D200 or D700 or 40D?

[Gaz Shilton]

I have been considering upgrading my camera equipment for some time now.
I have a D200 and a Tamron 200-500 lens for bird/wildlife photography. I was thinking of upgrading to a 40D with a 300mm/f2.8, but, as I already have a D200 I am thinking of the Nikon 300mm/f2.8.
Recently I have been looking at the D700. Having read numerous reviews on this camera I am looking at stretching my budget a little further to accommodate the D700 to replace my D200.
What I would like to know is: if you were in my shoes, which would you go for from the following options; Canon 40D with 300/f2.8 or Nikon D700 with 300/f2.8 (with teleconverters)?
Thanks in advance

[Fozzybear]

I would go for the D700, the image quality will be better but it's certainly a more expensive option.

[Gaz Shilton]

I would go for the D700, the image quality will be better but it's certainly a more expensive option.

Thanks for the input Fozzybear. I was originally looking at a 500 or 600 f/4 but have condensed my thoughts a wee bit to keep the price down a tad.

[rioja]

As you have had 135 replies to a similar question on the Canon forum there isn't much more that I can add as I contributed to that one. However, if I were you I would go back to the beginning and decide what your budget is then ask the question how best to spend it.

[Derry]

don't know if you watch the Fredmiranda site on the For Sale link but they have some great buys on pre-owned gear that you have been discussing,, can certainly help figure what you can obtain for the budget,,

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/board/10/0

have see low clicks on 40D and D700 for very reasonable prices as well as the 300mm C/N lens,,

Derry,,

[Gaz Shilton]

As you have had 135 replies to a similar question on the Canon forum there isn't much more that I can add as I contributed to that one. However, if I were you I would go back to the beginning and decide what your budget is then ask the question how best to spend it.

My apologies.
Just indecision on my part.
Thanks for the reply (does that make it 136?)

[Jaff]

Well the D700 is certainly by far the best camera out of the three. It's a slightly. and I do mean slightly, cut down D3. You just have to read the review DPreview did for it to know that it could deliver the results your after on many levels. If I had my choice a D700 would be my ideal body and I imagine the Nikon 300mm should be every bit as good as a Canon one.

But come on Gaz. Think about what shots you could have got by now if you chose your path and just went for it!!! :t:

[Gaz Shilton]

Well the D700 is certainly by far the best camera out of the three. It's a slightly. and I do mean slightly, cut down D3. You just have to read the review DPreview did for it to know that it could deliver the results your after on many levels. If I had my choice a D700 would be my ideal body and I imagine the Nikon 300mm should be every bit as good as a Canon one.

But come on Gaz. Think about what shots you could have got by now if you chose your path and just went for it!!! :t:

I know Jaff, but, I am not in the frame yet moneywise.
Next month is when I start my 'shopping'

[Duke Leto]

I'd say it was a bad time to buy at the moment with the current prices but the 300/2.8 is a stonking lens (albeit a tad short) get the lens and look for a warranted used D300 which imho is a better body than a 40D, save you're self nearly a £1000, get a 1.5x CCD and treat yourself to some more goodies.......

[Gaz Shilton]

Thanks for the advice Duke Leto.
I am looking at various websites, trying to cover all my bases.
Need to get the purchase right first time.
Don't want to think in the future that what I buy isn't ideal.
Then again I think I shall just take the bull by the horns when I am ready to do some shopping and just go for it.

[rioja]

Quote:
Originally Posted by rioja View Post
As you have had 135 replies to a similar question on the Canon forum there isn't much more that I can add as I contributed to that one. However, if I were you I would go back to the beginning and decide what your budget is then ask the question how best to spend it.
My apologies.
Just indecision on my part.
Thanks for the reply (does that make it 136?)

