Currently-Available Used Nikon DSLRs For Film SLR User

[craig_andrew_yuill]

<p>Background: I have owned and used Nikon FM2n and F801S 35mm film SLRs for several years. Before that I had an Olympus OM-1. I have 7 lenses, but only 2 are AF, and those are "screw-driven" type. The MF lenses have AI-S mounts. I have preferred owning and using higher-quality cameras and lenses. I have tended to buy used gear, including the F801S, as much as possible to keep costs down. Plus I feel this is the best way to truly recycle. My only experience with true digital photography is compact digicams and cell phones.<br /><br /> Current Shooting: If I'm not using the cell or digicam, I'm using a film camera loaded with ISO 100 to 400 speed slide film (personal preference), then digitizing using a film scanner. I find the scanning process to be tedious, although I can get nice digital photos this way. I tend to take mostly shots of my kids. But I have started getting back into bird photography. The digicam is okay for shooting the kids, but sucks for bird photography and when the kids are too active. The price of slide film plus developing and mounting is in the $30 to $38 range once taxes are included. Ten rolls equal $300 to $380. Twenty equals $600 to $720. Not much film equals one digital camera.<br /><br /> My wife has wondered why I don't have a digital camera. (Necessary budget restraints imposed by her are the big reason, but that's another story.) I don't intend to rush out and buy a bunch of new AF lenses anytime soon. I have a limited budget. I want a camera that can meter and get focus confirmation with my current lenses. (The least-expensive new camera that is reasonably compatible with my lenses is the D7000.) I have a bossy four-year-old daughter loves who insists on picking up my old SLRs and firing off a few shots any time I pull them out. Ruggedness is useful. Also a relatively-low cost would be nice, so that I won't be devastated if it gets destroyed.<br /><br /> As of today there are a number of Nikon DSLRs available locally, at a wide variety of prices from various sources. Here are some that have piqued my interest:<br /> 1) D100 - $170<br /> 2) D1X - $280<br /> 3) D200 with battery grip - $600<br /> 4) D2X - $850<br /> 5) D300 - $850<br /><br /> Does anyone think any of the above are worth considering at the prices listed? I appreciate that newer typically means better, and that you typically get what you pay for. But I also like bargains when I can get them, and I have never felt the need to have the absolute latest and greatest. I have seen good photos taken with each of these cameras. The above all come with standard accessories like batteries and chargers. For comparison, the F801S cost me around $600 in 1996 and has served me well.</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>The D300 is the way to go, especially since you mention ruggedness. A lightly used one, at that sort of price, will serve you very well with your lenses and with your experience. Do <em>not</em> go with any of the older generation(s) you have on that list.</p>

[leslie_cheung]

<p>If you rarely shoot over ISO 800, I think the d200 is the sweet choice. If you look hard enough, you could get them for under $500. Add kateyes screen and you are set for precise manual focusing. The d300 has a better AF system and better IQ at high ISO but they are at least $750 and up.</p>

[lloyd_phillips2]

<p>Craig, I was recently faced with the same choices as you and I posted the question here on the Nikon forum to find more information about transitioning from film to digital. The replys I received contained some real gold. You may find some useful information in the responses I received. My post is still active. My final decision in purchasing a digital camera was the D7000. I think I mad the correct decision. Other Nikon dititals I seriously considerred was the D90 and the D300(s). I had purchased a D100 about two years ago to learn to use digital. It fell short of what I wanted to do and I do not recommend it to you. The D90 does not readily accept some of your lens and you state you have only two AF's ( some would say that is enough depending on which ones you have). So I would skip the first 3 you listed as locally available. The last two are priced about typical depending on condition. Before purchasing any digital I would read the posts here for the past two or three months. You can get a very good opinion on the cameras and what the owners think of them. A wealth of information. Second recommendation: Go to a thrift shop or flea market and buy your daughter an inexpensive old camera and let her play with that. I love my gandchildren but they don't get to play with my D7000. </p>

