Which is a better deal?

J

John J. Heppe

Active member
Budget: $1600

A) Canon 400D + 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS + 50mm f/1.8
With money left over to buy a decent amount of neccessities (batt. grip, PClix, CF cards, case)

B) Nikon D80 + 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 kit lens + 50mm f/1.8
With enough cash to buy some accessories , but won't be able to afford PClix.

C) Nikon D80 + 18-200mm VR Lens
Thats it.
 
Last edited:
As far as i know, regarding Nikon, either you get the D40 or the D200. The other models just seem like a waste of money compared to the features you get and how often you will actually use them.

So with your budget, i would get the D40. Its got all the basics, a nice big LCD, and since its Nikons latest release its got better buttons and software


*edit*
Also if your really into sharpness i would advise you to stay away from the 18-200 MM VR Lens. Its a mechanical animal, i use it with my D50 and cant get the same sharpness as with the kit lens.
Another con is if you point the camera down with this lens its keen to expand. Especially in warm weather where the oils get greasier. So its not a very versatile lens for timelapse
 
Last edited:
Geez, for professional use, probably I would get the D200 and it's pricey. I don't know about the Canon, so I can't help you on that. The D80 is a great traveler's camera, not sure if it's a pro's camera.
 
Charli, I use the D80, and it definitely offers the professional features needed on a day to day basis. When it comes down to it, their are only a few technical differences in the D200 and the D80. I am in love with this camera. I personally would avoid the D40, just because of its AF issue, which could restrict you in terms of lens usage.

John, I would take the D80. You'll be happy with it. Do you go to Full Sail by any chance?
 
If you are going after professional gigs then the glass you have listed is not adequate. Glass is way more important than camera so I would suggest to invest there and move forward.

Then again, if timelapse is the reason you are buying then the D200 is the choice. With the D300 coming out prices should be falling really quickly on them towards the end of the year... I'm guessing you should be able to pick one up between $700-$800 by years end.
 
MODERATOR NOTE: I will lock this thread if it turns into a Canon vs. Nikon thread.




Now that that is over...

Regarding the difference... I have done a lot of remote release (bulb setting) long exposure stuff... You can do that just fine with Nikon.

I know it seems like a big decision which camera to buy, but ultimately if you know what you are doing you can get great images out of anything.

My girlfriend and I went to Baltimore two weeks ago and I bought a cheap Panasonic 7MP camera because I didn't want to carry a D200 with a 200mm lens into the game. We got great images that unless you pixel peep you wouldn't know which camera they came out of.

Just buy what you can afford... I promise you, even the cheapest DSLR can do more than 99% of photographers can tap into.
 
If I were you in stead of getting the 400D i'd get the 350D unless you need to print huge sizes or want bult in sensor cleaning.
 
I know I'm a little late on this thread but, IMHO you should get a used D2h and spend your hard earned cash on lenses. Then you can upgrade your body later...
 
soeborg said:
As far as i know, regarding Nikon, either you get the D40 or the D200. The other models just seem like a waste of money compared to the features you get and how often you will actually use them.
Click to expand...

I take exception to this. I run a strong business with ample cash flow, all based around my D80.


www.ricardezphoto.com
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top