Body Recommendations?

[AlexC 0]

Right now, I'm shooting with a D60. I really don't want to fall into the trap of continually chasing new camera bodies- instead, I plan on focusing on good lenses- but, there are a few features the D60 is missing that I would really like to have (auto focus with AF lenses, auto bracketing, faster on board flash, etc.).

 

I'm starting to look at higher end bodies and use the D60 as a backup/2nd unit, and I'd obviously like to stick with Nikon. I was thinking about a D90, but like I said, I want to make this the last body I buy for a while as I stock up on good glass. So what do you guys shooting with a D90, D200, D300, etc., think? Will I get a D90 and wish I would have spent a little more and got D300? ( I've already eliminated the D200)

 

Thanks

[Kirk Dietrich 0]

How bout the D24-36-24? I know, pretty corny, huh?

I have a D300 cause the LCD and other things are bigger, makes it easier for my eyes. However, I find I take my D40 out to festivals and other places during the daylight hours cause it is smaller and easier to tote, the 300 is big and kind of heavy but I love it.

Try Ken Rockwell's site, I think he likes the D90 alot and the D5000 with almost the same features but cheaper although many features are withing the menus which is a little drawback.

He has some great lens reviews and comparisons too.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/index.htm

 

Kirk

[Threshershark 0]

I've shot on all the bodies you mention and a few others. It really depends on what features are most important to you.

 

The D90 has many of the same features as its big brothers in the consumer-grade plastic body. The price point is nice, it's light, and would make a good long-term choice for general purpose photography.

 

What type of imagery do you shoot the most often? Here are a few observations based on my experience:

 

●The D300 shoots 6fps "naked" and 8fps with a battery grip. If you like action sports, birds in flight, and that sort of thing, FPS is king. It is worth the price of admission to get a more robust shutter and higher frame rates. The magnesium body is built like a tank and has better weather sealing than any of the plastic bodies. The 51-point AF system is excellent and is a significant upgrade for tracking moving objects over the D90's 11-point system.

 

●The D700 is full-frame and offers significant advantages for landscape, portrait, or low-light photography. The obvious downside is the cost of the body and the FX lenses. The D700 produces useable images up to ISO 3600, where the D300 starts to get pretty grainy at ISO 800.

 

●The D200 is a bargain right now. It has the same magnesium body as the D300 with electronics from the previous generation of Nikon cameras. The main things you lose out on are the fantastic LCD screen upgrade of the D300 and a few of the processing improvements like what Nikon calls Active D-Lighting. This is really a vastly improved dynamic range technology that improves exposure in areas of high contrast, and it works VERY well. The D90, D300, D700, etc. have this feature. Battery life in the D300 is probably 200% or 300% better as well. I shot on the D200 for quite a while and it really is a great body for the current prices.

 

I'm using the D300 right now and will probably stick with it for a long time. I have no use for the gimmick SLR video features of the D300s, and don't get enough utility from full-frame to justify the costs. The D90 would be just as useful if I didn't need the higher frame rates for birds in flight.

 

In terms of the lightweight class like the D5000 and that whole lineup, one of the critical omissions (for me) is the lack of a mechancial focus drive. There are so many great lenses that I use frequently with mechanical focus that I would not buy a body lacking the drive screw. If you don't have any such lenses, it's no big deal.

[speyguy 0]

I'm not a Nikon guy Alex if you haven't bought anything yet then check out the new Nikon D7000 it's weather sealed and has a partial magnesium body, top and back. This thing out performs the old D200 and D300 making them worthless. Heres the best thing it has something the D700, D300s and D90 doesn't have, iso100; this thing actually kills the iso range on the D300s. The D300s and D700 fake iso100. I guess Nikon finally woke up and realized they've screwed up for too long. Most of the D90 and D300s guys are screaming fowl that their more expensive cameras are going to drop in value fast because of the new consumer grade nikon. Of course there a couple of things that the D300s has that this doesn't but then again there so much more that the D7000 has that the D300s is lacking.

 

http://www.dpreview.com/previews/nikond7000/

[Threshershark 0]

So what do you guys shooting with a D90, D200, D300, etc., think? Will I get a D90 and wish I would have spent a little more and got D300? ( I've already eliminated the D200)

 

The D7000 is definitely a body to consider as a competitor to the D90.

 

Camera companies and review sites love the marketing fluff and alphabet soup surrounding new features. You need to ask yourself if any of the new goodies actually translate to improved results that are worth paying for.

 

I wouldn't pay a dime for ISO 100 over 200. Why? My paying customers can't tell the difference and are completely satisfied with the results I get at ISO 200.

 

One of the big selling points of the D300/D300s over the D90 (and still over the D7000) is fast action photography. The D300's robust 51-point autofocus array and 8fps capability still trumps the 7000's, and will continue to do so. Would I pay for faster frame rate and better AF performance? Yes, because I shoot action and those features translate to actual additional utility that could mean the difference in capturing or missing the result I want.

 

Will you wish that you had gone with the D300 down the road? Only if action photography is your thing. For everything else, the D90 or D7000 will fit the bill nicely.

 

Photography is a huge business. Every year camera companies will come out with new stuff, and the marketing guys will tell you how much you need it. New models cause depreciation in the old models, and so goes the cycle. Anyone who is surprised or "screams" about the depreciation of computers, cameras, smart phones, or any other electronics product is an idiot. Buy what fits your current needs, and the needs you think you will have 1-3 years from now. Beyond that horizon, technology will have advanced and you will likely find yourself wanting the new hottness again.

[Al Beatty 0]

Hi Alex,

 

I'm with many of the other members who offered the D300 as a great camera. I bought mine as a low-mileage used camera and love it. That said when I find myself going into environments hazardous to the camera I usually grab our D200 (or Fugi S5 build on the D200 frame) just so I don't have to put the good guy in harms way. I don't have the D90 but I seem to remember that it did not have a mirror up function while the D200 or D300 do. If I'm wrong on that last statement, someone please set me straight. I use the mirror up function a lot for macro photography; I find it to be a really important function for me. Take care & ...

 

Tight Lines - (Gretchen &) Al Beatty

www.btsflyfishing.com