[leslie_cheung]

<p>Okay, if you shoot sport or any fast action...get the d300/d7000. Landscape...d200 would do.</p>

[SCL]

<p>I owned a D100 from 2004 until a year ago when I got a used D300 ( for a little less then you show). I'm thoroughly satisfied with it. I've been primarily a film (slides and negative) shooter for over 50 years. I found post processing to be tedious at best, but finally owned up, being a darkroom guy, and am doing fine. The D300 takes all my old manual focus lenses and meters great, as well as working well with a few AF lenses I've acquired. I can highly recommend it to you, but DON'T let your daughter play with it...it isn't a toy. Hell, I won't even let my 39 yr old daughter play with my D300, she can use her cell phone camera for her infrequent shots.</p>

[StuartMoxham]

<p>D100 will not meter with your AI-S lenses, I sometimes use old AI-s lenses with my D80 (same short coming) for a short while it is OK but it gets old pretty quick.</p>

<p>I also use AI-s lenses on my older D1h (same as D1x body but D1h has less MP only 2.75 and a faster frame rate). The D1 series has poor battery life and the batteries don't have a long life before they need replacing. I really like my D1h and would consider a D1x for myself but I don't know if they would make a good first DSLR for someone.</p>

<p>The D200 I considered before buying my D80, in many ways I should have gone with the D200 but a D80 turned up used for a very good price with just over 2000 shots on it. The D80 was also smaller and lighter.</p>

<p>At the end of the day you have to go with what you can affordn make the best of it and learn to live with it. I don't thing Nikon really made any bad DSLRs just the the newer ones are better than the older ones.</p>

 

[bebu_lamar]

<p>I would go for the D2X.</p>

[Matt Laur]

<blockquote>

<p>I would go for the D2X.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>At the same price as the D300? Never. Just makes no sense, if image quality anywhere above base ISO is going to be considered. To say nothing of CLS control, updated menus, the D300's AF system (as seen on the current D3), and so much more.</p>

[daverhaas]

<p>The only way I'd go for a D2x is at a price about $250.00 less than the D300 so about $600.00 - it's a great body, but the D300 beats it in every aspect. </p>

<p>The $850 for the D300 is good but you might be able to get them down a bit on it. </p>

<p>Dave</p>

 

[williamchuttonjr]

<p>D200 at least and a D300 if the budget permits.<br>

The D200 is fine for color up to ISO 400 (maybe a 1/2 stop higher when well exposed). I like B&W on the D200 up to ISO 800.<br>

The D300 has a much better signal-to-noise ratio and a superior AF system. I find AI/AIS lenses are a bit easier to focus on the D300.</p>

[bebu_lamar]

<p>Never even consider to buy a D300.</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>BeBu: why would you make such a comment (which goes against significant recommendations here and in untold numbers of other threads on this same subjects, including by people who own and use both the D300 and the D2x), and not say why? Why should somebody never consider buying a D300?</p>

[bebu_lamar]

<p>Oh it's only me!<br>

Not others, I know overwhelmingly people like the D300. But I would not buy a Nikon that is not made in Japan.</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>Oh, <em>that</em> old non-reason. You trust Nikon to build cameras in one place, but don't trust Nikon to do it physically somewhere else? It's a meaningless distinction. The same people design the cameras, design the manufacturing process, oversee the manufacturing, test the results, and guarantee the camera. The physical locale of the factory has no bearing on Nikon's long-established manufacturing and quality control procedures. Surely you're not suggesting that a the language a factory worker speaks changes their ability to follow those procedures?<br /><br />So, you'd probably buy a D3, right? Do you know which of Nikon's factories makes the AF module that it shares with the D300?</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>I am told that the Mercedes made in the USA are not up to the no-longer superb record of the Stuttgart factory, but of course many of the workers there are Gästarbeiter.</p>

<p>Racial categorizations for workers were pretty wide spread in Europe in the early 1940s, I understand.</p>

