# What camera/lens to buy?



## cruise_bone (Jun 6, 2007)

I have decided to move up from a decent point and shoot into the DSLR world. I've always liked Nikon and have looked into the following options:

D40 w/ 18-55 and 55-200 VR for $750
D60 w/ 18-55 VR and 55-200 VR for $850
D5000 w/ 18-55 VR and 55-200 VR for $1,010
D90 w/18-105 VR for $1,140
D40 w/18-200VR for approximately $1,000. 

I would prefer 1 lens to travel with but this is not a deal breaker. 
The 90 takes HD movies which would help avoid also buying a camcorder. It also has an HDMI port to hook directly into my HDTV.
Ken Rockwell loves, loves, loves the D40. How long would it take an amatuer to really see the benefits of the D90 (with 18-105) over the D40 (with 18-200)?

Any thoughts on the D3000 out in a few weeks?

Thanks!


----------



## mathjak107 (Apr 1, 2006)

D40 18-55 is my pick if money is an isssue, the 18-200 if not..... its a great one size fits all lens.... i have to strain on well developed pictures to see any difference between that and my pro 17-55mm


----------



## mullman (Jan 5, 2006)

I would shy away from the lower end units that cannot autofocus older lenses.
The D80 or D90 can work with older Nikkor AF lenses - just my 2c.

IMHO forget about the 'HD movie mode' in the D90, it is absolutely silly marketing hype.

I've had a D50, D70S, D80, and now have a D90.
In your list above I would pick the D90 + 18-105VR.


----------



## SoCaLE39 (Nov 19, 2004)

Just remember your camera body is only as good as your glass. A good lens will make a huge difference that's why I wouldn't bother with the cheesy 18-55 kit lenses. I agree with Mullman, get the D90 and then add lenses as you go based on the type of photography you do.


----------



## mathjak107 (Apr 1, 2006)

its all about what you want to spend, d90 with the 18-200mm is nice .. my wife uses the d80 with 18-200mm, i use a d300 with the 17-55mm f2.8 and the 80-200mm f/2.8.


if you look at some of the pics we posted on this site you cant tell one setup from the other , in fact most of the time we have to look at the picture image number to know who took what... my set up is almost 3,000 bucks more


----------



## mullman (Jan 5, 2006)

IMHO the 18-200 VR lens is not the holy grail, been there.
Don't but a D40 body just to get it...


----------



## Dave 330i (Jan 4, 2002)

Depending what you want to use the camera for. Skip the D40, D80, D3000, D5000. The D90 ($950) is the best consumer Nikon camera. Reviews show it to be better than the heavier D300. If you are into sports and not portraits, I recommend the 70-300 F/4.5-5.6 VR lens ($460). Are you willing to shell out $1410? The HD in the D90 is free. Don't use it if you don't want to.


----------



## bkmk5 (Feb 19, 2008)

Have you seen the video from a D90... not the best video. My worst mistake was buying the D90 with the kit 18-105mm lens. Would have much preferred other lenses. If you decide to buy the d90, i'll sell you the 18-105(mint condition) at a deep discount.


----------



## mathjak107 (Apr 1, 2006)

i wouldnt use my camera for video at all.. the shutter has to stay open far to long exposing the sensor to dust.. its hard enough dealing with dust spots as it is.

as far as comparing the d90 to the d300 the only thing i ever saw the d90 be a little better at was under certain low lighting the d90 had a touch cleaner high iso ability, thats where it ends. the construction is worlds apart, the d300 auto focus system is far superior, 51 focus point vs only 11 in the d90,The D300 also has X-sync-contact, sensor cleaning, better weather sealing, goes up to 8 fps with the MB-D10 grip, , meters with non-CPU-lenses, 100 percent viewinder, AF fine-tune , there are many many differences... 

non the less the d90 is a lot of camera for the money.

i also sold my 70-300 vr , as for sports i found it way to slow, it was great for non action shots but wasnt FAST enough for sports or concerts most of the time except in the best of light . sold it for the 80-200mm f2.8 and much happier


----------



## bkmk5 (Feb 19, 2008)

mathjak107 said:


> i wouldnt use my camera for video at all.. the shutter has to stay open far to long exposing the sensor to dust.. its hard enough dealing with dust spots as it is.
> 
> as far as comparing the d90 to the d300 the only thing i ever saw the d90 be a little better at was under certain low lighting the d90 had a touch cleaner high iso ability, thats where it ends. the construction is worlds apart, the d300 auto focus system is far superior, 51 focus point vs only 11 in the d90,The D300 also has X-sync-contact, sensor cleaning, better weather sealing, goes up to 8 fps with the MB-D10 grip, , meters with non-CPU-lenses, 100 percent viewinder, AF fine-tune , there are many many differences...
> 
> ...


