I'm sorry :( need opinions please!@

Derrel · Sep 17, 2010

If a USED D90 is $800 and a new one can be had for $849 Canadian, the smart decision is the brand new D90, not the used one. $800 for a used D90 seems way too high to me, unless there's a good lens with it.

D90 versus D200...I would MUCH rather own the D90, since it has a better performing sensor and the D200's autofocus system is not the new, 51-point system of the D300 and D300s models...with the D200, you are stepping back around five years in technology, and are not really gaining the frame rate that you would like to have.

If you want to be able to make "wow!" type sports photos, the best thing you can do is start hanging around with sports shooters,and reading all you can about how to shoot sports. Start shooting for a local area newspaper as a contributing photographer. Buy a decent lens or two,and learn how best to use it....something "fast" is usually helpful, like an 85/1.8 for indoor stuff.

The tough choice now is probably the D7000 versus D90 dilemma....but, if the price is stuck absolutely at $1,000, that would eliminate the D7000 and leave you with the D90 decision...personally, I think the $800 D90 is wayyyyy overpriced as a used item; once the D7000 hits the streets, within 3 months there will be tens of thousands of D90's flooding the used market.

Village Idiot · Sep 17, 2010

Bram said:
That was unnecessary man, you have no reason for making these rude comments, i'm just looking for input and advice, four different people have commented so far and one has actually tried to help me. If that's the ratio of people that help around here. Then DAMN! there's something wrong with today's society.

Truth.

Lens > Body.

There's your advice.

Bram · Sep 17, 2010

Thank you Derrel, all of it makes sense yes. I may have over estimated the price since a guy on craigslist is sellign a D90 body only for $700.00 should I take that I think the shutter count is around 15k he said. Like I mentioned before the 200mm for outside sports can be a little short to my liking, so a 300mm 2.8 would be the remedy to that (correct me if i'm wrong). I'm a fan of the 11 AF points the D90 has, definate upgrade from my 3. I would love to have the 54 or whatever it is that the higher up models have, but I would have to finance it and also get a loan to afford that. There's also somebody on the forum here in the Buy and Sell section that's selling a D90 body, 25k shutter count for $600.00. Now I have never bought from this forum, nor done interact email transfers or what-have-you. What do you recommend in that situation? Go with the local one I can check out for $700.00 or do the shipping for $600.00 ??

djacobox372 · Sep 17, 2010

The D200 shoots 2fps faster then the d40x, you can find them used for around $450usd.

djacobox372 · Sep 17, 2010

Derrel said:
If a USED D90 is $800 and a new one can be had for $849 Canadian, the smart decision is the brand new D90, not the used one. $800 for a used D90 seems way too high to me, unless there's a good lens with it.

D90 versus D200...I would MUCH rather own the D90, since it has a better performing sensor and the D200's autofocus system is not the new, 51-point system of the D300 and D300s models...with the D200, you are stepping back around five years in technology, and are not really gaining the frame rate that you would like to have.

If you want to be able to make "wow!" type sports photos, the best thing you can do is start hanging around with sports shooters,and reading all you can about how to shoot sports. Start shooting for a local area newspaper as a contributing photographer. Buy a decent lens or two,and learn how best to use it....something "fast" is usually helpful, like an 85/1.8 for indoor stuff.

The tough choice now is probably the D7000 versus D90 dilemma....but, if the price is stuck absolutely at $1,000, that would eliminate the D7000 and leave you with the D90 decision...personally, I think the $800 D90 is wayyyyy overpriced as a used item; once the D7000 hits the streets, within 3 months there will be tens of thousands of D90's flooding the used market.

Mostly agree, but the d200 is a bit faster shooting then the d90 (5fps vs. 4.5).

I'd take the d90 over the d200 also, but for about half the price of a d90 the d200 is a solid option.

A gripped d300 can be had for as low as $1000usd on the used market. It would have the frame rate (8fps) and auto-focus system the ts is looking for.

It should also be noted that the d200 and d300 are of beefier construction and are compatible with ais manual focus lenses, whereas the others are not.

Bram · Sep 17, 2010

Good point on the D300. Also what I rally like is that if I upgrade I wont have to worry about buying AF-S or AF-I lenses I can just go right ahead and they will still auto focus.

patcam · Sep 17, 2010

Hi, I've owned both the D90 and the D200 and currently am using the D40. Both the D90 and D200 are cameras you can't go wrong with, either would make an excellent choice. As far as frames per second goes you have to remember that there is no guarantee any of those frames will be in focus, only that the shutter can actually move at that rate. Unless you're heavily into sports or other action photography it won't make any difference. Your abilities as a photographer will have more to do with the outcome of the pictures than any difference in frame rates between these 2 cameras. I personally enjoyed the Live View and video capabilities of the D90 but the D200 is a much more robust professional-type camera. It is significantly heavier, feels more solid and is better constructed; also more external buttons to allow prompt changes in settings rather than having to access menus. Both cameras will produce photos that are indistinguishable from one another. Hope this helps somewhat. Take care, PC.

Bram · Sep 18, 2010

Hmmm. Decisions decisions. Definately a tough one here, I love shooting sports yeah and the frames per second is not that big of a deal, but since my D40x doesn't have an AF motor like the D90, I have to spend more money on glass because i'll need an AF-S or an AF-I lens, which cost more. So if I get the D90 i won't have to worry about that in the long run.

gsgary · Sep 18, 2010

Your biggest problem is you don't have any good lenses so changing the body will make no difference because FPS does not matter for sport it's all about timing

orb9220 · Sep 18, 2010

Yep owned a D90 and great lenses to go with. But gave it up for $$$ for medical expenses. Now back with a used D200 last 5 months starting over. And body upgrades for me come after adding good glass to the kit. My Tamron 17-50 f2.8 is a workhorse lens that started me with upgrading the kit lens on my first D40. And Usability and Image IQ went up quite a bit. Now my main workhorse on my D200 and was on my D90. Just have the 55-200VR as a second lens and that's my kit so far. Still need to add glass and flash,tripod,etc.. Before considering a newer body.

So starting out if you have good glass already then go for the absolute in newer and better ISO of the D90 as iso 3200 is outstanding.

Heading Home by orb9220, on Flickr

The D200 on the other hand isn't really usable above 800 and nailing exposure is critical. But is great camera. And have no real sadness owning it. As there will always be a better cam around the corner.

Only you can determine your needs. I just came back from a 3-day trip up the Columbia gorge. And kind have a more glad feeling that I had the build of the D200.

But still find it a challenge to hone my image taking with either camera. And realize that both have the ability to get the shot based on my skills.
.

pbelarge · Sep 18, 2010

Here is one example over at POTN, for less than you have priced for.

Canon Digital Photography Forums

Here is a link to a bunch of sales...
Canon Digital Photography Forums

Yes, a Canon forum selling Nikons.....we can all be friends.

Bram · Sep 19, 2010

Thanks orb9220, great insight on both cameras thanks. Gsgary, there are more like you don't worry, alot of people think glass is the only thing that matters, but it's not. The body of a camera has a huge impact on your work, yes ofcourse glass does too. It all depends on what you're shooting, many others think that glass is more important then the body which in my books is vert debatable. All things aside. I have looked at faster glass sure but I need a 80-300mm 2.8 which I have not been able to find anywhere because it probably doesn't exist. :lol:

That's alright though. Pbelarge thanks for the links but i'm not a member of this forum so I can't see the prices or anything it just brings me to a registration page