D200 or D700 or 40D? (1 Viewer)

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

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

Fozzybear said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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,,

rioja said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

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:

Jaff said:

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:

Click to expand...

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

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.......

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

Duke Leto said:

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.......

Click to expand...

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'.

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

Robert Falcon said:

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

Click to expand...

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!!

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.

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: 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.......

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