Nikon upgrade

thebaz

In general i'm happy eneogh with my Nikon d 50 , but think i might need something a little better , over the summer , would the benefits of upgrading to the D200 , proove worth the near grand outlay (which i can barely afford :mad: ) , or should i hold out for a later model , later on.
Anyone who has upgraded from the d50 or 70 , let me know the benefits, you found
Keith got me thinking , when saying he had problems with Sigma 30 mm, on a cheaper model camera (canon).
cheers.

Borderfox

Sorry Barry ... If you can manage to go up to the D300 I think you will be far better off for the far and distant future to come. The thing with the 30mm f1.4 you have to remember is that at f1.4 the depth of field is tiny and even rocking back slightly will throw it off, also at f1.4 peoples eyes will be in focus but not their nose. Just something to bear in mind..

xshayx

I upgraded from the D70 to the D300, and found it a big step up... noticable things:

*Great ISO levels - i found the D70 pretty bad over 400, with the D300 1600 seems passable.
*Very fast write times, with the D70 it was unbelievably slow on long exposures, or bursts
*Much better in low light
*The focus points are great
*Great big screen for previewing your shots
*Much nicer/easier controls
*FPS great
*Feels great
*Liveview but havent actually used it
*Sensor cleaner

thebaz

Thanks guys , your probably right , save some more and go for the d300 --


Keith , that sigma lens i never use it under 1.8 now , the meter reading on camera doesn't seam to read write , and way over exposes -- i've developed my own compensating meter reading formula , and never go below f 1 .8 , one day i'll master it , maybe with a better camera

leohoju

I recently made the upgrade from a D50 to a D200 (can't afford the D300, never mind the D3!!!). I've found it certainly a huge step up; there's a big learning curve, as the two are very, very different cameras. Whether my pictures have improved as a result is another matter...

High ISO performance on the D50 (over 800) I found much better than on the D200 by the way.

I'm not sure "upgrading" to the D70 (or D80 for that matter) would be of benefit to you, as you'll sooner rather than later outgrow the camera.

The one thing to be aware of with the D200 is that it is a much heavier, bigger camera, which may well impact your street style of photography, as it's a bit more in your face than the D50.

Rojo

thebaz wrote: »

Thanks guys , your probably right , save some more and go for the d300 --


Keith , that sigma lens i never use it under 1.8 now , the meter reading on camera doesn't seam to read write , and way over exposes -- i've developed my own compensating meter reading formula , and never go below f 1 .8 , one day i'll master it , maybe with a better camera

Well, you could set the aperture lower than 1.8 and have a quicker shutter speed to compensate the extra light let in by the larger aperture opening or change the iso to something less sensitive!

Oriel

I love my D300.
That is all.

quilmore

I've moved from the D70 to the D200 and recently to D300
you'll find on the D200 a much better camera than your D50
much quicker (bursts and focusing), much better built, auto ISO, less noise at high ISO and several other improvements (like 80% more resolution)
I'd say you'll be able to get a D200 for some 200 euro more than you should get for your D50, I'd go for it anytime

The D300 is much better than the D200, but cost (much) more than double of what a second hand D200 nowadays

pete4130

Baz,

I'd 2nd the D300 if you can hold out. It's just so far ahead of pretty much everything Nikon had out before that regarding image quality, noise control, high ISO, fps etc... I'd rate it above the D2 series and I'm sure you never imagined yourself buying one of those beasts! You get a hell of alot of camera for the money it costs, plus if you know someone going over to the states that could bring you back a nice present, all the better!

I went from a D200 to D3 but I've briefly used Darren's D300 before I got my D3 and was blown away by it.

RoryW

...and if you wait long enough you can get a D300x

Borderfox

Would you ba able to approach Nikon and try for sponsorship from them, maybe show them what you are trying to do and they can supply equipment and any exhibitions you have would have Nikon in the wording? Always worth a shot..:)

PaulieC

Borderfox wrote: »

Would you ba able to approach Nikon and try for sponsorship from them, maybe show them what you are trying to do and they can supply equipment and any exhibitions you have would have Nikon in the wording? Always worth a shot..:)

'Homeless' Copyright Barry Delaney. Sponsored by Nikon

Thirdfox

You could always hold on for a while and see if the D90 comes out to your liking.

RoryW

NIKON

No
Income
Kips
Outdoors
Nightly

homeless photos might not suit their brand image but you can try and even if they only "loan" it to you while you take the photos for your next exhibition "sponsored by Nikon"

Borderfox

I would have thought of it as a social commentary?

RoryW

fair point and better description

thebaz

Borderfox wrote: »

I would have thought of it as a social commentary?

good point -- as a matter of fact was in Leinster House yesterday , and my images were in stark contrast , to the sheeny bubble of the powers that be --
will hold out longer with the 50 , save a few bob, and no worries about getting it nicked, breaking it , while on duty -- i kind of like the imperfections and grime of photography -- London Calling and all that

RoryW

http://www.bythom.com/nikond300review.htm

http://www.bythom.com/nikond300guide.htm

Oriel

RoryW wrote: »

NIKON

No
Income
Kips
Outdoors
Nightly

Canon make photocopiers, Nikon make cameras.