I'm currently trying to shoot motorsport. Current equipment is a Nikon D60 and a Series E 135mm f2.8. I'm doing alright with it, but focusing will take some more practice. Pics are in my gallery or here. I have now supplemented with a Vivtar Series 1 70-210 f3.5 which I picked up for buttons.
But I think I'm at a juncture. I have just got £450 that I wasn't expecting, and want to buy something new. I could buy a new lens, or I could buy a new camera. I know the general theory of 'better glass is much better than better camera', but does that really hold true in the brave new world of diddy DSLRs with half the guts ripped out?
My choice is the new camera, a D300. My reasoning is as follows.
The D300 has an AF motor in the body, whereas the D60 doesn't. Whilst this doesn't help me now - both my fast lenses are manual focus - it will help me in the future, which brings me on to point 2.
The lenses that I would buy are either the Nikon 70-200 VR (£950 sh) or the AF version (£650 new). The VR version would autofocus on the D60, but I can't justify dropping £950 on a lens when it isn't really appreciably better than the £650 one. Plus with the £300 saved, I've got my D300. Whilst a Sigma would be cheaper (but not a whole load), I'm not sure that I would be happy with the image quality, and therefore it would be an expensive stop-gap until I bought the Nikon lens.
The D300 should enable me to get better out of the lenses I have. Admittedly, I haven't had the chance to try the Vivitar in the field, but I would still get metering from the better body.
The D60 is very small and light. Too small and light for the longer heavier lenses. It goes very nose heavy and unbalanced, and i think that this might affect my photos.
The D300 also gives me access to a whole new world of AF lenses.
So, as I see it, I have three options.
Buy the better body and get more out of the lenses I have, then buy an AF lens.
Stick with the current body and buy the Sigma lens, then get more money and repeat.
Save for the VR lens, and carry on with what I have.
Opinions people, please. I've already had one, now what does everyone else think?
But I think I'm at a juncture. I have just got £450 that I wasn't expecting, and want to buy something new. I could buy a new lens, or I could buy a new camera. I know the general theory of 'better glass is much better than better camera', but does that really hold true in the brave new world of diddy DSLRs with half the guts ripped out?
My choice is the new camera, a D300. My reasoning is as follows.
The D300 has an AF motor in the body, whereas the D60 doesn't. Whilst this doesn't help me now - both my fast lenses are manual focus - it will help me in the future, which brings me on to point 2.
The lenses that I would buy are either the Nikon 70-200 VR (£950 sh) or the AF version (£650 new). The VR version would autofocus on the D60, but I can't justify dropping £950 on a lens when it isn't really appreciably better than the £650 one. Plus with the £300 saved, I've got my D300. Whilst a Sigma would be cheaper (but not a whole load), I'm not sure that I would be happy with the image quality, and therefore it would be an expensive stop-gap until I bought the Nikon lens.
The D300 should enable me to get better out of the lenses I have. Admittedly, I haven't had the chance to try the Vivitar in the field, but I would still get metering from the better body.
The D60 is very small and light. Too small and light for the longer heavier lenses. It goes very nose heavy and unbalanced, and i think that this might affect my photos.
The D300 also gives me access to a whole new world of AF lenses.
So, as I see it, I have three options.
Buy the better body and get more out of the lenses I have, then buy an AF lens.
Stick with the current body and buy the Sigma lens, then get more money and repeat.
Save for the VR lens, and carry on with what I have.
Opinions people, please. I've already had one, now what does everyone else think?