What camera should I buy?

[brad_r2]

<p>Hi.</p>

<p>I currently own a D200 with only about 5000 actuations. I get hired for jobs here and there, but it's definitely a part-time thing. Obviously the D200 is outdated with only 10 MP. I'm thinking of maybe upgrading. I'd like something with more MP, better with low light, and durable.<br>

Does anyone recommend getting a used D2X? I know that's outdated now as well, but I imagine it'd be a step up from what I have. I'd go for a D3, but I don't have the money. I'm thinking of spending $1000-$1500 most.<br>

Or should I go lower with like a D300? But I've heard the weather durability on the D200 is better, I could be wrong.</p>

<p>Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>The D300 is just as good as the D200 in many ways, and much <em>better</em> than the D200 in all other ways. Don't even think about the D2 series if higher ISO use is an issue to you.</p>

[brad_r2]

<p>So you recommend I go for a D300? Is there any other Nikon camera you'd recommend instead? D700? Or would the next best thing beyond the 300 be a D3 series?</p>

[Two23]

<p>I suggest a used D300. Your current lenses will work on it, and it will do what you want at a price you want to pay. I routinely shoot mine at ISO 800 and will go to ISO 1600 when needed.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>What are you shooting (subject-wise), and what lenses are you using? If your budget's already tight, the D700 is out of reach (as is, likely, the right glass to make it useful to you). The D300 is going to go right to work for you using your existing lenses. The new D7000 is going to have a touch better high-ISO performance still, but it won't feel as rugged as the D300.</p>

[mihai_ciuca]

<p>Hi Brad,<br>

If I'd be in your shoes I'd go for a D7000. This is 3yrs newer technology than D300, has more MP and definitely a much better low light behavior. The second option is to wait for the replacement of D300 that is supposed to come sometime in future but with the sad situation from Japan this could be postponed for longer than we anticipated.</p>

[brad_r2]

<p>I shoot headshots and lately education classes from time to time. (Lots of kids, terrible lighting in classrooms) I have a Nikon 50mm 1.8, Tamron 17-50mm 2.8, and Nikon 80-200 2.8.<br>

I shoot landscapes for my own purposes as well.</p>

[brad_r2]

<p>Also, any thoughts on what I could get for my D200? Like I said, about 5000 Actuations.</p>

[photo5]

<p>The D200 shutter is rated for 100,000 actuations. Who told you 10mp is out of date? Plenty of pros are still shooting paid jobs with the D200. Why did you suddenly decide it isn't good enough?</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>If you think the D200 is poor under low light, you need to try the D2X; it is yet another step back. If the D7000's smaller size is ok with you, it is going to give you better high-ISO results than the D300.</p>

<p>Keep in mind that the D7000 uses different memory cards and different batteries from the D200.</p>

[brad_r2]

<p>I'm not worried about the actuations, just that it's out of date. I feel like the low light in addition to the low MP limits some of my work. Or the work that I could do. I don't feel I could ever get into bigger events with the limits it has. I mean if it's not worth spending $1000 on a used D300 or D7000 then I won't do it. But the upgrades in MP and low light capability might be worth it to get more gigs.</p>

 

[elliot1]

<p>A flash will do wonders for your classroom and other poor light shots. I would imagine your 50mm is a bit long for that type of shooting. A 35mm f1.8 would probably make things easier for you.</p>

<p>There is really not much difference from 10mp (D200) to 12mp (D300) so it may make more sense for you to upgrade to a D7000. High ISO noise performance is also improved with the D7000 over all other Nikon DX bodies.</p>

 

[brad_r2]

<p>I have a flash, but the nature of the work is Theatre education for young kids and a flash constantly going off is too disruptive. Otherwise I certainly would.<br>

I usually just switch between my 17-50 for the wider shots and my zoom for the closeups.</p>

[wogears]

<p>Forgive me once more, but yet again we have someone with no portfolio or website asking about how to 'upgrade' his/her 'outdated' technology. How about some examples showing the problems you are having? How about telling us how large you print? I can make nice 16x20 from my D200--are you getting requests for larger prints? A lot of people who complain about noise in low light are underexposing--what about showing us so we can give you REAL help?</p>

[brad_r2]

<p>I don't have a portfolio on this site and only have my other work on my website. Like I said, this is pretty small time for me and it's not my main job.<br>

I don't do any printing, I simply hand over the digital files to the client. But they use them for marketing purposes, flyers, ads, etc. They need to be crisp. They do blow them up to 16x20 or larger from time to time to use as posters.<br>

I'll try and find some examples to post if you think that'll help. With technology changing though, eventually things will run out of date and clients expectations will be higher.<br>

Like I said, it's a tough situation because it's in a classroom, usually with younger kids and it's theater education. So there's games and constant interactivity so using a tripod is out of the question. There's usually not great amounts of light in the room and it doesn't pay to bring tons of lighting with me. A flash is too distracting as I said. So i'm basically stuck with using the fastest lens I can afford and shooting in a low enough ISO that it'll still stay crisp at the higher sizes while still being exposed correctly.<br>

