Help greenpea pick a new camera

greenpea

So as those of you who were on the Glacier shootout probably know, my Nikon D70 died (day 3 no less). :cry Luckily Christina came to my rescue with a loaner Nikon D50 (thank you again Christina). :clap I truly loved my D70 and I was looking forward to celebrating its 4th birthday in March. But I have come around to accepting the fact that its time to move on.

With that in mind, I thought it would be fun to get some dgrinners to chime in on what they think I should have for his next camera (with the full realization that ultimately I will ignore any group decision made and get what ever I want).

Now a little bit about me and my photography: My first digital camera was Kodak DC260, later I was given a Kodak LS443 with which I got into street photography with. That camera died and so I made the leap and got the Nikon D70 the very week it was released. The reason for choosing Nikon had more to do with the fact that when I bought it, it was a lot better camera than what Canon had to offer at that price point. If I had no lenses or equipment and I was buying my first camera today, I might go with Canon. I take a lot of pictures of my 1 and 4 year old daughters, I try to get out on weekends whenever I can and do landscape phtoography, I enjoy street photography, photographying snow skiing, and I'm starting to get into real estate photography to help pay for the habit.

With all that said I start a photography course tonight (and I just found out I’m suppose to bring my camera). :huh

So what camera should I get?

z_28

Buy D200 now.
It may become your second body in near furture.

Harryb

Right now I would look for a used D200. Lots of them are going up for sale with the D300 and D3 coming out. They are some real bargains out there.

greenpea

z_28 wrote:

Buy D200 now.
It may become your second body in near furture.

That's a very real consideration. Ultimately though I'll probably ultimately get my D70 fixed and that will be my 2nd body.

greenpea

Harryb wrote:

Right now I would look for a used D200. Lots of them are going up for sale with the D300 and D3 coming out. They are some real bargains out there.

So far I'm not seeing any really great deals on a D200. However, I'm thinking that will really change in November and December.

schmoo

greenpea wrote:

I thought it would be fun to get some dgrinners to chime in on what they think I should have for his next camera (with the full realization that ultimately I will ignore any group decision made and get what ever I want).

At least you're honest!!

Seymore

D200. Check your email...

dangin

i have 2 nikon d200s and a fuji s3 pro. i'm on the waiting list for a d3; once it comes in, i'll be offing 1 of my d200s and maybe my s3 as well. if i didn't have gigs through the end of december, i'd just sell 'em now but i need the bodies.

realistically speaking, you probably won't start seeing significant price drops on used d200 until late december. retailers will have hard time keeping with the demands of the d3 and d300 since nikon fulfillment sucks.

i'll pass along some advice that was given to me from a veteran photographer when i started shooting: buy the best you can afford. you won't regret it. [unless your wife leaves you because you remortgaged the house.]

greenpea

Seymore wrote:

D200. Check your email...

Thanks. I'll have to do a bit more digging in craigslist.

greenpea

dangin wrote:

i'll pass along some advice that was given to me from a veteran photographer when i started shooting: buy the best you can afford. you won't regret it. [unless your wife leaves you because you remortgaged the house.]

I agree with you entirely. That's why I ultimately want a D300 (as in most I can afford).

I really think I'll try and borrow and rent until the D300 comes out; then I think my options will become a bit more clear. When the D300 is released I expect to see the price on the D200 (and possibly the D80) drop (hopefully significantly), and hopefully I'll have a better idea if I'm on a month long waiting list or a year long waiting list. If its the later, I might opt for an affordable D200.

Seymore

greenpea wrote:

Thanks. I'll have to do a bit more digging in craigslist.

You're welcome... Those are the only two I was able to find in Seattle.

Phyxius

You're welcome! I'm glad I was able to help. I say go with the D300. I have one ordered too. I'll probably sell the D50 when it comes in, but I like the little D50.

Are you on www.nikoncafe.com ?

dangin

greenpea wrote:

I agree with you entirely. That's why I ultimately want a D300 (as in most I can afford).

I really think I'll try and borrow and rent until the D300 comes out; then I think my options will become a bit more clear. When the D300 is released I expect to see the price on the D200 (and possibly the D80) drop (hopefully significantly), and hopefully I'll have a better idea if I'm on a month long waiting list or a year long waiting list. If its the later, I might opt for an affordable D200.

if you're between a used d200 and a new d80... stick w/ the used d200 even if it costs more.

1) speed. once you've shot 5fps, you'll never go any slower.
2) better body. it does weight a little more but it's a tad more rugged and more substantial feeling.
3) semi weather resistant. attributed to d200 body.
4) handy. exposure mode and meter readout in the viewfinder.
5) navigation. i personally find the back of the d200 to be more user-friendly.
6) customization. d200 allows for more shooting customization than d80, not enough to win the debate alone, but it's a +
7) advanced matrix metering. 420 points (d80) vs. 1,005 points (d200).
8) manual focus lens compatibility. d200 can get full metering and exif data from many old school manual lenses.
9) faster sync. d80 syncs up to 1/200, d200 1/250
10) PC terminal. the d200 has a PC terminal for external flashes, you'll need a hotshoe adapter for the d80.
11) RAW. d200 has uncompressed NEF option, d80 doesn't.

only real advantages the d80 has over the d200 are:
1) better battery life; almost 2x as many shots on a full charge.
2) SD vs. CF if you like SD better...

buy one of my d200 or my s3 pro when it goes on sale in a couple of months...

claudermilk

greenpea wrote:

With all that said I start a photography course tonight (and I just found out I’m suppose to bring my camera).

Quick, inexpensive, and potentially amusing fix for that: get a Holga. $20 and a very confused teacher--should be entertaining.

greenpea

So I'm tempted now to blow off the D300 for now, and just go get a D200.

