Nikon buying decisions

[silentwolf]

I am about to sink about 2000$ into a new camera setup for myself, as I have outgrown my current equipment. I have a nikon D50 right now, with a 28-80, and an 80-300 lens. They both came as part of a kit that I bought, and as i learned, are slight relics from the film age. The 28-80 isnt bad, but its not very sharp, to 80-300 is sharp, but suffers from higher fstops when its zoomed in.

Anyways, on to my question. I am about to do a lot of sports photography, and have budgeted myself around 2000$ to sink into new equipment (camera, lens, memory card, mono pod, case). I am stuck on what to get. My current thought is to get a D200 body, and buy a nice 80-200mm 2.8 lens. In total, that will run me around 1600$ for the body and lens setup.

My other option is to get a D300, and use the kit 80-300 lens I already have. This will cost me about the same as the D200/lens combo.

I like the D300 a lot, and have used it quite extensively. Its got a ton of great features, and makes remarkable pictures. The D200, I have no used, and I am unsure of its photo quality/low light performance.

Basically I am looking for some guidance here on which route to take. I am not interested in getting a lower priced lens, as I need the fixed 2.8 if I am going to go with the D200.

So, thoughts, opinions?

 

[lan]

Sports is tough. You have to deal with

- Better AF. D300 has more modern AF. Lens with ultrasonic motors will be faster. The 80-200 2.8 AF-D doesn't have that. The AF-S version does but it's harder to find and more expensive.

- Need faster shutter speeds. 2.8 sometimes isn't fast enough. Are you sure it will be okay for you? If not, get a prime lens.

- Faster frame rate. D300 can possibly be faster with addition of MD-D10.

- Better ISO performance. The D300 will be better.

I would possible save up for D300 + 70-200 2.8 from Sigma as this has fast focus. You are going to sell your old kit right? You can get a bit more money that way.

 

[darktiger]

If I was to get a Nikon it would be the D700 over the D300 or D3. I actually see a lot of D300's for sale for around $1200-1300 due to the D700.

 

[PS-RagE]

First off, if you are serious about this you must know that $2k isn't going to get you far.

The D200 is a fine piece of equipment but, similar to the D2Xs I shoot, is by no stretch a high ISO camera. Personally, I'm not thrilled with anything over 200 and I never go beyond 400 (most of my work is 100).

If you can swing the D300 I would go that route. A crop camera will probably be a better choice for sports - at least with focal lengths under 400mm anyhow.

You know though, the better investment may be to stick with the D50 for now and put your money into glass.