No need to apologise for being indecisive, we have all been there !!! The truth of the matter is we can end up spending fortunes on photographic gear that, at the end of the day, is for most of us just a hobby.
I was serious about thinking of how much you want to spend though.Whatever you decide there will no doubt be something else that you need to follow so what I have tried to do is to preempt future purchases and save myself unnecessary expense.For example if you intend getting a super telephoto like a 500 or 600mm one day in the future, buy a tripod and head that will suit them now ( assuming you need one!) even if you are currently in the market for a smaller lens.
Like you I have a D200 and I have been tempted by the D300 ever since it came out. I am aware of how much better the D300 is but I am still resisting the urge to go and buy one because the D400 isn't that far away and when it comes out I can either buy one or buy a D300 at a heavily discounted price. In the meantime I have concentrated on building my lens collection having replaced the 80-400mm with both a 300mmf2.8VR and a 500mmf4VR. I was fortunate to buy before the prices sky rocketed so that in itself is proof that it was a better decision than investing in another body first.
The D200 takes very good pictures with these lenses, good enough for my hobby certainly because after all, at the end of the day most of my pictures end up tucked away, not in a drawer as of old but on an external hide drive to cope with them all. One or two make their way to competitions and we all like to show off by posting pictures on various forums and galleries.
So, if I were you I would stick with your D200 and invest in better glass than you currently have. Although Canon have some benefits I still prefer Nikon for build quality and feel. I can't see any point in swapping from a D200 to a 40D.
The cheapest option has to be the 300mmf4 ( Grays have a mint s/h one for £915 at the moment) or keep your eye out for a s/h 300mmf2.8 VR ( I got mine from Grays in new condition and at least you get a guarantee from them).
The 300mm f2.8 lens is very versatile as you can add all three TC's, portable and handholdable. The ideal lens for foreign trips as it easily fits into hand luggage. The f2.8 is useful for low light in the UK but might not be as important for that as new bodies (such as the D300 even) have improved high ISO performance. However, when it comes to AF speed it's lightening and brilliant for BIF.
You might decide to go all out and go for a 500mm instead, at least another £1500 but some way to satisfying your need for reach, coupled with a 1.4 you get 700mm at f5.6. I don't tend to use the 1.7 TC on this lens as , with the D200 it isn't that hot.

I could go on but without knowing what you have in mind to spend there is little point.
The most economic upgrade you could make is to buy that s/h 300f4 plus a 1.4 TC and sell the Tamron to fund it.
cheers
Dave

[pe'rigin]

I agreed with Steve.


Go for the lens, either 300mm F2.8 from Nikon and Canon are good.

You have the D200, which is a good camera, if you keep within its ISO range.

Then wait until Nikon releases the new mid-ranged camera, when funds get more available.

[Jaff]

With the D300s just out I think you'll be waiting a good while longer yet for a D400 or whatever they'll call it.

[Helios]

I had a Tamron 200-500 zoom, and still have a D80. I changed the Tamron for a Nikon 300/4afs which gave me a noticable improvement in the shots I took. A little later I bought a D300, and to be honest there was very little if any improvement on the image quality. I've used both cameras side by side for a year. Have a look at my gallery if you want to see examples.

So I would definitely recommend trying the 300 prime on the D200 first, and see how you go.

[Fozzybear]

I'd say it was a bad time to buy at the moment with the current prices but the 300/2.8 is a stonking lens (albeit a tad short) get the lens and look for a warranted used D300 which imho is a better body than a 40D, save you're self nearly a £1000, get a 1.5x CCD and treat yourself to some more goodies.......

Seeing the thread in my subscriptions list I was just thinking perhaps a D300 would be a cheaper choice. With the new 's' version a D300 'might' become a little cheaper, or a used one. Certainly for bird photography the 1.5x crop factor is useful for a bit of extra 'reach'.

[Robert Falcon]

Did you see that Andy Rouse is selling a Nikon 600mm f4 for around £4500,reckons he only used it 10 times. I have a Tamron 200-500mm with a Nikon D200 ,but recentley bought a Nikon 300mm f4 with a Nikon 1.4 TC.

Robert Falcon

[Gaz Shilton]

Did you see that Andy Rouse is selling a Nikon 600mm f4 for around £4500,reckons he only used it 10 times. I have a Tamron 200-500mm with a Nikon D200 ,but recentley bought a Nikon 300mm f4 with a Nikon 1.4 TC.

