Opinions on upgrading

[caroline_collier]

<p>Hi Everyone,</p>

<P>

I just wanted to get an opinion. I enjoy photography as a hobby. I started years ago with film, and my camera was a Nikon F-100. When digital took over, I bought a Nikon D-50. That is the camera I still have. At the time I just bought the body only, and I used (still use) the lenses I had with the F-100 which are a 50mm f/1.8 G, a 28-80 f/3.5-5.6 D-AF and a 70-300 F/4-5.6 G. I really would like to upgrade and get a new lens, but I’d also like to upgrade the body and I don’t know which I should do first. I know in general the idea is that the lens is more important, but I’d like to know opinions on this if the camera in question is so old. It still works fine and takes nice photos, but I’ve gotten into wildlife photography lately (total newbie at it, but having fun and I’m going to take a class on it). I notice that the camera is pretty slow, and I’d like a better autofocus system. I’m also finding that I need a higher ISO with my new wildlife hobby, and I’m getting a lot of noise. As far as the lens, I would like to have a new zoom lens because of course I want to be closer to the animals.. and I’m looking at a Nikkor 200-500 f/5.6E ED VR. As far as I can tell, my camera should work with it. I just would like opinions on if I should go for the lens first or the body first. Thank you!

</P>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Hi Caroline, welcome to photo.net. If you are at least somewhat serious about wildlife photography, you really need to upgrade both the D50 body and add a longer lens. The 200-500mm/f5.6 E AF-S VR is a fairly obvious choice, provided that you are well aware of its size and weight. Please take a look at this thread from last year and get an idea about that lens' physical size: http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00dVDu</p>

<p>Your D50 is mostly compatible with the 200-500mm lens, but it cannot control its aperture and you will be stuck @ f5.6, which is probably acceptable, as I almost always use that lens wide open @ f5.6 anyway.</p>

<p>As far as camera body goes, I would suggest looking into a D500, D7200 or perhaps D7100, depending on your budget. All three of them will likely be discounted in November/December during the holiday shopping season. I think it pays to wait a bit on the body unless you need it immediately.</p>

[caroline_collier]

<p>Thank you for the information! I hadn't thought about discounts around Christmas, so I will definitely wait. I need to go to a camera store and play with both the lens and bodies. Its been a long time since I looked at cameras (except online) and I know they have changed so much. I will definitely check out the ones you mentioned. <br>

The lens is definitely massive, but I think it will be okay. I have a tripod if its too big to hand hold. I know it will take me a lot of practice, but I'm okay with that. I spend hours hanging out in the woods anyway. I get lucky and see see a lot of animals-- any time that I'm not prepared for photos.. now I need to learn to get better at stalking them.. :-) <br>

Thanks again for your advice!</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<p>Shun pretty much laid out the options you have. From personal experience, I suggest to not consider the D7100 if you planning on shooting any kind of action or anything that requires a a rapid burst of shots - the memory buffer is frustratingly shallow (especially when shooting RAW) and the burst rate slows down (even with the fastest SD card) after only 1 second (to something like 2 images a second). The D7200 does a lot better in that regard.</p>

<p>Naturally, the newest of the cameras on the list, the D500, performs best for any kind of photography were fast and versatile AF and fast frame rates are needed. But it costs nearly twice as much as the D7200.</p>

<p>You don't mention a budget - but when purchased new, a D500 and the 200-500 amount to some $3400 (though you probably should make use of the currently $500 rebate when purchasing the D500/16-80 kit, in which case, the cost rises to around $4K . A D7200 with the 200-500 comes to about $2400.</p>

<p>I second Shun's suggestion to wait for the holiday season discounts.</p>

 

[heimbrandt]

Comimg from a D50 and having the

F100 as a reference, the D600/610

should also feel like an enormous

step forward in terms of af

speed.

 

I would include that on the list

of cameras to check out more

closely before buy.

