Lens or Body?

[Aldor88]

Christmastime! time to spend some cash...

So im wondering weather i should spend it on a new lens or a new body. The D40 is starting to feel too small, i dont like the viewfinder, i want more af points and i want those cheap primes!

A new lens would give me much more versability and more options when shooting. It would also give me better IQ and lowlight preformance. I've been looking at the Tamron 70-200/f2.8.

So the options are:
1. Get a D90 body and start saving for the lens
2. Get the lens, start saving for the Body
3. Save a bit more and get a D80+lens

The last option seems more sensible, the lens+D80 would be 1-200euros more than the D80 body. But then i'd have to upgrade eventually anyway.

I dont like the second options since the D40 is just so small its gonna look ridicilous with the 70-200 lens. As I sais im getting tired of it aswell, i want something bigger.

The first option would give me the least amount of gain in IQ but i'd gain alot in other areas like high ISO and metering/mp/viewfinder. I'd probably add a 35mm/f2 pretty soon aswell.

SO what would u do? I know i'm confused :confused: My budget is around 1000Euros(12-1300USD atm).

[josef]

I'd go the D90 route. I had a D80 and it was superb. The D90 is it's improved brethren and I couldn't possibly see needing More camera in the future- i mean, if you're not a professional. I have a D300 and i know the D90 would've been all I ever needed. It's a great size & weight, and, like you said, has many advantages over the D40.

so 1 vote: D90.


also, that 35 f/2 is on my list too. Great lens.

[K1W1]

Christmastime! time to spend some cash...


If you have cash rather than a new camera why don't you buy General Motors. I'm sure that they are open to offers at the moment. :D

[K1W1]

BTW. Have you considered a D300 body instead of a D90?

[erichlund]

If you have cash rather than a new camera why don't you buy General Motors. I'm sure that they are open to offers at the moment. :D

For $1000 you might just only get Buick. I'm not sure that would be an acceptable exchange. :rolleyes:

[ssil2000]

no doubt in my mind... lens!

[ooverdrive]

Me too .....lens!

[fionndruinne]

Uh... body!

Not only will the D90 open up a bunch of new lens options, but with its step-up features and that lovely new CMOS sensor are more than worth the upgrade, in my mind.

[n9nf]

What I'll do is to save a bit more and get D300
plus 18-105mm VR or 18-105mm VR.

bTW ... what camera R u using ?

[erichlund]

I you're really uncomfortable with the body you are shooting with, then you are probably shooting less than you would with a new body. However, if it's just looks small, but fits your hand OK, then I'd go with the lens and put the body off a bit.

I know you are looking at the Tamron 70-200, but if you are alternatively considering a body, then I question if you really need a 70-200, or just want to fill some "range". What is your target shot for that lens? IOW, why that lens? Are you looking for the reach to shoot some action? What shots are you missing that you need THIS lens for?

If you can't name something specific, then you may be looking at the wrong lens. Think about the shots you aren't getting, and then target your lens choice based on that, getting the best lens you can afford to get that target. If you're not missing any shots right now, then maybe it is a good time for you to think about the body instead. In that case, the D90 is a great upgrade.

[Aldor88]

I you're really uncomfortable with the body you are shooting with, then you are probably shooting less than you would with a new body. However, if it's just looks small, but fits your hand OK, then I'd go with the lens and put the body off a bit.

I know you are looking at the Tamron 70-200, but if you are alternatively considering a body, then I question if you really need a 70-200, or just want to fill some "range". What is your target shot for that lens? IOW, why that lens? Are you looking for the reach to shoot some action? What shots are you missing that you need THIS lens for?

If you can't name something specific, then you may be looking at the wrong lens. Think about the shots you aren't getting, and then target your lens choice based on that, getting the best lens you can afford to get that target. If you're not missing any shots right now, then maybe it is a good time for you to think about the body instead. In that case, the D90 is a great upgrade.
Great answer Eric, im actually getting quite uncomfortable with the D40 and its lack of features and its actually causing me to shoot less that i'd like to. So i think i will go with the body. I will have a few weeks to change my mind tho still so we will see ;)

The lens choise is definate, I've done my research and a tele is what i need. It has to be fast for some of the shooting i intent to do and IQ needs to be as high as pos, af is a secondary concern.

[shshsh]

Experts tend to say that the smart money goes to the lens. But there is a caveat, of course: That makes sense as long as you can actually put the quality of that lens to good use.