Robert Falcon

The 600 sounds tempting but for the photography I like to do which involves a fair bit of walking, taking pictures as I go, with the occasional shortcut through the undergrowth, I can't see myself doing this with a 600 plus tripod etc.
My oportunistic way of doing things would, I feel, go out the window.
It is a nice price though!!

[pe'rigin]

I agree with you Gaz on the 600mm. I've got this lens and its heavy. I don't mind sitting and waiting with this lens, but like you I do like to move about.

I'm lucky to borrow a F2.8, 400mm even though it is heavy, I find it managable, I've made a 'baby' cradle and carry the camera/lens across my chest.

It is a lens and a half.

I do admire photogaphers like Nigel Blake and Andy Rouse who seem to carry a full payload of kit about in the field, at the end of a day both must be completely knackered. I couldn't do it.

[seaspirit]

Well,
300mm (even with a TC) on a FF body may be a bit on the short side for bird photography.

I would opt for a crop body (D300, unless image quality on the D300s turns out dramatically better) and a long lens (i.e. 500mm IS or 600mm IS) if I had the money for it. A 300 2.8 IS would be plan B if the budget doesn't permit a big gun, or a bonus if the budget allows me to go crazy.

BTW, I am using a D300 with a Sigma 300 2.8 (and on occasion a Sigma TC 1.4x). That's what my budget permitted and I am very happy with it........
Some results can be found here (http://www.dunlin.ca): dunlin.ca . The hummers are all taken with the D300, shorebirds with the D80 and TC. I just started building this website and more images will show up when I find the time to add to it.

Ulli

P.S. I found that using the TC x1.4 slows down AF considerably (image quality remains OK) and so far the TC x2 I got from ebay was never used for more than a handful of test images (AF very slow, image quality suffers noticably). Keep in mind that the TCs are used on a fast 2.8 lens, on a slower lens I expect it to get worse.......

[Birder Ozzie]

Gaz, if you want to bird pictures, which is also what I do, you will always want more reach. At the moment you have a D200 which has a 1.5x crop sensor, whereas the D700 is full frame. I would definitely stay with Nikon but I tyhink maybe you could upgrade to a D300 or D300s as the image quality on both is very good and they are both cropped sensors. I have been reading things that suggest that Nikon have improved the image quality on the D300s so, if money is no object, I would probably go for the D300s. Or, if you have any patience, which I don't!, you could get a 300mm f2.8 VR and a 500mm f4 VR, before getting a D400 as the D200 is a very competent camera. If you get the 300 2.8, you could get a 500 f4.8 with a 1.7x converter. If I was in your position, I think I would probably upgrade the lenses, as, after all, it is the glass that makes the biggest difference. I don't think the the D300/D300s is that much of a huge improvement unless you want the video feature of the D300s, so you could wait for the D400 which will probably have even better image quality and noise control.
But remember, so far the D200, D300, D300s line have been released on two year cycles so it may be another 2 yrs before a D400 is released.

hope this helps

Oscar ;)

[Duke Leto]

I have been reading things that suggest that Nikon have improved the image quality on the D300s so, you could get a 300mm f2.8 VR and a 500mm f4 VR, before getting a D400 as the D200 is a very competent camera. If you get the 300 2.8, you could get a 500 f4.8 with a 1.7x converter.

Oscar ;)

Gaz I do love these threads......
Very few people, me included have the technical ability to use a camera in the field as they compare them in a lab, I take shots with my D200 that are as good as my D300, the difference for me was 2 things the focus and the noise management, I have a better hit rate on the D300 than the D200 and i can up the ISO without too much fear of introducing too much noise (within reason).
I have not yet read anything that would suggest that the £500 hard earned would be well spent on a D300s unless you want video.