[ShunCheung]

<p>The D600 and D610 are good for more general photography, landscape and portraits. If the OP is into wildlife photography, staying with the DX format has reach advantages. The D610 also has weaker AF than even the D7100 and D7200. The D500 is the newest and most advanced, and of course it is also the most expensive among them.</p>

<p>If anything, Nikon priced the 200-500mm/f5.6 AF-S VR low in order to compete against Sigma and Tamron. I don't see any discount for that lens any time soon. However, the bodies will likely be discounted during the holiday season, especially the D500 has the most potential.</p>

<p>Incidentally, the 200-500mm/f5.6 is an E lens. That is why it is not totally compatible with Nikon bodies prior to 2007. See this thread for more information on E lenses: http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00dSpx</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Boringly, I'm just going to say "I agree". The 200-500 is very good, if f/5.6 will do you. You'll get a lot of reach (2x) just from the pixel density on the newer bodies - though you may not see all that from the 70-300 - and the low-light and AF improvements are substantial. Handling is very different on the suggested bodies, but probably in a "you won't want to go back" sense. I'd keep the D50 as backup and think about having it converted to infrared. :-)<br />

<br />

Spending other people's money is fun. Good luck!</p>

[bebu_lamar]

<p>Shun, I don't think the D500 would be discontinued this coming December.</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<p>Shun, I don't think the D500 would be discontinued this coming December.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not discontinued, but discounted. I expect a $200-$300 price reduction for the D500. And probably $100-$200 for the D7200. I agree that there likely won't be a discount on the 200-500.</p>

 

[ShunCheung]

<p>BeBu? Didn't you hear about the upcoming D510 at the PhotoKina next month? :-)</p>

[bebu_lamar]

<p>So after all you admit that you do have privilege information from Nikon. Just kidding!</p>

[Two23]

<p>Any camera will give you a noticeable upgrade. For wildlife, I too suggest the Nikon 200-500mm. It's both affordable and very good. For a camera, I'm going to suggest either a D7000 if you want the best value for dollar, or a D7100. Both available used on ebay. If you are willing to spend $2,000, go for a refurb D7200 and the 200-500mm. There is no way you can justify a D500, unless funds are relatively not an issue. You will notice a big improvement even with a <$300 D7000.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

[glen_h]

<p>Some other possibilities, depending on budget, are used D200, D300, and D700.</p>

<p>Since it is easy to find the number of shutter actuations, good dealers will post this along with the description. If you get one that isn't so used, and is pretty clean outside, you should expect good results from it for some time, or at least until prices come down on something else. </p>

<p>The D700 is a pretty nice camera, usually for less than $800. </p>

<p>Though for wildlife, the crop sensor helps some, there are still advantages to full frame.</p>

<p>You probably want an AF and vibration reduction lens. VR gets you a few more stops, assuming the subject isn't moving too much. (Not always true for wildlife.)</p>

<p>Lens prices don't come down so fast, but you still might look for some used lenses.</p>

<p>Well, you didn't say how much your budget is, but you might look at some of those.</p>

[bob_flood1]

<p>Caroline, you don't say if you would consider buying used gear, or if buying new is your plan. Naturally, it makes a big difference in what cameras people have been suggesting. A body refurbished by Nikon can save some money, but I think Nikon only offers a 90 day warranty with refurbs. KEH sells used gear and includes a 6 month warranty - something to conssider.<br /><br />If your purpose is wildlife, a crop sensor body will help you more than a full frame body, although folks will point out legitimate advantages of full frame under some circumstances. Still, if you plan to have only one camera body, I think you'll be happier with a good, modern DX model.<br /><br />I'm not very familiar with the layout of controls on the D50, but If I were a betting man, I'd say you will find the controls of a D7200 very much similar to the camera you've been using, and the controls of a D500 to be almost like a foreign language. Make no mistaken, the D500 comes with capabilities that would be wonderful to have, but it's control layout is quite different from other Nikon DX bodies. This makes a visit to a store where you can gets these cameras into your hands becomes quite valuable. The one that suits you and feels comfortable in your hands is the one that you will use.<br /><br />Optically, the 200-500 is excellent, and it has wonderful VR - I've had difficulty hand-holding lenses for years now, and I was astonished that I can get sharp images with the 200-500 because of its VR. Tamron makes a 150-600 lens that some folks seem to be getting sharp images with, and it can be had cheaper than to 200-500 (look online at B&H and Adorama), but it is a little more limited in low light. And low light is one of the places where you are looking for improvement. But like you, my photography doesn't make money - it costs money, and that means cost is an object. I recommend winning the lottery.</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<p>D200</p>

</blockquote>

<p>As much as I liked the camera, but with much better options available nowadays, I would not recommend it. Besides, like the D50, the D200 cannot control the aperture on E lenses like the 200-500.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>D700</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Still a very nice camera indeed (I have one) - but 12MP doesn't leave much room for cropping. And $800 buys a refurb or used D7200 - the better option IMHO for wildlife shooting.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>D300</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Available for around $300 nowadays - because of the better AF I would prefer it over a D7000. Though I would only consider if if the budget really is that tight. Would try to stretch it to a D7200 if by any means possible (and, as already mentioned, forget about the D7100 at any price; the aggravation the small buffer will cause isn't worth it).</p>

