Oh boy, upgrade lust...already!

bandgeekndb

I feel it is now my turn to start a "I'm thinking of upgrading..." thread.

Right now, I have a Nikon D40, with a few lenses. The kit 18-55, a 55-200 VR, and a Sigma 70-200 f/2.8.

Based on what I've found myself enjoying while I photograph over the past few months, I've found I REALLY like sports photography. The joy of getting the "awesome shot" is very cool and luckily, I got that feeling a couple times while shooting. I also enjoy shooting portraits, and I'm looking to expand my technique (I see some of the shots in the People forum and realize that what's behind the camera needs to get better here too!) and a bit of nature photography...nothing more than a whim every once in a while to go out and shoot, or if something looks really nice.

Later on, I might take this gig professional, but for now, it's just a hobby and I may or may not sell prints, charge clients, etc.

I tried to truly reason out the flaws with my current body, especially since I'm a student, so I don't have tons of money right now, or for that matter, for the next forever until loans are paid off. :rofl I came up with a few flaws, and I'm looking for some opinion on whether an upgrade is required, or if better glass, some good software, etc. would be a better spending choice right now.

Flaw #1: Poor High ISO performance. Consider me cursed by beginner's fantasy and KenRockwell.com. I have no grudge against him, but man, if I had realized I wanted to do sports so much, I would not have picked up a D40. This becomes a toss up between a new body, or an investment in noise reduction plugin (and hoping something for Lightroom comes out soon).

Flaw #2: Not the best focusing for sports. Maybe it was the 55-200 I was shooting with, maybe the body, probably the photographer, but I did end up missing a bunch of shots because a defender would run across my frame and the autofocus would freak out for a second. This I know is a body upgrade thing, since I can't hover over the field to get my shots, and I don't shoot sports enough to justify 300 or 400mm glass and shooting from the endzone. The body upgrade would be a boost all over, so that is semi-justifiable.

Flaw #3: No battery grip. For that matter, there aren't many accessories at all. I'd like the flexibility, now that I have a lens with a tripod ring, to rotate the camera and have an extra grip. Not a biggie by any means, but just another thought.

Flaw #4: AF-S Glass Requirement. Really not liking the whole "motor in the lens" deal, as I'd like to be able to get lenses that auto-focus without waiting for the motorized version. I know, another nitpick, but it's bothering me as I browse the flea market here scouring for deals!

Honestly, I'd like to keep my D40 for taking places on a whim, almost as a quick travel camera, but I know I have to be reasonable too.

Will something like a D80, or a D90 hold me over or am I just going to end up lusting for a D200, D300, or D3 after a few months. If I could solve a couple of those problems above, I think I could keep myself happy for a long while, especially if my ISO 1600 photos didn't look like crud.

Looking forward to hearing the ways you want to spend my money!:barb

~Nick

PS - I did not specify a budget, because I really want to hear if a D3, etc. is the only thing that's going to make me happy. In that case, I'll wake up, stop dreaming, and just make the best out of my current setup until I can let it make some money, then consider upgrades!

Moogle Pepper

D300 and glass!

Joves

Moogle Pepper wrote:

D300 and glass!

I agree. Or a D90 might work for you as well. It has better ISO performance.

bandgeekndb

To Moogle: As much as I would love a D300, I think a $1500 body is too far out of my reach right now. Maybe if I get some income from this lovely camera, I can consider it.

As for Joves, the D90 sounds pretty good, although still a hit on my wallet.

Time to do some research!

Qarik

bandgeekndb wrote:

To Moogle: As much as I would love a D300, I think a $1500 body is too far out of my reach right now. Maybe if I get some income from this lovely camera, I can consider it.

As for Joves, the D90 sounds pretty good, although still a hit on my wallet.

Time to do some research!

if you have upgrade lust already then the min you need is the d90. heh

kygarden

If those are your options (what you listed), I wouldn't bother with/consider the D200. It sounds like the D90 is better for your budget and the ISO performance is I believe better than the D200.

D200 ISO noise: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond200/page21.asp

vs.

D90 ISO noise: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond90/page20.asp
.

Qarik

in fact D90 is comparable to D300 in ISO performance.

