tuomas_kaira

<p>Hello Rodeo Joe!</p>

<p>How have you liked the Samyang?</p>

<p>I'm really interested in it and would use it with my D700. I also have the new Nikkor 28mm f/1.8 on the table, but the FL of 24mm is more appealing.</p>

<p>I know the biggest concern is how to "survive" with the MF and that's something only I can fully answer. </p>

<p>Sounds like D7000 gets the most votes and if I'm getting a new body that's what I'll probably going to get. And that would be the easiest choice, since I can get it from my local store and they will pay a decent rebate from my D200 (375 € with the grip). So the difference is 624 €.</p>

<p>If I'll go for a used body, I have to sell the old one on my own, but probably get little more from it. My choices for a used body are D300s for 750 € (5000 actuations), really used D700 for 1550 € (48000 actuations) or like new D700 for 1690 € (500 actuations).</p>

<p>If I would get 400 € from D200 + grip, 400 € from 50-150, 850 € from 17-55 and 300 € from 10-20. That would add up to 1950 € and not too optimistic (?). If I get the newer D700, I would be left with 260 € plus the 624 € I would have to pay for the D7000. So 884 €. With that I could get a sigma used 70-200/2.8 (or nikkor 80-200) and almost some cheap wide angle like 18-35/3.5-4.5. Of course the 24-70 (or 24-120/4) would cost lot more if I need it, but I wouldn't have to get it now. </p>

<p>The used D300s would be the cheapest option and not a bad one at all. Hmm..</p>

<p>Well, probably I'll be happy with whatever I choose.</p>

<p>Thank you for all the help!</p>

<p>Thank you for all the comments! I didn't expect theme so much :)</p>

<p>I know that I don't have too many pictures in my Flickr stream that would need good AF or ISO. But I have been many times in a situation where I would have to use too high ISO so I don't really want publish those photos. So better ISO performance would open more opportunities for me to take pictures. Also better AF is something I know I'm willing to pay for.</p>

<p>Why I said I want the D700? I know I would get a body I'm familiar with. I would be able to really use small wide primes. It has bigger viewfinder to use also with MF-lenses. I know I can get clean images out of D700 even at high ISOs. And I know that would be a good enough camera for me for a long time.</p>

<p>But I'm starting to think FX would be too big of an investment for my hobby at this point at least. So probably I'll start looking for a used D300(s) or new D7000.</p>

<p>By the way, prices for a new body at my local camera store are 999 € for D7000, 999 € for D300s and 1999 € for D700. I can probably find used D700 for about 1600 € and just found used D300s (~5000 clicks) for 750 €</p>

<p>And ones again, I really appreciate all the help you have given me. Thanks!</p>

<p>Hi<br>

<br />I have D200 now and I'm planning on upgrading. What I'm not happy about with the D200 is high ISO performance and also I could use better auto-focus. My choices are pretty much D300, D700 and D7000.</p>

<p>With D7000 I think I would get the high ISO performance I need (want). But is the af significantly better? Exposure bracketing is only 3 frames (maybe I could live with that). And I would have to get new memory cards and batteries.</p>

<p>With D300(s) I would have the better af. I could use my extra batteries and CF cards. I would also have all the controls and features that I now have with D200. Also the buffer is way bigger than the one in D7000. But how much better is the high ISO performance?</p>

<p>With the D700 I would get the better auto-focus, and high ISO performance plus all the controls and features I want and I would be able to use my batteries and CF cards. And thats the camera I want.</p>

<p>But as always there is a but. I have some good (or at least decent) lenses, but most of theme DX. My zooms are sigma 10-20, 50-150/2.8 and nikkor 17-55/2.8. I also have couple of primes: nikkor 35/1.8, 50/1.4 af(non-D), 85/1.8 and 55/2.8 micro. <br />If I went the D700 route, I would sell all three zooms and the D200, witch would hopefully get me enough money to buy the d700. Of course I would be left only with the 50 and 85. In addition I would get something wide, probably some wide prime or cheap zoom (like 18-35) at first and get better one later if needed.</p>

<p>And then I would need also a tele zoom. Probably nikkor 70-300, 80-200 or sigma 70-200.And for the record photography is just a hobby for me. Here are some examples of what I shoot <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/tkaira/" target="_blank">http://www.flickr.com/photos/tkaira/</a> </p>

<p>Does this sound stupid? Would I be better of picking up one of the DX options?<br />Thank you for any help!</p>

<p>Hi<br>

I have similar dilemma. I have D200 now and I'm planning on upgrading. What I'm not happy about with the D200 is high ISO performance and also I could use better auto-focus. My choices are pretty much D300, D700 and D7000.</p>

<p>With D7000 I think I would get the high ISO performance I need (want). But is the af significantly better? Exposure bracketing is only 3 frames (maybe I could live with that). and I would have to get new memory cards and batteries.</p>

<p>With D300(s) I would have the better af. I could use my extra batteries and CF cards. I would also have all the controls and features that I now have with D200. Also the buffer is way bigger than the one in D7000.</p>

<p>With the D700 I would get the better auto-focus, better high ISO performance all the controls and features I want and I would be able to use my batteries and CF cards. And thats the camera I want.</p>

<p>But as always there is a but. I have some good (or at least decent) lenses, but most of theme DX. My zooms are sigma 10-20, 50-150/2.8 and nikkor 17-55/2.8. I also have couple of primes: nikkor 35/1.8, 50/1.4 af(non-D), 85/1.8 and 55/2.8 micro. <br>

If I went the D700 route, I would sell all three zooms and the D200, witch would hopefully get me enough money to buy the d700. Of course I would be left only with the 50 and 85. In addition I would get something wide, probably some wide prime or cheap zoom (like 18-35) at first and get better one later if needed. And then I would need also a tele zoom. Probably nikkor 70-300, 80-200 or sigma 70-200.<br>

And for the record photography is just a hobby for me. Here are some examples of what I shoot <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/tkaira/">http://www.flickr.com/photos/tkaira/</a> <br>

Does this sound stupid? Would I be better of picking up one of the DX options?<br>

Thank you for any help!</p>