<p>It's all because they've taken away the owner's ability to beat the workers into doing it right that quality has fallen off so badly.</p>

<p>�</p>

[craig_andrew_yuill]

<p>I thank you all for your quick responses.<br>

<br />@lloyd phillips<br />I have been keeping an eye on a number of comparison threads here and at DPR, including yours. There is also <a href="http://bythom.com/upgradepath.htm">Thom Hogan's Ultimate Upgrade Path</a> where Hogan has a table to help Nikon DSLR owners determine if upgrading their current camera is a good idea. I was surprised to read that, as of a few months ago, Hogan was suggesting satisfied D2X, D200, and even D1X owners could still be fairly happy with their cameras. That said, if I was going to buy brand new at this time, it would be a tough one to decide between the D300S and D7000. I would probably also give the nod to the D7000. At this time I can get a new D7000 for around $1275, and a new D300S for around $1575, including local sales taxes. But those prices are a little too high for me at this time.<br>

<br />One interesting thing I saw were around 4 D700s advertised within a few hours of each other. I guess people are anticipating the upcoming D4, D400, and D800.<br>

<br />@lloyd phillips & Stephen Lewis<br />As for my daughter, she has a way of being ridiculously persistent about getting something she wants. A few days ago I was trying to take photos of ducks at a pond near our house. I spent good amount of time fending her off rather than taking photos because she wanted to use the camera and I was reluctant to let her fire off frames of film. My kids were given kiddie digital cameras from V-Tech and Fisher Price as birthday presents a while ago. They don't understand the concept of film as a limited resource. Last week I was given an unused F60 with a low-end 28-80 AF-Nikkor by an old family friend. I don't intend to use it, so I've been letting her play with it. Something like a D100 or a D40 with the 28-80 might be a good not-too-expensive combo for my daughter, although I wish she'd take more of an interest in her pink V-Tech.<br>

<br />@Stuart Moxham<br />Thanks for reminding me that the D100 is not based on the F100, but more like the F80. I'll scratch that one off my list.<br>

<br />I had anticipated most would recommend the D300. At $850 it's a little pricier than I'd like. My budgetary preference would be around $500 or less. At this moment that's around what D200 bodies are fetching. I'll continue to keep an eye on ads. If I see a D200 or D300 going for a price too good to pass on I'll seriously consider getting one of those.<br>

<br />Again, thanks for your responses.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Digital SLRs are high-tech electronic products, and they tend to improve rapidly. The difference of 3, 4 years of technological advances tends to make a big difference.</p>

<p>Now we are in 2011, I would immediately rule out anthing from the D1 and D100 era. D-TTL flash technology is very out of date by now and high-ISO capability from that era is terrible. And if you can avoid it, I would suggest against anything from the D2X, D2H, D200, and D80 generation, i.e. anything introduced before August 23, 2007 when Nikon announced the D3 and D300 simultaneously and immediately put themselves back to the co-leading position in terms of DSLRs.</p>

<p>I would expect Nikon to update the D3/D300 generation DSLRs in the 2nd half of 2011, but I also thought Nikon would update the D700 in 2010, which obviously never happened. If you can wait a month or two, at this point I think it pays to wait a bit to see whether anything new comes onto the scene. Even though you don't necessarily buy the latest and greatest yourself, the announcement of new products may put pressure on the price for older models.</p>

[mark_drutz]

<p>IMO if you can afford the D300, get it. If not get the D200. I wouldn't go back another generation. As has been said, each generation gets better. Try to get the newest technolgy you can afford.</p>

[sam_ellis]

<p>I honestly didn't see a <em>huge </em>difference between my D200 and D300, I think I could go a little higher ISO, but image quality overall wasn't that different. I have to say that the D7000 <strong>really</strong> impresses me though. I won't give up my D3s though!<br>

