So ive been shooting with my trusty D200 since early '07 when i purchased it. Coming from shooting BW film and a little MF in school i was excite to finally have a good Digi SLR. Fast foward to now ive been a staff photographer for the past two years at my local newspaper, covered countless events and have gained a tremendous amount of experience and my skill as a photographer has improved greatly.
The D200 is an amazing camera and has rewarded me with plenty of great shots, but its ancient in todays world. Since probably 75% of my shooting is done without flash in low light (not the D200's strong point), I am really looking into some newer technology to help improve those shots, especially with the suspected release of the D600.
The current lens family I have is:
18-17 f3.5-4.5
35 f1.8
50 f1.8d
10.5 f2.8 fish
50-200 f4-5.6 (i think)- never use
80-200 f2.8
FX seems like a good route to go, i am somewhat invested in dx glass but the D200 would be my backup so thats fine with me.. If i was you what would you pickup?
My wife and I shoot weddings with a pair of D700s and a 35, two 50s, and an 85. In your situation, I'd pick up a used D700 and a 35/2 and sell all the lenses you listed except for the 50/1.8. The 35/2 can be used on both cameras, as can the 50/1.8. If you need something long, I'd get an 85/1.8.
Not knowing what you like to shoot it's a little hard to recommend something. But you've waited this long, and it seems you might be interested in the rumored D600. So...I'd wait a few more weeks to see if they bring out the D600 like they are supposed to for the show in September.
tobicus wrote:
My wife and I shoot weddings with a pair of D700s and a 35, two 50s, and an 85. In your situation, I'd pick up a used D700 and a 35/2 and sell all the lenses you listed except for the 50/1.8. The 35/2 can be used on both cameras, as can the 50/1.8. If you need something long, I'd get an 85/1.8.
leighton w wrote:
Not knowing what you like to shoot it's a little hard to recommend something. But you've waited this long, and it seems you might be interested in the rumored D600. So...I'd wait a few more weeks to see if they bring out the D600 like they are supposed to for the show in September.
Sorry should have been more descriptive in the first post, i was thinking of getting something with video, but most of the videos i make are short(<1min) and usually with my gopro, so i think thats out. Outside of work i shoot a little bit of everything, some skateboarding and bmx(reason for the 10.5), landscapes, but i love shooting natural light portraits mainly.
Edit: I dont really upload online anymore, but here is a few of my favorite shots
The D700 is not a bad choice though it doesn't give you video. If that is important you either need to go DX with a D7000 or FX with an older body, the D3s or the newest D4. The D700 with a grip will give you relatively fast shooting, excellent lowlight performance and a decent file size for most purposes.
I shot with a D200 I'd bought for a friend when I was shooting with a Canon 5D. Lowlight performance on the Nikon really turned me off but the D700 is a very different beast. I love the camera, but I don't shoot sports and have no interest in video. You have some decent options. The only question, the one Leighton raises, is how much money you have to spend... such is life...
You may regret not getting a body with video capabilities if that's something you're into. The GoPro is fun/cool, but you are going to get better files and lens versatility with a DSLR with video (thus ruling out the D700, which to me also feels old). I upgraded from the D200 to the D7000. Working for Think Tank Photo, I get free use of the D700 or D3S (can you guess which one I borrow?). I personally like the files out of my D7000 more than what I get out of the D700, and both are slow in regards to fps if you're shooting sports. If you don't mind missing a shot and re-doing it, then that's not going to be much of an issue. I also don't foresee the new D600 to be a speed demon on fps either. The D4 may be overkill for what you're doing, but it does have MUCH better video capabilities than the D3s.
If you wanted to stick with DX, then the D7000 has been brilliant for me (I've got around 50k releases through it so far). A huge leap above the D200, though I hate the D7000's lousy, quick filling internal buffer and it's ergonomics to me aren't quite as nice as the D200's. It's bracketing has also been crippled. However the sensor is amazing, it's feature packed, it has a great view finder and LCD and the files are amazingly clean and have a ton of dynamic range. Not quite as nice as the D3s, but I'd venture to say the files are nicer than the D700s, even though it's FX vs. DX.
My coworker just got his D800 (standard, not "e") and has been using it exclusively for the past month. He loves it. I've had a chance to work with it in the studio, and I can't fault anything about it for that usage. I don't think it's any better than the D7000 in terms of noise (same sensor, just larger if recall). However it's FX like you want and it does have very good video capabilities. Compared to the D200, the D800 would be a HUGE leap. Expect the D600 to be a crippled version of the D800.
Now, with all the rambling over... what is your budget? Without that, it's really hard to make a recommendation. If video didn't matter and you're not making huge gallery prints, I'd vote ten times over to find yourself a D3S. Low light king, very so-so video and not many MP if that matters. Lovely files with huge dynamic range. (I always shoot 14bit RAW)
Thanks for those posts guys, especially randy. I feel as though a d3 /d3s is my ultimate goal but is just a tadd out of my budget. D700 seems the best option right now but im going to wait to see what happens with these fall launches.. right now i could go with a d700 and sell some glass for a 24-70 2.8 and use the 80-200 for longer stuff. Only thing is the paper wants me to start cover some sports,which im a fan of but that 80-200 is the older non d version so the focus is slower than molasses.. decisions decisions
At this point, I think you'd be well advised to continue to sit tight a few more months and see if Nikon releases a "D400," two generations from your current D200. You won't have the expense and hassle of lens changes that way, and you'll have significantly more modern technology than what the D700 offers (and probably for a similar price.) If you are trying to keep costs down (after all, you seem to be a working photographer,) I think a D7000 would be the way to go. About the same at high ISO as a D700 but about half the cost, and you keep using current lenses.
Same style body you could pick up a cheap D300s, is you need higher iso then it costs $... pixelrandy
if you are getting better files from D7K than D700 then you are not using the later correctly. I have and use both the real test for a D7K v D700 is highly detailed shots, eg city skyline and in lower light like dusk.
I went from a D200 to a D7000 and I have been very happy with the change. I used a friends D300 quite a bit before I got the D7K but I couldn't see that the D300 was enough of a step up from the D200 to justify spending the money to make the change. I don't regret the investment in the D7000. It delivers amazing results.
clay23 wrote:
So ive been shooting with my trusty D200 since early '07 when i purchased it. Coming from shooting BW film and a little MF in school i was excite to finally have a good Digi SLR. Fast foward to now ive been a staff photographer for the past two years at my local newspaper, covered countless events and have gained a tremendous amount of experience and my skill as a photographer has improved greatly.
The D200 is an amazing camera and has rewarded me with plenty of great shots, but its ancient in todays world. Since probably 75% of my shooting is done without flash in low light (not the D200's strong point), I am really looking into some newer technology to help improve those shots, especially with the suspected release of the D600.
The current lens family I have is:
18-17 f3.5-4.5
35 f1.8
50 f1.8d
10.5 f2.8 fish
50-200 f4-5.6 (i think)- never use
80-200 f2.8
FX seems like a good route to go, i am somewhat invested in dx glass but the D200 would be my backup so thats fine with me.. If i was you what would you pickup?...Show more →
I would get a D700 which is old also, but still kicks butt. Or wait and see what the D600 is like.
Im thinking now, and this is depending on what is launched in the near future, a D700 and then dump the 200 and pick up a used D7k for video and a backup. Most important though is need to get rid of the 200 soon as its limiting me for what i want to do.
also the d400 if released im sure is going to be LIGHT YEARS ahead of the 200, guess i just need to wait and see what happens.. anyone hae any idea when theses cameras when they will be announced,if they even will?
