Classic Question of Lens vs. Body

[jordan_jackle]

<p>My d70s has seen a lot of action, but lately I've decided it's time for an upgrade. I want the megapixels, the viewfinder, the ISO capabilities, and the D-Lighting technology in the D300. I do get some pretty sizeable prints done.<br>

But, my lens situation is limited. I'm using the 18-70 kit lens, as well as a 50 mm f1.8. And that's all. I've been eyeing up a 80-200 2.8 for years, primarily to be used for sport shooting.<br>

So my question is this, as I don't necessarily hate my d70s, would it be wise, for the time being, to grow my lens collection rather than upgrade my body.<br>

Cheers!</p>

 

[dave_petley2]

<p>o yes get new lens nikon 17-55-2.8, 70 200 2.8, 85-1.8 or 1.4 ,than upgrade your body 50 1.8 or 1.4 </p>

[pge]

<p>I have also been eyeing the 80-200mm for a long time, but once you use a long lens with vr it is hard to go back. Try one out first.</p>

<p>Normally I would be on the lens side of this question, but the 18-70mm and 50mm are decent lenses that will go nicely on your new d300.</p>

[photo5]

<p>Unless you need the added resolution, I'd keep the D70 and use your funds for some new glass. Active D-Lighting (ADL) is useful in certain situations, but if you shoot RAW you're better off not using ADL. I had a D70s and was perfectly satisfied with it until I got NAS syndrome and upgraded to the D80, which overall was OK but had some pretty serious metering issues. Then I got the D300, which is more than I need, but very nice for professional events.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>How about the D90, having the same megapixels, the same high ISO, the same Active D-Lighting (overrated feature - good RAW processing does the same easily!) and nearly the same viewfinder (miles larger than the D70 viewfinder anyway) ?<br>

That will leave some more $$, which can then go to a longer lens.<br>

And I'll second the advice to try a 80-200 first; not so much because of VR, but it's a quite big and seriously heavy lens, carrying it around is not always that much fun. Optically a great lens, I quite like mine, but I do notice mine stays home or in the bag more and more (in favour of much smaller and lighter primes). And depending on the sports you want to shoot, 200mm might be a bit short still.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>I assume the situation is that the OP can either get a 80-200mm/f2.8 type lens or a new body.</p>

<p>I would get the lens first. Save for the body. I am quite sure that a year from now, the D90, D300/D300S will all be "old models." Either get something newer and better then or get those "old models" at a lower price.</p>

[Michael R Freeman]

<p>If funds are tight, then I think Wouter has made an excellent suggestion re: the D90. Assuming you buy new, there is nearly a $650 difference between the D300s and D90. Those funds would go a long way towards funding a used AF 80~200/2.8D ED from KEH, and you might be able to swing both a body upgrade and an addition to your lens collection. The D90 would be a big step up from your current D70s.</p>

<p>I also own the 80~200/2.8D, and it is definitely a heavy piece of glass compared to what you are using now. Very nice lens, and it would go well with your 18~70 and 50/1.8, but it's not exactly "convenient" to lug around. :-)<br>

-</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p><em>"o yes get new lens nikon 17-55-2.8, 70 200 2.8, 85-1.8 or 1.4"</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>I don't recall the OP asking about any of those?</p><div></div>

[nishnishant]

<p>Well the D90/D300 will have a 3-stop advantage over the D70s. So upgrading to a 2.8 lens will only give you a <1 stop advantage at the wide end (f/3,5) and a 2-stop advantage at the long end (f/5.6). So maybe a new body will work better for your needs.</p>

[nishnishant]

<p>Of course if DOF is a major factor, then get a faster lens. What I was hinting at was mostly the fact that you can increase ISO and still get decent quality pics in the newer cameras, so you won't need faster lenses as much as you suspect you would.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>i'd actually vote for a d300. you will never look back.</p>

