Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Hogan
I have a D80, 17-135 and Tamrom 200-500. I am thinking of adding a Sigma or Nikon 500 prime (if I can get a used Nikon at the right price) and a Nikon 70-300 (and selling the Tamron). I want to get a second camera so I am not changing lenses all the time. Is it worth spending the extra for a D200 or should I just buy another D80 - I am very pleased with the D80 at the moment.
Another quick question - mirror slap blur - is this a load of horsesh.... or is it something I need to worry about. I read a whole thread on some other forum about how bad the D200 was for mirror slap. I feel I'm missing something important here and feel left out  or should I just ignore it. |
A D200 is only worth it if you need the extra features which are primarily a) higher frame rate, b) better build and c) mirror lock up. There are also a few neat things such as the intervalometer which allows time lapse photography.
The better build might be useful if you mount heavy lenses on the body which in turn is on a tripod as it reduces the likelihood of the body flexing.
Otherwise the D80 seems to be a D200 look-a-like.
Is MLU useful? IMO if you take pictures on a tripod at 1/100 or less especially with long lenses (200mm+) then you need MLU for ultimate sharpness. 1/15" is supposed to be the danger area with any lens. It does in part depend on the lens as some are more resonant than others. Also it might depend on the camera, as I suspect the degree of mirror slap differs between cameras. I would suspect that more expensive cameras have less slap (better damping) but that is a guess and might be horse poo.
Regarding hand holding and MLU, I defer to Stephen as I do not handhold without flash.
You could always pick up a like new used D200 from a dealer ensuring you will get some warranty. Or a refurbished unit.