As for the comment regarding a 500/4.5 & 1.7x, this would be an extremely bad idea, it doesn't work and I only use it if I need to record a bird that is fairly distant. It will work okay with a 1.4x

In my opinion cos I have been through exactly the same process, stick to the D200, use the money that you would have spent on a D300/300s to get a good quality used Sigma 500/4.5 and spend a little on a 1.4TC and the battery pack for a D200 so its a better balanced unit.

With the lens you'll find an immediate improvement in your images without breaking the bank, and if you find it works you can always px the 200 for a newer body or px the lens for a Nikon unit.
Don't forget though the Sigma 500/4.5 is quite small for a 500 so make it a nice lens to lug about all day

[rioja]

My apologies.
Just indecision on my part.
Thanks for the reply (does that make it 136?)

Gaz I do love these threads......
Very few people, me included have the technical ability to use a camera in the field as they compare them in a lab, I take shots with my D200 that are as good as my D300, the difference for me was 2 things the focus and the noise management, I have a better hit rate on the D300 than the D200 and i can up the ISO without too much fear of introducing too much noise (within reason).
I have not yet read anything that would suggest that the £500 hard earned would be well spent on a D300s unless you want video.

As for the comment regarding a 500/4.5 & 1.7x, this would be an extremely bad idea, it doesn't work and I only use it if I need to record a bird that is fairly distant. It will work okay with a 1.4x

In my opinion cos I have been through exactly the same process, stick to the D200, use the money that you would have spent on a D300/300s to get a good quality used Sigma 500/4.5 and spend a little on a 1.4TC and the battery pack for a D200 so its a better balanced unit.

With the lens you'll find an immediate improvement in your images without breaking the bank, and if you find it works you can always px the 200 for a newer body or px the lens for a Nikon unit.
Don't forget though the Sigma 500/4.5 is quite small for a 500 so make it a nice lens to lug about all day

Some sound advice but I would not go for the Sigma 500mm over the 300mm f2.8VR for lots of reasons. The price is only about £100 difference, The Sigma weighs more, it doesn't have image stabilisation and I doubt it is as well constructed as the Nikon. It has a minimum focus distance of 400cm comapred to the 300's 220. You can get extra reach by buying a 1.4 TC for the Nikon but you are still short on the reach of the Sigma but you have a much more flexible lens, much faster focus for BIF and also useful for other subjects like butterflies and flowers. Great bokeh gives good portraits too.
In comparison a 500mm is very desirable but unless you have the other options covered off I'd go for an outstanding shorter lens first.
Of course, this assumes you have £4k to spend otherwise the 300f4 should give better IQ than you have currently.
Incidentally, when buying TC's I'd stick to Nikon too. The 300mm f2.8 will take a 1.7TC to give you 500mm f5.6 but the AF is sluggish and is better for static objects.

[Gaz Shilton]

Some sound advice but I would not go for the Sigma 500mm over the 300mm f2.8VR for lots of reasons. The price is only about £100 difference, The Sigma weighs more, it doesn't have image stabilisation and I doubt it is as well constructed as the Nikon. It has a minimum focus distance of 400cm comapred to the 300's 220. You can get extra reach by buying a 1.4 TC for the Nikon but you are still short on the reach of the Sigma but you have a much more flexible lens, much faster focus for BIF and also useful for other subjects like butterflies and flowers. Great bokeh gives good portraits too.
In comparison a 500mm is very desirable but unless you have the other options covered off I'd go for an outstanding shorter lens first.
Of course, this assumes you have £4k to spend otherwise the 300f4 should give better IQ than you have currently.
Incidentally, when buying TC's I'd stick to Nikon too. The 300mm f2.8 will take a 1.7TC to give you 500mm f5.6 but the AF is sluggish and is better for static objects.