It doesn't sound like you're in a hurry. My assumption is that D300 prices will drop with the next camera release, so if you can wait, it wouldn't be a bad idea. Prices, even for used equipment, jumped after the earthquake and tsunami and should adjust back down if they haven't already. I'm sure a lot of people are waiting for the next bodies to come out to upgrade and sell their old stuff.<br>

That being said, I had thought about selling my D200 for $500. It's got some paint splatters on it from one project, but is in perfect working order. I was going to loan it to a friend, but let me know if you're interested. Not trying to hijack the thread, but wanted to throw this out there since he's looking for something that's just sitting in my bag.</p>

[robert_landrigan]

<p>If you are getting into digital now, I can;t see any reason short of cash to not get at least a D7000 - it completely blew me away, and still does. If you are budget limited, The D300 is a great camera - not as good as the D7000 except for buffer speed, but a good machine nonetheless. But at 2/3's a D7000....i'd save up:)</p>

[indraneel]

<p>Your prices are all too high. Bargain some, and buy a D200 @ $400 or less....</p>

[tallnbig68]

<p>Technology changes, sometimes blindingly fast. Like the OP I too use slide film altough the reason is more complex. A group of us have regular slide shows of railways Manynof the attendees have been doing photography as far back as the original Kodachrome, or so it would seem. Maybe one-eighth of the group of forty have a computer, however many want nothing to do with them. We are mostly over age sixty; most do less and less photography, these days it is Fuji Provia as opposed to Kodachrome; and yes it can be expensive; everything is relative.<br>

I may well be the exception, using two different Mac computers and a D90. My first digital SLR was a D100 which came to an untimely end when I tripped and fell on the camera. I replaced it with a D70. The D70 was replaced by the now discontinued D90. I use my F100 for critical keepers, my D90 for fun. As has been noted go for the D300, and at the price quoted an excellent bargain.<br>

There are times when I wish for less bugles, whistles and daisies on the newer designs however do what you wish with your digital photography, and enjoy!</p>

<p> </p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>To Sam Ellis, there are huge differences between the D200 and D300. The D200 tops @ ISO 1600 and its results there is terrible. The D200's AF system, the Multi-CAM 1000 with only 1 cross-type among a total of 11 is quite primitive; currently the lowest end Nikon DSLR the D3100 uses that same AF system. The D200 also has no live view and its back LCD is smaller.</p>

 

<P>

The D300 shares the same AF system as the D3 family's with 51 AF points and 15 cross type, and that is currently top-of-the-line for Nikon. The D300 provides decent ISO 1600 results although the D7000 is now superior among DX-format Nikons. The D300 features a 900K dot, 3" LCD that is standard today from the D5100 all the way up to the D3X (although the D5100 is the only one that swivels). The D300 can shoot 8 frames/sec with the MB-D10 grip and right batteries and has live view. The new D300S can furthermore capture video and has dual memory cards.

</P>

 

<p>Essentially, the market doesn't lie. There are reasons that the D200 only worths $500 or so in the used market while a used D300 costs about twice as much. As usual, you get what you pay for.</p>

<p>I currently own a D200, a D300, and a D7000 plus others, so I am very familiar with all of them. I would imagine that whenever the successor to the D300/D300S is out, the old generation will fall out of favor as usual, but without knowing the feature details and testing with one in person, it is hard to predict what the next generation of cameras will be like.</p>

[elliot1]

<p>If you truly enjoy photography, it may make sense to invest in a quality body that will bring you pleasure in both use and image quality for many years to come. Since you will likely keep this body a long time, invest your money wisely. Only you know your true budget. By your own calculations, an extra 10 rolls of film buys a lot more body. </p>

<p>But, on the other hand, if you are absolutely certain you won't be shooting above ISO 400 and AF is truly not a concern now and you are certain it won't be in the future, probably any of those bodies would make you very, very happy (except perhaps the very oldest ones on your list). The best overall dollar value would probably be a D200 without grip for about $400 (if a grip is important to you, a third party grip is only about $60). </p>

<p>Welcome to digital...</p>