<p>the d70 is ancient and the d300 would represent a significant upgrade. i'm kinda 'meh' on the 80-200. i know it has great optics, but its cumbersome and lacks AF-S and VR.</p>

[ken_shepherd]

<p>Isn't the announcement of the new D90 happening this week? Rumors are for 16MP and better ISO performance. I'd wait for that camera and buy a nice lens with the difference in price.</p>

[ken_shepherd]

<p>Isn't the announcement of the new D90 happening this week? Rumors are for 16MP and better ISO performance. I'd wait for that camera and buy a nice lens with the difference in price.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>If the OP is going to shoot sports, I would get the D300 over the D90. The Multi-CAM 3500 AF module will make a big difference in action/sports photography.</p>

<p>Ken, you are paying too much attention to the rumors. I am not aware that any D90 replacement will be announced this week. If any DX-format DSLR has 16MP, you'll be lucky that its high-ISO results can stay the same at the 12MP D300 and D90 level. A few years ago when Canon went from the 40D to 50D with more pixels, high-ISO results actually went downhill a bit according to several reviews, such as Bob Atkins and DPReview.</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>I'd probably get the lens first unless I knew that I could get by with what I had. Seriously, upgrading from the D50 (very similar to your D70) to the D90 has made me insanely happy.</p>

<p>The extra MP lets me crop more, the higher ISO handling makes me really happy.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>i dont think nikon currently produces a 16mp sensor; neither does sony, who made the chip for the d200, d300, and d90. sony does, however, make a 14.2 mp sensor which may or may not be in the d3100/ d3000 replacement. nikon has established an MO of sharing sensors across its DX DSLR product line, so it's more likely they will use the 14mp sensor if anything; hopefully they'll be able to eke better high-ISO performance out of it than the sony iteration.</p>

<p>in any event, if i were the OP, i would wait until after the product announcements. prices on soon-to-be-discontinued bodies will go down, surely.</p>

 

[ty_mickan]

<p>if you avoid zoom lenses, which are slow at best, and get some nice fast primes, then the need for high ISO capabilities in a body is somewhat diminished. even if you have good iso performance, wouldn't you want to eek out the best quality image from your digicam that you can? as good as high iso gets, it's still not as good as base iso.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>if you avoid zoom lenses, which are slow at best, and get some nice fast primes, then the need for high ISO capabilities in a body is somewhat diminished.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The OP is considering a 80-200mm/f2.8 lens for shooting sports. Exactly which fast prime (faster than f2.8) do you have in mind? There is a 200mm/f2 AF-S VR @ about $5000 new. There are also lenses such as the 85mm/f1.8 AF-D that is not so expensive but lack the reach.</p>

<p>The advantage for using a zoom to shoot sports is that in many sports, the players tend to move back and forth. Using a zoom lets you adjust to the current distance for your moving subjects. Whether the 80-200 is long enough or not is another issue; that depends on which sports you are talking about and whether you can get closer.</p>

<p>Personally, I am not too crazy about using lenses @ f1.4, f2. The depth of field is shallow and most of those fast lenses are not at their best wide open.</p>

[ty_mickan]

<p>each to their own, i almost always shoot wide open for certain things, but not for everything of course. from the distance of the sidelines, dof is not an issue wide open. the 2/200 is exactly what i was thinking of, and it's not all that expensive when you consider that it will last for decades, and a d700 will last a few years. but at only a stop better than the 70-200, it doesn't have as much impact as something like a 1.4/85mm. i do agree that zooms are handy for dynamic situations when there is no time to switch lenses, and i used a 70-200 a lot when shooting sport.</p>

[steven_p]

<p>I had a D40 & 50. The jump from a 6 to 12mp body adds a great deal of extra detail. The cropping ability is only a minor plus. AF is quite fast on the D300, even with screw drive lenses and frame rate reminds me of my old F3 with the MD4, (without burning a half roll.)</p>