My photography class started last night (we didn't actually need our cameras last night). We go out every Saturday morning for 6 weeks and shoot with the class. The course is taught by Greg Gilbert, a 40 year photographer for the Seattle Times. He teaches the class from a very photojournalistic style; something I've always wanted to be better at. He is very anti-photoshop (other than cropping and global edits). Apparently newspapers will fire photographers for even the most minor photoshop edits.

Rather than use a borrowed D50, I'm tempted to get something in hand that's a little more robust and has a few more megapixels (since I'm allowed to crop).

On Monday I'll figure out how far down the waiting list I am for the D300 (i.e. will I see it this year or next) and then descide.

greenpea

claudermilk wrote:

Quick, inexpensive, and potentially amusing fix for that: get a Holga. $20 and a very confused teacher--should be entertaining.

Its funny you suggest that. I had a past photography instructor who wanted to do something like that, only with digital cameras. Get everyone a cheap (no LCD) $20 toy digital camera and see what kind of pictures everyone comes up with.

For this class, images from a Holga might be considered *too artistic*.

claudermilk

scratch Too artistic? Isn't art the point?

I have heard of classes where they made the students use ultra-cheap digitals. Interesting idea; I see both upsides and downsides to that. The upside being you are forced to deal with limited gear, so must try and develop and artistic eye. The downside being those are typically full-auto, so you don't learn the basic fundamentals of photography (what is shutter speed, aperture, etc.).

I recall that when I took my photo class back in the stone ages of film, I had to argue with my teacher--I had one of them newfangled Minolta Maxxums that had auto everything--BUT everything could be shut off to turn them full-manual. He allowed me to use it so long as I promised to run the camera full-manual. Of course, I did cheat a bit & utilize the spiffy data recording card in it (film EXIF!!) to help out.

greenpea

claudermilk wrote:

scratch Too artistic? Isn't art the point?

Now I've only had one class, but I think the instructor would argue there is a difference between focusing on the artistic aspect of the photo and focusing on the journalistic photo. As he showed us some of the images in his portfolio he would comment, "this is *just* an artsy image" vs. "this image helps to tell the story about...".

claudermilk

OK, so what would he say about the PJ who followed Clinton around during his campaign with only Holgas? I would argue "it's the photographer, not the camera"

greenpea

claudermilk wrote:

OK, so what would he say about the PJ who followed Clinton around during his campaign with only Holgas? I would argue "it's the photographer, not the camera"

I agree 100%.

Nikolai

I voted Canon:-)
Reason: Next time you drop your body, there will be plenty of spares hanging around:-)

ziggy53

claudermilk wrote:

OK, so what would he say about the PJ who followed Clinton around during his campaign with only Holgas? I would argue "it's the photographer, not the camera"

I am presuming that you're talking about David Burnett, who is a decorated and dedicated photojournalist with over 40 years of experience.

My Burnett is accomplished with all manner of film and digital photography, and the time he snapped Al Gore with a Holga, he was also packing a Canon dSLR, medium format and large format film cameras as well.

There is a wonderful description of this photographic hero here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/08/technology/circuits/08schiesel.html

Nikolai

ziggy53 wrote:

I am presuming that you're talking about David Burnett, who is a decorated and dedicated photojournalist with over 40 years of experience.

My Burnett is accomplished with all manner of film and digital photography, and the time he snapped Al Gore with a Holga, he was also packing a Canon dSLR, medium format and large format film cameras as well.

There is a wonderful description of this photographic hero here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/08/technology/circuits/08schiesel.html

Ziggy, this is not fair... Mr. Burnett is at the level when he can shoot with a cell phone and still get praised for anything comes out with his sig. At the same time I have a strong suspicion that if any of us mere mortals would try to pull that trick we'd be laughed in our face and scolded for life
I'm not even talking about geting access to the places/people he can and we can't

ziggy53

Nikolai wrote:

Ziggy, this is not fair... Mr. Burnett is at the level when he can shoot with a cell phone and still get praised for anything comes out with his sig. At the same time I have a strong suspicion that if any of us mere mortals would try to pull that trick we'd be laughed in our face and scolded for life
I'm not even talking about geting access to the places/people he can and we can't

Life is not fair!

It is true that most newspapers and magazines are not going to be too interested in Holga snaps. I guess the point is to use the "good" equipment to make your name in the busines of photography to earn the privilege to shoot using anything.

greenpea

Nikolai wrote:

I voted Canon:-)
Reason: Next time you drop your body, there will be plenty of spares hanging around:-)

I figured you were one of the canon voters. I find it funny that #2 vote is for me to go canon.

devbobo

dude, just cave and get the 40D already...you know you want to

Harryb

devbobo wrote:

dude, just cave and get the 40D already...you know you want to

:nah :crazy

Seymore

Harryb wrote:

:nah :crazy

greenpea

devbobo wrote:

dude, just cave and get the 40D already...you know you want to

Yah, that 40D has a LCD on it that is almsot as nice as the D300, and the 40D has almost as megapixels as the D300, and the 40D is almost as fast as the D300 in fps, and...

Andy

greenpea wrote:

Yah, that 40D has a LCD on it that is almsot as nice as the D300,..... and the 40D is almost as fast as the D300 in fps, and...

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/compare_post.asp?method=sidebyside&cameras=canon_eos40d%2Cnikon_d300&show=all

greenpea

Andy wrote:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/compare_post.asp?method=sidebyside&cameras=canon_eos40d%2Cnikon_d300&show=all

you got me on fps. I just looked at the stats of the two cameras and assumed that the better stats were Nikon in all cases.