Nikon d1 body

[craig]

If your photos will be small i.e web and yearbook size then consider the D2H. Shooting raw is handy plus the cameras performance is outstanding sans battery issues.

Love & Bass

 

[JerryPH]

Your best option would be to work a little harder, save a little hader and get a camera that has a lifespan of a few years rather than starting off with a camera that is already obsolete.

The D300 is more, yes, but at least you could get 5-8 GOOD years out of it... rather than being sorry after about 2 months after getting that D1. D2s are also pretty much outperformed by a D300... which is what I would suggest you set your sights on (the D300, not D2).

 

[redtippmann]

If your photos will be small i.e web and yearbook size then consider the D2H. Shooting raw is handy plus the cameras performance is outstanding sans battery issues.

Love & Bass

thanks alot, Yea I would be useing this probably just for the paper and the D50 for more artistic ventures. Does that sound right?

 

[craig]

Sounds good.

Love & Bass

 

[Tasmaster]

A quick look through ebay, seems like you can get a D2H or a D200 for roughly the same price.

 

[craig]

E bay is for crooks and scam artists.

Love & Bass

 

[Tasmaster]

...that, and buying stuff from! I only looked there for a rough estimate of price used.

 

[redtippmann]

Yea I heard that the D2H is better at sports. Which I will be mainly useing it for. But the D200 is better at every thing else.

 

[TamiyaGuy]

Bear in mind that the D1 was made in 1999, 10 years ago. For that reason, it is, to put it gently, crap. Yes, it can withstand a helluva lot, but the batteries are dreadful, the noise at both low and high ISOs is no-where near its modern equivalent and, of course, it only has 2mp.

The D2H is a fairly good camera: it has a nice FPS for shooting sports, it's a fair improvement on a D50 or D70, but the only thing that lets it down somewhat is its 4 megapixels. Admittedly, considering you're going to use it for a newspaper, it may not matter, but your cropping will be slightly limited and, if you want to use it for larger prints, you may just be out of luck. Still, it's a decent camera for sure.

 

[blash]

The whole point about film's continued relevance for consumers in this day and age is to stretch out the cost of ownership over time - if I can devote $50/week to photography, it is much easier to save for 5 weeks (slightly over a month) and buy a used F100 for $250 and then spend $30/week on film and processing - than it is to save that $50/week for a D300 for $1,500 = 30 weeks = ~7.5 months (don't even think about putting the D300 on the credit card unless you're damn certain you know how you're going to pay it off). Film can be easily scanned to conform to the digital requirements that your yearbook/school newspaper may require. Also remember - you need to be able to afford some fast glass too. That D300 body at $1500 requires you to spend at least $100 on a 50mm f/1.8 lens, probably more for a set of primes or a f/2.8 mid-range zoom.

 

[benhasajeep]

For your situation a D200 would be a goal to try and find a deal on. A D70s would be next. Followed by a D50 in Nikon flavors. My wife still uses a D50 quite often even though we have D300's and others a bit newer.

Megapixels is just part of the story in DSLRs. There have been major advances in noise, speed, etc. Even the consumer cameras have newer technology than the old pro models.

If you really need to stay on the cheap. Look for a used D50 or D70s in Nikon flavor. Or 20D or 30D in Canon Flavor. They are all still good performers.

 

[redtippmann]

/\Yea if you look at my sig it has all my equipment(D50)/\

And i can pick one up for exactly the same price D200($650) and D2H($650) The only thing thats makeing me not like the D200 is the 4.5 or 5 FPS. But I think a battery grip will boost that? For the D300 and something else it does.

Oh and I guess that the AF is much better on the d2h. And now that I think of it the 8fps could come in handy.