If anyone has suggestions, I am more then happy to listen!</p><div></div>

[Matt Laur]

<p>I'd start with faster lenses. As you look through your EXIF data, what are your most commonly used focal lengths? When you reach for that 17-50, is it for the wide end, or something more in the 30mm-ish range? When you reach for the 18-200, are you really out at the long (and <em>way</em> slower) end?</p>

[brad_r2]

<p>The problem is I do so different types of photography so having 4 or 5 lenses with me isn't practical. But if you're just referring to the main Theater Education stuff. I'd say yea probably somewhere in the 30mm range and then close like at least 150mm-200mm most of the time. But they're both 2.8 fixed. Are you suggesting getting a fixed length lens that's faster then 2.8?</p>

[robert_landrigan]

<p>A D7000 and 35 1.8 would be a natural fit in that scenario - you would need new SD cards, and you may - may want a second battery, but honestly, the D7000 is so good with power it wouldn't be my first purchase.<br>

The extra MP, and way better low-light performance(I went from a D80, which had very slightly better low light performance over the D200) will help mitigate the challenges you're facing, and the only thing you give up vs a D300 is shots per second. While the video is more a nifty extra, in the education world it could be awful handy to have, as well.</p>

[1815photography]

<p>If I were in your shoes I would go for the D7000. As was mentioned I would upgrade to the D7000 instead of the D300s. I own a D200 and with about 49,000 shutter actuations and it's outdated in terms of low light capability. I countered that by only buying lens 2.8 or faster. All of which are NOT DX lenses and they've worked well for me. I just upgraded to a D3s and I WILL NOT be getting rid of my D200. I would hang on to it if I were you. It's a great and very capable backup and I use it with my DX lenses.</p>

[lornesunley]

<p>The D7000 is probably the best camera you can get with the ISO performance you need in low light situations, and for your stated budget. The D2X is a big step backwards. A used D700 would also handle the low light situations, but KEH.COM has those at 2500.00 in like new condition (eek).</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>D7000 absolutely. The D200 is, as you suspect, too old for your purposes now, but makes a fine backup. If you were an amateur, it might be fine, but if you're getting paid for images that are going to be used large, you need to move on. Your clients should expect it.</p>

<p>D300s is old tech at this point, and if you are in no hurry, you might consider waiting for the D400 (or whatever it will be called).</p>

<p>If not, I'd get the D7000. I think your lens assortment will be awesome on that. I think the 35mm f1.8 would be great with it, too.</p>

[carl_becker2]

<p>If you need to upgrade because of megapixel limitations and ISO performance then I would look at the D7000. You also mention the D200 as being out of date which would be another reason to get the newest release of body. You would gain a stop or two ISO preformance and better AF abillity with a D300 but at this point it is close to "out of date" and you may be feeling the same next year. A D700 would require new glass for best use which adds to the budget. You might consider getting a fast prime like the Sigma 30mm f1.4 or Nikkor 35mm f1.8 first and see what improvement that makes. I use a D700 and print up 12x18 so far. I don't feel the need for more megapixel as I do not crop much if at all. I think you give up a little in tone and tonal range with tighter packed sensors and don't get that much more printable size with the increase of megapixel. Megapixel is a nice marketing tool to obsolete older bodies though. Have you looked at the D300 and D7000 at a local camera store?<br>

When I sold my D200 I did not get much for it, about $500 but I bought it used also. It is still being used and a very good body for certain uses.</p>

[richardsnow]

<p>D300 or D7000. There are pros and cons to both.</p>

<p>The D300/s will feel more like the D200 in your hand and will have many of the same external controls that you may be accustomed to using. It also has a superior AF system and a seemingly more robust AF motor for your non AF-S lenses.</p>

<p>The D7000 has a great build quality and is strategically placed between the D90 and the D300s replacement. You'll get higher mega-pixels, more focus points than the D90 and Nikon's newest matrix metering sensor. It is a bit smaller and lighter than the D300, which you may or may not like.</p>

<p>RS</p>

[ramon_v__california_]

<p>a used D300/s is your best bet. if you want to save a lot more, get the D90. it will serve you well for years to come. i'd keep the D200 as a second body for your assignments. have the 17-50mm on the D90 and the 50mm on the D200. 10MP is a way more than enough.</p>

[wogears]

<blockquote>

<p>If anyone has suggestions, I am more then happy to listen!</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I have some suggestions. The image you posted was shot at 1/40 at f5.3. It is also <em>badly </em>underexposed. Underexposure at ISO 3200 is death. If you had shot at f2.8 you could have shot at the same shutter speed at ISO 1600 and had far less noise to deal with. Nonetheless, I did a quick one-click noise reduction on your file. IMO, if I had the RAW to work on, I could get a more-than-acceptable result. You need, IMO, a fast 35mm (or 28m) and some basic work on how to make a correct exposure.</p><div></div>