[Sam Kapasi]

Originally Posted by navin

Path 1: Get the 55-250 to go with the D40+18-55 combo and worry about FF later.

I'm leaning towards this path. If and when we go wildlife, I can take the D70 with the 70-300. In fact I can take both cameras, to save me from switching.

Wow.

What am I saying?

I'm trying to take less kit and now I'm planning A D40 body, D70 body, 70-300 lens on the D70, 18-55 kit lens on the D40 and a 55-200 additional. Add to that my pro grip and SB600 flash - I think I'll have to send it by cargo, lol.

Sam in a few years you will have kids. Having a portable camera (D40 kit)

Jenny's little 8MP Nikon is portable for us. I bought that for her a few months ago.

Mine is well, not so portable really, after the battery grip and stuff.

[jaibir]

Originally Posted by Sam Kapasi

Mine is well, not so portable really, after the battery grip and stuff.

Do you really need a battery grip? If its power backup, just keep the spare battery in your pocket. If its for ergonomics, then you need to pick between the discomfort of carrying and the discomfort of using.

that said, even without a grip, the d40 is bulkier than most point and shoot cameras.

[Sam Kapasi]

Originally Posted by jaibir

If its for ergonomics, then you need to pick between the discomfort of carrying and the discomfort of using.
.

I am 6 feet 4 inches tall with unusually large hands. The D40 is like a fly in my hand.

[Samurai]

Originally Posted by Sam Kapasi

I am 6 feet 4 inches tall with unusually large hands. The D40 is like a fly in my hand.

Wow, you must have grown since our last meeting.

[StarScream]

The D70 will solve many problems won't it? In my opinion here are the quick, easy and cheap options:

1. exchange the D40 with the D70. Carry the 70-300G, 18-55 flash etc.
2. In the event your dad refuses - buy the 55-200mm and use with existing kit. Both the 18-55 and 55-200 focus close and getting `botanical' is not going to be a problem.
3. With option 1 get the 50/1.8 AF to fulfill your need for a fast lens and bokeh (although the 50/1.8 is supposed to have harsh bokeh). With option 2 get the 35/1.8 DX (you'll have to wait a while because it's not in stores yet) for the same purpose as above.

With all these lenses you can pick up and use a Sonia 52mm close-up diopter set (essentially close-up lenses of different strengths that you slap on to the front of the lens) for when you really want to get close. It costs a couple of hundred bucks and if you discover you like getting close then you can buy a dedicated macro lens.

Of course there are many permutations and combinations that'll cost more - with the D70 you can get the Nikon 85/1.8 AF as someone suggested. Excellent potrait lens. I owned it once. Bokeh is ok. Becomes a 130/1.8 on a D70.
With the D40 you can get the new 50/1.4 AF-S. That's as fast as you can get, supposed to have nice bokeh but costs $450.

[navin]

Originally Posted by Sam Kapasi

I'm trying to take less kit and now I'm planning A D40 body, D70 body, 70-300 lens on the D70, 18-55 kit lens on the D40 and a 55-200 additional.

if you got the 70-300 on the D70 why do want to carry the 55-250.

Originally Posted by jaibir

Do you really need a battery grip?.

I find it very useful to balance out the weight of the lenses I use. My camera body is the Canon 40D. Lenses I use are the 17-55/2.8, 70-200/2.8.

Originally Posted by Sam Kapasi

I am 6 feet 4 inches tall with unusually large hands. The D40 is like a fly in my hand.

I am smaller than you (much smaller) and still the battery grip feels essential otherwise there is no place for my "pinky" to sit.

[Sam Kapasi]

Today I took the first step.

I swapped my D40 with my Father's D70. Unfortunately there is no battery grip.

I've got both the lenses, his kit lens (better than mine) and the 70-300. Now to see if I get what I want out of this. Before I spend on a 55-200.

Interestingly, the D70 kit lens is a 18-70 3.5-4.5 a larger heavier lens,versus the 18-55 3.5-5.6 plasticky looking lens.

I just wonder if the kit lens set all the way to 70 will give me what I want. Or I could even perhaps try the 70-300 set to 70. Should give me a larger aperture since it begins at 70 f4.

I will share the results when I take them.

Cheers everyone, it has been really nice thinking with all of you and taking advice. I really enjoyed it.

[MC Mayank]

Darn it Sam! just when I was going to join the D40 club! Well good luck and let us know what you feel. I am still to make my decision on camera body and lens though so hanging in there. Hoping to not get sucked into a D90

[navin]

Originally Posted by Sam Kapasi

Interestingly, the D70 kit lens is a 18-70 3.5-4.5 a larger heavier lens,versus the 18-55 3.5-5.6 plasticky looking lens.

From what I remember the 18-70 and 70-300 both had metal mounts while the 18-55 and maybe the 55-250 do not. For me this is imprtant as I often switch lenses while moving and the metal mount gives a more positive feel and 'click'.

[finneyp]

MC Mayank, grab the D80 if it is still available.

[aZa]

Guys , help me out choosing between a 1000D or D60 (anything else from nikon??) or How about a SONY a300?

My friend has just bought a 1000D i used it for a while. It felt good, The live view feature is gimmicky i beleive. 1000D lacked spot metering which is a big thing for me. But the performance at 1600ISO was pretty good. I have not handled the nikon or sony so i can't compare. Looking at the pictures online i found the swivel lcd on the sony to be gr8 for low pics and over head shots.

i'm getting 1000D(kit) for 29K and D60(kit) for 28K and sony i just found out through the net. With this camera i will be buying into the system and getting lenses and moving so this choosing a camera is becoming difficult. Portraits is what interests me so would probably get a 50mm 1.8 along with the camera. Later a wideangle prime.

[MC Mayank]

Originally Posted by finneyp

MC Mayank, grab the D80 if it is still available.

Too expensive at like $899 with the 18-55 mm kit lens. The Nikon D5000 sells at $850 with the same lens.

[MC Mayank]

Here is the combination I was initially looking at:

D40 + 18-55mm non VR + 55-200mm VR kit for $650. Plus maybe a prime for low light performance like the 35mm f/1.8mm for an additional $200. So total $850.

In Sam's confusion above, there was a suggestion or two about getting the D200 body. I haven't done any research on the D200 yet, all the time thinking it was way out of my range. But the body for USD 600 seems an interesting prospect. Here's what I have seen in terms of prices:

1. D200 body only at USD 600
2. 18-105mm VR for $359.95

So a total of US $959.

Again, not done any research on the D200 yet so don't know if that particular lens is the best idea for the camera although most sites seem to be selling the combo as a kit but only more expensive.

Could I have some expert opinions here please? The question is whether sacrifising the D40 with the added 55-200mm and the 35mm f/1.8 is a wise option over the D200 with just the 18-105 mm for an additional $100 that too.

If i think realistically, I know that I will not invest in another body for the next 4 yrs. I am thinking the D200 gives me the freedom of not having to look for the pricier (if that's a word) AF lenses. It's a prosumer camera so I would have more to explore with as my learning progresses.

Help me out here fellas, this is a confusing world and I want to make sure I step into it on the right foot.

[gd1418]

18-55 has metal mounting.

Originally Posted by navin

BTW not being a Nikonian I dont know if the 18-55 and 55-250 have metal mounts. Do they?

[jaibir]

Both the 18-55 and 55-200 have plastic mounts. The 18-70, 16-85, 17-55 and 18-200 have metal mounts among the 'normal range Nikon DX lenses.