[ozz]

i would bet some of the d300 technology will trickle down into a cheaper
model thats the current trend and the d80 has been out a while.

 

[fureshi]

there will obviously be a replacement for the D80 but nikon has been mum about it so it's all speculation when the new cameras will show up. if the D80 will give you the features that you need then i say go for it as it's a very capable camera as is.

 

[fabool]

Well, there's PMA coming at the end of January and Nikon announce announce something there. There hasn't really been any info on a "D90" though, and I'd say they'll give the D300 a little time to sink in before upgrading the D80.

You could always get a used D200 and a D300 strap to go with it

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by JaZZ /img/forum/go_quote.gif Together with the new Nikon D300 this will cost just about CHF 5000/$ 4400. Now actually I don't need all the features of this high-tech camera and a D80 would possibly do, but I like to have a camera built according to the latest technical standards. Is there a chance that a D90 will show up in the next future

Your best bet would be to get a deal on a still in stock D200. Dealers should be willing to really deal on it now that the D300 is shipping, and aside from fewer focus points and a few minor differences here and there, it's basically the same camera as the D300. I don't think Nikon will be updating the D80 until all of the D200s are gone. I would guess that would be a year.

I have a D200 myself, and it's a great camera.

See ya
Steve

 

[dj_mocok]

Quote:

Originally Posted by nickknutson /img/forum/go_quote.gif I was going to shoot a football game...american football. I'm also going to be shooting inside the Metrodome. It's not going to be an NFL game, some friends of mine are renting it for a pickup game...so, I'll be on the sidelines. Any suggestions?

Nick, instead of buying new, why don't you get a well taken care of, used D200? People are starting to jump to D300, if you look around I'm sure you can get a D200 in a nice condition. The reason is I think for sports you'll really benefit from high FPS, especially fast paced stuff like football. The extra focus points might help too.

Lens is the main problem here, it's expensive to get a good quality zoom like 80-200mm or 70-200mm. How often are you going to shoot football by the way? If it's only occasionally, why don't you just rent it when you wanna use it? And buy a lens that you'll use most for everyday walkaround stuff.

 

[Iron_Dreamer]

From what I've seen, the 180MM F/2.8 can be had at some pretty attractive prices on the used market, and it's a lot smaller and lighter than the 70-200 or 80-200 to boot. Of course you lose the convenience of a zoom, but you do get a powerful tele lens at a relatively bargain price.

 

[Towert7]

Hi all. My first post here, though I've been using my Nikon for a few years now.

Gotta say, I really like the VR 18-200mm for close up shots at telephoto.

Great for flower or animal shots.


I was lying right next to my cat. Couldn't have been more than a few inches, but the lens was able to focus on her. Makes it so easy.

The VR 18-200mm replaced my 18-55mm DX and 70-300mm G.
Just recently though I picked up the 50mm 1.8D to use as a portrait lens for indoors. I hope it works out good. That's my first fixed focal length lens, so I'm still having a bit of trouble getting accustomed to it. Boy I'm spoiled.

 

[Cecala]

I want one of these....

 

[dj_mocok]

But the question is, do you NEED it?

But you know that you can get a new D2Xs for AUS$ 4400 if you really want it so bad.

 

[JaZZ]

One of the strongest arguments for D3 and D300 is the extremely high sensor sensitivity, allowing a large depth of field even with low light and without flash/vibration reduction/tripod.

Another nice feature is the «active D-Lighting» (contrast optimization during exposure).
.

 

[bigshot]

Ken Rockwell has been posting tests on the D3 and D300 on his site, and although they're great, the D200 is still in the same ballpark. It has to get very dark and you have to blow up the image very big to see a difference. If you can afford a D300, go for it. But the difference between a D80 and either a D200 or D300 is much greater than the difference between a D200 and a D300.

See ya
Steve

 

[JaZZ]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot /img/forum/go_quote.gif Ken Rockwell has been posting tests on the D3 and D300 on his site, and although they're great, the D200 is still in the same ballpark. It has to get very dark and you have to blow up the image very big to see a difference. If you can afford a D300, go for it. But the difference between a D80 and either a D200 or D300 is much greater than the difference between a D200 and a D300.

Unfortunately the difference in price between the two models (new) is just marginal. Moreover one of my co-workers is hesitating to give me his (used) D200 because he seems to fare even better with exchange offers (for a D300) from internet stores...
.

 

[ozz]

does nikon ever run a sale on their lens.

 

[fabool]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot /img/forum/go_quote.gif Ken Rockwell has been posting tests on the D3 and D300 on his site, and although they're great, the D200 is still in the same ballpark. It has to get very dark and you have to blow up the image very big to see a difference. If you can afford a D300, go for it. But the difference between a D80 and either a D200 or D300 is much greater than the difference between a D200 and a D300.

I'm not sure I'd agree with that.
Although I haven't seen any in-depth looks at the D300 yet, I'd wager the difference between it and a D200 is larger than with a D80 vs. D200. If I remember correctly, D80 has almost the same sensor (a different version of the same model) as the D200, where as the D300 definetly has a new and improved model. The biggest difference between D200 and D80 is the metering - I believe the general consensus was that the D80, which has the older metering engine, exposes more for the shadowss and the D200 for the highlights.

Not to bash the guy, but I wouldn't place too much faith on Rockwell's writings... the man's tests and views are a bit weird most of the time, in my opinion

 

[bigshot]

What Rockwell found is that at high ISOs, the D300 is a tiny bit cleaner, but it applies more post processing to smooth out the noise. That processing fuzzes the image up a bit. I'd prefer to do that in Photoshop myself and control the degree of the tradeoff. I like Rockwell's site because I can see exactly what he's doing and where he's coming from. He doesn't do in depth scientific tests, but he has a lot of common sense and knows how to apply the technical stuff to the way things work every day. That's rare in this internet full of people citing specs without understanding what they mean.

The D300 just started shipping. There's a delay between the orders and the deliveries on Nikon stuff. When that lag gets pulled up, you'll see the D200 come down in price I bet. If you can wait a couple of months, the D200 will be a lot cheaper than it is right now.

See ya
Steve