New lens, or new body?

[jayhawk]

Since August of 2006, my Nikon D50 has given me thousands of great pictures, but I really want to move up to something like a D80.

But for the same money, I can buy the coveted Nikkor 18-200mm lens. What would you do? Keep in mind the type of photography I do; mostly still shots of nature, some motorsports.

The lenses I have right now, all Nikkor:

18-55mm
55-200mm
55mm f/1.8
35-70mm

So...the body, or the lens?

[Alok]

Get a D80, usually they say it's the lens that makes a difference, but the D80 bodies work wonders.

[IceBone]

A friend of mine has a d50 and I can't count high enough as to the features it lacks compared to my d80. And seeing as how many features mine lacks compared to a fully professional DSLR only shows how complex those cams are.

Maybe you can strike a bargain and sell the body, the 2 lenses you'll be replacing and buy the upgraded body and new lens (with just a little added money)?

[BerserkerCatSplat]

Lenses, no question in my mind. I can't see how the D50 body could be holding you back more than the small-aperture zooms you have now. I would start by replacing the 18-55 with a Tamron 17-50/2.8 or a Sigma 18-50/2.8 for the larger aperture. Or, for the same money, you could get a used Nikon 80-200/2.8 or Sigma 70-200/2.8 HSM. Heck, maybe a dedicated macro lens like the excellent Tamron 90mm. Or a fast normal lens like the Sigma 30/1.4. The Nikon 18-200 does everything, but does nothing very well.

What features do you absolutely need, that the D50 lacks, and the D80 provides?

[jayhawk]

Originally Posted by BerserkerCatSplat

What features do you absolutely need, that the D50 lacks, and the D80 provides?

First off, believe it or not, YOU were the reason I got the D50 and started taking photography seriously in the first place, so your opinion is weighed appropriately.

11 points of focus compared to 5, higher ISO, larger image sizes to work with, more WB control, and secondly, a higher pixel rate. Now, we both know that a high pixel rate means diddly squat if you have a good lens, but it is a consideration.

[BerserkerCatSplat]

Originally Posted by jayhawk

First off, believe it or not, YOU were the reason I got the D50 and started taking photography seriously in the first place, so your opinion is weighed appropriately.

11 points of focus compared to 5, higher ISO, larger image sizes to work with, more WB control, and secondly, a higher pixel rate. Now, we both know that a high pixel rate means diddly squat if you have a good lens, but it is a consideration.

Well, I'm outright flattered!

As far as the D50vsD80, the better focus system in the D80 is the only reason I would consider the upgrade. The megapixel difference is there, but that only matters if you need big prints or tend to crop heavily. I've printed up to 16X20" from the D50 and it turned out great.

The WB control is nice, but I got a $20 WhiBal card and just custom-set my white balance with excellent results. Add in the WB adjustment in RAW and you wind up with a feature that's only useful if you don't want to use a gray card and only shoot JPEG. Personally, I find manually fine-tuning WB on the camera's rather limited LCD to be guesswork at best.

The higher available ISO of the D80 is nice when you absolutely have to get the shot, but it's not what I'd call a usable ISO, it's incredibly noisy. The D50 is still extremely usable at ISO1600, I've had ISO1600 shots printed on glossy magazine stock and they looked fine. DPreview never did a direct comparison between the two in ISO performance, but from looking at both tests the D50 at ISO1600 retained more detail than the D80 at the same sensitivity.

But, just so you see what I'm getting at, here's both at 1600. D50 on top, D80 (with Normal noise reduction) on the bottom.



The D80's is slightly less noisy due to NR, but the D50 obviously retains more detail (clouds, ruts in the road). The D80 would have more detail if NR was turned off, but then it would be noisier. So, really, there's no measurable improvement in ISO performance in the D80. That's what happens when you increase pixel density.


Overall, I don't consider the D80 to be a large enough improvement over the D50 to warrant its purchase over better glass. The focusing system is improved, yes - but then again I've never had a problem shooting motorsports with it. Personally, I wouldn't replace my D50 with anything less than a D200. In the end, it's really up too you and what you feel is necessary.

[MXM]

Having played with D80, it's a great camera, and I would no doubt recommend it as a first purchase, but I don't think it's a big enough upgrade to a D50 either.

D80 may have tons of new features on paper, but what do you really use? The only major things about D80 for me is the larger and brighter viewfinder and larger LCD, everything else doesn't make a significant difference, and I would get definitely more for my money with new lenses.

[jayhawk]

Sorry for my tardiness; I read the posts, then I move on. Bad habit.

I would like to thank all of you for your input, I will weigh each opinion and choose the logical result.

[Raparperi]

I'd say forget the D80 and get a used D200 (depending on the price level of your area, of course). And if that's too expensive, I'd just get better lenses. Like BerserkerCatSplat recommended, replacing your zoom lenses with ones that have an aperture of f/2.8 gives you more freedom to shoot and in the best case scenario you get a full 2 stops of more light, so you'll have less noisy images. (iso1600 & f/5.6 equals the same amount of light as iso400 and f/2.8)

[jayhawk]

Well, I decided what to get: a Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8. What I need is a walkaround lens, since I am not a studio photographer, but a nature photographer, and that fits the bill.

When I get the money, I will buy a Nikkor or Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 for taking pictures of birds. And for now, I will use the D50 until it goes kaflooey.

[BerserkerCatSplat]

I'd say you've made the correct decision.