Cygnus Studios

The D90, D300, D700 and D3 are the newest generation for Nikon. Any would be a major upgrade from the D40.
The higher up the food chain the better options you will get. The D40 limits your choices on glass, and that more than any body will limit your photography choices.
I am a firm believer in focusing on the best glass your budget can afford. I am not a fan of any DX lens simply because you limit your body choices in the long run. Yes they work on the FX bodies, but they also limit the camera.
I have shot with the D300 and it is a great little camera. With the proper glass it is a major upgrade from your D40. The D90 has its own good qualities, and will be a nice upgrade also.
Now when you find the need to shoot at ISO's of 6400 and higher, the D3 has no equal

Shane422

I recently upgraded from a D50 to a D90 and am very happy. Although I do have D700 lust . What I appreciate in the upgrade is more buttons for quicker access to certain settings, High ISO performance (up to 1600 is perfect, 3200 is OK), and I'm using the video more than I thought I would. You have to use the video knowing where its weaknesses are (ie use it on a tripod with a still subject), but it is nice.

I have now shot quite a bit with the D50 and D90, as well as a friends D80 and D700. The D700 is nothing short of amazing, but the D90 is quite nice for $1000. The D80 I didn't enjoy that much. Something about the focus was not pleasing to me. I did and still do enjoy the D50, and think if it had some of the higher ISO capabilities of the new bodies, it would be the perfect camera. 6 megapixels was a good file size, and the higher flash sync speed (up to 1/1000 with radio triggers) is definitely something that I miss in the D90 which has only a 1/250 sync speed.

Tee Why

I know a guy selling a very clean used d200, bought from B&H with extended warranty for $700 IIRC. That may be a good option.

I think the D200/300 with faster fps and better AF and the ability to add a grip when using it with your 70-200 would be a good idea.

OnDeck29

Shane - how do you like your tamron 28-70?

Shane422 wrote:

I recently upgraded from a D50 to a D90 and am very happy. Although I do have D700 lust . What I appreciate in the upgrade is more buttons for quicker access to certain settings, High ISO performance (up to 1600 is perfect, 3200 is OK), and I'm using the video more than I thought I would. You have to use the video knowing where its weaknesses are (ie use it on a tripod with a still subject), but it is nice.

I have now shot quite a bit with the D50 and D90, as well as a friends D80 and D700. The D700 is nothing short of amazing, but the D90 is quite nice for $1000. The D80 I didn't enjoy that much. Something about the focus was not pleasing to me. I did and still do enjoy the D50, and think if it had some of the higher ISO capabilities of the new bodies, it would be the perfect camera. 6 megapixels was a good file size, and the higher flash sync speed (up to 1/1000 with radio triggers) is definitely something that I miss in the D90 which has only a 1/250 sync speed.

i just upgraded from d70 to d90 - all along i have wanted the 700 but right now no way i can afford the $2500+... so my thoughts are upgrade to d90 will be a good backup and i can have it for the next year or so until i can afford the upgrade... Shane, how do you like the tamron 28-75 - i shoot some basketball with an 85 1.8 prime and a 80-200 2-8, but want a some in that range for shots in and around the free throw lane - i missed a great dunk last night for that reason... so just wondering how you liked it?

foxwizard

bandgeekndb wrote:

To Moogle: As much as I would love a D300, I think a $1500 body is too far out of my reach right now. Maybe if I get some income from this lovely camera, I can consider it.

As for Joves, the D90 sounds pretty good, although still a hit on my wallet.

Time to do some research!

You can pick up a new D90 for between 900 - 1000 bucks; I just upgraded from a D40 to a D300 body for $1100 and change at Cameta Camera (on Ebay). You might be able to pick one up used even cheaper, on Craig's List or ebay.

Either of those is your minimum, and you get to keep your current lenses. Even switching to another brand is going to cost about that much, for what you want. And the Nikon performs a little better for low light than its competitors, so I'd stick with it.

Having done sports long, long ago, the key was fast glass, high ISO film and a quick focus (manual). For now, you could try manual focus on your D40 and shoot at 800 ISO.