<p>It can be a somewhat complicated camera to learn, and I, myself do not use all it's features. The lenses you have are a good start, and well worth keeping. Also remember, if you don't mind manual focusing (and "Live View"), there are many, many wonderful MF lenses available at bargain basement prices that will meter fine on a D300/s.</p>

<p>Enjoy and don't look back.</p>

[nishnishant]

<p>D90 replacement? I read about the D3100 (3000 replacement) and the D400 (300 replacement), but no one's ever talked about a D90 replacement - mostly because they can't imagine what it would be called :-)</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Nish, the D70S replaced the D70; the D80 replaced the D70S; the D90 replaced the D80, so clearly the D100 will replace the D90. :-)</p>

[Albins images]

<p>Another personal recommendation upon many good one already - although opinions differ as usual.</p>

<p>I'd certainly recommend the D300(/s) and/or wait for the D90 replacement, if video and (even) high(er) ISO performance is important to you. The improvement over D70 is worth it. The 18-70 kit lens, as well as a 50 mm f1.8 are fine for many uses - my wife uses both on D300 with excellent results. Those lenses are definately no obstacle for getting quality images.</p>

<p>Add some good lenses as you go along. Obviously, specific situations ask for different lenses. Low light photography is best/most easily done with the new 2.8 zooms, birds are best/most easily photographed with super-tele's and macro lenses are the key to.. well.</p>

<p>good luck</p>

[kuzzy]

<p>Jordan, I am in a similar situation as you. I still have my D70 and would like to upgrade for improved high iso in particular. I shoot a lot of sports so the D300's improved AF over the D70 as well as the better high ISO are exactly what I am looking for. However, I also wanted to improve my lens inventory so I just recently bought the 80-200. No need for VR since I use it 99% of the time for sports. <br /> It was kind of an either/or situation and I am sure that I made the right choice. The image quality from my D70 is more than acceptable and that lens is a substantial upgrade over my previous zoom. Understanding the sport I am shooting and anticipating the action to some extent reduces the impact of the slower AF system. I would suggest that you get the lens, when you see the results it will breath new life into your D70s. There will always be a new and better DSLR out there calling your name while the IQ from the lens will keep you very satisfied for a long time to come.<br /> However.... that being said, I definitely need to upgrade my DSLR before basketball season this year as my son is a senior and this will be his last go round and i just need that high ISO for those dark gyms.</p>

[james_kennedy9]

<p>I will be one of the few people here to vote for a new camera. </p>

<p>I bought a D70 brand new when it came out in 2004, and the 18-70 kits lens for just a hundred dollars more was a fantastic bargain. I never understood what Nikon was thinking when they brought out the D70s. I didn't even think the D80 was a significant upgrade, and I was right. Staying at ISO 400 or less, I have made excellent prints with the D70 and the kit lens (and also with the 5 meg Canon Powershot and the 3 meg (extrapolated to 6) Fuji A602. But the D90 and D300 are in a different league, in terms of high ISO quality and the high-rez LCD. I actually like Active D lighting at minimum levels. So you can see that I am a Philistine amateur.</p>

<p>I bought a used D90 from my trusted camera repairman (I have 100+ film cameras) for $600, and the camera body was the only thing I got. I alread had battery chargers and the manuals are online. The camera was LN and had only 3000 shutter activations, but it turned out to be gray market, but who cares. About 9 months later, I bought a used D300 and it makes my large collection of old MF lenses very usable.</p>

<p>The D70 was a great camera in its day and still a good performer, but the D90 and D300 are fabulous, and much more fun to use. And be sure to get an SB 600 flash.</p>

[matthew_tyler]

<p>I'd probably keep the D70 if there's no specific reason it's not doing the job. If I had spent more money on optics, flash brackets, reflectors, strobe systems, speed lights, soft boxes, and sturdy tripods/light stands INSTEAD OF camera body upgrades.... I'd be much further along with my photography today. </p>

<p> </p>