D60 D80 or D200

Maverick_Brittany

I have been shooting a kodak p & s with 10x optical zoom for some time and also shoot an older Nikon F401.
I get out to a lot of dog shows and pointing dog field trials and take tons of photos every year. I do get pretty luck and get some decent shots once in a while and have had folks offer to purchase photo's of their dogs from me.
I just give them a way as I seem to feel a bit guilty about not being a pro or not knowing what I am actually doing.
The big question finally. My pictures are about half indoors and half outdoors. I can not use a flash indoors and the shows as I do not want to spook a dog in the ring. So I think I need to get down to at least a 2.8lens but feel I need the zoom ability of the 70 - 200 that I have on my f401. Problem is that when I take pictures of the dogs moving I don't usually have enough light to use the shutter speeds I need to freeze the action.
Outside pictures there is usually good light but I need a lens that can reach out there as the dogs do get out there a ways searching for birds and except when on point they are of coarse always in motion. The only other thing is that most of the outdoor pictures at the trials will be taken from horse back.
I like the fact that the D60 is a bit more affordable and has the dust reduction function but is what the other two cameras have to offer worth moving up or am I better to invest in the 2.8 70 - 200 VR lens and scimp on the camera?
Sorry for the book, I am just trying to decide what to purchase here in the next few weeks. Great web site and thanks in advance for all your advice.
You can see example of the type of pictures I take here... http://s203.photobucket.com/albums/aa126/Maverick_Brittany/


Mav....

ziggy53

Mav, welcome to the Digital Grin.

Indoor available light photography begs for high ISO performance. Please do consider the Nikon D300 as well as the Canon 30D/40D cameras. All of those are considerably better at low light in reduced noise than the cameras you you mention in the head. Additionally I think you will find that the Nikon D300 and Canon 40D have better and more accurate low-light autofocus.

Yes, the Nikkor 70-200mm, f/2.8G AF-S VR ED-IF is probably a good lens choice.

Harryb

Hey Mav,

Of the three cameras you're considering the D80 does best at higher ISOs. If you can swing a D300 that would be your best option.

Art Scott

Harryb wrote:

Hey Mav,

Of the three cameras you're considering the D80 does best at higher ISOs. If you can swing a D300 that would be your best option.

I would try real hard for a D300 as opposed to the D200 it is only a tad more expensive and should provide the indoor no flash quality you seek and I shoot a lot outdoors in inclimate weather (very cold and windy0 and I cannot imagine trying to handle any card smaller than a CF...I do have a mp3 player that uses SD but I only use it at the gym and work and for studying from audio files....but as for camera cards I will never switch until they quit making cameras that take CF.....................

You might want to consider also a look at the Sigma lenses....they are coming out with some that have OS (optical Stabilizers) built in.....I have been using Sigma for a very long time and really like my lenses and they are somewhat less expensive than N or C lenses................

Good Luck

Maverick_Brittany

Now you all got me looking at the Canon 40D as well.
It seems it will get the job I want done for a lessor cost.
I have also read that the 300 has a tougher learning curve then the Cannon 40D. Is this something I should be thinking about as I am new to the DSLR world.
Thanks again for all your opinions.

Mav.......

tjstrider

Also the Canon 70-200 F/2.8L IS is cheaper than the Nikkor version of the same... by about 100$

Cheaper yet is the NON IS version from sigma... 70-200 about 700

therefore the whole shebang with 40D and the sigma or D300 and sigma wouldn't be the worst in the world

Maverick_Brittany wrote:

Now you all got me looking at the Canon 40D as well.
It seems it will get the job I want done for a lessor cost.
I have also read that the 300 has a tougher learning curve then the Cannon 40D. Is this something I should be thinking about as I am new to the DSLR world.
Thanks again for all your opinions.

Mav.......

ziggy53

Maverick_Brittany wrote:

Now you all got me looking at the Canon 40D as well.
It seems it will get the job I want done for a lessor cost.
I have also read that the 300 has a tougher learning curve then the Cannon 40D. Is this something I should be thinking about as I am new to the DSLR world.
Thanks again for all your opinions.

Mav.......

Mav,

To get the most from either the Nikon D300 or the Canon 40D, the learning curve would be about the same.

Please do take the time to handle each before making a final decision. You may have an immediate "feel" from either camera to help in your decision.