 

[caroline_collier]

<p>Wow, I have so many responses! Thank you so much, everyone! I will certainly consider all your suggestions, and I really appreciate them! After reading all the suggestions I really do want to check out the D7200. A friend of mine recommended it as well. I've read a lot about the D500 being the camera for wildlife, and I am willing to go $2,000 for the body, but since I’ve been able to work with my old D50, I know that I will really enjoy any of the new bodies! I’m not very technical but I do need to research the differences. I appreciate the mention of the memory buffer being slow on the D7100. </p>

 

I am going to follow everyone’s advice and start with the 200-500 lens now, and then take the time to thoroughly research the bodies you recommended, and go play with them in a camera store to be the final determiner about which one is *my* camera. I’ll wait for Christmas discounts to purchase and hopefully by then I will decide on the body!

 

 

Ha ha Andreas! Converting my D50 into infrared is something I am thinking about! I've been thinking about it for a few months. I love infrared! I used to shoot infrared film, but I haven’t seen any in a long time. I found a place online called LifePixel and I’m thinking of going for it!

 

Thank you again everyone, I really appreciate all the suggestions. You've helped me decide to go ahead with the lens and helped me narrow down the cameras! I'm glad I found this group!

 

[rodeo_joe1]

I think the D500 would be total overkill for gentle

amateur use. Unless money really isn't an issue.

 

The D7200 is a fine camera for wildlife use, and

has the advantage of being fairly light in weight.

Thus placing less strain on lens and tripod when

hung off the end of a long lens. It also has a useful

"Quiet" mode that reduces noise and vibration,

while still allowing use of the optical viewfinder.

 

I totally agree that staying with the DX format is the way to go for wildlife work.

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>I'd certainly hesitate on a D700, much though I loved mine - modern crop bodies can mostly match the high-ISO performance, have better low-ISO performance (better shadow recovery in bad light), and, most importantly, give you reach. A D700 has sightly lesspixel density than a D50 - on the same lens you'll get slightly less detail. This sounds like the opposite of what Caroline is after, if she's already looking at a 200-500; the D7100 and D7200 can capture about as much detail with a (good) 300mm lens as the D50 can at 500mm, and obviously even more with a 500mm on those bodies.<br />

<br />

The D500 is a lovely body, but it's really a speed demon specialist. If you're trying to get tiny garden birds, go for it - but bear in mind the cost of XQD cards and readers. It has slightly less reach than the D7200 and D7100, so technically it's worse if you're really trying to capture detail. If you want to capture bursts of moving subjects, the D500 is your friend; if not, the D7100 is perfectly capable, with the D7200 being in between. The D7000 is cheaper, but doesn't quite have the AF of the other D7x00 series (though it's a world ahead of the D50) and you'll be missing a little pixel density, so you get less reach than the others. You might want to try handling these bodies in store, too - the D500 is almost D810 sized, and a big step-up in weight compared with the D50, whereas the D7x00 series are relatively dinky. If you <i>are</i> trying to track small birds, I'd budget for a gimbal head (either a Moto 393 or a knock off of the Wimberley heads), which will make tracking much easier. I second the reports that the 200-500's VR is exceptional if you do need to resort to hand-holding, though.<br />

<br />

Infrared... good luck if you convert. (I have a few recent images from an unconverted camera using IR filters - which is possible but a bit painful.) I used to shoot HIE, which is sadly discontinued. I believe Ilford still make some IR sensitive film (SFX200), though it's not quite as extreme as HIE was. The problem I had was focussing through a 760nm filter - I ended up bracketing focus, which is more painful on film than digital (and pretty painful on digital when you're taking twenty-second exposures because your camera isn't converted). It's a shame that the lack of live view on the D50 won't help out there. I keep meaning to get my Eos 300D converted...<br />

<br />

Have fun with whatever you get!</p>

[Two23]

<p>If you are thinking of first buying the lens and then waiting until the end of the year for a camera, I'll mention that January and February are the yearly low points for used gear on ebay. That would be the time to pick up a used D7200, if you are waiting that long. I try to buy during that period, and sell during May and June. Virtually none of the camera gear I've bought over the past ten years was new, and I've saved thousands.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

[rick_jack1]

