D50 to D200, or work on D50 equipment

[JDP]

Hey gang,
I'm at a crossroads of sorts right now. I've been using my Nikon D50 for quite some time now, and absolutely love it. Granted, I don't have much in the way of lenses for it, relying more on the local camera store to rent them.

I'm doing a lot of theater shots, plays/musicals/dance/etc. For that I usually use the Nikkor 17-50mm f/2.8 lens that I rent for ~$26 a day.

As it stands, I do get some good pictures, but usually it ends up being 1 out of 20 or so that is acceptable to me. I could go with the 50mm f/1.4 lens, but don't really want to lose all that depth of field for certain scenarios.

So really, my question is, since I do a lot of dark/subdued lightning situations I was thinking of picking up the D200 and a lense or 2 - probably the 50mm f/1.4. From what I've read, the D200 has superior performance in this area, especially with it's ability to do an iso of 3200.

But, is it worth it right now? I'm thinking of dropping around $3000 on my next purchase - should I go with the D200 kit w/ an 18-70mm lens for $2000, then grabbing the 50mm f/1.4 lens and a .... not sure - I'd love to OWN the 17-55mm f/2.8 lens, but it would exceed my budget. Same with a regular 80-200mm @ 2.8, or an 80-200mm VR lens. I could find and get included a 200 or 300mm lens (depending on brand) for my total price.

Any thoughts? I also shoot a lot of action/sports with odd subdued lighting, like the Minnesota Rollergirls. Being I'm not the 'official' photographer, I don't have the option of placing a ring of wireless flashes around the rink, and end up having to rely on luck a lot of the time.

So, I guess to sum up - for night time/theater/stage/sport event shooting would the additional sensitivty, better chip, more AF zones help me take better shots MORE SO then a D50 with a complement of $3000 worth of lenses. Assume I'll have at least the 50mm f/1.4 for both.

This is my hobby, now, but I'm slowly transitioning more into doing it semi-professionally, so keep that in mind as well.


Thanks a lot!
Oh, one other thing I noticed... the slightly larger size of the D200 as compared to the D50 makes the larger lenses feel much more 'natural' in my hand, but I'm curious as to how much that would effect my shooting.

Anyway, it's late, I'm overtired, and etc etc. First post too - great impression I'm making hehe.


-Jeremy

 

[dsp921]

Spend your money on good glass, you will get much better results with quality lenses on the D50 than you will with cheap lenses on the D200.

 

[bigfatbadger]

Seconded, glass is far more important and will last longer than a body. Appreicated, the lenses you're talking about are fairly pricey, but have you considered the Sigma 18-50 2.8 or Tamrons 17-55 2.8 (I think those focal lengths are right).

Good things are said and much cheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeaper.

Personally, I'd buy the 1.8 50mm, the 1.4 is only half a stop bigger, I doubt there would be many occasions when you'd need it. But, thats just my opinion

 

[JDP]

True true. I used to be wary of Sigma lenses, etc - but I've been reading up and it seems like the technology used to produce them doesn't differ as much as they used to, so the quality is virtually the same.

I'm still mulling this over in my head. If I keep my current D50, then I could pick up some real nice Nikkor glass, some VR stuff. On the other hand, I don't *need* a 300mm VR lens as much as, say, the 3200 ISO on the D200. Maybe I should just rent one for a day or 2 and get a feel for it.

Regardless, I'll be getting the 55mm 1.4 (or 1.8) lens, and probably renting either the 80-200mm 2.8 or 17-55 2.8 when I need it.