JP3G wrote:.

Hi everyone, I'm JP, first post here. Learning a lot by readingposts, thanks to eveyone! Right now, I'm saving for a camera, and Idon't think I'll have any problem having it before Christmas..

For the same price, I can have:D200 + 18-80 & 70-300 non-vrorD80 + 18-200 VR2.

I'm planning to take from portraits and lanscapes to football gameson the sidelines, so I have a long range to fill. I heard the 18-200can be 'okay' for that purpose..

My main concern is if the D80 with a 18-200VR lens will have sharperpictures on macro shots than a D200 with a 70-300 non-vr lens. Iwould really like to have the 5fps of the D200. How about night shots?.

Thanks for the input!-JP.

For one you can't shoot macro with an 18-200 as it doesn't close focus and has no floating elements (this keeps the image flat when focusing close)..

I'd got for a long lens, or a long zoom and a separate wide(ish) lens. Something like a 17-55 and a 100-300. Personally I think you get much more creative pictures with a set of fix focal length lenses..

Why do you need 5fps?.

Regards,Tyr.

Finally got a gallery:http://picasaweb.google.com/tyr.francoperlak..

Interresting; but at the prices of those lenses, I think I'll have to go with the D80 and save a little bit more for a lens with a bigger zoom, maybe a 18-200 VR and the 100-300 that you mention..

I really like the fact that the 18-200 is versatile and can be used in a lot of situation. For the 5FPS, I beleive it would be an advantage during sports photography...

If you time your shots there is no need for machinegunning at 5fps. You may as well get a video camera if you don't want to bother trying to get the shot you want be skill rather by luck..

The 18-200 is quite a good lens for the range..

I just had a look at the prices of Nikon long primes. Needless to say they are stupidly high. The best priced is the 300mm F4 D AF-S IF ED but even that is out of your budget. OUCH!.

I didn't know Nikon prices were not sky high but interplanetary!.

Out of interest, why are you only looking at Nikon?.

Regards,Tyr.

Finally got a gallery:http://picasaweb.google.com/tyr.francoperlak..

Thanks for the reply..

One of my friend had a Nikon, and I really loved the look and feal of it. Canon has better sensor and IQ, but when I look at Canon, I feal like I'm stuck between the 'not-enough' Xti or the too expensive 30D. (Lenses and pricier too) I feal the D80/D200 has a better bargain..

At the same time, I'm looking at the D200 that could have a price cut anytime soon, like the 30D with the 40D coming up..

And I'm not fealing the other brand; Sony just started, Fuji, Olympus are followers imo..

And yeah, that 100-300 is over 1k$. That's an investment for just a certain kind of pictures. :/.

Hmm, lot of thinking to do.. maybe with a D80 +18-200 and a 100-300 later on. What would be comparable with Canon, price-wise?.

Thanks!..

I really don't think there is anything else comparable if you eventually want a long lens. Choose the D80 or D200 and the 18-200 and I think you'll find it will fit most needs. The lens is not fast so flash will be required indoors in most light..

That is if you want to spend all that on one lens. The D80 has the same sensor as the D200 but lacks some other features. Go pick them both up and see which feels better in your hand..

Regards,Tyr.

Finally got a gallery:http://picasaweb.google.com/tyr.francoperlak..

The D80 and D200 have exactly the same IQ, although the D200 has a better meter..

The 18-200 is a great all-around lens, but it's IQ is a little suspect at the ends of it's zoom range, as well as at large apertures. VR is essential except in bright daylight..

So, I'd got for the 18-200VR, the 70-300VR, or the 55-200VR. I'd definitely take 200mm with VR over 300mm without, and I have both...

Option 1 definitely. I'm not a fan of the 18-200, and as you say the D200 will likely have a price drop quite soon, and while IQ between the two bodies is identical, the D200 is much better ergonomically, and in build quality is in a different class. The D80 feels like a toy in comparison..

Don't buy the 70-300 non-VR though, that's just outdated, I'd buy the 55-200VR before that. But don't worry about long reach just yet..

Not sure what this 18-80 lens is though. For your first lens get the 18-70 or 18-135 kits if you can't afford the 17-55 f/2.8..

For low light shooting you'll eventually need a fast lens like the 35 f/2 or 50 f/1.8..

Alex..