500 or 200A?

Doc

Doc

Member
I know it probably sounds like a very stupid question but... I have enough money to either purchase a 500 without any extras or a 200A with all the extras. Would purchasing a 500 be a better use of funds even if one was not able to afford the extras that one would be able to purchase if one bought the 200A? I am talking about 35mm adapter, lenses, mattebox, extra P2's, tripod, etc. Would it be that much better of an investment? Be gentle! Thanks in advance!

Doc
 
I'd go for the 200a with extras. Extras do a lot more than the camera. Honestly, they aren't all that different. Just in case; make sure audio is in your budget.
 
Hey Doc. Can I ask what you are hoping to do with whatever camera you go for - what will it be mainly used for?
 
Thanks, Casalen and jschaw300! Yes, I do have sound budgeted. There is nothing that bugs me more than bad sound! I am focusing on natural history type docs so I am working to obtain the best images that I can create. I do realize that the camera can only do so much and that it mostly rests on the operator to glean the best images. However, having good equipement helps! Most of my work is in remote field environments under all weather conditions. I live in SE Alaska so with over 10' - that's feet by the way, not inches - of rain each year, you can imagine the challenges! Any sage advice you care to share would be greatly appreciated!
 
Doc:

Always go for a lower camera with proper support over a higher end camera without it. You need a proper tripod and head, rain gear, case, extra batteries, etc.

200A is a great camera but why not save money, size and weight and get the 170 instead?

Dan
 
Thanks everyone for sharing your advice! I think that I will go with the 200A. I thought about the 170 but I do like the feel of a heavier camera and having the dual option of tape and P2 provides a little versatility.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top