been shooting for awhile, feel like upgrading, upcoming grand canyon trip

[austriker]

hello all,
so i have been shooting for awhile (since about november) with a d40 and the kit lens (and a 50mm f/1.8 i got at christmas) and i want to buy a d200. i feel i need a higher FPS for sports photography (one of my passions i have found) and i also want it for its internal AF motor so i can use older lenses. I have been looking at getting a d200 however i want to make sure and find a good deal (around $500 for a used great condition one). I bought my d40 for $340 after constantly searching for a good deal, i am frugal..

in about a month my family and are vacationing to the grand canyon. this is a signifigant contrituting factor to why i want to buy a d200. I do not think that with the vastness of the grand canyon would be sufficiently covered by the 6.1 megapixels in a d40 (and yea i realize most of the emphasis on the megapixel 'space race' is fake.)

do you guys, as experienced photographers, think that a d40 would be sufficient for the grand canyon? should i upgrade? i am a college student so i am not rich but i do have some money i have saved up.

check my flickr in my sig for some sample photos...

 

[KmH]

The D40 is more than sufficient for the grand canyon. Save your money for glass.

I used to shoot sports with a D60 (D90 now) and don't often use burst mode. Fills up a card to darn fast.

 

[RONDAL]

i'd put that $500 towards a sigma 10-20mm wide angle for the d40 so you can capture the grand canyon in its entirety. i just upgraded from the D40 and it was a solid camera. went to the D90 for high ISO capability and CLS capability (i got addicted to strobes)

 

[austriker]

The D40 is more than sufficient for the grand canyon. Save your money for glass.

I used to shoot sports with a D60 (D90 now) and don't often use burst mode. Fills up a card to darn fast.

does this mean i am essentially looking at sports photography the wrong way? should i be looking for the 'critical second' rather than burst shooting?

 

[austriker]

i'd put that $500 towards a sigma 10-20mm wide angle for the d40 so you can capture the grand canyon in its entirety. i just upgraded from the D40 and it was a solid camera. went to the D90 for high ISO capability and CLS capability (i got addicted to strobes)

thanks, but i am not sure that i want to spend that much on a lens for just one trip (and i probably wont be using much wide angle in the future). id rather get like a sigma 50-150 f/2.8

i have thought about renting a wide angle lens for the trip. is that generally a good idea? (from lensrental.com)

 

[kundalini]

i have thought about renting a wide angle lens for the trip. is that generally a good idea? (from lensrental.com)

That was going to be my suggestion for your trip.... just rent for the time you're out there. Hell for that matter, think about renting another lens or two that you have been considering to go along with your D200. That would give you a real world test to see if it is really what you want.

The D200 is a good solid camera from what I have read and heard from other photogs. Apparently it is not very good at high ISO. This may have an affect in your decision making for sport photography when you have to push the ISO to get fast shutter speed for stop action shots. D200 owners can say their peace on that because I don't know for sure.

Just my 2¢. Good luck.

 

[table1349]

The D40 is more than sufficient for the grand canyon. Save your money for glass.

I used to shoot sports with a D60 (D90 now) and don't often use burst mode. Fills up a card to darn fast.

does this mean i am essentially looking at sports photography the wrong way? should i be looking for the 'critical second' rather than burst shooting?

Yes, pretty much so. Knowing the sport, knowing the players allows you to anticipate the action and get the shot rather than the "spray & pray" method of shooting through action and hopping that you get the shot you want.

 

[table1349]

i'd put that $500 towards a sigma 10-20mm wide angle for the d40 so you can capture the grand canyon in its entirety. i just upgraded from the D40 and it was a solid camera. went to the D90 for high ISO capability and CLS capability (i got addicted to strobes)

thanks, but i am not sure that i want to spend that much on a lens for just one trip (and i probably wont be using much wide angle in the future). id rather get like a sigma 50-150 f/2.8

i have thought about renting a wide angle lens for the trip. is that generally a good idea? (from lensrental.com)

Spending the money or not is a decision you have to make. I will say though that camera bodies come and go, but good glass taken care of will last for years or even a life time.

