Newbie Wildlife Camera Question

Hi,

I am currently using a Cannon compact 4mp camera and would like to make the jump to DSLR and having looked around, read the reviews etc I have narrowed my choice down to the Nikon D80 and D200.

Basically what I want to know is if the D200 is too much camera for a budding wildlife photographer and would I be better suited to the D80?

I have handled both cameras and both feel comfortable. If the D200 is the better option and user friendly I would prefer this model due to its robustness. But I don't want to take on a camera thats going to be more complicated than I can handle.

Thanks for your time.

No such thing as "too much camera" for a budding wildlife photographer. You'll quickly grow to rely on its features. Here's the way I would approach it: When you evolve into a raving lunatic photographer like the rest of us, would you rather have the D200 or the D80 as a backup to the next generation of gear you acquire, as you surely will. I'm betting that once you move past this point in your career to a D3 or whatever, the D200 will be a more useful backup. As you can see, I try to incorporate an extra "jump" into my thinking and planning about today's purchases.

I tend to agree with Hank. I don't think it will be any harder to learn the D200 vs. the D80, and you'll end up with more camera functions in the end. Of course, Nikon also just announced the D300 too - might want to wait on that.

Hank gave good advice. The D200 can do everything the D80 can, and as you said, it is a bit more of a robust camera. There is never anything wrong with that.

Since you didn't mention anything about budget or lenses, let me make this one comment. You are better off putting more money into the lenses rather than the camera body. If it is a choice between the D200 and a consumer grade lens, or the D80 and a higher level of lens, go the D80 route. I can pretty much gaurantee you'll be upgrading the camera body in the future, whichever one you buy, but if you get a high quality lens now, you'll keep the lens for years. Also, while I am not a Nikon user, it is my understanding that the image quality coming out of the D200 is sufficient high that it will expose the defects of a consumer level lens pretty quickly.

Hi there

You've received excellent advice. Not much to add here. As a Nikon user, I can certainly say that you've narrowed down your list to two nice cameras. You seem to have a good idea why you want the D200 over the D80 (robustness, probably also the weather sealing), so it looks like you've done the homework. Either camera will be able to take fine images as long as you put decent glass in front of them - as already explained previously.

Basil

Thanks for the views guys.

I would be looking at the Nikon AF-S VR 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G IF-ED Lens for the D80 and something a little cheaper for the D200. (Unless anyone has a better idea for general wildlife?)

Yes the D300, but sadly out of my budget.

Looks like the D80 may be the way to go on my budget then?

I agree that lens choice trumps body choice at this point. If you can afford it, I'd go with the 80-400 (or is it 85-400?) rather than the 70-300. That's second hand, but I hear a lot more positive comments about the longer one than the shorter. Can anyone set me straight and give first hand experiences with either or both lenses? It will be an important choice for Jamie.

I hate to say it, but 300 mm is really tough for "wild wildlife" (meaning wildlife that's not at the zoo ). The longer the better, basically. I can't think of a current lens that's both cheaper and better. I have a Sigma 400/5.6 APO Macro that does very well optically, maybe that lens is worth a look on the used market (but make sure you test the thing before you buy it - mine has a severe front focus issue). Or maybe a used Nikon 300/4 AF-D combined with a 1.4x teleconverter. These will get you to 400 mm, which is IMO the minimum of what you need to get going.

You've chosen one of the photographic fields that's very demanding on gear (= $$$). So my suggestion would be to go with the D80 if you're limited by budget and then get a good lens. Just on a side note - I've started my DSLR career with wildlife photography in mind, too, but if you look at my portfolio, you'll notice that I'm doing mostly macro and landscapes at the moment. The reason is quite simple: Good landscape & macro lenses are much cheaper than good wildlife lenses... so it may be worth thinking about what kind of photographs you really want to take before buying into lenses.

Basil

Hank - I have the 70-300 VR and well... it's a very o.k. lens, but in terms of resolution it just doesn't really compare very favorably to the 105/2.8 VR Micro (which is stellar) and the Sigma 400/5.6 APO Macro in my experience (well, it focuses faster than the Sigma, and even at the right distance, that's for sure ). Maybe I'm becoming a lens snob...

I've only played with the 80-400 VR for a short while, and it was a nice lens. If it's for serious wildlife (= you're willing to carry the weight + the suitable tripod), I'd take a used 80-400 VR over a new 70-300 VR. The problem is that even a used 80-400 VR will be almost twice as expensive as a new 70-300 VR.

Basil

Hi Jamie,

I have the D70 from Nikon and debated getting the D80 or the D200, I opted for the D200 because it is more weather resistant than the D80 and I do put my cameras into some rough conditions.

I have the 70-300mm lens with VR, and I love it. I have several other lens as well, but the lens most often on my D200 is the 70-300mm with VR. I prefer to shoot hand held and the VR really does help me.

I don't find the D200 all that complicated and I think it would be a wise choice even for a budding wildlife photographer.

Jamie,

I use the 70-300 on my D70 And like was mentioned, it just isn't enough lens for "Wild" Wildlife. My main focus is coyotes, I'm an experienced caller and have no problem bringing a coyote in and stopping him where I want him. The problem with the 300, is that I end up with too much background and not enough coyote in the frame.

I've decided to save for the bigger lenses first, then in a few more years, I'll upgrade my D70 body to something a little bigger and better.

Thank you all for your input there is certainly some food for thought there.

Best wishes.

Jamie.