BTW, there are now grips available for the D40; I saw them at Adorama.

Shane422

OnDeck29 wrote:

Shane, how do you like the tamron 28-75 - i shoot some basketball with an 85 1.8 prime and a 80-200 2-8, but want a some in that range for shots in and around the free throw lane - i missed a great dunk last night for that reason... so just wondering how you liked it?

I love the Tamron 28-75MM f2.8. I was looking for faster glass for portraits when I bought it, but couldn't spend $1000 for the f2.8 Nikon zoom lenses. I happened across a poll that showed what the most popular lenses were. They were listed in this order: 1) 18-55 kit lens, 2) Nikon 50MM f1.8, then 3) the Tamron 28-75. So I figured it couldn't be that bad. It now stays on my camera 90% of the time. The 18-55 f2.8 was just a tad short for my tastes. As with my other Tamrons, its not the fastest focusing lens you can find, but I haven't found it to be slow enough to be a problem. It does suffer from lens creep now. I notice that most when I'm using a Blackrapid camera strap. So I just lock the lens when I'm carrying it. I believe there is a BIM (Built In Motor) version of this lens out now to consider. I got mine as a Demo from Adorama for $300.

fever

i see nobody is telling you what your doing wrong ,just how to spend money it appears you dont have .
point 2 and point 4 in your op say" the auto focus is to slow "try manual focus just in front of where the action is, then even if someone gets in your way it wont be a problem .seems you need to learn more about photo techniques than you do about your cameras capabilities. not having a go but you sound a little inexpireanced i thought the idea of these forums was to help people out, not teach them how to spend more money on a camera they still wont be able to use properly. come on guys and girls give the guy some photography tips

aktse

fever wrote:

come on guys and girls give the guy some photography tips

It's because we have..

focus issues
monpod help
using flash for sports

Bandgeekndb wants to stop action (football) and shoot like a top notched sports shooter at night with a high number of keepers. His current setup does not allow him to photography with a high hit rate at the quality that he desires, due to noise at higher ISOs, limited glass choices, less AF points, etc. He has to make some comprises (we all do) due to budget. He has to either save the money to buy the gear/glass or accept the limitations of his gear. He can still capture great moments with his current setup and use various techniques such as manual focusing, but he won't capture every great moment in the football game, accept noise at night, etc.

And welcome to dgrin

Joves

fever wrote:

i see nobody is telling you what your doing wrong ,just how to spend money it appears you dont have .
point 2 and point 4 in your op say" the auto focus is to slow "try manual focus just in front of where the action is, then even if someone gets in your way it wont be a problem .seems you need to learn more about photo techniques than you do about your cameras capabilities. not having a go but you sound a little inexpireanced i thought the idea of these forums was to help people out, not teach them how to spend more money on a camera they still wont be able to use properly. come on guys and girls give the guy some photography tips

It will still be a problem. Especially if using the aperture wide open. The idea of having AF is to use it for action shots, which requires fast AF function. Another thing about him upgrading is the availability of lenses that will work with the body. Now granted he could stay with AF-S/I lenses but why? It limits you. I have never like the D40/D60 series cameras. I thought they would be an upgrade for the D50 but were not.

time2smile

Ounce you learn the D90 you will lust for better.
D90 would be a good choice for what you want.

:cry The D40 and D60 were not an upgrade to anything, just a poor marketing ploy:cry

nightowlcat

Well, you could keep the D40, and get a used D1h or D1x relatively cheap nowadays. That will get you faster FPS and a pro body to shoot with and still leave some money for faster lenses

fever

time2smile wrote:

Ounce you learn the D90 you will lust for better.
D90 would be a good choice for what you want.

:cry The D40 and D60 were not an upgrade to anything, just a poor marketing ploy:cry

ounce he learns to spell

chuckinsocal

For whatever it's worth, I saw a D80 on B&H for about $700 including an 18-138 kit lens. It's the same package I paid $1,000 for just a few days before the D90 was announced. I'm not even close to an expert, but I don't think there's a real big difference between the D80 and D90. I just checked and B&H has the D80 body only for $550.

You can also check the Flea Market here on dgrin for some deals.

Just my nickel's worth.