Need some DSLR serious advice

[Ed.]

Ok - here goes - last christmas i moved from point and shoot up to a Sony-H5 and a waterproof point and shoot. Now the more photos i take (minus the fact my h5 is in the shop being fixed atm stupid manufacturiing fault!) and the more camera's i borrow to test out the more i know that i wan't or should i say need a DSLR as i want to do more than the camera lets me.

I have used a Nikon D70 a friend had and man i got rather too excited. lol. Anyhow - i would like to move up to a DSLR now and am saving up - i'm up to £800 and planning to keep going as long as needs be. I'd like to get a decent camera body and decent alround lens to begin with as i won't have any money to upgrade for a couple of years although poss a bit to buy a 2nd and 3rd lens as i scrimp and save (i am a student.... so when i say scrimp and save i mean it!)

I have taken on board the advice that Nikon and Canon have biggest lens ranges but thinking i'm swaying towards Nikon. The sort of photograhy i'm into at the moment and like to progress at is fairly broad... (ok don't yell about specialising please- just advice on camera)

Nature - landscape, macro, animals, hills, beaches, woods

Night time esp. colourful lights - moving cars, blurred city by night shots, fireworks

People - portraiture,

Fast moving - sports, children and generally capturing memory's of events, youth camps in the summer etc...

Macro - loveing colour, reflections the wierd and bizarre mechanics and little insects and natury bits..

And i admit as much as i try to take care of a camera i need it to be pretty rugged as its going to go to the beach = sand, its got to not be afraid of drizzle or dust, it must be travel friendly basically (all be it packaged in photography backpack when not in use...)

Weight isn't too much of an issue as i am fit and healthy tending to be good at carrying more than most. However extra batteries (cost of - ease of addition) might need to be taken into account for when camping with no charger and because i seem to manage to use more battery on same camera on time for time comparison!

Yes thats alot of inf. but hope that helps guide your thoughts.

Awaiting excitedly! Thanks

[jdepould]

I'd say D80 or D300 if you want to buy new. Used D200s will be popping up more and more cheaply as the D300 replaces it, so that's also something to consider. The D80 is probably plenty of camera, but the D200/300 have metal bodies and weather sealing, making them more rugged. Just something to consider.

[Ed.]

ah yer - i had wondered just how much more rugged the D200 and D300 would be... So thanks for that.

Out of interest how many years life do you think a D200 would have in it before a new body was necessary compared to the new (but still exspensive) D300. Equally how long do you think Nikon will be able to play out the top price by feeding D300 stock in gradually due to supply and demand before the price starts to drop?

[jdepould]

Say what?

Price on the D300 probably isn't going to be changing any time soon, this isn't playstation or the iPhone.

D200 is rated for 100,000 shutter clicks. It'll probably last longer than that, but that's the official rating. Odds are it'll be outdated before it fails, basically it'll last as long as you want to keep it.

[Ed.]

just was on a nikon forum and they were all debating the fact shop price comparitive to how cheap in US couldn't stay at £1300 in uk shops for over 6 months. Thats all just thought i'd test those views here. Obv. not your thinking. Guessing it wont price drop untill next Nikon release...

Kk - thankyou

[jdepould]

That price is a lot more than we're paying here, so your question makes more sense now than when I initially read it. List on the D300 is roughly $1700, which I don't think will change much, but maybe the UK price will, that seems awfully high.

The D200s have listed for $1300-1400 for the last year or so, before that I wasn't really watching; just as a frame of reference.

[inkista]

Well, I'm a Canon shooter, so I've gotta argue the other side. :D Since you put wildlife (at least I'm assuming that's what you meant by animals, not your pet cat :)) and sports on the list, I'd actually like to point out that a camera body is a wonderful thing, but it's digital equipment. You're likely to want to upgrade in three to five years' time.

Your permanent purchase is going to be the glass: your lens collection. And when you choose a brand, you're locked into a mount system. Better to figure out if the lens lineup suits you BEFORE you've sunk a few thousand dollars into a system.

Sports and wildlife require telephotos and supertelephotos. And sports in particular demands FAST telephotos/supertelephotos (well, depending on the sport).

And Canon's lens lineup, while not necessarily better than Nikon's, sometimes has more offerings over a larger variety of prices, once you get above the consumer level. If you're planning on staying at the consumer level (<$500 per lens), then there's probably not much to choose among either brand, so go with the feel of the camera body. But if you think you might end up wanting prosumer or pro glass, then glance through the lens lineups and see what your dream lenses are going to be--consider what you might be able to afford in ten or twenty years.

Just as an example (and since I have the Canon bias, this will be in Canon's favor. You'll find other examples in Nikon's), say you want a prosumer/pro-level telephoto zoom that goes to 200mm and that's faster than the wimpy f/5.6 of consumer lenses.

On the Nikon side, you've got two choices:
($900) AF Zoom-NIKKOR 80-200mm f/2.8D ED
($1600) AF-S VR Zoom-NIKKOR 70-200mm f/2.8G IF-ED

On the Canon side, you've got four:
($600) EF 70-200 f/4L USM
($1000) EF 70-200 f/4L IS USM
($1000) EF 70-200 f/2.8L USM
($1600) EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS USM

On the Canon side, you can choose if you can afford either stabilization or f/2.8 or both or none. Also, for that "rock-bottom" $600, you could get a much smaller and lighter 200mm f/2.8 prime. While Nikon's 200mm prime is f/2 and $4000.

Canon has three tilt-shift lenses. Nikon only has one. Canon has an 85mm f/1.2 lens; Nikon doesn't. And all the Canon EF lenses (well, ok, except for those tilt-shifts, but they're TS-E, not EF :) autofocus on the bottom-of-the-line XTi. Do any these factors matter to you? Maybe not. But if you were into architectural photography, or professional portraiture, or shooting something fast-moving with an inexpensive dSLR body, then maybe they would.

Look at the lens lineups. Learn what the focal lengths and maximum apertures mean, in terms of what kind of tools they could be to you. Look at the specs and figure out the size and weight and cost of the lenses. And determine which lineup is going to be better for you. Then, your brand is chosen, and you can figure out which body you want or can afford.

[Ed.]

Thankyou for taking so much time to reply to my message. Its really appreciated (and makes a nice reading change to reading up on polygamy for my essay...lol which actually i am also enjoying)

You have a very sensible head on those shoulders pointing out the sort of questions i want to be asking rather than just giving advice, as good as advice alone can be.

Again many thanks.