can get a 50mm f1.8, and a 24mm f2.8 and a 135mm f2.8 and shoot a wedding Pretty well with FAST glass and only spend $250-$300 on lenses [if you shop and use a D200]!)

So, give it some thought and talk it over with your folks and Best of Luck!

mike

 

[JIP]

I think this horse is just about dead.

Thats pretty much where I was on this thread.

 

[jstuedle]

I think this horse is just about dead.


Third: Jstuedle picked up on a point that is very important to you. Manual Focus glass is inexpensive and you can save enough on Great Glass to pay for the D200 (but not I think with the Canon). There are split image screens to help with focusing too (do get one of those should you go this way) That $50 135mm f2.8 is equal to a 200mm f2.8 (for wedding shooter want-to types, you can get a 50mm f1.8, and a 24mm f2.8 and a 135mm f2.8 and shoot a wedding Pretty well with FAST glass and only spend $250-$300 on lenses [if you shop and use a D200]!)


mike

I believe the D200 will indicate electronically in the viewfinder when a MF lens is in focus. My D1 series bodies do, I don't see why the newer bodies wouldn't. This would negate the need for a split viewfinder.

 

[Mike_E]

John, the D200 does have the green light but in daylight it is easier to use a split screen for sharpest focus. At night the Af assist light does not come on because you have the camera in Manual focus which makes it hard to focus too. A split screen will tend to effect spot meter with slower glass but other than that every thing is functional. (according to a friend anyway- I have yet to get one for mine).

You don't have to have them as you said, it's just an ease of use thing.

mike