:stupid:

+1


----------



## cruise_bone (Jun 6, 2007)

mathjak107 said:


> i wouldnt use my camera for video at all.. the shutter has to stay open far to long exposing the sensor to dust.. its hard enough dealing with dust spots as it is.
> 
> as far as comparing the d90 to the d300 the only thing i ever saw the d90 be a little better at was under certain low lighting the d90 had a touch cleaner high iso ability, thats where it ends. the construction is worlds apart, the d300 auto focus system is far superior, 51 focus point vs only 11 in the d90,The D300 also has X-sync-contact, sensor cleaning, better weather sealing, goes up to 8 fps with the MB-D10 grip, , meters with non-CPU-lenses, 100 percent viewinder, AF fine-tune , there are many many differences...
> 
> ...


How did the D300 get into the conversation?


----------



## mathjak107 (Apr 1, 2006)

dave 330i had commented above about the d90 being superior to the d300


----------



## SRFast (Sep 3, 2003)

Buy the D3000 with the 18-55 VR kit lens and add the 70-300 VR.

Regards....JL


----------



## Kamdog (Apr 15, 2007)

I would take a much closer look at the lenses involved, and go with the best lens you can swing. Then, match up a good body based on the body features. SLRs are all about the lenses.


----------



## adc (Apr 1, 2003)

Another vote for D90 + 18-105 VR.

I have the 18-200 VR and while a useful lens, if doing this again I'd opt for a smaller lighter lens (still with VR which is great). I'd never consider a body that cannot autofocus with the older lenses... that's where you can get GREAT glass at reasonable prices.


----------



## Dave 330i (Jan 4, 2002)

mathjak107 said:


> i wouldnt use my camera for video at all.. the shutter has to stay open far to long exposing the sensor to dust.. its hard enough dealing with dust spots as it is.
> 
> as far as comparing the d90 to the d300 the only thing i ever saw the d90 be a little better at was under certain low lighting the d90 had a touch cleaner high iso ability, thats where it ends. the construction is worlds apart, the d300 auto focus system is far superior, 51 focus point vs only 11 in the d90,The D300 also has X-sync-contact, sensor cleaning, better weather sealing, goes up to 8 fps with the MB-D10 grip, , meters with non-CPU-lenses, 100 percent viewinder, AF fine-tune , there are many many differences...
> 
> ...


Depends what you want. The lighter weight D90 is well built enough for the consumer. Do you really bang the camera around rocks or shoot under a thunderstorm? Most people take very good care of their cameras. Of course there are differences, but the features you named are not really that important or realevant to a consumer photographer. So, buy what you need, and not what you want to show off. Your set up of D300 ($1340) + 80-200 F/2.8 ($1800) will set you back $3140. If not financially set back, you will definitely feel a physical pain in the neck from lugging around the weight of the combination.

My suggestion is still the D90 + 70-300 VR and 18-70 VR to reach the entire range from wide to telephoto. I would buy the body new ($950), and check craigslist for 70-300 VR for around $400, and an used mint condition 18-70 VR for around $200.


----------



## rayman (Jun 6, 2004)

out of the camera listed, definitely the d90. If the d90 and the 18-200 come within your budget, that's a nice combo. You will not be disappointed. I think the original intent of bringing the d300 into the conversation is to say that the d90 is so good that the picture quality difference is hard to differentiate with the d300. That being said, the d300 is absolutely not a beginner camera anyways.


----------



## Chris90 (Apr 7, 2003)

Dave 330i said:


> My suggestion is still the D90 + 70-300 VR and 18-70 VR to reach the entire range from wide to telephoto. I would buy the body new ($950), and check craigslist for 70-300 VR for around $400, and an used mint condition 18-70 VR for around $200.


Dave, you mean the non-VR 18-70 right? (kit lens from the D70)

I'd agree, that's a great combo, although to save on budget get a used D50 body for like $200.

Advantage of D90 is mainly much improved high iso over a D40. Also if you shoot moving targets like sports, you probably don't want a D40, since the 3 point AF is pretty inferior.

18-200 is too expensive at $700 to recommend, imo.


----------



## adc (Apr 1, 2003)

Chris90 said:


> 18-200 is too expensive at $700 to recommend, imo.


New it might be, but used it's a great deal.

I picked up mine new for $450 when they had the MS Live/eBay 30% of deal, but you can always pick a gently used second hand example for under well $500 over at nikonians.org...

And having had it for awhile now, I think I'll replace it with the 18-105 VR and save my pennies for a 17-55.


----------



## Chris90 (Apr 7, 2003)

adc said:


> New it might be, but used it's a great deal.
> 
> I picked up mine new for $450 when they had the MS Live/eBay 30% of deal, but you can always pick a gently used second hand example for under well $500 over at nikonians.org...
> 
> And having had it for awhile now, I think I'll replace it with the 18-105 VR and save my pennies for a 17-55.


Compare used to used and the 18-200 is still kind of expensive. 30% cashback seems gone for good, but you can use cashback on any lens, making a new Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 like $350 for example.

Having gone the 18-200 route for a while, I think a 2-lens combo is much more useful. Sure you'll miss a few shots changing lenses, but many more of your 18-200mm shots won't be sharp, like those that aren't f/8 to f/11.

Important to know what he shoots though - if you don't shoot wildlife or sports, not much use for a 70-300 VR.


----------