The Nikon D300 is a potentially an upgrade compared to the Canon 40D. If you add the optional grip, the shooting rate is faster, and the AF section more advanced. I do think that the Canon 40D would do the job you require, so you could probably be happy with either.

ban25

I suggest you at least rent the 70-200 F2.8 VR. It will definitely make a bigger difference than you will see between the camera bodies with a lesser (i.e. kit) lens.

BCinDC

Buy a used D80 on eBay (or in the Nikonians.org WTS forum). You can buy a good used one for about $600, maybe less (I sold one just before Christmas for $670). It is much more camera than the lower numbered Dxx's and has a bit better high ISO than the D200 (i.e. better in low light; and it is easier to learn...the D200 is otherwise a great & better camera). Also, you are using the 70-200 for action which means high shutter speed...which means you don't really benefit from the VR on that lens. Save yourself $500-600 and buy a Nikon 80-200 AF-S on eBay. Or, for only a tiny loss in focus speed (still WAY faster than any point and shoot), the 80-200 D lens (2 ring version) is an excellent lens and only $600-750 on ebay, $920 new at BHPhoto.com; BTW, the D40 - D60 can't focus non-AF-S lenses, the D80 & D200 can). I took thousands of sports photos with this combo (D80 and 80-200 D lens) and was very happy with it.

Ultimately, if you outgrow these items you can resell them and move up, this isn't a marriage. A well cared for lens has a very long life and good resale value (look at the prices of used lens on eBay vs. their new cost at B&H). Bodies are a bit like computers, technology makes them obsolete in about 5 years or so.

Lastly, anything you consider will be an enormous step up from a P&S.

Bob

Maverick_Brittany

Thank you all for your help. I hope to wade through all the information I have gathered and have a camera in the house in the next week or two.
The wife says I am driving her nuts researching the heck out of it right now but it seems to be how I do most things. She will ba happy when I just get it over with. Now if she would only let me spend more money!!!

BTW, this is a great message board!! Lots of great information in here and some really awesome pictures as well!!!

Mav.....

dejan80501

D200 or D300
Here is my take...I own a D200 and am very happy with it. The only drawback as compared to the D300 are the ISO setting qualities. the D300 produces awesome images at high iso settings (read the reviews) where you do not need a flash when you do for the D200. They are both very good dSLRs, but if you have a few extra USDs $$, consider the D300. Just my nickles worth.

Dejan

Maverick_Brittany wrote:

I have been shooting a kodak p & s with 10x optical zoom for some time and also shoot an older Nikon F401.
I get out to a lot of dog shows and pointing dog field trials and take tons of photos every year. I do get pretty luck and get some decent shots once in a while and have had folks offer to purchase photo's of their dogs from me.
I just give them a way as I seem to feel a bit guilty about not being a pro or not knowing what I am actually doing.
The big question finally. My pictures are about half indoors and half outdoors. I can not use a flash indoors and the shows as I do not want to spook a dog in the ring. So I think I need to get down to at least a 2.8lens but feel I need the zoom ability of the 70 - 200 that I have on my f401. Problem is that when I take pictures of the dogs moving I don't usually have enough light to use the shutter speeds I need to freeze the action.
Outside pictures there is usually good light but I need a lens that can reach out there as the dogs do get out there a ways searching for birds and except when on point they are of coarse always in motion. The only other thing is that most of the outdoor pictures at the trials will be taken from horse back.
I like the fact that the D60 is a bit more affordable and has the dust reduction function but is what the other two cameras have to offer worth moving up or am I better to invest in the 2.8 70 - 200 VR lens and scimp on the camera?
Sorry for the book, I am just trying to decide what to purchase here in the next few weeks. Great web site and thanks in advance for all your advice.
You can see example of the type of pictures I take here... http://s203.photobucket.com/albums/aa126/Maverick_Brittany/


Mav....

Maverick_Brittany

I walked into my local Henry's store and found a great deal on a Nikon D200 yesterday. It did not leave me with a whole lot of money left over for glass so I purchased an inexpensive Nikon AF 70-300mm Zoom-Nikkor F/4-5.6G. It was only 130 + tax.
I hope to get a new sigma 70-200 2.8 in the next few weeks but for now this will have to do.
I have posted the first few pics I took today below.
Hopefully they will get better as I get used to the new camera and get some better glass.

Mav.....
click on picture to enlarge