On the horns of a dilema

[Michael Hogan]

I have a bit of a problem - a good problem though. I have a Nikon D80, Nikon 18-135 and Nikon 300 f4 lens. The Nikon D80 is good, and I really like the 300 f4 even though I have only had it for a few weeks. My main interest is bird photography. I bought the 300 for handholding and am planing to buy a 500. I would love the Nikon 500 and now they have a VR version, but the cost is ridiculous. I was thinking of the Sigma 500 but..... I was also thinking of getting a second camera either a D200 or the new D300. Now you may think that my pockets are very deep but I was hoping to get the lens second hand even though there would be no chance with the new VR.

Now my problem - somebody said to me why don't I get a Canon 30D or the new 40D and a 500 IS. They are a lot cheaper than Nikon and have been around for a while so a secondhand one is an option. They also said keep the Nikon kit you have. I have done some research and yes the Canon 500 IS is at least $1000 cheaper and with the dollar rate at the moment it would almost be worth flying to the Sates to buy one rather than buying in Ireland.

The EOS 40D and 500 IS would be about €2000 over my budget but a secondhand 30D and 500IS or new 40D and secondhand 500IS might be on budget.

Thoughts please - 30D v 40D and the whole second Canon range, is it worth the hassle of having 2 makes .

Thanks

Michael - frustrated but in a nice way

[blackmarlin]

If you bought the Canon you would have to carry two different sets of gear, think of all the extra weight, if you sell your Nikon, you would loose a fair bit of money. If I was in this position I wouldn't even cosider changing to Canon I'd stick with the camera I'd already got and go for a 500mm lens. Then when funds allow buy a new Nikon D300 which according to most mags is the better camera.

[miketoll]

It really boils down to how much you want image stabilisation, if it is a priority then the Canon range is the way to go if not stay with the Nikon I think. The 40D is only just available but the price is just beginning to drop a little. The IQ of the 30D and 40D supposed to be very similar with the 40D a little better and the 40D having a setting to help highlights a little. The 40D is 30% faster focusing than the 30D with all the focusing points being the cross type so better for tracking birds in flight. Very few reviews of the 40D out at the moment but those I have read look good. The Nikon D300 looks like its going to be a brilliant camera but at a higher price. Gosh this is making my head spin, but I would be loath to run two systems so would probably go with what you have and buy a second hand Nikon none VR or Sigma 500 and save for the D300. Just glad I already have a Canon set up!

[mw_aurora]

2 systems means two sets of everything - right down to batteries, chargers etc. It is bad enough with my 20D and 1D2N, and they are both Canon! Also, Canon white (L) lenses hold their value very, very well so don't expect the 500/4 to come up very often secondhand or be that much cheaper.

Is there a particular reason you want to upgade your camera body? Unless there is a very good reason, I would put that extra money towards the 500 lens...

[Michael Hogan]

Let me explain where I am coming from - for the bird photography I will use the 300 f4 hand held using the D80. I want to get a 500 as well for the extra distance. This will be on the tripod most if not all of the time. I was thinking of getting a second camera for this so I can have the D80 + 300 free for other shots. So I'll have 2 chargers etc. If I go for the D200 or D300 then I also have SD cards and CF cards. Seems a bit of an overkill but I have some cash now and the likelyhood of holding on to it or having it again are slim so I thought I go for broke this time. I know the second camera is a big treat and when push comes to shove I probably will not be able to afford it. Hence the Canon question. Because the Canon 500 is cheaper than the Nikon and has IS it would force me to sell a child, rob, get the money form somewhere to get the second camera. So if you were going to get a second camera and a 500 lens would it be worth the extra hassle of have two different brands (and all that entails).

Michael

[blackmarlin]

In my opinion Stick with what camera manufacturer you have got and go for a non is/vr lens, It's all right for the pros to chop and change but can you really afford it. I find myself in this position and would prefer not to rush into it and wait until I can afford it.

[Birdsnapper]

The last thing a photographer needs to consider is the camera. You've got a very good camera (it hurt to say that!) in the D80; stick with it and go for the lens and LOTS of practice.

[walwyn]

Well as I've said before when I decided to go digital I eventually got the FZ30 rather than a dSLR mainly due to having got fed up with carrying bags of kit about everywhere, most of which was never used. The very idea of doubling up on everything just makes me shudder. You'd need to invest in one of those motorised golf carts just to get about.

[Michael Hogan]

Thanks for all the advise. I take it that I should not go for a send set of gear :-).
Now I just have to wait for a Nikon 500 f4 to come available secondhand

[ollieholmes]

Speek of the devil:
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Nikon-500MM-F-...QQcmdZViewItem