Below is my 'shopping list'.
I would love the 500 vr, but the weight is putting me off.
Also the close focus is not nearly as good as the 300/2.8 for butterflies/fungi which I also like taking picks of.
As you say rioja, with a 1.7x attached I would get 500/f5.6 with a close focus of 2.2m on a tripod/wimberley.
Plus, I have seen the amount of room that 500/600 users take up in a hide so, for me, the allure of the 300 + TC's on a beanbag not taking up too much space for other hide users would be a bonus (Piper Marsh hide at Potteric Carr can get busy if the Bitterns are showing, for example).
I am just trying to be practical and I am sure you guys with the big lenses will put an argument forward in their favour!!!!
1 x Nikon 300mm f2.8 G AF-S VR Nikkor Lens
1 x Nikon TC-14E AF-S Teleconverter II
1 x Wimberley P40 Quick Release Plate
1 x Wimberley Sidekick
1 x Gitzo G3530LS Systematic Studex with Safe Lock Plate Tripod
1 x Nikon TC-17E II AF-S Teleconverter
Total:£5230.64 (inc. p&p)

[Gaz Shilton]

Seaspirit,
Love your galleries.
Gives me food for thought with what can be achieved with a 300 lens.

[Jaff]

A highly inprobable request here but don't ask and you'll never know at all.

Could someone show me in one way or another just how much extra detail you can pull out of a shot with a cropped sensor as opposed to a FF sensor. I remian unconvinced that it really is that much better. I mean why does everyone seem to be so dismissive of the D700 as a birders camera just because it's full frame.

Cheers. B (:

[Duke Leto]

Rioja, I did say a good second hand Sigma 500, and having used a 300/3 plus a 1.4TC at 420mm its really a little on the short side

Jaff I did read somewhere that a cropped FX is not as good as a DX as the light sensors on the FX are slightly larger (microns) than the DX so in theory the image won't be as good......... Don't shoot the messenger its only what I read

[pduxon]

not been through every post so if its already been discounted....

if you're looking at the 300f2.8 have you considered the 200-400 f4? will work with a 1.4tc.

Jaff, I think they are dismissive because of "pixel density" a d700x would be a different thing altogether. never used a d700 so can't compare.

[rioja]

Rioja, I did say a good second hand Sigma 500, and having used a 300/3 plus a 1.4TC at 420mm its really a little on the short side



He could look for a good used 300mmf2.8VR too, I got one in absolute mint condition from Grays with a 12 month guarantee ;)
There is no doubt that the 300mm will prove a little short but then there is also the lack of flexibility of a 500mm.
It's always a trade off !

[Duke Leto]

I agree completely hence I have a 300 as well as a 500, I don't normally have to reach for the 300 out of frustration, I will use the 300 when I need too.
If I had a open budget I would buy a D3, 600vr and a 200-400vr, with my 1.4 and 1.7tc's this would give me all the flexibility I would need.......

[rioja]

I agree completely hence I have a 300 as well as a 500, I don't normally have to reach for the 300 out of frustration, I will use the 300 when I need too.
If I had a open budget I would buy a D3, 600vr and a 200-400vr, with my 1.4 and 1.7tc's this would give me all the flexibility I would need.......

I might be tempted by a D3x Steve, if only eh !

[pduxon]

ah a if money were no problem thread.............

[Jaff]

He could look for a good used 300mmf2.8VR too, I got one in absolute mint condition from Grays with a 12 month guarantee ;)
There is no doubt that the 300mm will prove a little short but then there is also the lack of flexibility of a 500mm.
It's always a trade off !

I saw one too on MPB not so long ago! Mint for a little over £3000. But at that rate it'd be better to get a brand new one from Kerso (he does deal in Nikon doesn't he?) which is only about £100-200 more. That was the last price I got off him for a Canon one but they are roughly priced the same as Nikon ones on WHE so should be the same ball park figure from him too.

As for the other thing. Does anyone know of anyone on here that does shoot with a D700?

[Gaz Shilton]

not been through every post so if its already been discounted....

if you're looking at the 300f2.8 have you considered the 200-400 f4? will work with a 1.4tc.

Jaff, I think they are dismissive because of "pixel density" a d700x would be a different thing altogether. never used a d700 so can't compare.