Your (absolutely stunning, by the way) flickr galleries clearly show that you know how to get great results from your D40. It might very well be that you are really pushing that camera and those lenses to their limits. So, what is the limiting factor?

Side-by-side comparison of the D40, the D80, and the D90:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/compare_post.asp?method=sidebyside&cameras=nikon_d40%2Cnikon_d80%2Cnikon_d90&show=all

If you need any of live view or the HD movie capability, the decision is a no-brainer: Then it's clearly the D90. But I have doubts that movies are what you are after, and live view is frankly mostly useless the way Nikon implemented it (I have it on my D700).

The D90 has the same 640x480 3" LCD the D700 and the D3 have, and that is just stunning. This might be a deciding factor.

As for resolution: The D80 (10 MPix) and D90 (12 MPix) clearly outperform the D40 (6 MPix). But the D90 doesn't really have the apparent advantage one might think:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond90/page30.asp

Do you see very much difference? I don't. So, those nominal 2 MPix more are eaten up by higher pixel density on the same sensor area:

D90: 3.3 MPix/cm²
D80: 2.7 MPix/cm²
D40: 1.6 MPix/cm²

That's also the reason for very similar noise behaviour in all of those three:

http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/nikon/d40-review/
http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/nikon/d80-review/
http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/nikon/d90-review/index.shtml

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond90/page20.asp
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/NikonD40/page17.asp

They all perform very good up to ISO-400, ISO-800 is still OK, ISO-1600 for emergency situations. The D90 is a bit better at ISO-1600, but IMHO not decisively so.

The bitter fact is: If you need great high ISO performance, FX is the answer - D700 or D3. But that's a completely new ballgame budget-wise (~€2200.- for a D700 body).

So, time to do some first math:

Keep the D40: € 0.-
Buy a D80 body: ~€ 555.- (amazon.de)
Buy a D90 body: ~€ 1040.- (amazon.de) - ugh...

Are a bit better ISO-1600 performance, a great LCD, live view, and HD movies worth €500 to you? You decide.

But an upgrade from 6 MPix to 10 MPix does make sense IMHO. That's a difference you will notice.



As for lenses:

Nikon AF-S VR 2,8/70-200 G IF-ED ~€ 1940.- (amazon.de) - OMG...

That's an outstanding lens, no doubt. But it's also really expensive.

If you are after long telephoto reach, how about this one:

Nikon AF S VR 70-300/4,5-5,6G IF-ED ~€ 500.- (amazon.de)

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/70-300-vr.htm

It's clearly not in the same league as the Nikon 70-200 VR. But it's a Nikkor, too, and that alone says something about its quality. It also has VR. Autofocus is not quite as fast as on the 70-200 VR; not the lens of choice for sports or quick-moving wildlife (but still great for wildlife sitting still for a second or two). But on a DX body, it reaches out to 300*1.5=400 mm equiv.!

If your budget would allow for the € 2000.- a Nikon 70-200 VR would set you back, A new D80 + 70-300 VR would still leave room for ~€ 950 to spend on another lens. You do a lot of landscapes, right? How about a good wide angle?

Nikon AF S DX 12-24mm/4G IF-ED ~€ 985.- (amazon.de)

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/1224.htm

That gives you 12*1.5= 18mm equiv. wide angle on a Nikon DX body. That's real wide angle, not just 17*1.5=25.5 mm equiv. like your Sigma 17-70. Real wide angle was the main reason why I chose FX with the D700.


Just my two (Euro-) Cents.
OK, considering the length of this answer, it's more than two Cents. Let's settle for ten. ;-)

[shshsh]

P.S. Don't forget that this year's Nikon DX champion (the D90) will be next year's old stuff. Just like the D80 today. You can watch the price of the camera body you just bought drop -- every week. The D700 I bought for € 2460.- in mid-August already dropped to € 2160.-; that's losing € 300 (12%) in just 4 months.

http://www.heise.de/preisvergleich/?phist=347973&age=183


Look how the price of the D80 evolved:

http://www.heise.de/preisvergleich/?phist=212785&age=2000

The D90 will be no different.


How much did the prices of lenses drop since then?

http://www.heise.de/preisvergleich/?phist=64799&age=2000
http://www.heise.de/preisvergleich/?phist=212802&age=2000

You see a difference, but that's mostly attributed to the price axis not starting at 0, but at 1400 or 400, respectively.

[erichlund]

Well, as long as we are comparing D80 to D90 (and using KR!!!), let me bring Thom Hogan, a rather more respected reviewer to the table.