I looked at both the D80 and the D200 very closely for three months and tried each for half a day, side by side. The D80 has slightly newer technology and takes cleaner low light photos. Both cameras use the same sensor. They both have the same AF module. They have the same RGB meter. They have essentially the same (and excellent) viewfinder. They have the same pop up flash and have the same flash capability (except lower sync on D80.) The D200 is well built but so is the D80. The D80 is smaller and easier to pack.

I ended up buying the D80 last December. I use it everyday. Everyday, outdoors. It's been out in 30 below zero temps--no problems. It's been out in 100+ heat. I used it in an open (no doors) helicopter and hike on Kauii--the wettest spot on earth. No problems. The camera has performed flawlesslly for me, and I am very, very hard on equipment. I have broken three cameras in the past five years! The D80 has taken everything the Dakotas can throw at it and still works like new. I have zero worries about the sealing on the D80. I've used it last week out in a downpour from a storm that produced a tornado--couldn't see 30 feet in that rain. Stuck a plastic Walmart bag over the camera and kept shooting. No problems. It's been coated with 1/4 inch of ice out in ice storms here while I had it sitting on a tripod. I chipped the ice off with my hunting knife and kept shooting. No problems.

I have enough cash to buy anything I want. I don't like to spend money needlessly though. The D80 is pretty much the same camera as the D200, but it is more compact and costs $400+ less. I don't need the slightly faster frames per second, the slightly faster flash sync, or the ability to use CF rather than SD cards. The D80 was a no-brainer. You will be FAR better off spend minimal money on the camera and putting the extra on a good solid tripd. My D80 cost ~$850, my Gitzo tripod/ballhead cost ~$900. My strategy was to first build up a solid line up of fast lenses, first class tripod, and then think of cameras. Most beginners do it the opposite way and quickly regret it. Your photos from a D80 + excellent tripod will be noticeably better than from a D200 + no tripod (or cheap tripod.) Cameras will come and go, about once every two years. Good lenses you keep for 10 years. Good tripods you keep until you die.


Kent in SD

would you rather have the D200 or the D80 as a backup to the next generation of gear you acquire

Hank, I'd much rather have the D80. It takes up less room, is lighter, and there would be significantly less money tied up in it. The D80 and D200 are essentially the same camera on the inside.

I agree that lens choice trumps body choice at this point. If you can afford it, I'd go with the 80-400 (or is it 85-400?) rather than the 70-300. That's second hand, but I hear a lot more positive comments about the longer one than the shorter. Can anyone set me straight and give first hand experiences with either or both lenses?

Hank--

I've owned the Nikon 80-400mm VR for several years now. It's a love/hate relationship, LOL! The autofocus is very slow. Otherwise, it's an outstanding value! The image quality is very good--I regularly have images published from it. The VR works, within reason, although I still use a tripod whenever possible. This lens on a D80 is just a killer combo for compactness and great image quality. Last month I bought a 70-200mm VR f2.8. I wanted to take it on my trip to Hawaii last month, but wife made me choose between that and the 80-400mm VR. Painful choice! I went with the latter because of the 400mm reach. Yes, you can stick a 2x on the shorter lens, but image quality is nowhere near as good.

The new 70-300mm VR lens is AFS and focuses faster than the 80-400mm VR (what doesn't, LOL!) but really it's just too short for most wildlife. I have a 1.4x for my 70-200mm VR and would be unhappy with that if it was my longest lens. What Nikon clearly needs is a 300mm f4 VR AFS. The 70-300mm VR is perfect for travel/family photos, but just a bit short for wildlife, especially birds.

Another thought is the excellent Sigma 50-500mm, or the Nikon 300mm f4 AFS plus TC-14E (1.4x) The Sigma 400mm f5.6 that takes the 77mm (no0t 72mm) filter is an outstanding value. Available only on eBay or KEH though--discontiued. Sigma has a 80-400mm OS which is equiv. to the Nikon 80-400mm VR for about a thousand bucks. Can't find it in stock anywhere though. Supposedly a very decent lens.


Kent in SD

My feeling on a "wildlife" lens is that you need at least a 500 and 1.4X TC for full frame cameras. This equates approximately to 350 and 500 with an APS-C sensor. On that basis a 350 f/4 (or 300 f/4) lens is a good starting point. Definitely add the 1.4X convertor!

I suspect "style" as well as subject matter and location come into the decision process. If you're shooting small birds, then by all means the longer the better. For some subjects and settings, there is most definitely such a thing as too much lens. Then the style issue enters.

I'm most interested in placing an animal in its environment, something you could essentially call a landscape with animal, rather than fang and nostril portraits. Heck, if I wanted to do that I probably would have become an eye/ear/nose/throat specialist rather than a biologist. By no means does the animal have to be large for me to feel I've made a great "wildlife" shot, though I usually shoot mammals (down to rabbit-size) rather than birds.

While I own a 500 f/4, a 300 f/4 and a 300 f/2.8 along with teleconverters, I frequently find myself fighting with the margins of the photo and moving back to shore more environment. Many of my most successful photos, both for my taste and my wallet, have been made with my trusty 80-200 f/2.8. Any time I have a tele mounted on a tripod, I also keep that lens mounted on a second body hanging around my neck. I'm more interested in great compositions than hair detail.

My dream wildlife lens? Cost no object, it would be the Nikkor 200-400 f/4 zoom, and yes. When using it I would still have the 80-200 hanging around my neck. Your mileage, subjects and lens choice will almost certainly vary.