I have considered the 200-400 f4 but it's the weight thing again.
Is it as portable as a 300/2.8?
Not that the 2.8 isn't a small lens by any means.
It's just that the 300 f4 with TC's seems a popular lens choice out there.
Also the 400mm f5.6.
This confuses me.....
I know the 300/f4 is a lot smaller/lighter/cheaper lens than the 2.8, but, it is (correct me if I'm wrong) a 420mm f5.6 with a 1.4x TC on it.
Whereas the 2.8 is a 420mm lens at f4 with the same TC.
I suppose it's horses for courses, you get what your budget can allow you to get.
I just think (maybe wrongly) that the 300/2.8 could be 3 primes in one:
A 300mm f2.8, a 420mm f4 and a 600mm f5.6.
All for a fraction of the cost of buying a 300 prime a 400 prime and a 600 prime. I understand there would be degradation in picture quality, but, a damn site cheaper.

[Duke Leto]

Gaz the 300/2.8 is a cracking lens but ask yourself what you want from a lens, I bet that anyone birding with that lens has the 1.4 as a permanent fitting. You have a 200-500 lens now so you know where you shoot most of your shots, with that in mind you may be better placed to decide. Everyone on BF will have a combo that they like, everyone will have a budget from very tight to unlimited. You know the focal lengths you use based with this I'm sure that you'd make the right choice.
Look at the lens data in the BF gallery, look at the images see whats possible with the combination's you are considering.

[rdspalm]

I upgraded from the D200 to a D700. The low light /no noise capability is superb, as is the super accurate metering. However I won't be selling my D200 anytime soon. It has greater reach when coupled with the 300VR lens. I think the D300s may be the body for bird photos. Its all money which ever road you go down!

[pduxon]

Gaz you are talking lenses that I can't justify buying so I've no real knowledge of the lenses first hand

firstly have you read this? http://www.bythom.com/rationallenses.htm scroll down to the bit on exotics etc

he rates the 300f2.8 highly (accept with a 2.0 Tcon). although it doesn't seem to feature in the core of his kit http://www.bythom.com/choice.htm

everything is a compromise. I'm sure we'd like all the big exotics on a body ready to use but sadly that ain't practical.

the 300 is a "light" lens, the 200-400 is a heavier more flexible lens. I suspect as a minimum you would have the 1.4 tcon on all the time giving you a 420f4.

yes tcon's give you a degree of flexibility but do you really want to keep changing them and read what hogan says about converters in that rational lens article.

my own suggestion is that you hire a 300f2.8 the 1.4 1.7 converters and a 200-400 for a day or so. fixation charge £39/£156 a day/week for the 300f2.8 and £45/£180 for the 200-400 f4 and £9.5/£38 per converter. Given you are talking THOUSANDS of pounds hiring equipment for a day or two testing thoroughly would make good sense.

I'm sure there are companies nearer to home that rent.

[Birder Ozzie]

Gaz I do love these threads......
Very few people, me included have the technical ability to use a camera in the field as they compare them in a lab, I take shots with my D200 that are as good as my D300, the difference for me was 2 things the focus and the noise management, I have a better hit rate on the D300 than the D200 and i can up the ISO without too much fear of introducing too much noise (within reason).
I have not yet read anything that would suggest that the £500 hard earned would be well spent on a D300s unless you want video.

As for the comment regarding a 500/4.5 & 1.7x, this would be an extremely bad idea, it doesn't work and I only use it if I need to record a bird that is fairly distant. It will work okay with a 1.4x


Gaz, Duke Leto, what i meant was if you use the Nikon 300mm f2.8 VR + a 1.7x converter, you will get a 500mm f4.8 with VR. Sorry if it was unclear. ;)

As for the image quality of the D300s, Andy Rouse is testing it at the moment and I would wait for his review to come out before nying. He's in Svalbard at the moment and I don't know when he'll be back.

Oscar ;)

[Gaz Shilton]

At the moment, I think the 300/2.8 with TC's is at the top of my list.
As you say Oscar, 500mm @ f4.8, portability/weight wise, has got to be given some consideration.

[pe'rigin]

At the moment, I think the 300/2.8 with TC's is at the top of my list.

Excellent choice, the camera's will get better in the future and hopefully cheaper!