 

[Mike_E]

I have a D200 and it is a great camera!

But.. you knew this was coming right?.. if you are going into the wide wide world of sports you are going to need a body that can live in the ISO 3200-6400 range to cope with all of those dark gyms. The D200 isn't it.

If you want to spend some money and really help your landscape photography, get a really good ballhead and a cheap set of legs. (you won't need much to hold up a D40 but a good ballhead is a joy to use)

You can take a lot of shots and stitch them together to approximate a wide angle lens so long as there is nothing close that fails to show the close proximity distortion you get with an ultra wide.

 

[farmerj]

Go to Adorama, B&H or Lensrental.com and RENT the lens for the trip. Maybe even the D90 to go with it.

Then put your pennies back in the cookie jar for another day.

Personally, you should have gotten the camera about 6 months ago to work with it and figure out the menu's, options and how to work the thing. Not two weeks before you needed it.

You are on the right track with this statement.

i have thought about renting a wide angle lens for the trip. is that generally a good idea? (from lensrental.com)

 

[Mike_E]

Guys, the things Austriker is going to need a wide angle for are going to be brightly lit and his 18-55 should be fine at around f/6.3 and up. The camera he has will do great as well as long as it's on a firm foundation.

Get the tripod and a Circular Polarizer if you don't already have one. The CP is WAY important too!!

 

[JerryPH]

I have a D200 and it is a great camera!

But.. you knew this was coming right?.. if you are going into the wide wide world of sports you are going to need a body that can live in the ISO 3200-6400 range to cope with all of those dark gyms. The D200 isn't it.

I don't know... a fast lens (F/1.4) and a D200 over the kit lens and a D700 or D3 will give better results any day of the week, IMHO.

However, we are looking at sports, and it is a little hard to get close to that batter without pushing the umpire out of the way at 50mm, and one would need a Dodge Ram pickup to be used as the tripod for a 600mm F/1.4 lens... lol

There are many sports that are done outdoors and where a good lens and a D200 would excel, matter of fact, I would say the majority (football, baseball, soccer, etc...). Key word... "good lens". A 70-200 F/2.8 Nikkor is great. It has VR and is fast.

Indoor sports are hard even for a camera outside the OP's budget... the D700. Here you will need fast glass *and* the D700 above ISO 3200 for the indoor stuff to get shutter speeds fast enough to not have motion blur. I am talking no flash... due to camera to subject distances and the fact that flash at the strength levels needed in most venues is distracting and often not even allowed.

As an example, indoor hockey is easy with a D200 becuase the ice is an excellent reflector of the lights above, just watch out for the white balance. A D200 and good glass will get you good shots all the time... been there and done that (and I can supply sample pics). Indoor basketball or soccer are hard even for a D700 (again, I can supply sample pics). Depending on the venue, you may need ISO 6400 and F/2.8 glass or faster to get the shots... thats just a fact of life of sports in low light situations.

At above ISO 1600, even on a D3 or D700, you must nail the exposure to minimize noise... in these circumstances, that is a big challenge. ISO 3200 and up... you *will* use at least some level of noise reduction software, that is guaranteed.

Sports photography is varied, and under most cases, a good lens will do a lot for you... but there are limits to anything.

 

[KmH]

The D40 is more than sufficient for the grand canyon. Save your money for glass.

I used to shoot sports with a D60 (D90 now) and don't often use burst mode. Fills up a card to darn fast.

does this mean i am essentially looking at sports photography the wrong way? should i be looking for the 'critical second' rather than burst shooting?

Gryphonslair99 hit the high points but yes you're looking to antisipate and trip the shutter at the critical second and follow through the action. That doesn't mean burst mode it means being ready to trip the shutter again.

Glass is critical to sports, much more so than the camera body. If you want to shoot indoors you need fast glass and fast glass costs serious money. You also need reach or long, fast glass.

I only shoot outdoor sports so I don't need fast glass but I do need reach, 500mm for field sports like soccer. I also use a second body with a 50-200mm lens mounted for close in shots.