The particular of his review that I'd like to mention is that he finds himself using the D80 less and less because of a couple of things he considers serious shortcomings: Namely, he finds the matrix meter on the D80 to not always perform very accurately, the amp noise excessive on long exposures, and the autofocus less crisp than he'd like. These are basic useability issues that he found quite satisfactory on the D90.

Just to put in my 2 cents.

[Gintaras]

i am not Nikon guy but i would suggest D90 which sounds as good as D300, D80 is an older model, you will wish a newer body in a year time if buy D80 today. plus D90 has CMOS sensor which outperforms CCD sensor on D80. i am not sure if D300 can be an overkill... question is for what price can you get D90 and whether price difference to D300 would be big or not. i would consider D90 as ultimate choice and D300 as possible choice dependent on your budget. i pefer CMOS sensor for cleaner high ISO compared to CCD sensor. i also hear it D90 does as good as D300 in many departments.

[Gintaras]

adding lenses is a never ending money consuming process so you better experiment well before adding them, i would begin with a D90 body plus 18-105VR, then step up.

[Rooz]

They all perform very good up to ISO-400, ISO-800 is still OK, ISO-1600 for emergency situations. The D90 is a bit better at ISO-1600, but IMHO not decisively so.

the d90 is a full stop better than the d80 in iso performance. iso1600 is perfectly useable. even 3200 is useable in certain situations exposed correctly. when you're talking emergency, thats more like 6400. the d90 is actually siginifcantly better than a d80 in this regard.

The bitter fact is: If you need great high ISO performance, FX is the answer - D700 or D3. But that's a completely new ballgame budget-wise (~€2200.- for a D700 body).

very true, but its all relative.

[Aldor88]

The advantages the D80 has over the D90 that im mainly looking at is Metering, ISO-preformance and autofocus. Then theres the screen, individual exposure adjustment for different modes and a few minor differences. The advantages over a D40 are too many to list here ;).

As for a wideangle lens, the Tokina 11-16/f2.8 is on my list to get aswell.

I was looking at the D200 the other day too, seems to be a great deal at the moment aswell. Not sure what the advantages over a D80 are tho. Need to do more reading once i hate the time.

[Visual Reality]

D200 has:

Expanded bracketing options - up to 9 images 1EV apart, D80/D90 have 3 images max.

Mirror Lock-Up

Works with older AI lenses.

The body of course, you know.

Faster flash sync - 1/250 vs 1/200

Custom setting banks

Burst rate - 5fps vs 3fps

Battery Life, real world 450-500 shots (D200) vs 1,000+ (D80)

Viewfinder - 100% vs 94%

Focus improvements, etc...you can find more here: http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d80/vs-d200.htm

[erichlund]

The advantages the D80 has over the D90 that im mainly looking at is Metering, ISO-preformance and autofocus. Then theres the screen, individual exposure adjustment for different modes and a few minor differences. The advantages over a D40 are too many to list here ;).

As for a wideangle lens, the Tokina 11-16/f2.8 is on my list to get aswell.

I was looking at the D200 the other day too, seems to be a great deal at the moment aswell. Not sure what the advantages over a D80 are tho. Need to do more reading once i hate the time.

According to Thom Hogan, you have this backwards. The D90 has a more reliable meter, clearly better high ISO capability, and snappier AF. BTW, Thom doesn't just use the camera for a quick review and then never touch it again. They go in his bag and get used regularly. If you read his review (here (http://www.bythom.com/nikond90review.htm)), you'll see, the D80 got used less and less, while the D90 has renewed his enthusiasm for the two digit series.

[XaiLo]

Aldor88, since you're picking up the 70-200mm for IQ and speed, both the D80 and D200 seem counter intuitive since they a both have poorer low light performance than the D40. So what you may gain in lens your are losing in camera. Also no one has ever laughed at the 70-200mm on my D40. So I'd suggest getting the 70-200mm and save up for the D90 or D300.

[Aldor88]

According to Thom Hogan, you have this backwards. The D90 has a more reliable meter, clearly better high ISO capability, and snappier AF. BTW, Thom doesn't just use the camera for a quick review and then never touch it again. They go in his bag and get used regularly. If you read his review (here (http://www.bythom.com/nikond90review.htm)), you'll see, the D80 got used less and less, while the D90 has renewed his enthusiasm for the two digit series.

Haha thats just me typing wrong, i ment the advantages the D90 has over thr D80 :p