<p>Hi,<br>

That is a great choice of lenses, it should do very well for wildlife. I would recommend the D750, it has lower noise than the DX models and your going to get better image quality shooting FX. Either way, if you liked the F100, a FX body is the way to go. If money was no limit I'll steer to towards the D5. Read all the reviews. As far as which one you buy first, that is up to you. Watch the deals, I'd even consider buying the lens second hand, but not the body. <br>

regards,<br>

Rick<br>

</p>

[sebastianmoran]

<p>Caroline, good questions.</p>

<p>I started shooting birds a few years ago. I have a couple thoughts to offer.</p>

<p>My first round was a DX camera with the excellent 300mm f/4 lens on a monopod. That produced great results, but just note for birds you usually want the longest reach, so lack of zoom was no problem. Excellent result with D300 and any of the 300 f/4's.</p>

<p>Upgrade for me was D7200 and the new 200-500 f/5.6. This lens is terrific. As for weight, if you want to shoot wildlife, you'll need to carry something reasonably big. I think this lens is a good compromise of utility vs. size/weight. For lighter/smaller, it would be the 300 f/4E PF. I agree with Shun, for wildlife you'll most often shoot wide open. </p>

<p>Here are some options at increasing price points:<br>

- D300 and 300 f/4 AF (82mm filter ring, mechanical drive for focus)<br>

- upgrade to any of the newer 300 f/4's<br>

- upgrade to 200-500 f/5.6<br>

- upgrade the body to D7200<br>

- upgrade the body to D500</p>

<p>(Someone please correct me if I'm missing any compatibility points.)</p>

 

[ShunCheung]

<p><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=10120362">Caroline Collier</a>, I think it would be very helpful if you can give us some ballpark figure about your budget. Needless to say, wildlife photography is an area one can pour a lot of money into various equipment. For example, I have a friend who has the Nikon 800mm/f5.6 E AF-S VR lens and a D5 body. That lens is over $16,000 and the camera body is $6500.</p>

<p>Clearly, not everybody has that kind of budget for cameras.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

A reminder to anyone suggesting an FX camera,

especially one with a lower pixel count (we've had the

D700, D750 and D5 come up so far): Caroline appears to

be after reach, seeking a longer lens than her current

300mm on a D50. Assuming her wildlife shooting is

going to be in decent lighting conditions, she's probably

right.

 

There are plenty of advantages to the FX bodies (I don't

own DX and have gone D700/D800e/D810), but for

Caroline's specific requirement Nikon's 24MP bodies (or

a D500 if frame rate trumps absolute reach) are the

most obvious choice. As Shun indicates, you'll need an

800mm to capture the detail with a D5 that a D3200

could get out of a 200-500. Yes, the D5 would capture

better detail in low light (though actually worse in good

light), better subject isolation and has better AF (though

not across as much of the frame as a D7100) and

obviously has a better frame rate - but it's really not the

right tool for this job.

 

One other option to consider: a Nikon 1-series with an

FT-1 adaptor. Plenty of frustrations in the interface, but it

does give you reach and frame rate.

 

On lenses, the 200-500 was a game changer for the

price. I have the older 300 f/4 and a TC14; they're a bit

more portable (and mean I can do 300 f/4), and the new

version of the lens is much smaller and lighter - but the

combination is more expensive than the 200-500, less

flexible, and probably less good. You really need to

decide the zoom is too big before going there. Even then

I'd check the 80-400 isn't good enough first.

 

Hope that helps more than it confuses matters!

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>I realised I was being a bit dismissive in that last

post; apologies for any offence. For low light

(dusk/dawn) or for background separation, an fx body

and a big lens <i>is</i> the way to go, I just wanted to be

clear that Caroline's first concern seemed to be reach,

and she wasn't apparently looking at the exotic

superteles.<br />

<br />

On the 300 f/4 front, I notice a rumour site recently

posted a <a href="https://youtu.be/l1obqCxg52Q">

video comparison</a> of the 300 f/4 (+TC) vs the 200-

500. It may be of interest. Good luck.</p>

[caroline_collier]

<p>Thank you everyone, I appreciate all the great suggestions! Andrew- I'm sorry, I realized I responded to the infrared suggestion to Andreas- I need to learn how to read. Rick, a friend of mine also suggested the D750, I've added it to my list to check out. <br>

As for price, I really don't want want to go too far out of the $2,000 range or less for the body. I could go a little higher if I needed to, but from all the suggestions, I don't think I need to. I'm not very concerned about the size of the 200-500 lens because I would use it specifically for wildlife, I'm not planning to take out for general shooting. Andrew I appreciate the mention of the low light and the FX body and Im listing all of this information in my notes. <br>

I really do want to thank everyone for all the great advice! </p>