going from D40 TO D200

[tloon]

how do you like your 50-500? im into birding and wildlife thats why im looking at this lens did u buy new or used? and how do you fell about itnot having os on it?ty mike

I don't have a problem with the 50-500 on my D40. It actually handles
much easier than when I use it on my larger bodies. You should always
support the 50-500 by the lens anyway and with the D40 hanging on the
back it is almost like just carrying the lens only. With my D100 or
D1H, the thing gets much heavier, less balanced and harder to handle.
Too much weight hanging off the back of the lens.

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tloon1/ D40 18-55 70-300vr

 

[tloon]

very nice review ty.

would it be worth upgrading from my d40 to the d-200? d300 out of my
budget i already have nikon lens so i would rather stay with nikon
the reason i want to up grade, use of more primes more fps.or is the
d200 to far out of date to purchase? any input would be appericiated
ty mike.
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tloon1/ D40 18-55 70-300vr

I still have the D40, have switched the D200 for a D300. They are
very different. The D40 is much smaller, lighter, more quiet.
(My D40 review here:
http://bonusphotography.wordpress.com/hands-on-nikkor-18-200vr/nikon-d40/ )
The D200 is much faster, both in AF, fps and shutter lag.
About the IQ - the D200 is excellent to about ISO 800. It has maybe a
little more smooth output, but requires more PP work. The D40 is
crsisper and punchier out of the camera, and better at high ISOs,
very good really.
--
http://bonusphotography.wordpress.com/

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tloon1/ D40 18-55 70-300vr

 

[tloon]

i think im going to keep the d40 and getthe d80 body with the 80-400 for my birding .thanks to all who comminted i really appericiated it. ty mike
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tloon1/ D40 18-55 70-300vr

 

[tloon]

how do you feel about the sigma 70-200 f2.8 since nikon f2.8 is out of my budget i see some like it just trying to compare it to my 70 -300vr which is good thanks again mike

so another words just keep what i have unless i want to use
screwdriver lens is the d40 as good as the d200 body? isnt the d200
af faster mfps ?ty mike
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tloon1/ D40 18-55 70-300vr

Mike, the pictures on you flickr site are quite nice, well done!
The biggest difference in picture quality are lenses. Autofocus is
the same story; autofocus speed relies largely on how much light the
AF sensors are getting (compare focussing in the dark to focussing in
bright sunlight. What is faster?). A fast f/2.8 lens on a D40 will
focus quicker than a slow f/5.6 lens on a D200 in that respect.

Consider getting good "limited" glass. For instance the Sigma
18-50/2.8 HSM lens will focus (quick) on a D40, has good sharpness,
is a fast (2.8) zoom and well within your budget.
Instead of getting that 50-500 lens, consider getting the 70-200VR or
even the 80-400VR instead. Those are very sharp lenses. Especially
the 70-200 is very fast. Any 10x zoom lens is stretching its
performance envelope in many ways; moderate 3x or 4x zooms will be
faster, sharper, and with less distortion.

For FPS the D200 will indeed be quicker. It also allows you to change
virtually all settings directly, as opposed to the D40 where
virtually everything goes by menus. But the quality of your images
will not improve when you're using the same lenses.

If you enjoy tinkering with the settings while shooting - bracketing,
vary exposures in different ways, if you want to do a lot of shooting
in manual mode (think studio-like setups), then by all means get a
D200. It is a great camera and a joy to hold and you'll have a lot of
fun using it (then again, the D40 is a lot of fun too).

If your primary concern right now is image quality (although your
flickr images look fine to me) then better glass will give you the
most bang for your buck - but go for fast glass with "modest"
specifications, not high-ratio ultra long focal length zooms.
--
Cheers,
Bart

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tloon1/ D40 18-55 70-300vr