Nikon dSLR camera

[YZdirtrider13]

I currently own a D50 and several lenses.. thus the need to go Nikon. It's been a great camera, and it works great for motocross and landscapes, which I do a lot of, but it's not so great for low light stuff. I know ISO performance has really taken off lately, so i'm looking for improvements in that area, as well as better image quality all around.

Budget is $800 or so, willing to go used if needed.

Can I get an upgrade that's worth it for this money?

[K1W1]

Nikon D90.

Fits the budget.
Great range of features including high iso
Will focus the Sigma 70-300 lens that you own
Uses SD cards so no need to change media

[timmciglobal]

Have you considered looking at a used D5000? The high ISO performance is significantly better then d50.

Or possibly a d90/d300?

fredmiranda.com/forum and nikonians two good spots just make sure you use good judgement as far as a "too good to be true deals usually are not"

Tim

[YZdirtrider13]

After some quick research, I'm really liking the D90 suggestion.. even uses the same battery as my d50, although I havent decided if I will keep that or sell it yet. Are they worth anything nowadays?

[K1W1]

even uses the same battery as my d50,

Not quite.
The D90 uses a EN-EL3e the original D50 had a EN-EL3 battery although some were replaced with the EN-EL3e during the battery recall of 2006.
The EN-EL3e has three contacts not the two of the earlier model so the D90 would not actually start up if it can't detect the third contact and besides that there are some small differences in the battery slots that mean you would have to force the older battery into the slot to get it to fit even though nominally it's the same.
If you have a D50 with a EN-EL3e (light grey colour) you are lucky.

I would not consider the D5000 it's overpriced for the features you miss out on from the D90 and it will not autofocus your Sigma lens.

There is a very good demand for good used D50's. They arpparently go for between US$250 and US$300.

[YZdirtrider13]

I do have the 3-contact light gray battery :)
Thanks K1W1, many of your posts have been helpful to me, I remember you from when I was looking for my first SLR back in '06.

The major complaint I have with the D90 is that apparently it doesn't AF in video mode.. wtf?? what is the point of having it then? I guess I'm not buying it for video, but that's ridiculous

[jcon]

The D90 is a good suggestion but is ISO the only reason you want to upgrade from the D50? If so, why not look at a fast, constant F2.8 lens instead? That would solve your low light problem.

[YZdirtrider13]

It's the main limitation I feel with my D50, but not the only reason. I feel like the D50 is outdated, and I'd like better image quality. I realize some of this could come from a lense, but wouldn't it be worth it to upgrade?Also, it would probably be more expensive to replace my entire 18 to 300 mm range of lenses with constant 2.8 lenses than buy a new camera, wouldnt it?

[jcon]

I didnt say you would have to replace your current lens line up, just add to it. If you feel the D50 is too limiting, then by all means, upgrade. Just keep in mind that the lens plays the biggest part in image quality. The D50 may be outdated, but that has no effect on how well it produces images.

EDIT: There is a member here that goes by the name of Prospero who shoots with a D50, take a look at his images and you will see what it can do with high quality glass.

[YZdirtrider13]

Well I have the 50mm for low light, but it's not very versatile. I would need a long telephoto, which would be expensive, as well as a fast, smaller "kit" type lens.
I'm still open to opinions, I want to go the best route and I'm not an expert.

[K1W1]

Personally I would be budgeting towards a new body and new lenses. As you say there are considerable advances from the D50 to say, the D90 that will help in the situations you shoot in. High iso is way better, you have a faster frame rate for continuous shooting (jpeg 4.5 fps from 3 fps), ability to use commander mode for off camera flash, active D lighting for sorting out dark areas in photos and many more user configurable menu options to name just a few so imo yes the difference are great enough that a body upgrade could be justified.

Having said that what Jason says about the glass is also very true. Ultimately you can take great photos with an ordinary body and good glass but you will really struggle with ordinary glass and a great camera body. Within or near your budget there are probably three lenses worth seriously considering;

Nikon 80-200 f2.8 around $1000.00 brand new but you should get a good one under $800 on ebay. Great lens terrific images. Constant f2.8 but no VR and screw drive focussing so not good from low shutter speeds hand held and not the fastest focussing lens for sports although many people use them very successfully.

Sigma 70-200 f2.8 HSM. Around $800 brand new. Considered the poor mans Nikon 70-200 but has a good reputation and with the HSM (internal focussing motor) has fast focus lock. No VR but is a constant f2.8. Can be used with a teleconverter for more reach.

Nikon 70-300VR. Around $600. Fast focussing but only a f4.5-5.6 so you won't get a real aperture advantage. You do get VR which will help a bit but just remember that VR helps you steady the image it does not stop the subject moving. In low light situations VR with a slow shutter speed as a result of a smaller aperture might allow you to hold the camera still but the motorcycle is still moving.